Tommy Burn

Only a shade? Let's not kid ourselves here Ben. Ketchel knocked men out cold who burn's couldn't take off their feet in 50 rounds. I think one of the reasons Burns looks "better" on film is we watch him beating on hapless oafs. Imagine if we could put together a highlight KO reel for Ketchel, he would look like Joe Louis mark my words. If you watch Burns on film vs Jack Johnson, and compare Ketchel with Johnson, Ketchel certainly fares better. Not to mention Ketchel showed the ability to badly hurt johnson, while burns couldn't do anything but make johnson laugh at his "power shots".

I don't know about this. Knocking out a bunch of 0-0 big farmers with pitchforks doesn't exactley impress me. I mean Ketchel can do that too. Read about what he did to Porky Flynn.

Burns to me looks like a swarmer. He does have a nice wallop. But he does not have that all time great lethal power Ketchel has IMO. You can make a strong case Stanley is the hardest hitter who ever lived p4p. Burns power simply fell short when he faced hall of famers. Ketchel carried his power to all levels of opposition.

 

I am still amazed at how easily Ketchel was able to put the lights out on guys like Hugo Kelly, Jack O brien, and Jack Twin Sullivan...when burns was unable to deck these guys in 100 rounds of boxing. Maybe one day, people can open there eyes and look at the facts objectively.

 

Suzy, common opponents is a good way to anaylse a fight, but not the be all and end all. Other factors come into play also, like styles and attributes.

I'm not too well versed on both men but to me it looks a fialry even match up.

 

I just don't see any logical arguement that can be made that Tommy Burns can stand toe to toe, slug out with Ketchel, and win that battle. Just can't see it.

No it is not. However, I would like you to take a good hard look at my post on the other page about common opponents. Take a stern look at Burns fights with Twin Sullivan, Hugo Kelley, and Jack O Brien. How he not only struggled to beat these men, but was unable to fell them. Then take a look at the way Stanley Ketchel knocked all 3 of these men OUT COLD.

 

Based on what? Burns had a pretty good chin. Indeed he was only stopped once in 57 fights, and it took a prime Johnson landing some hard stuff on him to do it. Johnson, when he wanted to KO'd Ketchel with ease for the count. Don't act like Ketchel took a better punch than Burns. Its not so.

I also think Burns has a clear edge on skills, size, defense,and reach. Power is debatable, but what is not debatable is Burns looked much better on film.

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...,1624248&dq=tommy+burns+stanley+ketchel&hl=en


http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...,3875679&dq=tommy+burns+stanley+ketchel&hl=en

 

SuzieQ49,
What a shame, that we today have no films showing,what a terror Stanley Ketchel was in his prime...He was considered by all who saw him as the greatest middleweight puncher,and most exciting fighter of them all...Today fans with no respect of contemporary reports of his career judge him solely on two surviving fight films of Stanley...The Billy Papke fight in 1909,when Ketchel broke his right hand early in the 20 round bout, and the fiasco with the great heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson,in 1909, just before his death at age 24...How would historians react 100 years from now if they saw only one surviving fight of Ray Robinson, being manhandled by Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955 ?Would they say " Robinson was not that good "? Stanley Ketchel ko'd 49 fighters in 64 bouts,in his short and pulverizing career...I have a book at home called " the Michigan Assassin " published in 1946, by Nat Fleischer, who as a young reporter saw all of Stanley Ketchel in his prime...He and Tad Dorgan, Hype Igoe, Bob Edgren, all raved about the greatness of Ketchel, and I always evaluate fighters of the past by what the boxing experts said of him, than by some of the modern day,"out of sight, out of mind " opinions of yesterdays great fighters...That goes double with Stanley Ketchel....
P.S Tommy Burns was at least 15 pounds heavier than Ketchel, so they probably would have never met if Ketchel had lived....

 

Are you sure you want to go this route?


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


Ketchel- 4-0 with THREE knockouts

Burns- 1-2-4 with ZERO knockouts


I think this puts an end to the power arguement

Size and Reach. Burns was the heavier of the two(not by much), but Burns was also a shrimp! He stood at best 5'7". Ketchel was around 5'9.


Defense and Skills? There is no clear cut film of Stanley Ketchel at his best, so we have to defer this question. Tommy Burns highlight Kayo reels on Farmers with Pitchforks does not give us enough to judge him. The only film of Burns with a world class operator, he gets absolutley manhandled and toyed with. At least Ketchel was able to floor and badly hurt that man.

This is your subjective opinion. This is not a fact. Ketchel's best stuff is not on film. Burns has a lot of highlight reels of him beating on garbage fighters. Ketchel does not have film of him flattening jack o brien out cold, or leaving Hugo Kelley near dead after 3 short rounds. You cannot make any conclusions based on the lack of film of Stanley.

 

Unbelievable post. Post like these make my day a better day. The sad thing is, there probably would be many posters strongly degrading Robinson if thats all we saw were 2 films of him not at his best.

I posted a link to an article above..But around 1908 Ketchel issued a challenge to Burns. He wanted him. It's funny because even though Burns was a tad heavier, Ketchel knocked out many men who went the
distance with burns putting the question out "Just how hard did Stanley Ketchel hit?".

 

Couple of notes:

Both Burns-Kelley fights were draws, and the second was going to be a draw simply because that was the agreed-upon result. Contemporary news reports indicate that Burns had the better of the action in the second fight.

Burns dropped a six rounder to O'Brien earlier in his career, but basically beat O'Brien chased O'Brien around the ring and busted him up in the second fight, and duplicated that feat in the third fight.

So neither of these edges are as clear cut as you make them out to be.

Bottom line is that styles make fights and Ketchel's style is one that Burns tends to look good against. He was at his best, generally, when he could counter with that nasty right hand, plus he was a skilled practitioner on the inside. If Ketchel tried to bum rush him, he puts himself in some peril as a result. Best thing for Stanley to do is to turn this into an inside war and hope to grind Burns down. That might be easier said than done.

 

Burns loved to go toe to toe and trade. If he tries this with Stanley, he will get flattened. I don't believe there is a man below 170lb in history who can trade with Stanley and come out alive.

What big punchers did Burns test his chin with? Joe Frazier also had a very good chin, until George Foreman hit him. Stanley Ketchel would have been by far the biggest punching middleweight he had ever faced. Burns was not a stick and move boxer. He was a swarmer. He would be right in range of Stanley's artillery. When Stanley had you hurt, he finished you!

 

Drew,

I see you make a lot of exuses above. Why allude the fact Ketchel was knocking out these same men who were fighting Tommy to draws? Why leave that part out? Because it doesn't support your arguement?

Quite an interesting observation there. Especially when we take into consideration Tommy Burns never fought anyone close to the power, aggresiveness, or finishing capabilities of a Stanley Ketchel. But I am sure you were able to form this "astute" evaluation of Burns based upon his fight with Jem Roche. Or perhaps Jewey Smith? LMAO.

When he has a whirlwind of hammers being pummeled in his face from a wide variety of angles, he is not going to have his time to set up the right hand. Ketchel was far from predictable, he is not going to sit in front of him like a gunner moire(LOL)...Ketchel attacked from angles. like jack dempsey. Ketchel had a large repoitre of punches. Stanley was a complete all around finisher. FYI on Burns right hand, it was far from overwhelming. Why is it that Tommys "powerful" right hand was unable to deck Hugo Kelley, Jack O brien, Tony Caponi, or Twin Sullivan when Stanley Ketchell's right hand flattened all of these men out cold? Perhaps Stanley had the much more powerful right hand of the two?

Tommy Burns loved a good brawl. Stanley would draw Tommy into one with his ferociousness. This will spell doom for Tommy. Tommy cannot slug it out toe to toe with Stanley. Big Mistake.

Grind Down? How bout Clock Tommy a couple times early and watch him fall down and out? Stanley is quite possibly the hardest hitter who ever lived. He can get you early, he can get you late. Either way, Tommy is running into something and Stanley will finish him.




Stanley matches up great with Brawlers. Its fast fleeted boxers who give him the most trouble. Any man who is willing to trade with Stanley will lose.

 

Just rewatched Burns-Squires. I'll reiterate an earlier observation: it's uncanny how similar Burns' style looks to modern tournament (Shotokan) karate without the kicks.

 

1. Excuses!? If you're going to go strictly by record hunting to build your case, then I'm allowed to use contemporary reports to rebut your claims. Contemporary reports state that O'Brien boxed Ketchel silly throughout much of the first fight, only to fade down the stretch and get clocked at the end. Funny how you didn't mention that when making these comparisons. Why wouldn't you do that? Does it not support your argument? :roll:

2. Yeah, it is an interesting observation, given that in the majority of the fights that we have of Burns on film, he tends to move in and out and draw his opponents in for counters. In fact, in the fight where he didn't look good (Johnson), it's because the far bigger man stood back and waited to counter with uppercuts. Think Ketchel is going to employ that plan?

3. A "whirlwind of hammers". Nice bit of poetic fancy. Kind of makes Stanley out to be a swarmer, as opposed to a slugger, doesn't it? Well, Burns may not have said "whirlwind", but he does have a right hand that was capable of knocking cold indivudals who outweighed him by considerable margins. And given the fact that Kethcel is going to do what he always did, which was come forward, throw wide punches, and try to overwhelm an opponent with the intensity of his attack, Burns is going to natually do what he did against Hart and Squires and a whole bunch of others...Move in and out to nullify the attack, and counter against a fighter who was not regarded as a defenisve genius at any point in his career.

Sorry, but Burns is playing the boxer puncher. You can say "HE WAS A SWARMER! HE WAS A SWARMER! " all you want, and he could do that, but he could still box and counter when he had to, and he could still punch with at least as much authority as Papke did.

You might remember Papke...Held Kethcel to a virtual standstill in their first and fourth fights (the fourth fight was a pretty unpopular decision by all accounts). Bounced Stanley off the canvas like a yo-yo in the second. Yeah, I might be leaving stuff out, but hey, if you can use that M.O, why can't I?

4. Excuse the tone of this response. But that last response reeked of condescension. I gave some facts to support a counter argument, and you basically insinuated that I was an idiot for making this claim. I tend not to react that well under those circumstances.

This is a thread devoted to discussing the merits of Burns as a fighter. Guess what? There were a lot of them. Maybe you should do something aside from boxrec hunt and watch some film to appreciate the fighter on his own, rather than immediately tear him down because he fought in the same era as one of your favorite fighters.

Just saying.