Tommy Burn

good post as usual bb. it's interesting that cerdan's prime loses seem to stem from DQ. i wonder why but either way, from reports he was a strong, straight forward boxer puncher whose prime, as you stated came before zale.

 

Flamingo ,I should be carbon dated....By the way, I had a tough childhood...When I took my first baby steps, my old man tripped me...B.B.

 

tommy burns is like a lot of other fighters who have failed in their biggest fights of their career. a great fighter but there's always the 'well he lost against.....'

 

The biggest fight of his career was presumably the Marvin Hart fight for the heavyweight title which he won.

Yes he did loose the title to Jack Johnson, but he had to loose it to sombody sooner or later.

 

hey janitor-how much do you know about the validity of hart's win over johnson?

 

As much as anybody, which is to say not a lot.

The bout divided media opinion at the time with some saying the result was fair and others arguing vheamently that Johnson had been robbed. Adam Pollacks upcoming biography of Hart is likley to be the most comprehensive treatment of the contemporary acounts, and from what he has told me the ballance of opinion does not decisively favour either fighter.

I think it is fair to say that Johnson would probably have been awarded the decision if the fight had taken place today, but in that era there was a tendency to reward agression and score close bouts in favour of the fighter who finished stronger.

Bottom line, the surviving evidence is inconclusive.

 

thank you sir, it certainly helps:good

 

My understanding on the Burns style has always been that he was like an earlier and shorter version of Rocky Marciano, although Tommy did have a longer reach than Rocky. Obviously, I never saw Burns fight...since his last fight was 4 years before I was born. My dad and uncle, although they had seen many of the old fighters, never saw Burns fight either. My uncle talked about him a lot, though, and seemed to know about his style. It's certainly possible that he had known someone who had seen Tommy fight.

 

Jack Dempsey would be a much better comparison.

 

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.

 

Actually, Burns was at his best when fighters came toward him, as Ketchel would likely have done. Ketchel might have had an edge in terms of handspeed, but Burns has it all over the Assassin in terms of technique. I've got Burns winning this match-up.

 

You could argue that Burns was more a boxer puncher than a swarmer.

Anyhow, this particular comparison has always given me food for thought. While Burns looks far more impresive on film, Ketchell got a shade the better results vs common oponents.

If Burns had fought in a later era than Ketchell then people would watch the film of Burns Squires and ridicule the idea that Ketchell could do as well against the same opponents.

 

He was very good but did not prove to be the best of his era. Jack 'Twin' Sullivan had the better of him at middleweight, Jack Johnson had the better of him at heavyweight. However he did beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, the light heavyweight champion, and Marvin Hart, the heavyweight champion.

Big right hand puncher, good in & out movement, plenty strong and tough for his size. As far as I know, the only surviving films of his fights are against Jack Johnson, Gunner Moir, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Bill Squires, Joe Beckett. Atleast that's what I've seen of him. I advise to watch him against Squires and Moir to see him at his best.

 

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.