Stanley Ketchel vs Tommy Burns

Burns takes this one. He was naturally bigger and stronger than ketchel as well as a better boxer. I think that he could take ketchels blows and respond in kind, outbxing him and wearing him down for the eventual ko.

 

We have film of Ketchel against Johnson and Papke ,he looks wild with his punches and lacking any defence ,he is also way off balance when he misses,Johnson said he was astonished how easy to hit Ketchel was.
Burns looks much more the polished performer,imo.Johnson was 6 ' 1/4",not 6 '2in by the way.Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of Ketchel ,he has allways made my top 6 middles ,based on his power,but we are talking about him beating a Heavy weight Champ here.
For evidence that Langford took it easy against Ketchel .please look at the news cuttings provided by a later poster.:good

 

Just like Ricky Hatton can take manny pacquaios blows rite?

Burns did not "Box". he swarmed and went toe to toe. He was strong, game, but thats about it. Ketchel had a huge edge in punching power, aggression, speed, athleticism, and all around punching skills. Things would end extremley ugly for burns who would go right into ketchel, and not many 168lbers especially a limited one like Tommy Burns could go into Stanley and survive.


Just take a look at how much drastically better Stanley Ketchel did against common opponents than Tommy Burns

 

That was the 4th meeting between the two. It was the most uninteresting and lackidasical fight of the 4 because by now they knew eachothers styles so well. Still, I thought Ketchel showed great handspeed, aggresion, and solid body attack. I also thought he was cagey the way he took angles with his punches. He is no gene tunney boxer, thats not his style. his style is jack dempsey seek and destroy. very few 160lbers in modern history can go toe to toe with this man. Even in one of his lackidasical performances, you could still see the greatness in stanley if you watch closely. As for the Johnson fight, Stanley knocked him down with ONE punch despite being outweighed by 35lb! when was the last time johnson was floored prior to that fight? Tommy Burns made johnson laugh with the punches he landed.

Stanley Ketchels best performances are not on film. This is unfortunate. Imagine if the only fight of evander holyfield on film was vs Vaughn Bean. I bet you would think a bit differenty of him huh?


Tommy Burns does not look more polished on film. He looks like Ricky Hatton. Like Carlos Baldomir. He is strong, game, and has alot of heart, but not much else. Stanley Ketchel on the otherhand is Manny Pacquaio in disguise when it comes to speed, power, and delivering differnt knockout blows at obsene angles. That right hand he hit Johnson with hurt johnson badly, you could see him go to one hand and and his legs wobble to the point where he had to sit down on his butt for 2 seconds. Sure he knocked the **** out of ketchel when he got up, but were talking a middleweight vs heavyweight here.

Incidently, Tommy Burns at 168lb weighed 2lb less than ketchel did(170lb) when he took on Johnson.

 

I agree Ketchel is a great 160 pounder,I dont think he is anywhere as skilled as Dempsey,either at attacking or slipping punches,Ketchel threw long wild punches with a tremendous amount of torque on them.he did not have Dempsey's short hooks,or footwork .You think Ketchel looks more polished on film than Burns, I think the opposite. Vive la Difference!

 

Ketchel did not weigh 170 that was his weight wearing an overcoat and cowboy boots,I doubt he scaled over 162lbs.Check out his weight in prior and subsequent fights.

 

Burns all the way............. Burny was NOT a great heavyweight or champion there...... But, he was a great fighter at 175 to 185 pounds....... Burns was built like a Rassler, as well........ Short & stocky with muscles......... Tommy Burns rips apart the smaller Stanley Ketchel... I have no doubt........... Both were great............. Burns wins..........
:bbbrasta

MR.BILL:good

 

Ketchel was 5'9 170lb. Tommy burns was 5'7 168lb. How is ketchel smaller? Burns was a MIDGET. Burns may be strong, but so was ricky hatton. Speed and power kills strength, as in what pacman did to hatton and what ketchel would do to burns.

: atschatschatsch more like stanley ketchel knocks the **** out of tommy burns in 1-2 rounds like manny pacquaio did to ricky hatton. Ketchel absolutley slaughters tommy in a toe to toe slug out. Tommy might need to be carried out on a stretcher.


Lets compare common opponents between burns and ketchel shall we?

Ketchel against common opponents:

This content is protected

Burns against common opponents:

This content is protected

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.

 

No way was Porky Flynn a big durable 200 lb HW- at the time of the Ketchell fight he was maybe 180 and had been floored multiple times. He was no bigger or better than Squires or Lang or Jim Flynn and certainly not better than Hart.

 

Burns usually scaled in the 180's and kod many heavyweights.
Ketchel weighed in the low 160's and kod one very moderate heavyweight.

 

Suzy you are putting too much emphasis on common opponents remember styles make fights

 

..and punching ability, combined with timing, size and strength make for early finishes against flat footed, poorly skilled and technically laxed M/W's.

 

Yes styles make fights. Tommy Burns is made for Stanley Ketchel the way Ricky Hatton is made for Manny Pacquaio. (Burns) Strong, but unathletic untalented non powerful slow short turtle is made in order for greasy fast two fisted assasin with tiger like aggresion(ketchel).



No way can burns go into stanley ketchel and survive. but burns only knew one way to fight. This is suicide against ketchel. Poor Tommy will have to be carried out on a stretcher.

 

In your dreams.

If the fight was scheduled for before Breakfast.. I give Ketchel a 10% chance.. 90% chance of KO by Burns.

Anytime after breakfast, poor Stanley was already in the BAG!!

 

Burns was actually a top class lacrosse player, so he had some athletic ability I think.