Stanley Ketchel was better than Tommy Burns

He turned up wearing a padded overcoat and high boots with extra heels on them ,Jack O Brien ridiculed him in the papers.

 

Johnson picked Ketchel up twice and set him back on his feet. Do you think he was trying to put Stanley out from the get go?

 

Burns could argue that at least he beat the man who beat Johnson.

 

You believe that if you want to.:good

 

It doesnt mean it for sure, but it is probably the best possible indicator there is. Obviously there is no hard and fast rule, because even if Fighter A beats fighter B, it doesnt mean that fighter A beats fighter B the second time!

Saying that, i reckon that using this technique to predict fights would have to give you a close to 75% or better record wouldnt it? For every exception to the rule you would have to findat least 3 or 4 that follow the rule. Maybe more. And this is without taking into account changing factors such as Age etc. Relevantly, in this case, one major factor is the weight restrictions on Burns at middleweight, and perhaps even just the general advancement in his form and career.

There is no doubt that it is a shame that this fight never happened. Ketchell was the better middleweight (on results), but Burns was a better heavyweight, and i dare say that Ketchell's style was not really suited to rising in weight, the same way that Burns was. I think that there is every chance that this one is ultimately a split series. Although my hunch is that Burns would win, it wouldnt be with any confidence, and it could literally finish with any result for either fighter, whether that be points, KO or draw.

 

Who is to say who was better? Historically Ketchel is rated as an ATG. Burns is NOT. So looking at it in this respect its no contest.

Head to head at their best who is to say? I don't see that a size difference is anything that favors Burns. Both had good right hand power but it's the intangibles that give Ketchel an edge...... ATG will to win, killer instinct, tenacity. My thought is in a short fight Burns has the edge to use the big rings of the era and outbox Ketchel. In a long fight Ketchel has the edge as he has more time to land a Crippling blow.

 

As I posted before. What does the thread ask ? "Was Stanley Ketchel better than Tommy Burns "?. Well my answer would be that history judges Stanley Ketchel to be the greatest MW up to Harry Greb. Tommy Burns as a lightheavyweight [up to 175 pounds], was never acknowledged as an alltime
great 175 pounder or as an alltime great heavyweight fighter...So logic would dictate that Ketchel was at his division, a greater fighter than Noah Brusso
was at HIS weight division. Now would have Stanley Ketchel at his normal fighting weight of 157-8 pounds, have beaten the Tommy Burns at his prime weight of about 175 pounds, I would assuredly choose Tommy Burns to have won at their respective weights...
Speaking of Stanley Ketchel , when I was a youngster, my elderly uncle traveled up to the training camp of Ketchel in Van Cortland Park, in the upper Bronx, NY, to see Ketchel train in 1910 shortly before Ketchel was shot and killed. My uncle was about 16 at the time. My dad an ardent fight fan who saw Harry Greb "moider" Gene Tunney at MSG in 1922, asked my uncle" what do you remember about that long ago day " ? My uncle replied "Stanley
Ketchel was so HANDSOME ", for what it's worth...

 

This is a truly interesting thread, and a lot of excellent points have been made on both sides, but I have to admit I lean towards Burns for several reasons.

Personally, I see Ketchel as having the harder punch, being more ferocious, and more of a fast finisher, but I also see Burns as being overall the more technically sound boxer, with a better chin, better outside footwork, and ring generalship. It seems to me he has sounder footwork, tighter punch form, and better defensive position. He was more versatile - Burns could box and move, but also clinch and infight. Ketchel was pretty much an attacker and infighter. He was more of a swinger.

Burns was at his best when he weighed above 170 pounds. He killed himself to make middleweight, and was much stronger as a heavyweight. So using his performances at middle to compare him with Ketchel's middleweight performances can be deceptive. There is no doubt that Ketchel was a better middleweight than Burns. Burns never was a middleweight champion; Ketchel was; but Ketchel never was a heavyweight champion; Burns was. Some might say that has something to do with timing, but fact is Burns beat a lot of heavyweights, wasn't just a one-trick pony, and I'm not so sure Ketchel beats the 200-pound Hart. Stan couldn't outbox him, which means it would be a war, which would have been to the liking of the much bigger guy.

There actually was talk of Burns fighting Ketchel if he had beaten Johnson.

Burns usually weighed in the high 170s as a heavyweight, sometimes 180s, and I think he was better bigger. He trained extremely hard for Johnson, which is why he was lighter for that fight. But he also was about that light for Squires, who a lot of folks were predicting was the next Fitzsimmons and was going to KO Burns. Squires was much bigger than Ketchel, a known puncher who attacked, and Burns outboxed and outpunched him soundly. Burns also beat Jim Flynn on both the inside and outside, and Jim Flynn was known for his condition, aggressive ferocity, toughness, and strength. Same with Hart, who had a lot of KOs, usually set a fast pace, was very aggressive, and had an abundance of physical strength. Moir was a much bigger man than Ketchel as well. Yet Burns handled all of their power, decisioning Hart and stopping the others.

The only guys to go the distance with Burns as a heavyweight in his prime years were Hart - who weighed about 200 pounds and was known for his durability, ferocity, and power, and O'Brien, who had the fastest feet in the business and ran like no man has ever run before or since. Ketchel would not run from Burns. But Burns showed that he could take power punches, fight and smother on the inside, or dance around on the outside, with both quick men and strong men.

I agree with those who say how you perform against common opponents does not necessarily translate into how you will do in a head-to-head matchup. Perfect example are those who noted that Foreman KO'd Frazier and Norton in 2 rounds, Ali lost to Frazier and Norton, but then Ali was a stylistic nightmare for Foreman. Point being that styles make fights. Consider also that punchers tend to win in more spectacular fashion than boxers or boxer-punchers, but that does not necessarily mean that the puncher will beat the latter. If that were the case, then Floyd Mayweather would have had losses to the exciting killer punchers he outboxed.

Also relevant is when the comparator fights took place, at what stage of their careers, under what conditions, and how the individuals trained and performed on that given night. Age and wear and tear can have an effect as well. You must understand context.

A middleweight Burns got a 1905 draw with a far more experienced Jack Sullivan in a bout some thought he won, and a weight-drained Burns lost a 20-round decision in a very entertaining war with Sullivan that same year. It was the last time that Burns would fight as a middleweight.

Three years later, in 1908, Ketchel KO'd Jack Sullivan in the 20th round. But keep in mind that between Sullivan's victory over Burns and the loss to Ketchel, Sullivan had been KO'd in 1 by Kaufman, had 15-round and 20-round draws and a 20-round decision loss to Jim Flynn (whom Burns KO'd as a heavy), a KO19 over Squires (whom Burns stopped in 1), a L25 to Kaufman, and a D10 with Flynn.

Burns fought Hugo Kelly in 1905 as well. Burns killed himself to make weight, but still fought to a very entertaining draw. The Detroit Times said, “Noah Brusso, well trained and in condition to make the weight without resorting to starvation, can lick Hugo Kelly in a ten-round battle.”

Burns and Kelly fought again in 1905, and because Burns could not make weight, only able to get down to 161, Kelly used that as leverage to get Burns to agree that the fight would be declared a draw if both were on their feet at the end of the bout. In ruling the bout a 20-round draw, Referee Eyton said that by making this pre-fight agreement, “Burns robbed himself of the decision, but there was nothing I could do.” Otherwise, but for that agreement, he would have awarded the decision to Burns. So technically it was a draw but everyone knew that Burns beat Kelly.

Kelly had 16 fights after that, 8 of which were draws, one decision loss to Papke, until Ketchel KO'd him in 3 rounds in 1908, three years after Burns had fought Kelly at middleweight.

Ketchel KO'd Caponi in 4 rounds in 1909. Burns had fought Caponi way back in 1904. The first time was a 6-round draw that Burns felt was a robbery/hometown decision, so they rematched, and this time Burns won a 6-round decision. In the intervening years before he fought Ketchel, Caponi had been knocked out by Billy Rhodes in 17, George Koerner in 5, Hugo Kelly in 6, and Billy Papke in 2.

As many have noted, O'Brien outboxed Burns in a 6-rounder back in 1904, but then O'Brien pretty much did that to everyone back then, especially in 6-round bouts. And Burns was not yet a heavyweight. When they fought as heavies in 1906, nearly everyone thought Burns won the 20-round bout except for Jeffries, who ruled it a draw. O'Brien mostly ran and grabbed. Tremendous condition.

In the 1907 rematch, O'Brien refused to accept the fight unless Burns agreed to throw it, which he did agree to do, but then once they entered the ring and he let O'Brien know he was double-crossing him, O'Brien fought purely to survive, running and grabbing, and hardly throwing. This time the 20-round decision went to Burns.

O'Brien fought Ketchel two years later in 1909, and everyone agreed that for the first 6-7 rounds, O'Brien was far ahead on points, but then Ketchel's ferocity, power, and pace wore him down and he nailed and decked O'Brien just before the bell ending the 10th and final round, earning Ketchel the unofficial no decision victory. O'Brien was out cold. O'Brien then fought the 6-round no-decision with Johnson, and then got destroyed by Ketchel in 3 rounds, setting up the Johnson-Ketchel fight.

Johnson utterly dominated both Ketchel and Burns; yet Burns put up a better fight than Ketchel did. Regardless of whether you think Ketchel's knockdown of Johnson was legit, Johnson had utterly toyed with and dominated him up to that time, decked him twice, and held him up on other occasions. Johnson had him out less than 10 seconds after being down from the knockdown Ketchel scored. Of course, Johnson decked Burns several times too. But Johnson knocked Ketchel out for the count in the 12th round. Burns was still on his feet and willing to continue in the 14th round, despite being down several times up to that point.

Ketchel was knocked out in his prime years - to Papke in 12 in 1908 and Johnson in 12 in 1909. Burns was never ko'd even once in his active fighting years, not even against Jack Johnson; although he took a beating and was decked several times. Johnson had Ketchel out cold. Burns didn't get stopped until his final bout when he was old, out of shape, inactive, and past it. So chin department definitely goes to Burns.

So in the final ****ysis, I see Burns outboxing Ketchel, being able to smother or move and defend, and his chin will hold up against the big ones he absorbs here and there. And if Tommy doesn't stop him late, I think he at least wins a decision.

 

Tommys best weight was175. Ketchel around 160. I don't think this weight difference will matter. Ketchel could hit like a hammer.

I to believe his KD of Johnson was faked but no doubt he staggered Johnson earlier in the bout from an overhand right. The guy could hit but it's not just this that sets him apart. He had ATG attributes that Burns lacked. Again....short bout Burns outboxed him. Long bout and ketchel finds the mark for the KO.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=488232648007715&set=a.306204732877175.1073741836.100004629519440&type=3&theater

 

Excellent post! ps I bought your Jeffries book last week, looking good:good

 

So I guess the super middle weight term I used was false all these years. Ketchel was not 170 pounds. More like 160. I stand corrected.

I do know Ketchel wore boots to look taller for the photos vs. Johnson.

 

Yeah Stan came in almost as light as Choynski and Fitz did for Jeffries.:yep