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, 04:45 PM   #31
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Ketchell got a shade the better results vs common oponents.

Only a shade? Let's not kid ourselves here Ben. Ketchel knocked men out cold who burn's couldn't take off their feet in 50 rounds. I think one of the reasons Burns looks "better" on film is we watch him beating on hapless oafs. Imagine if we could put together a highlight KO reel for Ketchel, he would look like Joe Louis mark my words. If you watch Burns on film vs Jack Johnson, and compare Ketchel with Johnson, Ketchel certainly fares better. Not to mention Ketchel showed the ability to badly hurt johnson, while burns couldn't do anything but make johnson laugh at his "power shots".


Quote:
You could argue that Burns was more a boxer puncher than a swarmer.
I don't know about this. Knocking out a bunch of 0-0 big farmers with pitchforks doesn't exactley impress me. I mean Ketchel can do that too. Read about what he did to Porky Flynn.

Burns to me looks like a swarmer. He does have a nice wallop. But he does not have that all time great lethal power Ketchel has IMO. You can make a strong case Stanley is the hardest hitter who ever lived p4p. Burns power simply fell short when he faced hall of famers. Ketchel carried his power to all levels of opposition.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-04-2010, 04:55 PM   #32
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

I am still amazed at how easily Ketchel was able to put the lights out on guys like Hugo Kelly, Jack O brien, and Jack Twin Sullivan...when burns was unable to deck these guys in 100 rounds of boxing. Maybe one day, people can open there eyes and look at the facts objectively.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:05 PM   #33
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,084
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49 View Post
Only a shade? Let's not kid ourselves here Ben. Ketchel knocked men out cold who burn's couldn't take off their feet in 50 rounds. I think one of the reasons Burns looks "better" on film is we watch him beating on hapless oafs. Imagine if we could put together a highlight KO reel for Ketchel, he would look like Joe Louis mark my words. If you watch Burns on film vs Jack Johnson, and compare Ketchel with Johnson, Ketchel certainly fares better. Not to mention Ketchel showed the ability to badly hurt johnson, while burns couldn't do anything but make johnson laugh at his "power shots".
Granted the film we have of Burns probably casts him in a better light than the equivalent film of Ketchell.

We can see some verry nice technique from Burns on film. His short punching is beutifull. The "big oafs" he was beating up were not world beaters but they were the Danny Williams or Matt Skeltons of there era and they got knocked stiff and Burns had to carry them somtimes.

Quote:
Burns to me looks like a swarmer. He does have a nice wallop. But he does not have that all time great lethal power Ketchel has IMO. You can make a strong case Stanley is the hardest hitter who ever lived p4p. Burns power simply fell short when he faced hall of famers. Ketchel carried his power to all levels of opposition.
Ketchels power was obviously sick but Burns's should not be under-rated.

My point was that if you saw the available film of both with no other reference points you would think that Ketchel was not in Burns's class.

Perhaps this is a strong argument against those who argue that fighters of that period would not beat their modern counterparts based on film.

Last edited by janitor; 04-04-2010 at 05:50 PM.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:08 PM   #34
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Suzy, common opponents is a good way to anaylse a fight, but not the be all and end all. Other factors come into play also, like styles and attributes.

I'm not too well versed on both men but to me it looks a fialry even match up.
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:20 PM   #35
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

I just don't see any logical arguement that can be made that Tommy Burns can stand toe to toe, slug out with Ketchel, and win that battle. Just can't see it.




Quote:
Suzy, common opponents is a good way to anaylse a fight, but not the be all and end all

No it is not. However, I would like you to take a good hard look at my post on the other page about common opponents. Take a stern look at Burns fights with Twin Sullivan, Hugo Kelley, and Jack O Brien. How he not only struggled to beat these men, but was unable to fell them. Then take a look at the way Stanley Ketchel knocked all 3 of these men OUT COLD.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:23 PM   #36
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,104
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49 View Post
I agree with much that is said here. To start a friendly debate, I would like to throw out that I think Stanley Ketchel would have knocked Tommy's block off. Like Foreman-Frazier I. Slugger vs Swarmer.
Based on what? Burns had a pretty good chin. Indeed he was only stopped once in 57 fights, and it took a prime Johnson landing some hard stuff on him to do it. Johnson, when he wanted to KO'd Ketchel with ease for the count. Don't act like Ketchel took a better punch than Burns. Its not so.

I also think Burns has a clear edge on skills, size, defense,and reach. Power is debatable, but what is not debatable is Burns looked much better on film.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:25 PM   #37
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:26 PM   #38
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,765
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tommy Burn

SuzieQ49,
What a shame, that we today have no films showing,what a terror Stanley Ketchel was in his prime...He was considered by all who saw him as the greatest middleweight puncher,and most exciting fighter of them all...Today fans with no respect of contemporary reports of his career judge him solely on two surviving fight films of Stanley...The Billy Papke fight in 1909,when Ketchel broke his right hand early in the 20 round bout, and the fiasco with the great heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson,in 1909, just before his death at age 24...How would historians react 100 years from now if they saw only one surviving fight of Ray Robinson, being manhandled by Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955 ?Would they say " Robinson was not that good "? Stanley Ketchel ko'd 49 fighters in 64 bouts,in his short and pulverizing career...I have a book at home called " the Michigan Assassin " published in 1946, by Nat Fleischer, who as a young reporter saw all of Stanley Ketchel in his prime...He and Tad Dorgan, Hype Igoe, Bob Edgren, all raved about the greatness of Ketchel, and I always evaluate fighters of the past by what the boxing experts said of him, than by some of the modern day,"out of sight, out of mind " opinions of yesterdays great fighters...That goes double with Stanley Ketchel....
P.S Tommy Burns was at least 15 pounds heavier than Ketchel, so they probably would have never met if Ketchel had lived....
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:34 PM   #39
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Power is debatable,
Are you sure you want to go this route?


vs Hugo Kelly

Ketchel- KO 3

Burns- D 10 and D 20



vs Jack Twin Sullivan

Ketchel: KO 20

Burns: D 20, L 20


vs Philadelphia Jack O Brien

Ketchel- W 10, TKO 3

Burns- L 6, D 20, W 20


Ketchel- 4-0 with THREE knockouts

Burns- 1-2-4 with ZERO knockouts


I think this puts an end to the power arguement

Quote:
I also think Burns has a clear edge on skills, size, defense,and reach.
Size and Reach. Burns was the heavier of the two(not by much), but Burns was also a shrimp! He stood at best 5'7". Ketchel was around 5'9.


Defense and Skills? There is no clear cut film of Stanley Ketchel at his best, so we have to defer this question. Tommy Burns highlight Kayo reels on Farmers with Pitchforks does not give us enough to judge him. The only film of Burns with a world class operator, he gets absolutley manhandled and toyed with. At least Ketchel was able to floor and badly hurt that man.

Quote:
but what is not debatable is Burns looked much better on film.
This is your subjective opinion. This is not a fact. Ketchel's best stuff is not on film. Burns has a lot of highlight reels of him beating on garbage fighters. Ketchel does not have film of him flattening jack o brien out cold, or leaving Hugo Kelley near dead after 3 short rounds. You cannot make any conclusions based on the lack of film of Stanley.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:37 PM   #40
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Originally Posted by burt bienstock View Post
SuzieQ49,
What a shame, that we today have no films showing,what a terror Stanley Ketchel was in his prime...He was considered by all who saw him as the greatest middleweight puncher,and most exciting fighter of them all...Today fans with no respect of contemporary reports of his career judge him solely on two surviving fight films of Stanley...The Billy Papke fight in 1909,when Ketchel broke his right hand early in the 20 round bout, and the fiasco with the great heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson,in 1909, just before his death at age 24...How would historians react 100 years from now if they saw only one surviving fight of Ray Robinson, being manhandled by Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955 ?Would they say " Robinson was not that good "? Stanley Ketchel ko'd 49 fighters in 64 bouts,in his short and pulverizing career...I have a book at home called " the Michigan Assassin " published in 1946, by Nat Fleischer, who as a young reporter saw all of Stanley Ketchel in his prime...He and Tad Dorgan, Hype Igoe, Bob Edgren, all raved about the greatness of Ketchel, and I always evaluate fighters of the past by what the boxing experts said of him, than by some of the modern day,"out of sight, out of mind " opinions of yesterdays great fighters...That goes double with Stanley Ketchel.......
Unbelievable post. Post like these make my day a better day. The sad thing is, there probably would be many posters strongly degrading Robinson if thats all we saw were 2 films of him not at his best.


Quote:
P.S Tommy Burns was at least 15 pounds heavier than Ketchel, so they probably would have never met if Ketchel had lived.
I posted a link to an article above..But around 1908 Ketchel issued a challenge to Burns. He wanted him. It's funny because even though Burns was a tad heavier, Ketchel knocked out many men who went the
distance with burns putting the question out "Just how hard did Stanley Ketchel hit?".
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:39 PM   #41
Drew101
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: "...The Land of Dixon and Langford..."
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 0
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49 View Post
Your game plan just signed Burns Death Warrant. I don't believe there is a fighter below 170lb in boxing history who can come into Stanley Ketchel and survive. If Burns tried to slug it out toe to toe with Ketchel, he would get slaughtered. Ketchel was hands down the more powerful puncher. He also had a wide variety of angles he liked to attack, and had a bunch of different repoirtre of knockout blows, compared to Tommy's solo right hand(which did not even compare to ketchell's right).


If you want to question who was the harder puncher, I will give you the numbers

Lets compare common opponents between burns and ketchel shall we?

Ketchel against common opponents: 5-1 with 4 knockouts

Burns against common opponents: 2-3-5 with 0 knockouts



Vs Jack Johnson

Ketchel - L Ko'd 12
Burns- L TKO'd 14

Notes: Burns got dominated for every second of ever round. While ketchel did get dominated, at least Ketchel hurt Johnson twice during the bout, and FLOORED johnson for 4 seconds with a hard right hand on the ear.

edge: Ketchel who was much more competitive vs Johnson than burns was and put johnson on the floor.



vs Hugo Kelly

Ketchel- KO 3

Burns- D 10 and D 20

Edge: HUGE to ketchel


vs Jack Twin Sullivan

Ketchel: KO 20

Burns: D 20, L 20

Edge: HUGE to ketchel.


vs Philadelphia Jack O Brien

Ketchel- W 10, TKO 3

Burns- L 6, D 20, W 20

Edge: Clear edge to Ketchel. He twice knocked O brien out cold and went undefeated against him, while burns lost to him and i believe(correct me if im wrong) was never was able to take O brien off his feet.



vs Tony Caponi

Ketchel- KO 4

Burns- D 6, W 6

edge: Ketchel. I think a pattern is developing here. Ketchel is proving himself by far the much more devastating puncher of the two against common opposition.
Couple of notes:

Both Burns-Kelley fights were draws, and the second was going to be a draw simply because that was the agreed-upon result. Contemporary news reports indicate that Burns had the better of the action in the second fight.

Burns dropped a six rounder to O'Brien earlier in his career, but basically beat O'Brien chased O'Brien around the ring and busted him up in the second fight, and duplicated that feat in the third fight.

So neither of these edges are as clear cut as you make them out to be.

Bottom line is that styles make fights and Ketchel's style is one that Burns tends to look good against. He was at his best, generally, when he could counter with that nasty right hand, plus he was a skilled practitioner on the inside. If Ketchel tried to bum rush him, he puts himself in some peril as a result. Best thing for Stanley to do is to turn this into an inside war and hope to grind Burns down. That might be easier said than done.
Drew101 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:44 PM   #42
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Based on what?

Burns loved to go toe to toe and trade. If he tries this with Stanley, he will get flattened. I don't believe there is a man below 170lb in history who can trade with Stanley and come out alive.

Quote:
Burns had a pretty good chin. Indeed he was only stopped once in 57 fights

What big punchers did Burns test his chin with? Joe Frazier also had a very good chin, until George Foreman hit him. Stanley Ketchel would have been by far the biggest punching middleweight he had ever faced. Burns was not a stick and move boxer. He was a swarmer. He would be right in range of Stanley's artillery. When Stanley had you hurt, he finished you!
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 05:52 PM   #43
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Posts: 13,435
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Drew,

I see you make a lot of exuses above. Why allude the fact Ketchel was knocking out these same men who were fighting Tommy to draws? Why leave that part out? Because it doesn't support your arguement?

Quote:
Quote:
Bottom line is that styles make fights and Ketchel's style is one that Burns tends to look good against.
Top
Quite an interesting observation there. Especially when we take into consideration Tommy Burns never fought anyone close to the power, aggresiveness, or finishing capabilities of a Stanley Ketchel. But I am sure you were able to form this "astute" evaluation of Burns based upon his fight with Jem Roche. Or perhaps Jewey Smith? LMAO.

Quote:
He was at his best, generally, when he could counter with that nasty right hand, plus he was a skilled practitioner on the inside. .
When he has a whirlwind of hammers being pummeled in his face from a wide variety of angles, he is not going to have his time to set up the right hand. Ketchel was far from predictable, he is not going to sit in front of him like a gunner moire(LOL)...Ketchel attacked from angles. like jack dempsey. Ketchel had a large repoitre of punches. Stanley was a complete all around finisher. FYI on Burns right hand, it was far from overwhelming. Why is it that Tommys "powerful" right hand was unable to deck Hugo Kelley, Jack O brien, Tony Caponi, or Twin Sullivan when Stanley Ketchell's right hand flattened all of these men out cold? Perhaps Stanley had the much more powerful right hand of the two?


Quote:
If Ketchel tried to bum rush him, he puts himself in some peril as a result.
Tommy Burns loved a good brawl. Stanley would draw Tommy into one with his ferociousness. This will spell doom for Tommy. Tommy cannot slug it out toe to toe with Stanley. Big Mistake.

Quote:
Best thing for Stanley to do is to turn this into an inside war and hope to grind Burns down. That might be easier said than done
Grind Down? How bout Clock Tommy a couple times early and watch him fall down and out? Stanley is quite possibly the hardest hitter who ever lived. He can get you early, he can get you late. Either way, Tommy is running into something and Stanley will finish him.




Stanley matches up great with Brawlers. Its fast fleeted boxers who give him the most trouble. Any man who is willing to trade with Stanley will lose.
SuzieQ49 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 06:02 PM   #44
cross_trainer
Bergeron Avatar Club
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Just rewatched Burns-Squires. I'll reiterate an earlier observation: it's uncanny how similar Burns' style looks to modern tournament (Shotokan) karate without the kicks.
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010, 06:30 PM   #45
Drew101
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: "...The Land of Dixon and Langford..."
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 0
Default Re: Tommy Burn

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzieQ49 View Post
Drew,

I see you make a lot of exuses above. Why allude the fact Ketchel was knocking out these same men who were fighting Tommy to draws? Why leave that part out? Because it doesn't support your arguement?



Quite an interesting observation there. Especially when we take into consideration Tommy Burns never fought anyone close to the power, aggresiveness, or finishing capabilities of a Stanley Ketchel. But I am sure you were able to form this "astute" evaluation of Burns based upon his fight with Jem Roche. Or perhaps Jewey Smith? LMAO.



When he has a whirlwind of hammers being pummeled in his face from a wide variety of angles, he is not going to have his time to set up the right hand. Ketchel was far from predictable, he is not going to sit in front of him like a gunner moire(LOL)...Ketchel attacked from angles. like jack dempsey. Ketchel had a large repoitre of punches. Stanley was a complete all around finisher. FYI on Burns right hand, it was far from overwhelming. Why is it that Tommys "powerful" right hand was unable to deck Hugo Kelley, Jack O brien, Tony Caponi, or Twin Sullivan when Stanley Ketchell's right hand flattened all of these men out cold? Perhaps Stanley had the much more powerful right hand of the two?




Tommy Burns loved a good brawl. Stanley would draw Tommy into one with his ferociousness. This will spell doom for Tommy. Tommy cannot slug it out toe to toe with Stanley. Big Mistake.



Grind Down? How bout Clock Tommy a couple times early and watch him fall down and out? Stanley is quite possibly the hardest hitter who ever lived. He can get you early, he can get you late. Either way, Tommy is running into something and Stanley will finish him.




Stanley matches up great with Brawlers. Its fast fleeted boxers who give him the most trouble. Any man who is willing to trade with Stanley will lose.
1. Excuses!? If you're going to go strictly by record hunting to build your case, then I'm allowed to use contemporary reports to rebut your claims. Contemporary reports state that O'Brien boxed Ketchel silly throughout much of the first fight, only to fade down the stretch and get clocked at the end. Funny how you didn't mention that when making these comparisons. Why wouldn't you do that? Does it not support your argument?

2. Yeah, it is an interesting observation, given that in the majority of the fights that we have of Burns on film, he tends to move in and out and draw his opponents in for counters. In fact, in the fight where he didn't look good (Johnson), it's because the far bigger man stood back and waited to counter with uppercuts. Think Ketchel is going to employ that plan?

3. A "whirlwind of hammers". Nice bit of poetic fancy. Kind of makes Stanley out to be a swarmer, as opposed to a slugger, doesn't it? Well, Burns may not have said "whirlwind", but he does have a right hand that was capable of knocking cold indivudals who outweighed him by considerable margins. And given the fact that Kethcel is going to do what he always did, which was come forward, throw wide punches, and try to overwhelm an opponent with the intensity of his attack, Burns is going to natually do what he did against Hart and Squires and a whole bunch of others...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.

Sorry, but Burns is playing the boxer puncher. You can say "HE WAS A SWARMER! HE WAS A SWARMER! " all you want, and he could do that, but he could still box and counter when he had to, and he could still punch with at least as much authority as Papke did.

You might remember Papke...Held Kethcel to a virtual standstill in their first and fourth fights (the fourth fight was a pretty unpopular decision by all accounts). Bounced Stanley off the canvas like a yo-yo in the second. Yeah, I might be leaving stuff out, but hey, if you can use that M.O, why can't I?

4. Excuse the tone of this response. But that last response reeked of condescension. I gave some facts to support a counter argument, and you basically insinuated that I was an idiot for making this claim. I tend not to react that well under those circumstances.

This is a thread devoted to discussing the merits of Burns as a fighter. Guess what? There were a lot of them. Maybe you should do something aside from boxrec hunt and watch some film to appreciate the fighter on his own, rather than immediately tear him down because he fought in the same era as one of your favorite fighters.

Just saying.
Drew101 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 11:00 PM.


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