Tommy Burns v Jess Willard?

Sweet. Ketchel flattened Kelly in 3 rounds. Yet many here claim Burns to be a better puncher than Kethcel.

 

Boilermaker did, but you're correct that he wasn't a great champion and you never made him out to be such.

I'd say that they're rightfully criticized for that. Willard's title reign was a joke, he became known as the "pacifist" champion, seemingly more interested in traveling with a circus than fighting top contenders like Fred Fulton and Harry Wills.

Well, a lot of them were that bad. Jem Roce, Jewey Smith, Squires the second and third times. Those were bad defenses. Even the James J Walker bout was supposedly billed as a heavyweight title fight. O'Brien deserved a shot, but he was about the only one who did out of the men Burns successfully defended his title against.

 

Yeah, Burns is operating at a 33 percent rate of legit title defenses against worthy contenders- to- gimme title defenses. Not great by any stretch. Roche, Smith and Walker weren't credible and no one should claim that they were.

Moir and Lang were that generation's answer to Richard Dunn and Brian London...Fringe contenders who weren't exactly going to light the world on fire, and sure as hell weren't going to beat any of the reigning champs. Still, one or both of them would likely have received a shot regardless of who was champion at the time. That's just the way these things work.

Still, Flynn, O'Brien both times, and Squires were considered legitimate challengers at the time, even if they weren't the top contenders to the throne. That's why I think Burns deserves to be regarded as a legitimate champion, even if he wasn't a great one. He could have done a hell of a lot worse, all things considered.

And I still think Burns cruises over 10 and 20; though Willard would probably stop him in a finish fight.

 

Well, he could hit pretty hard. I know most people- even you- would agree with that. But in terms of pure power few people are approaching Ketchel. Guy was in a different stratosphere as far as that category was concerned.

 

Say what you will about Burns, this is a hell of an ass-whuppin':

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk2ozZ-x9Q8&feature=related[/ame]

 

I agree with this.

Over a shorter distance, I think Burns is quick and snappy even to box for long enough periods to win. Over a longer distance, I think Willard's size and strength starts to take it's toll and he starts to put a real beating on Burns after 25 rounds or so.

 

I havent the time to expand now, but to clarify. By great champion, i meant in attitude and respect for the title. Not necessarily in ability (certainly not compared to Ali, Johnson, Louis, even Frazier etc).

 

Tommy Burns at 175-80 sure had a laser right hand..He kodv37 out of 60 fights... Notice who the massive referee was ? The retired Jim Jeffries, who 2 years later made a stupid comeback against Jack Johnson...Jeffries weight here was close to 300 pounds.....

 

Everybody is zeroing in on Burns fairly weak resumee but what about Willard. Surely you have allheard of Tom McMahon? Do you think he was better than Tommy?
Jess beat an old Johnson after getting pasted for 20 rounds, a poor Moran and edged a green McCarty-thats his best. Wins over a peak Hart and O'Brien top them easy. 10 to 20 rounds-no chance for Jess, over 45 maybe but Burns was allways in condition and a good allround athlete. Willards stamina is allways brought up but all we know is that he could outlast an old, grossly out of condition fighter in sweltering sun. Keep thinking McMahon and Gunboat and then pick a winner.