Stanley Ketchel vs Tommy Burns

Well its true Ketchel and Johnson were friends ,that little hiccup ,not withstanding, but Johnson did commend Burns for his gameness after their fight.

 

I am sorry but I would like to reiterate my other post a couple days ago. Stanley Ketchell would knockout tommy burns. Tommy has no chance in hell of going toe to toe with Stanley and surviving. This would end early for tommy.

 

Actually, Langford's previous 4 opponents ,prior to meeting ketchel were all white.

 

Stanley Ketchell took a Peak 1910 bigger version of Sam Langford 6 near dead even rounds. Sam Langford is widely considered the best fighter of the era, and maybe all time. Ketchell doing this shows me how special he was, even in his short career. It also shows me how dangerous of a heavyweight he could have been. Against the two best heavyweights of the era, Ketchell floored and hurt 35lb heavier Jack Johnson and took the great sam langford 6 near even rounds. Burns would never ever be that competitive with johnson and langford

 

Lets compare common opponents between burns and ketchel shall we?

Ketchel against common opponents: 5-1 with 4 knockouts

Burns against common opponents: 2-3-5 with 0 knockouts


Vs Jack Johnson

Ketchel - L Ko'd 12
Burns- L TKO'd 14

Notes: Burns got dominated for every second of ever round. While ketchel did get dominated, at least Ketchel hurt Johnson twice during the bout, and FLOORED johnson for 4 seconds with a hard right hand on the ear.

edge: Ketchel who was much more competitive vs Johnson than burns was and put johnson on the floor.



vs Hugo Kelly

Ketchel- KO 3

Burns- D 10 and D 20

Edge: HUGE to ketchel


vs Jack Twin Sullivan

Ketchel: KO 20

Burns: D 20, L 20

Edge: HUGE to ketchel.


vs Philadelphia Jack O Brien

Ketchel- W 10, TKO 3

Burns- L 6, D 20, W 20

Edge: Clear edge to Ketchel. He twice knocked O brien out cold and went undefeated against him, while burns lost to him and i believe(correct me if im wrong) was never was able to take O brien off his feet.



vs Tony Caponi

Ketchel- KO 4

Burns- D 6, W 6

edge: Ketchel. I think a pattern is developing here. Ketchel is proving himself by far the much more devastating puncher of the two against common opposition.

 

Suzie,do you beleive that the Johnson Ketchel fight was on the square?
I'm sure you have watched it several times ,having done so ,do you beleive Johnson was giving of his best prior to being floored by Ketchel?
Would you agree that Johnson jabs and man handles Ketchel at will ,and a couple of times grabs him to stop him going down and holds him to keep him up right?
I know you are very passionate about boxing,I also know you are truthful.What's your answer?

 

Yes. Do you want to know why? because jack johnson was lambasting ketchel with some HUGE SHOTS prior to the 12th round and even floored ketchel in the 7th with a wicked combination. Why would he hurt and floor stanley if he wasnt trying his best? Now Jack Johnson dominated Ketchel and threw him around like a ragdoll, which is too be expected and johnson is a top 10 heavyweight of all time...but I think Ketchel showed in the 12th round just how deadly his power really is. Ketchell had success in his short stint against 200lbers. According to the Boston Globe, Ketchel displayed trmendous speed and hitting power in flattening 6'0 200lb very durable Dan porky Flynn.

Yes. Johnson is an ATG top 10 heavyweight of all time at his prime, ketchel was a 170lb man. this is too be expected. johnson would have tossed any other 170lber who ever lived. but how many 170lbers through history would be able to floor a 205lb jack johnson? Not many. Would you agree johnson tries to his best to hurt ketchel and floors ketchel in round 7?? would you also agree that the peak 205lb johnson was stunned and floored from one ketchel right hand thus displaying ketchel was one of the hardest hitters ever p4p?

 

Mcvey,

Do you agree my common opponents comparison shows Stanley Ketchel is superior to Tommy Burns?

 

You are definitely right about their opposition and I agree with your take on the Ketchel-Johnson bout.

 

Sorry Suzie, I fancy Burns to win this.Ketchel was a dynamite Middleweight puncher,but how many Heavy's did he
beat ? Only Flynn I beleive.Johnson ,against Ketchel actually looks like he is carrying the smaller man to me.
I agree that Ketchel has better results against O Brien than Burns, but Ketchel was badly outboxed in both fights against O Brien before landing the equalizer.
A far as Langford's fight against Ketchel is concerned ,I have read some accounts that Langford fought a little under wraps, in a bid to lure Ketchel into a title fight, how much is true ,I dont know, but I'm not sold on that fight being entirely kosher,personally I would pick Langford to beat Ketchel and by stoppage.But your opinion is as valid as us Burns boosters.

 

honestly did you even bother to read my common opponents comparison post? I doubt you did. ketchel knocked out men that burns lost too like Jack Twin Sullivan and Philadelphia Jack O Brien.

He DESTROYED 6'0 200lb VERY DURABLE heavyweight Dan Porky Flynn. The Boston Globe described ketchel as displaying "Tremendous speed and hitting power".

How many heavyweights did burns beat that were as big and durable as dan porky flynn? I would say ZERO.

Tommy Burns doesnt have a chance in hell in this fight. Burns loved to go toe to toe and this is a suicide stategy against Ketchel. ketchel is way too fast and powerful for tommy.

This is incorrect.

In the first fight, ketchel OUTPOINTED him. O brien was knocked out cold, but he was saved by the bell. ketchel completley took over in the later rounds thus earning him the decision. It wasnt like O brien won the first 9 rounds then suddenly ketchel caught him with a hale mary.

In the 2nd fight Ketchel knocked O'Brien out in 3 rounds. I highly doubt O brien was thoroughly outboxing him for a mere "Two" rounds, as if it mattered.

ketchel floored jack johnson. something tommy burns DID NOT COME CLOSE TO DOING

How can you pick langford by stoppage when the two already fought and it was a near even 6 round fight??? Like you said, you dont have proof langford was under the wraps. Newspapers say langford and ketchel both landed some huge blows on eachother. Seems to me it was more like a classic battle between 2 ATGs in there primes, rather than a fixed fight.

 

Yes I read your list.Flynn was a moderate fighter who was durable but not indestructible ,he had been kod before he met Ketchel,Ketchel beating him was a fine peformance ,but it was the ONLY ONE.Burns kod lots of heavies, several of them bigger than the 5 10 1/2 200lbs Flynn.
I didnt say the Langford Ketchel fight was not on the level ,I said that I have read reports that Langford allowed Ketchel to look good ,I also said that I had no proof of it.Just as you have no proof that Godfrey was on the cuffs against Renault etc.
Some papers thought that O Brien did enough intheir first fight Ketchel kod him as the fight ended dropping his head in the resin box it was similar to the Ingo ko by London ,except that Ketchel got the verdict.You have every right to beleive that Ketchel would stop Burns ,but because I dont agree with you does not make me wrong.And common opponents results does mean you have a foregone verdict when the protagonists are matched. Boxing proves that year after year.

 

I think it's a stretch to say that Flynn was "very durable", though it is very impressive that Ketchel KO'd him quicker than anyone but Dempsey and Fulton.

 

Ever think that was because ketchell died, thus eliminating his chances to fight other heavyweights? Ketchel did take on the two BEST heavyweights of the era, both at there peaks. He floored Jack Johnson, and gave the great Sam Langford a near dead even 6 round fight. I would say this is highly impressive.

Name me the heavyweights who were bigger? Also name me one 200lb + heavyweight that burns beat that was better than Flynn?

I dont know about that, but I do know johnson laughed at and carried tommy burns for 14 rounds before finally deciding to dispose of him. johnson could be seen tearing into ketchel throughout the fight trying to put him away and though he manhandled ketchel...ketchel at least floored johnson. burns didnt land one punch on johnson.

I have evidence from the most famous philadephia boxing historian out there, who claims Godfrey was on the cuffs. I would say Chuck Hasson is a very respectable and useable source.

Actually this is not similiar at all. For one, when London floored johansson, ingemar got up at 5 on his feet when the bell rang. Ketchel on the otherhand floored O brien 3 times, and the last knockdown left O brien face first OUT COLD UNCONSIOUS AS THE BELL RANG. this was devastating....like Marciano-Walcott I knockout. Dont forget the rematch, where Ketchel knocked O brien out in 3 rounds. speaking of Obrien, Burns was unable to take him off his feet, lost to him once, and went 50 rounds with him the other two times recording just 1 victory.


What about Hugo Kelly and Jack Twin Sullivan, two men Burns was unable to beat. Ketchel knocked out both Kelly and Sullivan.

So how exactley is he going to beat tommy burns? by going toe to toe with him and outslugging him? this is suicide against ketchel. It will turn into Foreman-Frazier with Ketchel being foreman.

 

Suzie, are you aware that until the day he died Langford was quite straight forward that he more or less took it easy on Ketchel?