Archie Moore on Charley Burley

[McGrain]

Burley didn't like Moore. There are stories that he delibertely protracted Archie's beating to punish him for his admitted cockiness. Whatever the truth of these stories the two later became pals. Here are some of Archie's thoughts on Burley:

"Fighting Charley Burely was almost inhuman, because he kept his punches coming at you like a riveting gun beats a tattoo on a rivet. He was a human machinegun the way he kept those punches spouting out, and nerly as dangerous. He was the best fighter I ever fought and the best fighter I ever saw. I recall not being to impressed by Charley [before the fight], of course. I knew he had been scaring everybody to death on the coast. THere hd been stories about how he had chased heavyweight's out of the gym, stiffened sparring partners with the big training gloves. But you must take into account that i've never been burdened by false modesty.

That night in Hollywood Burley did things i've never seen anybody else do...he got away with things that would have got another fighter killed. He kep this hands low and could feint you with his head, his hands, his shoulders, his knees...but the thing that sticks in my mind the most about Burley is the way he defied gravity. He could lean way back on his heels, it just made you miss. You'd figure: this man's way off balance, he can't break an egg from that position. Then you'd get the surprise. Burley could knock you dead from that position, and he could do it with either hand. I've been beaten in other fights - you look at my record, i've been in with a couple of hundred pro's - I was bound to drop a few. But I never lost like I lost to Burley.

He had me on the floor many times, but more than that he outboxed me. That's something I could never understand, because nobody had ever done that to be before. And no-one, incidently, has done it since.

I would say, personally, that I think Charley Burley could have beaten Ray [Robinson] in Ray's best time."


Burley, giving up 5lbs t 155lbs, was credited with 9 of the 10 rounds.

[Seamus]

I read this stuff a long time ago and have since shelved it in some dusty attic of the brain. Thanks for dusting it off. Coming from the source that it is, really makes you wonder how great Burley was.

[dpw417]

Burley didn't like Moore. There are stories that he delibertely protracted Archie's beating to punish him for his admitted cockiness. Whatever the truth of these stories the two later became pals. Here are some of Archie's thoughts on Burley:

"Fighting Charley Burely was almost inhuman, because he kept his punches coming at you like a riveting gun beats a tattoo on a rivet. He was a human machinegun the way he kept those punches spouting out, and nerly as dangerous. He was the best fighter I ever fought and the best fighter I ever saw. I recall not being to impressed by Charley [before the fight], of course. I knew he had been scaring everybody to death on the coast. THere hd been stories about how he had chased heavyweight's out of the gym, stiffened sparring partners with the big training gloves. But you must take into account that i've never been burdened by false modesty.

That night in Hollywood Burley did things i've never seen anybody else do...he got away with things that would have got another fighter killed. He kep this hands low and could feint you with his head, his hands, his shoulders, his knees...but the thing that sticks in my mind the most about Burley is the way he defied gravity. He could lean way back on his heels, it just made you miss. You'd figure: this man's way off balance, he can't break an egg from that position. Then you'd get the surprise. Burley could knock you dead from that position, and he could do it with either hand. I've been beaten in other fights - you look at my record, i've been in with a couple of hundred pro's - I was bound to drop a few. But I never lost like I lost to Burley.

He had me on the floor many times, but more than that he outboxed me. That's something I could never understand, because nobody had ever done that to be before. And no-one, incidently, has done it since.

I would say, personally, that I think Charley Burley could have beaten Ray [Robinson] in Ray's best time."


Burley, giving up 5lbs t 155lbs, was credited with 9 of the 10 rounds.
Thanks for posting. Very interesting read, especially on Burley's ability to punch with power while seemingly out of (power) position on the backfoot. Burley still turned on those shots though with Oakland Smith on the film.
Funny thing that Moore it seemed, didn't praise Charles, like he did Burley.
Cheers, McGrain.

[Rebel-INS]

Brilliant. Imagine seeing a prime Burley hammering Archie Moore like that?

[mcvey]

Thanks for that very impressive ! :good

[PowerPuncher]

Burley is 1 of my faves BUT was Moore pretty much pre-prime here? He has some very good wins but I have to ask that question and also how much does Moore build him due to the face he beat Moore badly himself?

Also mentally once you've taken a beating from someone you build them into a mountain in your mind even when you've surpassed them by many leagues (not saying this is the case here, just speculating)

[Russell]

Amazes me at how great Ezzard Charles must have been in turn, the way he took Burley apart.

[Russell]

Mhm, was undefeated in his series against both of them.

Charles supposedly almost knocked Burley out, floored him as well.

[Thread Stealer]

Moore also said that people often ask him who was the best fighter he ever faced, and he says Rocky Marciano to make them happy, but the best guys he faced were Charley Burley and Eddie Booker.

[JohnThomas1]

Amazes me at how great Ezzard Charles must have been in turn, the way he took Burley apart.

Yet Moore rates Burley better.

[My2Sense]

Burley is 1 of my faves BUT was Moore pretty much pre-prime here? He has some very good wins but I have to ask that question and also how much does Moore build him due to the face he beat Moore badly himself?

Also mentally once you've taken a beating from someone you build them into a mountain in your mind even when you've surpassed them by many leagues (not saying this is the case here, just speculating)

Moore has said that he was in his prime when Burley beat him, but that's deceiving because that was his prime as a middleweight/super-middleweight. Moore didn't become a genuine light-heavyweight until a couple of years later, and his best years at that weight were just before he won the title.

I also do agree that Burley gets a bit oversold based on statements like Moore's, and Eddie Futch, who claimed Burley was the best fighter he ever saw. IMO, he's an example of a fighter that gets rated more on reputation than actual achievements.

Don't get me wrong, he was an excellent fighter, but the notion that he was a league above Ray Robinson is going overboard IMO. Ray would've taken him IMO.

[Russell]

Yet Moore rates Burley better.

Maybe he was. Who knows.

Styles can make fights, and Burley often did fight in less then favorable circumstances.

[McGrain]

Brilliant. Imagine seeing a prime Burley hammering Archie Moore like that?


I would love, love to have that fight on film. Maybe more than any other.

[McGrain]

Burley is 1 of my faves BUT was Moore pretty much pre-prime here?

Yes. Barely. In my opinion Burley finished Moore's education. In fact, Moore says that himself, elsewhere, "Burley gave me a boxing education". For years I just thought that this was a turn of phrase, but it seems it may have been about right - Moore was not all he would become, perhaps, but he's in his physical prime with some top level fights under his belt.

Note that Moore himself seems to have considered himself primed for the fight.

[McGrain]

Amazes me at how great Ezzard Charles must have been in turn, the way he took Burley apart.

Yeah.

Probably underated at middle generally, two great wins for Charles. Charles, though it hurts me to say it, is a class above Burley.

But he's a class above everybody not named Robinson, Armstrong, Greb or Langford, basically.

[McGrain]

Yet Moore rates Burley better.

Moore felt he was cheated, in the second fight I believe, which was apparently very, very close. In the final one, as you know, he was on the verge of scoring the KO himself when Charles brutalised him. Sour grapes, in my opinion, though I believe Archie was a thoroughly good man.

On the other hand, he does appear to be talking pound for pound and Burley was a welter and middleweight whilst Moore fought Charles at 175. If Moore says Burley was a better fighter than Charles, we need to at least pay attention to his words.

After all, he is certainly more entitled to his opinion than you and I!

[McGrain]

Don't get me wrong, he was an excellent fighter, but the notion that he was a league above Ray Robinson is going overboard IMO. Ray would've taken him IMO.

Your opinion is valid and it's one I share peak for peak. But note that contemporary opinion appears to have been pretty split where those who knew Burley's fighting were concerned. I think Burley could have edged Robinson out early doors when both were at welterweight.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by McGrain
But he's a class above everybody not named Robinson, Armstrong, Greb or Langford, basically.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a whole class above Duran. They're close IMO all-time P4P, and while Charles edges it for me, certainly not a class above him.

[SuzieQ49]

great win for burley, but archie moore was clearly not in his prime yet mentally or physically. Archie Moore hit his prime around 1947 and reached his peak in around 1952 and didnt start to decline until 1956. The 1952 archie moore would have taken burley apart, he would have been to big and powerful for burley.


archie may have been age wise prime, but on film archie became a better fighter later on. like he said he used the burley fight as a learning experience.

[SuzieQ49]

Honestly archie moore had a Masters Degree in BS, so I really dont take many of his opinions seriousely. You should hear his opinion about the ref "saving" marciano from knockout, kind of hilarious. Archie was one of the best con artists.

[Bummy Davis]

Remember it could be true but Moore did not like Robinson because of all the attention and LB$LB stuff and Moore was no where near his prime as middleweight, he primed at lightheavy and heavyweight and had a 50 fight win streak moving to heavy

[My2Sense]

You should hear his opinion about the ref "saving" marciano from knockout, kind of hilarious.

The irony is that the ref was actually favoring Moore in that moment, because he didn't make him go to the farthest neutral corner. He let him stand just a few feet away.

Moore likes to say, "The ref told us in the pre-fight instructions, that a man is a target as soon as he rises". He leaves out the part where the ref said, "a man is a target as soon as he rises and I finish wiping off his gloves", which is exactly what happened.

The ref also said in those instructions, "When a fighter is knocked down, the opponent was go to the farthest neutral corner". The only rule that was broken was that one.

Moore just couldn't stand that he lost a fight he had lobbied for and talked sh*t about for three years, and he acted like a crybaby ever since.

[Stonehands89]

Burley didn't like Moore. There are stories that he delibertely protracted Archie's beating to punish him for his admitted cockiness. Whatever the truth of these stories the two later became pals. Here are some of Archie's thoughts on Burley:

"Fighting Charley Burely was almost inhuman, because he kept his punches coming at you like a riveting gun beats a tattoo on a rivet. He was a human machinegun the way he kept those punches spouting out, and nerly as dangerous. He was the best fighter I ever fought and the best fighter I ever saw. I recall not being to impressed by Charley [before the fight], of course. I knew he had been scaring everybody to death on the coast. THere hd been stories about how he had chased heavyweight's out of the gym, stiffened sparring partners with the big training gloves. But you must take into account that i've never been burdened by false modesty.

That night in Hollywood Burley did things i've never seen anybody else do...he got away with things that would have got another fighter killed. He kep this hands low and could feint you with his head, his hands, his shoulders, his knees...but the thing that sticks in my mind the most about Burley is the way he defied gravity. He could lean way back on his heels, it just made you miss. You'd figure: this man's way off balance, he can't break an egg from that position. Then you'd get the surprise. Burley could knock you dead from that position, and he could do it with either hand. I've been beaten in other fights - you look at my record, i've been in with a couple of hundred pro's - I was bound to drop a few. But I never lost like I lost to Burley.

He had me on the floor many times, but more than that he outboxed me. That's something I could never understand, because nobody had ever done that to be before. And no-one, incidently, has done it since.

I would say, personally, that I think Charley Burley could have beaten Ray [Robinson] in Ray's best time."

Burley, giving up 5lbs t 155lbs, was credited with 9 of the 10 rounds.

Burley was raised with some serious old-fashioned country values. He was humble to a fault. Even as an older man, he declined to train Michael Moorer because he didn't like the "attitude". He really didn't like braggarts and made it his moral obligation to humble them as you discuss. It wasn't just Moore he went after hard (Moore was in the hospital for three days afterwards) he also had a problem with Jack Chase, who hadn't been stopped in 40 fights before his rematch with Burley. Burley stopped him in 9 and then again in the third meeting. Chase was only stopped by Moore after that.

Dpw described Burley's style as serpentine, which is perfect. Blackie Nelson said "he fights like a cloud out there and he punches like a fool."

I think that he was well-served by the lack of access to film in those days. His style was odd and unusual to say the least. He was hell to fight, especially if you were going in blind and expecting the norm. He scared hell out of Zivic, who resorted to unorthodox measures to protect himself from defending his title agaisnt Charley, after going 1-3 against him before he beat WW king Armstrong (who incidentally absolutely avoided Charley at least as obnoxiously as Robinson). Burley hadn't yet had 20 fights when he dropped a controversial decision and then beat Zivic, who had over 80.

You had to special to deal with him at his best. Charles was special. Bivins was special. Both were bigger. Burley does have a few surprising losses, but they can almost always be laid at the feet of bad decisions or exhaustion from travelling and fighting so often.

[JohnThomas1]

Moore felt he was cheated, in the second fight I believe, which was apparently very, very close. In the final one, as you know, he was on the verge of scoring the KO himself when Charles brutalised him. Sour grapes, in my opinion, though I believe Archie was a thoroughly good man.

On the other hand, he does appear to be talking pound for pound and Burley was a welter and middleweight whilst Moore fought Charles at 175. If Moore says Burley was a better fighter than Charles, we need to at least pay attention to his words.

After all, he is certainly more entitled to his opinion than you and I!

I very seldom take TOTAL heed of much fighters say about one another. History is littered with much bullshit in this regard. I do enjoy however greatly enjoy the comments and what i take here is that Burley was sure one helluva fighter.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Amazes me at how great Ezzard Charles must have been in turn, the way he took Burley apart.



Yes, it would have been nice for Archie to say stuff about Charles. In an interview I have with him from 1971, he talks about all his most difficult opponents, yet fails to give Ez a mention. :huh

[JohnThomas1]

Yes, it would have been nice for Archie to say stuff about Charles. In an interview I have with him from 1971, he talks about all his most difficult opponents, yet fails to give Ez a mention. :huh

Which shows my point perfectly.

[McGrain]

Yes, it would have been nice for Archie to say stuff about Charles. In an interview I have with him from 1971, he talks about all his most difficult opponents, yet fails to give Ez a mention. :huh

I think that Charles literally haunts Moore's exsistance. It's probably not fun telling ghost stories if you actually have a ghost living in your house.

[Stonehands89]

I think that Charles literally haunts Moore's exsistance. It's probably not fun telling ghost stories if you actually have a ghost living in your house.
Now that is well put.

[PowerPuncher]

Moore has said that he was in his prime when Burley beat him, but that's deceiving because that was his prime as a middleweight/super-middleweight. Moore didn't become a genuine light-heavyweight until a couple of years later, and his best years at that weight were just before he won the title.

I also do agree that Burley gets a bit oversold based on statements like Moore's, and Eddie Futch, who claimed Burley was the best fighter he ever saw. IMO, he's an example of a fighter that gets rated more on reputation than actual achievements.

Don't get me wrong, he was an excellent fighter, but the notion that he was a league above Ray Robinson is going overboard IMO. Ray would've taken him IMO.

He fought better and bigger opponents than Ray though despite them being the same size pretty much

[SuzieQ49]

anyone else think burley would get overwhelmed against the early 1950s archie moore?

[McGrain]

anyone else think burley would get overwhelmed against the early 1950s archie moore?

I should think so. He never weighed less than 175 around that time, did he?

[SuzieQ49]

yaaa....I think Burley would have had a good shot at robinson though

[Ezzard]

Yet Moore rates Burley better.

There was a bit of needle between Archie and Ezzard. Apparently Moore said to Ezzard in the clinches of the second or third fight (sorry would have to check emails from my sourse) something like "You really something back in Cincinatti but out here you just another n155er..."

Not taking anything away from Burley, or saying that Moore didn't favour him, but you know how rivals can be...

[Ezzard]

To be fair to Archie he was making every fight with Charles closer than the last. No doubt he would have eventually won one of them and the 3-0 though honest and fair doesn't do the great Archie Moore justice.

[JohnThomas1]

There was a bit of needle between Archie and Ezzard. Apparently Moore said to Ezzard in the clinches of the second or third fight (sorry would have to check emails from my sourse) something like "You really something back in Cincinatti but out here you just another n155er..."

Not taking anything away from Burley, or saying that Moore didn't favour him, but you know how rivals can be...

Exactly mate.

[McGrain]

To be fair to Archie he was making every fight with Charles closer than the last. No doubt he would have eventually won one of them and the 3-0 though honest and fair doesn't do the great Archie Moore justice.

I agree.

[Bslice]

Burley didn't like Moore. There are stories that he delibertely protracted Archie's beating to punish him for his admitted cockiness. Whatever the truth of these stories the two later became pals. Here are some of Archie's thoughts on Burley:

"Fighting Charley Burely was almost inhuman, because he kept his punches coming at you like a riveting gun beats a tattoo on a rivet. He was a human machinegun the way he kept those punches spouting out, and nerly as dangerous. He was the best fighter I ever fought and the best fighter I ever saw. I recall not being to impressed by Charley [before the fight], of course. I knew he had been scaring everybody to death on the coast. THere hd been stories about how he had chased heavyweight's out of the gym, stiffened sparring partners with the big training gloves. But you must take into account that i've never been burdened by false modesty.

That night in Hollywood Burley did things i've never seen anybody else do...he got away with things that would have got another fighter killed. He kep this hands low and could feint you with his head, his hands, his shoulders, his knees...but the thing that sticks in my mind the most about Burley is the way he defied gravity. He could lean way back on his heels, it just made you miss. You'd figure: this man's way off balance, he can't break an egg from that position. Then you'd get the surprise. Burley could knock you dead from that position, and he could do it with either hand. I've been beaten in other fights - you look at my record, i've been in with a couple of hundred pro's - I was bound to drop a few. But I never lost like I lost to Burley.

He had me on the floor many times, but more than that he outboxed me. That's something I could never understand, because nobody had ever done that to be before. And no-one, incidently, has done it since.

I would say, personally, that I think Charley Burley could have beaten Ray [Robinson] in Ray's best time."


Burley, giving up 5lbs t 155lbs, was credited with 9 of the 10 rounds.


Damn the more you speak of Burley the more legendary he sounds