Tommy Burns ,"The Little Giant Of Hanover". Takes on . Ketchel Greb Monzon Hagler . catchweight of 170lbs Charles Tunney Moore Foster . catchweight of 180 lbs How does he do?
Burns had a funky build.... At 5' 7" tall he was very stocky.... Almost better suited for wrestling than boxing... Down around 160, he'd prolly kick ass on the majority of belt holders from any era.... At 175 pounds, things begin to change....... Oh, I'm sure Tommy Burns could be a champion there also, but he'd struggle with several key players who've held the title / crown at 175 pounds..... Come the post 1960s heavies, Burns gets his ass kicked in every fight......... Still, all in all, T.B. was a great fighter for a guy somewhere between 160 to 178 pounds......... bbb MR.BILL
He was 5"7 and 168lbs when he fought Jack Johnson for the heavyweight title. Burns had the Balls to fight Johnson and remember Burns was the weight of Joe Calzage. Burns beat some good fighters such as Phil Jack O'Brien and Marvin Hart to name a few. Tommy would have been competitve with them all. I think Tunney,Charles and Moore would stop him but he holds his own with anyone from middle to super middle
The Burns who was handling HW's, weighed no more than 180 pounds. At 5'7" he had an unusually long reach, around 75". For his era, which was deep in talent at 160-175, he did very well, beating Sullivan and losing to Sullivan I believe. He also bested Philadelphia Jack O'Brien twice out of three matches. IMHO, I think under more modern training methods, he could have developed into a better MW and LHW than he was in his own time. He very well could have beaten the majority on that list without modern training as it is. With it, he very well would have bested them all in a trilogy. I think his win ratio would have been 60% against those men, losing 40%.
Dillon was only half inch taller than Burns ,but had a shorter reach,very tough fight for both men,I should think they would split a series.
He was built like Langford and Walcott, very well suited for boxing, barrel chest and long-ass arms (longer reach than Jack Johnson)...
He would have been absolute dynamite against the middleweights, particularly any prepared to go toe to toe with him. Burns had the power to flatten heavyweights and was an extremely compact puncher. Being a fighter without significant physical advantages over him, who did not fight particularly deffensivley, could be a verry bad position to be in. I will wager that most light heavyweights would be in no hurry to mix it up with him, though some of them would have had the physical tools to deal with him. Of the fighters you have listed, Gene Tunney would probably be the worst match for him, having all the tools to do a number on him.
Burns was a terrific fighter ... very fast, very tough and a dynamite puncher ... let's not forget he defeated Philadelphia Jack, one of the all time great light heavyweight boxers ... I pick him over the middleweights ... he might not have the skill set for some of the great light heavyweight names mentioned but I don't see them stopping him as he proved how tough and durable he was v.s. Johnson ...
Exactly what I was going to say. People here are forgetting that Burns already did try his hand against the MWs of his day, and mostly fell short in his biggest fights there. And even as the HW champ, his least impressive defenses were against the LHW O'Brien. Burns simply didn't do as well at or against the lower weight fighters; very much similar to Chris Byrd, who was rather unexceptional as a SMW/LHW (both at the beginning and end of his career).
Ketchel ...burns Greb..Greb Monzon ...Burns Hagler . catchweight of 170lbs..Burns Charles,...Charles Tunney >>tunney Moore ....50/50 Foster . catchweight of 180 lbs...Burns
