Did Tommy Burns ever draw the color line?

Burns actually did initially draw the colorline at the urging of Jeffries and did everything in his power to avoid having to face Johnson, but Johnson was very resourceful and had a lot of wealthy friends, so he did everything in power to shame Burns and basically destroyed any reputation Burns had in Europe.

Burns eventually gave in and agreed to fight Johnson, but Johnson had to give in to every one of Burns demands and some of them were ridiculous.

 

Initially, he was very clear that he was NOT drawing the color line. He had fought black fighters en route to the title as well. However, later he said his wife, a southern lady, insisted that he would draw the line, and hence he was doing so. Yet, sometime thereafter, Burns said that after he had cleaned up all the top whites, if there was a large enough monetary offer, he would cross the line. Once he was offered his asking price, he signed to fight Johnson. He won the title in 1906 and by late 1908 he fought Johnson. Bottom line is I don't think Burns had any real qualms about fighting a black fighter. He was all about maximizing his pocketbook.

 

You seem to look at this in entirely the wrong way.

Burns drew the quality line.

He was basically the first belt milker in the history of the sport.

He made as much money as he could, for as little risk as he could, for as long as he could.

When he came to the end of the road on that, he cashed out against Jack Johnson.

The fact that he did not have a problem with fighting a black opponent in principle, does not mean that he was a man of unsullied principle.

 

Jack Johnson #1. Also, potentially Sam McVey, Joe Jeannette, or Sam Langford, all of whom were considered right behind Johnson.

 

Willie Lewis, speaking in 1908:

You may be surprised to know that Sam McVey, the big Los Angeles negro, is the Parisians' fighting idol, and as soon as Burns got to Paris he was pestered to death with challenges from McVey and his followers. They offered a purse of $20,000 for the match, and Burns said to me:

"I had made up my mind that I would fight only one negro – that's Johnson – but I hate like the deuce to let this money get away from me." At the fight Saturday McVey and his backers again challenged Burns, and Tommy replied: "Give me a purse of $25,000, split $20,000 to the winner and $5,000 to the loser, and a side bet of $5,000, and I"ll fight McVey here."

This is all in the book, In the Ring With Tommy Burns.

 

A belt milker is not a champion who misses one, two or even three important contenders.

It is a champion who makes a business out of fighting men who were not legitimate contenders.

As far as I can tell, Tommy Burns invented that model.

 

The thing that makes this hard to discern is Burns stopped fighting in the 1910s when black HWs dominated the division. When he was actually around the pressure to fight a black HW other than Johnson really wasn't present. Langford was young, Jeanette was barely over .500 and Martin was out of the picture.

Langford v Burns is one of the bigger matchups that boxing missed out on. A Canadian special. Regardless whose at fault thats a shame.

Theres a lot of problems with Burns SOS though. Which is why claimants popped up when he won the belt.

 

Burns was essentially a business man,and a damned good one!

 

Burns was never adverse to fighting blacks,his wife Jewel disaproved,but $$$$ overcame Burns fear of her disaproval.
What wealthy friends do you think Johnson had in1908?

 

Schreck and Jack Twin Sullivan in 1907. Schreck v Hart claimed to be for a world title. Twin Sullivans is the more obscure claim and boxerlist claims he beat Jack Palmer for a claim. Both fighters had defeated Tommy Burns at MW so this makes sense. Sullivans subsequent next HW fight was a 25 rounder against Squires and this was the only defense of either claim either would have made. Whats interesting is Schreck had a LHW claim that Sullivan beat Schreck for in 1905 and held into the 1910s as the division went dormant.

Kaufman ended both HW claims in 1907 which was the same year they originated. Johnson ended Kaufmans in 1909. In newspapers Kaufman is referred to as the "nearly HW champion" during this period. During this "nearly" reign Kaufman had a 25 rounder and 45 rounder against Mustain and Jim Barry during this stretch which seem like they would be title defenses. Mustain was on a streak and Barry hadn't lost in years to fighters not named Sam Langford. During this time Kaufman won 10 rounders with Jim Johnson, Flynn and Tony Ross too. While these fights could have been for this claim the 25 and 45 rounds hightlight that these were fights of unusual note.

A third claim was Palmer winning the first NSC title but this goes back to Harts reign. Before this point the NSC had declined to name a HW champion when naming them in other divisions and this was their attempt to name Jeffries successor. Burns would unify this one by beating Gunner Moir who'd beaten Palmer for that title. In 1909 Moir would lose to Iron Hague for the next NSC title who'd lose it to Langford.

Burns v Hart was the first time the lineal title had changed hands via decision and Burns followed this up with 2 not really title defenses, the Flynn win and a draw to O Brien. So going into 1907 Burns position as champ was anything but secure. He was a MW non champion who came up to HW beat a champ who'd narrowly won the vacant belt and done little to advance his claim. Burns wouldn't start impressing until 1907 and 1908 with 9 title defenses.

 

I think if you face the fighter generally regarded as the number two guy in the division twice, you're not milking the championship. Moreover, he was an underdog going into with Squires the first time around, so I think that could be counted as a risky defense against a legit contender (and as the reigning Empire champ he would have been considered as such).

Plus, he was in negotiations to face McVea prior to facing Johnson.

So, three fights against what would generally be considered top opponents going into the fight, a partial unification and then ultimately facing the consensus number one in less than three years. That's hardly sitting on the belt.