Larry Holmes v Tommy Burns

Burns was a big fish in a gold fish bowl. Holmes was a big fish in a lake.

 

Burns by KO jumping headbutt.

 

If you asked me how Burns would do vs guys his weight, I think he was 5"7 AND ABOUT 170LBS I would say he holds his own, Joe Calzage, Roy Jones, B-Hop,Greb,Dwight Quawi, Sam Langford,etc I would say he carry's on well and does not embarrass himself...but while Burns had decent power, speed and movement he was not a tremendous puncher and while he did and would beat some of the Big men, he lost pretty badly to the best Big man of his day Jack Johnson and I suspect that Holmes would administer about the same give or take

 

Dream on. This is a pathetic mismatch. Holmes would toy with him like a cat playing with a blind mole.

 

Burns wins this by stoppage its all in the hips.:deal

 

But only when he could no longer make any money fighting Squires repeatedly.

 

He was certainly too good for anyone the UK could field at the time.:good

 

House on Holmes

 

Seamus, from where I'm sitting.

 

Hard to see Holmes loosing this one. Possibly, if the scenario is Holmes coming along in Burns day, he may have been of Johnsonian poundage and less the strongman than Jack, and Burns may have done a bit more against Holmes (than against Johnson) on the inside; but I'd still have to very heavily favor even this Holmes -- I think such a Holmes would still largely dominate Burns with jabs and uppercuts. The Holmes of the late 70's, I think, would have completely dominated Burns.

All due respect to Burns as a fighter/boxer.

I do think Burns, born into our current era and developing in our time in proportion as he developed according to the opportunities of his actual time, could be a serious cruiserweight force.

 

That should be entertaining. For the wrong reasons in your case. You and them vintage shorts.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected