Stanley Ketchel was better than Tommy Burns

If you compare Ali and Foreman's common opposition, Foreman should've won in a round or two.

 

Thats why fights are fought in the ring and not paper. Just because fighter a beats fighter b and fighter c draws with fighter b doesnt mean a beats b.

This of course all ignores that Burns did much better against Johnson than Ketchel, who was carried literally and figuratively. Burns knocked Lang out, they tried to fix a Lang fight for Ketchel to win. If Ketchel was so much better than Burns why fix the fight? I also reject the O'Brien comparison. O'Brien was scared ****less of Burns but was glad to fight Ketchel. That draw that Jeffries rendered against Burns when he fought Obrien was bull****. We have that fight complete and Burns won that handily while OBrien ran his ass off AFTER trying to get Burns to agree not knock him out. Another factor which might skew that perception is that Burns was weakening himself to make to 158, which is why he moved up to HW. This is mentioned several times in the reports to his fights prior to his move up. He was clearly a better, stronger, and harder hitting fighter when he moved up.

 

You mean that fake knock down from a punch that actually missed Johnsonatsch

Youre stretching. Its bad enough when you pontificate about the 1950s which you love but clearly know next to nothing about but when you stray into eras you arent familiar with it really gets comical.

 

I think Burns was a bit better. He had better skills on film, took a better punch, and had better defense.

If you want to use Jack Johnson's words he said Burns was the easiest man he ever fought.

 

Looking at the records of Stanley Ketchel and Tommy Burns at middleweight
fighting common opponents, there is no doubt that Stanley Ketchel was the greater fighter...Stanley Ketchel kod Jack Twin Sullivan=
Tommy Burns L to Jack Twin Sullivan=
Stanley Ketchel kod Hugo Kelly=
Tommy Burns Drew with Hugo Kelly twice=
Stanley Ketchel kod Phil.Jack O'Brien=
Tommy Burns L. to Phil. Jack O'Brien=
Stanley Ketchel kod Tony Caponi=
Tommy Burns L. to Tony Caponi...
Based on these fights it is clear that Stanley Ketchel was the greater fighter P4P...
But if the true MW Stanley Ketchel fought the bigger Tommy Burns, spotting
Tommy Burns,15-25 pounds who was a real LH- small heavyweight, I think
that it would be a bridge too far for Ketchel...Tommy Burns was a very, very dangerous right hand puncher who is overlooked today P4P...

 

I have no problem looking at common opponents. I think Burns fought the better version of O'Brien.

Did Ketchel beat anyone as good as Hart?

 

I think thats the crux of the argument. Do you match the men at their best (when it was most likely they would have fought) or do you mythically match the best Ketchel with a weight drained weakened Burns fighting at 158 in 1905? Why would anyone do that? That fight wouldnt have even been discussed until 1907/08 when Ketchel burst on the scene and at that point Burns was at his physical peak and fighting at HW as the champion. I would favor that Burns over that Ketchel.

 

Thats another good point. Both Obrien and Sullivan were about 30 and 31 when Ketchel fought them. Burns fought both of them several years earlier.

 

Johnson said that in 1908
Later Johnson said Burns gave him a harder fight than Jeffries and Ketchel.