Burns was a good fighter and he had a style that was well-suited to taking on bigger opponents, perhaps more so than against the more skilled, quicker opponents of the lower weight divisions. His overhand right was arguably his best weapon and he also possessed a very solid chin for a man of his size. At around 170 pounds he was faster than the heavyweights he fought aside from Jack Johnson and his right packed enough power to put out the 180 pounders that he competed against. As for a Ketchel-Burns fight, I believe Ketchel would do well with his rough-housing and relentless attack. Burns fought best at mid range but he could be hit in close. If Ketchel stands around like he did against Johnson, he would get battered by Burns though. Johnson was an even more terrible match-up for Ketchel who relied on overwhelming opponents at close range and in the clinches. From the beginning it was obvious that Johnson would ragdoll him if it came to that.
I disagree with this notion. I believe the Gunner Moir fight best displays his abilities and he seems like a mid-range fighter there, much like in the Squires fight.
I think it is very hard to judge Burns on the available footage, vis a vis out, mid range ,in fighting ,I'm just giving you the opinion of him that was prevalent at the time. In fighting was considered to be his forte.
Based on the Moir fight which was filmed in excellent quality for the time and has all the rounds remaining on film, it would be difficult to describe him as an infighter though. The only moments Moir actually has in the fight is when he roughs up Burns in the clinches. Otherwise Burns seems content on timing his right hand while using his quicker feet to befuddle the bigger man by darting in and out of range, the way he does in the Squires fight.
These books are simply outstanding, the best, most thoroughly researched boxing books I have ever run across. Can't wait to check the latest installment on Burns.
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- Jack Johnson floored and stunned badly for 3 seconds Burns- L TKO'd 14- Johnson laughs at Burns best punches 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 vs Tony Caponi Ketchel- KO 4 Burns- D 6, W 6 I think it's clear Burns was smart to move out of the much more competitive middleweight division and would have got iced by Ketchel had they met for the title.
There is a cloud over the genuiness of the kd. Also Johnson carried Ketchel for the sake of the movie rights, whenever he had him hurt he picked him up and ,set him on his feet,the fact that Ketchel went into the 12th means jack **** imo. Badly stunned? He kod Ketchel with his very next punch and he was out for several minutes.Johnson was concerned he had killed him. As I stated in an earlier post, comparing results against common opponents can be very misleading as the Frazier,Foreman Ali,Norton quartet demonstrably proves.
Unfortunately for your argument this is boxing, not bean counting. Comparisons of performance against common opponents has no bearing on the actual outcome of a fight. Ask Buster Douglas. A couple of side notes: Johnson was badly stunned against Ketchel? You need to review that fight. Johnson toyed with Ketchel through the whole fight, even holding him up bodily from going down on more than one occasion. When Johnson went down he did so from a punch that went around the back of his head and if it landed it certainly didnt land with any force. He then got up immediately and knocked Ketchel DEAD with one punch, the only punch he threw the entire fight in actual anger. If anything this fight is the earliest example of a fighter carrying another fighter for the motion picture cameras. Point two is that O'Brien was scared shitless of Burns to the point where he wouldnt fight him unless Burns agreed not to go for a KO. O'Brien had no such compunction about Ketchel. Like I said, if you want to argue Ketchel hit harder, or even that he would win, fine, but dont pretend statistics have any bearing on the fight and dont pretend there is anything even remotely in Burns record to suggest he would be embarrassed.
I agree with everything you say. But, i do think that the common opponents argument (as a general rule) is a lot stronger than most are prepared to admit. Yes i know the old Foreman, Frazier Ali argument that is brought up. And there are many, many otehrs of course. But that means nothing. It is like saying Frazier beats Foreman or Spinks beats Tyson if they fight again. There is nothing to say that these results dont happen. there are numerous examples of fighters turning the tables after being thrashed. But, somewhere along the line what you actually did must hold some sway. common opponents is the same thing. Of course there must be allowances for things likes styles, Stages of career, conditions etc. But as a general rule, i think that if fighter a beats fighter C,D and E much more impressively than fighter B does, then Fighter A generally beats figher B. Of course saying all that, despite SuzyQs point, i probably think that Burns is the exception here and beats Ketchell so I dont really know where that leaves my argument.
I think Burns gives Ketchel a hell of a fight. Ketchel is one of those rare "force of nature" fighters but Burns seems a cooler head, tougher than nails and yes, a better boxer. Great fight and no blow-out.
Do you think Johsnon who rolled over and had to brace himself to get up from the knock down, then lost his balance and fell down again while knocking Ketchel out was acting? I agree Burns had a solid chin, and based on the flims I have seen is far more skilled, and even hit harder than Ketchel.