Tommy Burns with modern sports medicine and steroids vs. Jack Johnson

Tommy Burns gets a brain trust of modern fitness trainers and nutritionists (but not boxing trainers), modern supplements, steroids, and a year to train.

Burns also gets high-definition color footage of all of Johnson's fights, and modern training equipment -- mitts/pads, modern heavy bags, etc. (Again, just no instruction in modern boxing technique).

(1) Can he beat Johnson?

(2) How much better does he do?

 

As far as size goes: Given the very, very poor physical training techniques around in the late 19th / early 20th centuries, you could definitely make him a bigger fighter.

Though I concede this doesn't apply if you're referring to body dimensions. You couldn't improve height and reach, obviously, but you could add a lot of lean muscle mass without sacrificing stamina just by improving his training and diet.

What distinction are you drawing between talent and skill? Are you referring to general athleticism when you mention talent, or some combination of reflexes, sense of distancing, etc.?

I've always thought that early 20th century styles are reasonably well adapted for the rules and gloves of the time. Different ranges, different expectations for clinch-work, etc.

 

That's why I specified the whole gamut of modern training -- under competent people -- rather than bodybuilding.

When you read books from the era when Johnson was entering his prime, the training methods are very bad. They either didn't train very much, or (like Jeffries) they overtrained. Generally the former. The diet recommendations are worse. Lots of alcohol, no fruits or vegetables, dry foods to get rid of water, etc. Then there are the counterproductive things like constantly sweating water weight LONG before the fight (weeks/months, as part of a regular regimen, with limited hydration throughout), vomiting and purgatives, etc.

I think that Burns could retain most of his speed while gaining weight. This isn't because he was an exception to the rule that fighters get slower as they gain weight, but because his existing regimen was probably (a) pretty bad, and (b) short on effective speed-related stuff. I think modern periodized training over a year could include enough plyometric and other speed work to offset the greater mass.

And then you get into steroids and similar "supplements". All else being equal, Burns can ingest a lot of things that can improve his performance across several different dimensions, not just strength. He can also recover more quickly from training, which means more sessions per day. Not to mention that he can use performance enhancing drugs in the ring against Johnson, since they didn't even know to test for those things in the early 20th century.

 

I'm curious about the forum's opinions about what margin of difference modern training methods make. Johnson/Burns was a good test case.

We debate a lot about old-timers vs. modern fighters, and I've argued both sides on occasion. In this case, I'm playing devil's advocate for the modern end of the spectrum, since everyone seems dead set against Burns here.

 

"Chronically dehydrated, alcohol fueled, malnourished men" is putting it a little dramatically, but their training and nutrition left a lot to be desired. Remember that their opposition had prepared just as poorly, and they were generally naturally athletes. That explains the long marathon matches.

The champions who immediately preceded Johnson do advise a lot of the mistakes I mentioned:

Billy Edwards, a former lightweight champion writing in the late 1880s, recommended a diet of rare meats, no vegetables, "moderate" ale or stout consumption, no water during exercise, and sweating. He also said you shouldn't spar more than 12 minutes a day. Jogging was used only for weight loss -- he preferred brisk walking.

Mike Donovan, who fought Sullivan and was America's middleweight champion, recommended in 1893 a system that included purgatives, egg yolks in sherry for breakfast, and ale or stout with lunch. Again, he usually preferred walking to jogging. To his credit, Sullivan did recommend oatmeal, apples, and spinach.

The Police Gazette -- the equivalent of Ring Magazine, which presented Kilrain with his paper belt -- also recommended physic and purgative treatments. It didn't recommend undercooked meat, fortunately. Again, no jogging.

Corbett's advice on nutrition was just "eat what agrees with you." He didn't think that any hard-and-fast rules of nutrition existed at all, except that you should avoid intoxicating liquors.

Muldoon, who trained Sullivan and Nonpareil Dempsey, used gin after runs and "only" a pint of burgundy a day.

Fitzsimmons used emetics for several weeks to a month at a time. Like some of the others, he used an eggs-and-sherry mixture, and tried to limit vegetable intake. He recommended ice cream at every meal.

Most recommend training for only 4-6 weeks, as opposed to modern athletes who often periodize their training year-round. A couple of them recommended coffee, which isn't great for you but still better than the other stuff they were doing. Also note that a lot of these guys heavily emphasized exercises with small dumbbells and long walks instead of later (1940s-70s) boxers' bagwork + roadwork combination.

If you go further back to London Prize Ring Rules contests, you'd expect top-notch fitness for the grueling, long matches. Nope. Instead, you see abysmal training systems. Tom Cribb was one of the greatest athletes from that era, and his regimen is a matter of historical record. It's worse than the Queensbury guys by a wide margin -- exactly the "chronically-dehydrated, alcohol-fueled, malnourished" regimen you wouldn't expect to find from an athlete known for winning endurance battles.

If anything, these guys deserve more credit for performing as well as they did.