Tommy Burns v Jess Willard?

I never thought much of Willard's skills, but his size and power was to be respected in 1915......

Tommy Burns prolly was the better all around fighter, but at 5' 7" tall and roughly 180 pounds, he's gonna have lotsa' trouble with solid heavies who could really punch......

Based on size, I gotta think the Willard of '15 tops the Burns of 1907.... Size isn't everything, yet it must be factored in here.....

MR.BILL

 

10 Burns. Clearly.
20 Burns. Close.
45 Willard. Big.

 

I don't wanna hear any old buzzard's who are on an oxygen tank feeding me some manure how they once saw Tommy Burns kayo KING KONG down in Africa back in circa--1900.... I know Burns was great, but let's keep it real......

MR.BILL

 

Two points:
1. I don´t believe as much in size as some or even most of you.
2. I think probably higher of Burns than most. He was very skilled, quite fast and tough.

 

I like Burns. Had nice pop and accuracy in his right hand.

Then again, Willard could bang you out with that long right of his. Over ten rounds I'd favour Burns, but as the rounds go on I think the extra size would wear Burns out and Willard would take him out late.

For me though, Burns looks the more impressive on film.

 

In a fight till the finish not many would beat Willard. The less the rounds the more fighter beat him.

 

Burns is probably the most overlooked and underrated champ. Mostly because of his size and how easy Johnson handled him.

 

Willard would probably come from behind,and wear Burns down.

 

If they had a choice of the apple turnovers old Noah called title defenses, they might still be defending...

 

"old buzzard's who are on an oxygen tank"

Let's not get personal.

 

Have to agree with Seamus here. Burns defending his title against Bill Squires the first time was fine, as Squires had made himself out to be a legitimate contender, but the second and third times were just unnecessary. O'Brien was probably his best title defense, and O'Brien wasn't a heavyweight. That is until he took on Jack Johnson of course, his first top ranking opponent, and got soundly beaten.

I give the more active if smaller Burns an edge in a 10 round bout, but 20 and 45 rounds favours Willard, who was a slow starter.

 

This Old Buzzard wouldn't be surprised if Burns wins it in 10 or 20, simply by outworking Willard and going to the body.


At 45 rounds, Willard wears him out.


Burns would be so short that I wonder how Willard would deal with him. I think Burns would be under most of his punches.

 

Seems Tommy Burns isn't being given much credit as a puncher. He wasn't as hard a hitter as Dempsey obviously but I doubt he was light years behind him.

I don't see how it's relevant that he was 180 some odd pounds when the Dempsey that nearly killed Willard was 187 pounds, what Burns often weighed in at before and after the Johnson loss.

Why was Burns only 167 against Johnson? That's unusual looking at his average weights throughout his career.