Stanley Ketchel vs Tommy Burns

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by janitor, Feb 8, 2009.


Page 5 of 5
  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    71,997
    28,008
    Feb 15, 2006
    What makeyou ay tha Burns is untalented and not powerfull.

    He is one of the better infighters I have ever seen on film and for his size his power is off the scale!
     
    janitor, May 22, 2009
    janitor, May 22, 2009
    #61
  2. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    119
    Oct 9, 2008
    I'll still go with the 178 to 183ish Tommy Burns to beat a blown-up Stan Ketchel........ Burns was short, however, he was just as wide.... No fat; all muscle........ I seriously doubt that Ketchel was stronger than Burnsy....... Plus, Ol' Burns had better technique....... Ketchel was a winger who often left himself wide open to counter shots...... Burns was better........

    MR.BILL
     
    MRBILL, May 22, 2009
    MRBILL, May 22, 2009
    #62
  3. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,737
    3,589
    Jul 10, 2005
    I do have footage of O brien, saying for most of the contest, he outpointed Ketchel, until Standly caught up to him in the final round.
     
    Dempsey1238, May 22, 2009
    Dempsey1238, May 22, 2009
    #63
Page 5 of 5