Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-04-2010, 07:40 PM   #46
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,430
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Move in and out to nullify the attack, and counter against a fighter who was not regarded as a defenisve genius at any point in his career.
But Ketchel is known by MANY historian as one of the greatest offensive juggernauts of all time. One mistake from burns and its lights out. The bigger question is does Burns have what it takes to stop an offense that is as potent as Ketchel's. Burns has never faced anyone like Ketchel before stylistically, and to claim otherwise is pure fantasy.


It's quite humorous how you pick on Billy Papke. Like we did with Ketchel, how bout we venture into the common opponents between Billy Papke and Tommy Burns?


Vs Jack Twin Sullivan

Papke- W 10
Burns- D 20 L 20

Vs Tony Caponi

Papke- D 10 KO 2
Burns- D 6 W 6

vs Hugo Kelly

Papke- D 10 D 10 KO 1 W 10
Burns- D 20 D 20 W 20

Fireman Flynn

Burns- KO 15
Papke- L 10

Totals against Common Opposition:


Papke- 4-1-3 with 2 knockouts

Burns- 3-1-4 with 1 knockout


Along with Burns win over Hart, not included was Papke's stoppage win over Georges Carpentier. Carpentier proved himself to be a top level fighter in both light-heavyweight and heavyweight divisions.


I have my doubts if Burns would have even been able to handle Papke. Tommy did not have strong success against the elite middleweights of the era. He did a lot better when he moved up to heavyweight, because then he was able to handpick the clumsy non rated farmers with pitchforks he could fight, and which top black fighters he could avoid(though he should be credit for eventually fighting johnson). I think Tommy was a very protected fighter who made right decisions at the right times. He looks stellar on film against scrubs, and non existent vs world class. His resume leaves many question marks on his ability to handle greats.




Quote:
rather than immediately tear him down because he fought in the same era as one of your favorite fighters.
1. He is not one of my favorite fighters.

2. I never tore him down. All I did was point out FACTS about common opposition to prove a point Burns was not the puncher Ketchel was. If you disagree with this, then state your case.
SuzieQ49 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-04-2010, 07:41 PM   #47
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,430
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

If only we could ask the experts of the times their opinions on this fight. I suspect Charley Rose and Nat Fleischer would have picked Ketchel by Kayo.
SuzieQ49 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 08:07 PM   #48
Drew101
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: "...The Land of Dixon and Langford..."
Posts: 8,145
vCash: 0
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49 View Post
But Ketchel is known by MANY historian as one of the greatest offensive juggernauts of all time. One mistake from burns and its lights out. The bigger question is does Burns have what it takes to stop an offense that is as potent as Ketchel's. Burns has never faced anyone like Ketchel before stylistically, and to claim otherwise is pure fantasy.


It's quite humorous how you pick on Billy Papke. Like we did with Ketchel, how bout we venture into the common opponents between Billy Papke and Tommy Burns?


Vs Jack Twin Sullivan

Papke- W 10
Burns- D 20 L 20

Vs Tony Caponi

Papke- D 10 KO 2
Burns- D 6 W 6

vs Hugo Kelly

Papke- D 10 D 10 KO 1 W 10
Burns- D 20 D 20 W 20

Fireman Flynn

Burns- KO 15
Papke- L 10

Totals against Common Opposition:


Papke- 4-1-3 with 2 knockouts

Burns- 3-1-4 with 1 knockout


Along with Burns win over Hart, not included was Papke's stoppage win over Georges Carpentier. Carpentier proved himself to be a top level fighter in both light-heavyweight and heavyweight divisions.


I have my doubts if Burns would have even been able to handle Papke. Tommy did not have strong success against the elite middleweights of the era. He did a lot better when he moved up to heavyweight, because then he was able to handpick the clumsy non rated farmers with pitchforks he could fight, and which top black fighters he could avoid(though he should be credit for eventually fighting johnson). I think Tommy was a very protected fighter who made right decisions at the right times. He looks stellar on film against scrubs, and non existent vs world class. His resume leaves many question marks on his ability to handle greats.






1. He is not one of my favorite fighters.

2. I never tore him down. All I did was point out FACTS about common opposition to prove a point Burns was not the puncher Ketchel was. If you disagree with this, then state your case.
I've stated my case, and you've stated boxrec stats in return.

Thanks for providing me with another argument to support my claim. the fact that Burns, who had yet to peak when he was at middleweight, had a comparable win percentage against common opponents of Papke indicates that he was probably about as good as the Thunderbolt. Papke enjoyed some success against Ketchel, so, according to boxrec logic, Burns might have a chance of doing so as well.

Burns may not have been the puncher that ketchel was, but he was a better boxer, and he still had the physical tools needed to give Ketchel a pretty rough evening. I'm thinking that if Frank Klaus and papke could, he could as well.

Records tell only part of the story, so does film. We won't know the full extent of the story because these two never stepped inside the ring, but I hardly think that it would be the blow out you assume it to be.
Drew101 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 08:15 PM   #49
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Suzy its good having you around again.

Learning alot from this thread on Ketchell and Burns.
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 08:35 PM   #50
mattdonnellon
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,905
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

May 29, 1908 newspaper article that might be of interest;

The ring critics are now trying to
figure out how Stanley Ketchell would
come out in a battle with Tommy
Burns for the heavyweight championship
of the world. Ketchell has made
a remarkable showing during the last
year and Is entitled to a great deal of
consideration, but so far he has fig-ured
as a middleweight pure and sim-.
le and not as a heavyweight.
He has beaten some of the best rnen
in the country in the middleweight
class his last victory being over Jack
"Twin" Sullivan, who has met many
of the best middleweight and heavy-weights
in the world during his time.
Sullivan won from Tommy Burns before
the latter became a real heavy-
weight, and also beat Mike Schreck, be-
sides meeting Hugo Kelly, Jim Flyun,
Al Kaufman and others.
It required a good man to defeat Sullivan
so that Ketchell must class high
when he accomplished the trick the
way he did. All the critics who have
seen Ketchell in action declare that he
is a greater fighter than any of the
middleweights of the past few years
and predict that he will be champion
after he meets Billy Tapke, as the title
no doubt lies between those two now.
Whether or not Ketchell will be able
to step Into the heavyweight class and
be as successful remains to be seen.
He is growing heavier all the time
and will be unable to make the middle-weight
limit much longer. Tommy
Burns is not a big heavyweight, weighing
only about 175 pounds, so that Ketchell
would not be giving away a great
deal of weight should he decide to enter
that class.
He would surely be a more qualified
opponent for Burns than most of the
heavyweights in the country, outside
of Jack Johnson. Should Ketchell de-feat
Papke when they meet then it
will be a sure case of going after
Burns for the heavyweight'title, but
the "Illinois thunderbolt" thinks that
there will be a different story to tell
after their fight.
Burns would no doubt agree to meet
Ketchell after he returns to this country,
and it is a cinch that some of the
California or Nevada clubs will hang
up a big purse for such a battle.
mattdonnellon is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2010, 02:06 AM   #51
reznick
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tommy Burn

I never liked Burns as a person. He was the Mayweather of 100 years ago. All about money.

But I love him as a boxer.

His footwork was awesome. He packed a great punch too, as seen in the Squires fight. Thats one of my favorite knockouts of all time. The way he stood over Squires after the multiple knockdowns was legendary to me
reznick is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2010, 04:12 AM   #52
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,300
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Originally Posted by john garfield View Post
Aside from having read Tommy Burn was a bulldog-tenacious scraper -- 'n mustta been a tough guy, winning the heavyweight title -- can't get a handle on how good he was.

Since he was 5'7", 170 pounds, how do some of you historians think he'd fare today as a super middle or Lt. Hvy?
Burns ,when he beat O Brien ,could have claimed the Light Heavy title too ,as both scaled within the limit.On film Tommy looks very good fast agile good footwork to take him into range and out again good power , and fast handed.His opposition however is not stellar, and maybe flatters him a little.whilst champion he fought challengers in their back yards ,but they were not really class men,there was talk of a Langford fight, if this had come off I think Burns would have lost.
Matching Burns with Ketchel is intruiging ,and Suzie Q ,makes a compelling case for Stanley based on their common opponents ,I am a Ketchel fan and picked him against Tiger on a another thread ,but I have a hunch Burns v Ketchel would be a titanic struggle and could go either way.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013