Charley Burley: Analyzing Genius

[marbleheadmaui]

Not many. How many Greb fights are on film? Is he any less a middleweight for it? How about Gans or Benny Leonard? Just a couple of half assed lightweights I suppose. And what of Jimmy Wilde or say George Dixon?

Hey we don't have it on film so I guess Alexander never conquered Persia! It's all the imagination of some loaded up Babylonian Journalist!

I've never seen a dinosaur on film therefore they never existed.

The attitude KILLS me! It's like these guys don't know that back in the 1930's and 1940's there would be DOZENS of reporters describing a fight, so even if you fon't have footage, and if you're willing to do the work, you can get to many of those accounts, read them and get a pretty good idea what went on. Heck, radio recordings can still be found in many cases. The notion that there was ONE account and that's all we have is just ill-informed.

It's no different than studying any other kind of history.

The murders row were ducked.

That includes;

Holman Williams
Charley Burley
Jack Chase
Cocoa Kid
Lloyd Marshall
Kid Tunero
Eddie Booker
Joe Carter
Bert Lytell
Aaron Wade
Archie Moore

Yup. And I think one could include California Jacke Wilson as well. The war years and the freezing of titles, while I understand the rationale, really screwed, in particular, Jimmy Bivins (though a 175 and thus not really part of the group), Burley and Holman Williams. Those three were likely the best of the list and by the time 1946 rolled around each was past his best.

[IamInuit]

Not many. How many Greb fights are on film? Is he any less a middleweight for it? How about Gans or Benny Leonard? Just a couple of half assed lightweights I suppose. And what of Jimmy Wilde or say George Dixon?

Hey we don't have it on film so I guess Alexander never conquered Persia! It's all the imagination of some loaded up Babylonian Journalist!

I've never seen a dinosaur on film therefore they never existed.

The attitude KILLS me! It's like these guys don't know that back in the 1930's and 1940's there would be DOZENS of reporters describing a fight, so even if you fon't have footage, and if you're willing to do the work, you can get to many of those accounts, read them and get a pretty good idea what went on. Heck, radio recordings can still be found in many cases. The notion that there was ONE account and that's all we have is just ill-informed.

It's no different than studying any other kind of history.

The murders row were ducked.

That includes;

Holman Williams
Charley Burley
Jack Chase
Cocoa Kid
Lloyd Marshall
Kid Tunero
Eddie Booker
Joe Carter
Bert Lytell
Aaron Wade
Archie Moore

Yup. And I think one could include California Jacke Wilson as well. The war years and the freezing of titles, while I understand the rationale, really screwed, in particular, Jimmy Bivins (though a 175 and thus not really part of the group), Burley and Holman Williams. Those three were likely the best of the list and by the time 1946 rolled around each was past his best.

You know have a look at Jack Chase. What a story and a ignored figure. Lloyd Marshall had the weirdest style of the lot.

[Youngblood]

it was our training sections dadi astthorsson made this vid. great to see it still making the rounds.

[Fenster]

Two Robinson fights at 147? How many Burley fights are there on film?

I'm sure they are great fighters, but compared to todays standards, where you can easily analyse a fighters entire career, which readily shows up his worst moments as well as his best, you are clearly repeating the views of fossils that experienced those eras.

Maybe they are right, but with so little to go on you are putting a lot of faith in the old grey beards opinion. And a lot of those stories must be fantasy. Just saying like....

I've got five Burley fights on film. I also know he beat Archie Moore (I have around 20 of his fights on film) lost to Ezzard Charles (20 or so of his fights) etc. We also have the views of men like HOF Trainer Ray Arcel who saw every important fighter from Benny Leonard through Sugar Ray Leonard as well as Nat Fleischer who saw every important fighter from 1910 through 1970 or so. We also have the works of current historians like Mike Silver who have done detailed work into examining film footage of men as far back as 1900. Believe me I can keep reciting source material like interviews with referees at the time, interviews with trainers at the time and on and on. The variety of opinion is wonderful! You really can have fun digging to form your own.

The idea we "have little to go on" is simply wrong. It's like arguing we can't have views on the Civil War because we don't know what exactly happened to the Hundley or we don't know much about Julius Cesar because we never got Vercingetorix point of view.

We have a TON to go on if you're willing to do the work.

I'm not denying the fossils existed. I'm not denying they were great fighters. I'm merely pointing out that these days it's far easier to assess a career because you can download an entire resume in minutes. Therefore you are able to create your own opinion without the influence of others.

Your snippet about Burley-Moore, although very entertaining, and maybe not meant to be taken literally, is disputed. The opinion of reporters, officials, trainers and the like from those eras are not concrete fact. These men couldn't have been totally free from bias, right? They couldn't make stuff up?

How many articles are printed/posted today that completely rubbish a particular fighter purely fuelled by childish hate. These may very well influence future generations.

I respect your research and dedication to the boxing game. I'm not going to believe everything I read. Simple as that.