In the Ring With Tommy Burns

It's his way of rationalizing every match up .. styles elude him ..

 

^^Agreed.

 

The JOhnson knockdown is very suspicious ... his legs go out before the punch grazes the back of his head ... he got up and iced him pretty quickly ... to me that was always a set up ..

 

In a matchup between two brawlers, you always pick the brawler with more power and much better offensive arsenal(Ketchel). Ketchel also had the faster hands.

 

was burns really a brawler though? It's really question not a statement

 

First of all you don't "always" anything in boxing.

Who is to say Ketchel , who seemed to go many, many rounds with almost every credible opponent was a bigger hitter than Burns who flattened heavyweights ? In addition, who says he was quicker ... on film Burns looks much faster to me ..

 

I think Johnson was acting throughout the fight. Yes. I think he could have ended that fight in the first round and knew it. Its pretty obvious Ketchel was in WAY over his head. As for the knockdown, I dont think it was legit at all. Johnson was already apparently slipping or going down when the punch looped around and looked to not even connect. I dont think he was even close to being hurt. He nailed Ketchel right on the button with his first punch after the "knockdown" and then basically stumbled over him on the follow through. I certainly dont think the stumble was indicative of a guy who was legitimately hurt.

I also dont agree that Burns was a brawler. Nothing in any of the films suggests that. He timed his punches, and fought aggressively only in spurts. He was far too careful to be a brawler. When he had a guy hurt he went in for the kill but that doesnt make him a brawler. Every film we have of him he is very patient and measuring his punches, when he lands a good one, or the occasional range finder then he goes in with flurries but only after hes caught the opponent with something. Hes actually a very well schooled fighter in his style. If you watch the Squires fight, in which Squires came here highly touted, Burns actually boxes off the back foot and counterpunches until he hurts Squires then overwhelms him with solid precision punches. The Moir fight is deceptive because it was Moir who, using his greater size, blitzed Tommy early forcing a brawl. Even against Jack O'Brien who ran the entire fight for fear of being stopped you can see Burns countering beautifully with hard punches on the rare occasions that O'Brien leads. As far as the Johnson fight is concerned, outside of Willard who held obvious advantages in height, reach, and age have you seen anyone who could make Johnson lead or counterpunch him? No. Given Burns disadvantages he was forced to throw leads and fall into clinches or he would be murdered at long range. In short, Burns was far more than a one dimensional brawler.

 

Burns was not a brawler , had quicker feet and, mobility ,who had the better handspeed is debatable.
In a match between two brawlers I would pick the more durable of them .
McCllellan had more power and, a better offence than Benn.
Graziano had more power than Zale.
Gonzalez had more power than Carbajal.
Berlenbach had more power than Delaney.

 

Good summing up.

 

This is predictable rubbish, as we have come to expect from you.
If you think Johnson was groggy when he got up, you should take up watching wrestling ,you will be thrilled by the action/acting . atsch

 

l

Agreed, and add to this that Johnson wasn't in any shape to go 45 rounds under a Havanna July sun. Circumstances, as well as his opponents characteristics, made it necessary to try to put Wilalrd out; and Johnson did pretty well with his spurts of agression until age and poor condition told.

 

---

 

I agree with McVey. I've always looked on Johnson's going down as a case of 'Discretion is the better part of valor'. Johnson doesn't seem at all hurt on rising, and it seems to me he goes over a falling Ketchel, not as a stumble, but to avoid triping on him. Johnson's roll on the floor seems pretty controlled, and I think is explicable as a desire to get a bit more space between himself and Ketchel before rising. Johnson's stiff arm going down is poor technique (good way to break a wrist), but the fact that he gets a hand out to brace his fall is a good argument against his being incapacitated by the punch.

 

I can't believe how easily people are swayed because they see burns knocking out gooftroopers like jem roche, jewey smith, bill squires, and gunner moir on film. Anyone could look good against those ham and eggers. It's too bad jack twin sullivan vs burns film hasn't risen, then we would see Burns in vs a real skilled fighter his size whom he couldn't beat. FYI, Stanley Ketchel knocked out twin sullivan.


Also, since when did Burns become this lethal puncher? He took guys like Jack O Brien and Hugo Kelly 40 + rounds without stopping them, while Stanley Ketchel flattened these guys out cold(usually pretty early).