Tommy Burns v Jess Willard?

Despite my previous statement, I do think Burns is under-rated. He packed real power and there is film evidence that he knew how to set it up.

It is a topic of much debate in these parts that Burns was ill for the Johnson fight. The 167 pounds does seem to suggest all was not perfect.

 

* Flynn was a legitimate contender at the time.
* O'Brien wasn't a natural heavyweight, but he was the reigning Light Heavyweight Champion, had defeated some quality fighters and would go on to give Johnson a close fight later in his career.
* Squires was considered a decent enough contender the first time around.
* Moir and Lang weren't at all special, but they were the champions of their respective nations and bother were on decent win streaks when they met Burns.

Burns' comp wasn't great when he was champion, but I don't think it's as bad as it's made out to be.

As to the question, Burns cruises over 10 and 20 to an easy decision. He performed well over 20 against O'Brien and Hart (and the latter was conisderably larger as well). I could see Willard rallying from a massive deficit to stop Burns over 45, though.

 

That's pretty bad still. I don't know about Flynn being a legitimate contender at the time. O'Brien was middleweight sized, Johnson didn't show up in his "fight" against him. As I said he's still by far the best defense Burns had. Moir and Lang were the best in their respective countries, but not among the best in the world by any means.

 

No pun intended, Fogey......

It's just that I know some century old dude from the 20th century will eventually come out of the woodwork and go on and on about the time Burns beat both King Kong and Godzilla in the same week on a remote island..........

NOW! After further thought, I kinda' lean toward Burns beating Willard in a mere 10 rounder..... However, if the fight is scheduled for 15, 20 or even 45 rds, I think Willard eventually wears little Burns down.......

MR.BILL

 

No. Willard had an iron chin and look what Dempsey had to do to get him out of there. And that was an old Willard and Dempsey at his very best. And Dempsey was a harder and more effective puncher. Can´t see it.

 

As said before, the shorter the fight, the more it favors Burns in a ten rounder, and still I would not count on it being a Burns win clearly, We all used to seeing Willard time and play the wait game vs Jack Johnson, but if one sees the fight with Moran in that ten rounder, Willard show good boxing skills, and a high punch out put in a short fight (At the time ten rounds were consider short)

I expect Willard to show up like he did with Moran if he knows its ten rounds.

Be a long draw out affair if its 20 plus rounds.

 

Willard by knockout. Willard compares style wise to vitali klitschko. Never impressed with Burns. Very Weak list of opponents during his title reign, only meant to hold onto the title longer. Compare Ketchel and Burns in common opponents and see what you get. I think Willard size power and Jab will be to much for Burns.

 

Flynn was coming off a draw with Jack "Twin" Sullivan and George Gardner (he'd score victories over them shortly after the Burns fight), and was considered to be a good, rugged fighter at any rate.

O'Brien was middleweight sized, but not really any smaller than a lot of fighters-even heavyweights- who were fighting at the time. That includes Burns. He was considered quite a master boxer in that day, too. So in retrospect, the fact that Burns dominated the first title defense (only to be shafted with a draw) and romped to an easy decision in the second fight is a pretty decent accomplishment.

No one is saying that Moir and Lang were great, A. But they were like a lot of fringe contenders who go on winning streaks, win regional titles, and get the shot as a result. That's been in effect for as long as boxing has been around, and Burns shouldn't be penalized for this any more than other champions who did the same thing.

 

O Brien is an underated fighter. Badly underated. He was not just the light heavyweight contender, he was a world Heavyweight champion when he faced Burns. This was not really a title defence, it was a unification bout. Same goes with Lang, Squires and Moir(ie their local status was the equivalent of a modern alpha title). In essence, Tommy really had only just unified the title. In fact, in many ways, losing to Johnson can be seen as the final link in the unification crown.

Tommy was a great champion (not necessarilly the best fighter, though he became very good) but he did in a very short time, what the two Klitchksos & everyone else are each still trying to do (after the Lennox retirement) and Wlad has only just gone close to doing.

 

Some serious overrating going on in here. Burns's best title defenses were against O'Brien and Flynn, who were around 160 lbs at the time, which says it all really. Lang and Moir were inept based on what I've seen on film. Burns made a sparring partner out of Squires in their first fight, the rematches weren't needed. There's really no case to be made for him being a great champion.

 

Agreed. :good

 

GreatA,

If you really think about it. Burns should have had Zero title defenses. Had he given Johnson, Jeanette, McVea, Langford a shot around late 1906..he would have been uncrowned right then and there.

Burns had a lot of issues in that great middleweight division, so he moved up to heavyweight. But he could not beat the Twin Sullivans, Hugo Kellys, and Stanley Ketchels of the era.

 

905-07-28
Hugo Kelly

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

Pacific A.C., Los Angeles, California, United StatesDPTS2020


~ referee: Charles Eyton ~
Agreement required a draw if no knockout and weight of 158 lbs at 3 pm; "Burns had the best of the fight from start to finish" Oakland Trib.

 

Look, no one is saying that Burns was the greatest champion who had ever fought, or even a great champion in general; but there have been plenty of heavyweight champions in history who would have had less title defenses had they faced the very best heavyweight contender that was available to fight.

Jess Willard sat on his title for three years for the most part. Jack Johnson studiously avoided Sam Langford. Floyd Patterson made a point of fighting Pete Rademacher instead of Sonny Liston and Cleveland Williams. And the list goes on.

All I'm saying is that given the context of the times, the level of comp that Burns faced wasn't that bad. Not great...Not even all that good...But not as bad as people like to claim.