I know its been said before and in a different threat but I thought Id add my two cents: Absolutely tremendous! Im not sure which of his books I like more but its between this one and Marvin Hart (I enjoy the more obscure aspects of the sport). Ive always been interested in Tommy Burns ever since I read Boxing Day which really opened my eyes to the way Burns legacy was slandered after he lost to Jack Johnson. I came away from Boxing Day thinking that Burns might be a whole lot better than hes ever been given credit for and wishing there were more secondary sources about his life and career. Unfortunately at that time there were none. Or at least none that were easily obtainable. Since then one book has been published on his life, which seems to have been well done, but it quickly went out of print and the price for a used copy now is quite hefty. Then along came Pollack's book. What an excellent reference piece. Some will quibble that his books are light on personal details, outside the ring color, and post championship careers, but Adam has never advertised these books as straight forward biographies. They are essentially reference guides to the mens careers up to their final fight as champion using primary sources, and as such they are invaluable. I must say, I applaud his efforts and hope he continues (Im waiting on the Jess Willard boook If you interested in boxing history and like me prefer to rely on first hand accounts rather than regurgitated myths you will do well to purchase this book (and his others).
I've yet to see a bad ,or indifferent review of his books. I've always thought Burns was better than he has been portrayed,and the fact that Johnson told him , in 1910, he had the beating of Langford emphasises it. It could be argued that when he stepped into that ring on Boxing Day he was the first" real world heavyweight champion", because he was accepting the challenge of the best black fighter in the world ,something none of his predecessors did. He was also a dual champion, both he and O Brien were under the lhvy limit when they met ,so Burns could legitimately have claimed that title too.
First off, excellent review by Klompton and I agree wholeheartedly ... the Burns book is terrific ... there are certain fighters who have been shortchanged by history and Burns was one of them ... he was talented, tough, game and full of moxie ... the book fills us in on this man's career , his lightning climb as a heavyweight and his reign ... great stuff ... I've been saying all along that Adam'd books will become invaluable resources and collector's items in the years to come ...
I always thought Tommy was really underappreciated. He threw a lot of punches and had a very good right hand.
I think he looks very modern on film, he gets into, and out of punching range very quickly and, is allways in motion,well balanced and looking to plant a big shot whenever the opportunity arises. His power too, looks impressive for a small heavyweight.
"I've always thought Burns was better than he has been portrayed,and the fact that Johnson told him , in 1910, he had the beating of Langford emphasises it." McVey, what is your source for this? You've mentioned it at least a couple of times now. I'm going to have to check into something later tonight. Unless my memory is off I believe that in a series of newspaper articles I have publishing the memoirs of a man named Duke Mullins who trained both Jack Johnson and Sam Langford during their separate stays in Australia that he specifically asked Johnson how Burns would fare against Langford. I'm almost positive that he say's Johnson told him Burns would have no chance against Langford. I might have even mentioned that particular story in my book about Langford. But, like I said I'll have to check into this later tonight. As for the main subject of this thread, I wholeheartedly agree, Adam did a wonderful job with the Burns book.
It is in your book. Page 84. I dont puch much stock in either story. In this era fighters stories seemed to change depending on which direction the wind was blowing. Another factor is that the quote in Clays book was taken before he fought Burns, and unless Im mistaken the quote McVey is referring to was taken around the time Johnson fought Jeffries. Its entirely possible he had gained some respect for Burns in fighting him. I dont know. Either way I think Burns/Langford would be an interesting match. Id favor Langford. But I wouldnt totally discount Burns. The guy was durable as hell and could fight. He was only stopped twice in his career and both times he was still on his feet fighting when the matches were stopped and both times were against men who were naturally bigger than him.
Thanks Steve, I thought Johnson said that to Mullins right before he fought Burns. And, I agree, the pair would have made for an interesting match. I was just reading thru some materials refering to the English author A.G. Hales (author of a book about Peter Jackson) and his longing for about between the two because he thought it woudl make for a great fight. I gained a great appreciation for Burns as a result of Adam's book but I came away with the feeling that he didn't have as strong a punch as Langford.
Is there a link for those books ??... is it possible to download or read them off the net ??.. He sounds very promising. I think he's vastly underated when you consider he's really what ? a middleweight ?....... What I base this on is from the films I have seen, I set great store in visual evidence... if available it must be used in any evaluations on a fighter and on the fight's results..... It is the nature of boxing that if it goes the distance and especially if there are no knockdowns and no major wobbles,.. there will be some who dispute the result. BUT if you can watch that film you can make up your own mind as to who won (if you can see most of the entire fight that is)..... Sometimes when an old film is suddenly re-discovered, boxing history is re-written and a commonly held myth is destroyed. The Galveston Giant told us all, and most believed him that he took a dive against Willard.... we all know the story..... "see the photo ?... that's me covering my eyes to keep the sun out..etc...etc,,". Not many who have seen that film, believe him now......... But he still thinks we bought it.
Not many people were. Burns was a good puncher, particularly for his size, but Langford was an all time great puncher at any weight. If Langford tagged you you were going to know about it, I dont care if you as big as George Foreman. At his weight though, and Langford was right along the same size as Burns, Burns could whack pretty good. Its a hard fight to watch, and one which has gotten a bad rap because of Jack O'Brien's chicken **** tactics but the Burns-O'Brien fight is very interesting to get a line on Burns. He has excellent timing and judgement of distance. Despite the fact that O'Brien is literally running away from Burns for the entire fight by the middle rounds Burns had made a bloody mess of O'Briens face.
I forgot to say that on some of the film I've seen that did not have Johnson in it, that When Tommy won..... he won big.... he's humiliating a couple of them.... Tommy seemed to enjoy his mastery,... he couldn't complain about Jack's grins and jibes.... he wasn't no angel in that respect, but that just makes that era even more appealing.
I think that McVey, or it might have even been me, posted an article a week or two ago where Johnson stated that Burns could beat Langford. I agree with Klompton about not putting too much stock in what fighters say at the time. If i recall corredtly the article put up was at a time when Burns was trying to get a rematch with Johnson. Obviously it doesnt sell a story or promote such a match, if the champion admits taht burns is not as good as other challengers. I havent read the pollack book yet, but i agree, that it is more likely Langford hit the harder of the two. Burns is clever and underated though, i dont think there is any doubt that it would still be a very good fight.
Here it is. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...IGHTERS+READY+RESTING+EVE+GREATEST+RNG+BATTLE Its about the 4th paragraph in.
You are correct, its an interview with Burns taken at Johnson's camp in Reno 1910. Of course it could be false but Burns would look a bit of a fool if Johnson contradicted him. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...IGHTERS+READY+RESTING+EVE+GREATEST+RNG+BATTLE
Immediately after the fight Johnson was a gracious loser. "My hat is off to Willard, I was beaten fairly by youth and condition". " I have no complaint to make excepting this.While I was champion I made agreat many enemies, most of them hated me for no other reason than that I am a Negro. Those persons have gotten vindication in my defeat and I hope they obtain full enjoyment from it." The next night Johnson went down to the box office to see Barney Curley the promoter,and get his purse. .Curley asked him how he felt,"pretty blue,I haven't any kick comng.I met a young big boy and he wore me down.I didnt dream there was a man alive who could go fifteen rounds with me ,once I started after them"".There's something you didn't know,Jess ruined my golden smile." Johnson moved closer to the light, parted his bruised lips and showed the gap where two of his gold capped teeth had been knocked out. " It was a left crack that did it.I felt them drop down on my tongue,and my pride wouldn't let me spit them out.I knew what a howl would go up if they saw them in the sunlight, so I did the next best thing, I swallowed them." Four years later Johnson signed a statement saying he took a dive , it's bull****, he was ko'd
