Tommy Burns v Gunner Moir

On the old films Tommy Burns looks good, great even, against fighters not named Jack Johnson.
He boxes well and hits hard.
He was far from a genuine heavyweight and should be judged against others his own size. He stacks up well to just about any of them.

 

Burns was an excellent fighter just not a great heavy he gave Moir a pasting there and the Gunner was a mess at the end.Today both the corner and the referee would be more humane in stopping it earlier.
It's interesting that Moir at 182 was 11pounds the bigger man whilst Burns at 171 was only 3 pounds more than when he defended against Johnson.
Burns looks bigger around the waist and haunches here than he did against Johnson, for which fight he said he over trained.

 

He was contracted to fight Langford but fell ill.I would pick him to beat Ketchel.Burns was a top class lacrosse player and his good movement reflects it. Though he feasted on the Euro heavies, he was just too small for the really top heavyweights .

 

He was too small for Jack Johnson (or maybe just nowhere near good enough). There is no shame in that. IN the fights that actually took place, so too was Langford, Jeffries and anyone else alive at the time. Arguably, anyone else ever.

Outside of Fitzsimmons, Burns is the only Light heavyweight ever to win the world heavyweight crown. When he won the crown, he defended it literally against everybody, and ducked absolutely nobody whatsoever. He defended a number of times which places him as active as a champion, as anyone. He had some quick dominant performances which were as dominant as anyone. So much so, that his opponents on those occassions are nowadays considered complete no hopers even though their records are probably not as bad as many heavyweight challengers over the years. He fought well after his prime and carried an excellent winning record, never dropping from a high echelon despite age.

Yet, despite all of this, many consider him the Worst heavyweight champion and he is not considered a first class pound for pound fighter by most. I really think that he might be the most underated fighter ever by most people (probably including me).

 

incidentally, does anyone have any links to old radio reports of fights from this era. It would be really good to link up some of the old radio reports with the old film. I liked the way this film sort of did this, even though the commentary was probably made some time after. I think that adding the actual old commentary would greatly enhance some of the silent films.

 

Heavyweight champions have got bigger over the years, but you still get light heavyweights grabbing bits of the title occasionally.

There is a reason why there has never been a 5’7’’ heavyweight champion since Burns!

 

This fight was a few years before radio took off.
I mean, nobody had a home radio set in those days. The technology didn't exist. A few pioneers were still working on the primitive beginnings. It's a bit like talking about the internet in 1985.

 

Do you mean when they weighed under 175lbs? Burns actually won both the lhvy and heavy titles when he beat O Brien since both were under 175lbs but didn't bother claiming the lhvy crown.

 

It seems like the lightheavyweight title got some intial interest when Gardner and Root fought for it, and then when Fitzsimmons won it because he was, well, Fitzsimmons ...... After Fitz dropped it to O'Brien it seems like no one gave the proverbial warm bucket of spit for it until Jack 'Giant Killer' Dillon came along. Never heard of Ketchel or Langford campaigning for the light heavy title, or Burns saying, post Johnson, that he should still be seen as lhwy champ -- correct me if I speak in ignorance.

 

oops. That explains it then.