Tommy Burns v Canelo at 168 who would have won?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Nov 18, 2019.


  1. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,562
    May 4, 2017
    Burns weighed 168 when he fought Johnson so could have fought at super middle today, could a prime Burns have beat Canelo at this weight in this era? (12 rounds under today`s rules.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  2. Pakkuman

    Pakkuman I'm not hot. I'm just BIG. banned Full Member

    7,672
    9,381
    Jun 26, 2019
    You make garbage threads like it's your job and you are Employee of the Month every month.
     
    roughdiamond likes this.
  3. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails... Full Member

    10,181
    19,424
    Jul 25, 2015
    My Lord Mark.

    You haven't specified a rule-set, or anything really. 12 rounds, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, 40 rounds? Modern ref, Old school ref? Glove size?

    Consider any of this for fighters of such varying eras?

    Put some effort in.
     
    Pakkuman likes this.
  4. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,562
    May 4, 2017
    Why is it garbage? Burns weighed 168 v Johnson I don`t get your problem here.
     
  5. mark ant

    mark ant Canelo was never athletic Full Member

    36,654
    16,562
    May 4, 2017
    12 rounds under today`s rules.
     
  6. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails... Full Member

    10,181
    19,424
    Jul 25, 2015
    Canelo decision then. Burns would give a spirited performance though. He was very strong for his size, very experienced and kept a cool head. Canelo would have to careful up close to him, due to his skilled inside game. This is why referees and rulesets make the difference in some of these fanatsy fights.
     
    mark ant and BCS8 like this.
  7. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails... Full Member

    10,181
    19,424
    Jul 25, 2015
    It's garbage because you machine gun post almost like a spam bot, are hard to read and understand, and offer no detailed analysis or hypothesis of your own.
     
    mark ant likes this.