Tommy Burns vs Harry Greb

This is almost a 50/50 fight imo,I would give Greb a slight edge , nothing more.

 

Burns is underrated, imo. But in this fight he's in over his head. He will get in his licks here and there, but overall he has no answer for Greb's handspeed, footspeed, evasiveness and inexhaustibility. Greb would be all over him, punching from every angle and position. I'm not really seeing what Burns possesses to threaten a prime Harry Greb with. Make a fight? Sure. Beat him? No.

Greb is in another league.

 

Most books have inaccuracies in them. I suppose your referring to the author's report that many at ringside thought Burns looked yellow and sick?


The foremost modern expert on early black fighters Kevin Smith also says there is evidence that Burns had something of a jaundice. Smith no long posts here, but mentioned that years ago on this forum. You would be able to dismiss him as easily by finding an error in the number of fights a referee had.

But we agree in this thread. Edge to Greb in this fantasy match.

 

We have agreed on much, including the Klitschkos are good and how older fans or biased fans just can't seem to admit the fact that many past greats would be too small today.

The Burns pick surprised me . Perhaps Adam has not reviewed Greb enough, and would change perspective if he had? Speculation on my part.

Anyway, Adam seemed to agree with me on the Hart fight, and the other stuff I report as fact....because it is fact. This goes for the Choynski knocking out Johnson cold and, the Klondike, and Griffin matches. I have not read his take on wether he thinks the Ketchel fight was fixed, or how he chalks up the draw to O'Brien.

 

Or it could define Tunney's will to win and courage. At issue in this fight was round one when the top of Greb's head smashed into Tunney's face which casued the blood.

Under modern rules, this is a no contest if the foul was accidental.

 

Not twelve mistakes in under a chapter. The author of that book did not even know Burns was a heavyweight champion until 1971,and he is a Canadian himself.atsch
The author of that pile of crap relied heavily on Larry Roberts for his research,another sloppy bull**** spreader.

The last time I saw a post by Kevin Smith it was one ,chastising you for putting words in his mouth.


You cannot have," something of a jaundice".


Burns himself made no mention of being ill in any way, he stated he had badly underestimated Johnson, I could find the quote, if I could be bothered.

Burns made no mention of being underweight either, nor of asking for a postponement,. Burns did not break any of Johnson's ribs either.

All unsubstantiated bull**** that you propagate from time to time yet ,when repeatedly asked to produce primary sources to back up these fairy tales. NEVER DO SO
Burns looked terrific in training he belted Al Kaufman around with ease in sparring ,I've seen it. If anyone wants to learn about Tommy Burns, I would point them toward Adam Pollack's book.

 

the first fight with greb had the same effect on tunney as hopkins got from his loss to jones. since these are two of the most educated looking fighters i say it was good 4 both and would be for many today.

 

You reported Johnson quit against Klondike ,he did not ,THAT IS A FACT. Johnson was NOT out cold against Choynski ,in fact the authorities halted proceedings BEFORE the count of ten was tolled. Johnson said he could not have gotten up in time , but he was not OUT COLD, that' s TWO errors you have put forward as fact.

 

The immediate next-day post-fight reports from all of the local papers are in my book, In the Ring With Marvin Hart.

Johnson won the fight in terms of science and number of clean blows landed. He had the better defense, landed more clean blows, and when he fought hard in spurts, often sent Hart back to the ropes. However, Hart kept coming on no matter what, throwing more punches, throwing harder, and clinching less. Johnson would spurt, then back off and defend for a while. Johnson only fought hard when Hart landed a good one or forced him to do so, but when Johnson fought hard, he was far superior. But then he would relax and take breaks again. At the end of the fight, Johnson was unmarked, but Hart's face was cut, bloody and puffed up. At the time, Johnson claimed that he was robbed.

Hart won in terms of sheer indomitable aggression, nonstop activity level, exciting style, and power. At least that is how the decision was justified.

Johnson probably should have received no worse than a draw.

The fight was held in San Francisco. The San Francisco Examiner, Call, and vast majority of the fans (most of whom were white) wholeheartedly agreed with the decision. However, the Chronicle, Evening Post, and Bulletin all questioned it (in varying degrees), feeling that Johnson either deserved the fight or no worse than a draw.

It seems pretty clear that referee Alex Greggains had said that if there was no knockout, that he was going to award the fight to the man who was the most aggressive and tried to give the fans their money's worth. Of course, that gave Hart a distinct advantage in the scoring because there wasn't a fighter alive who was more aggressive than him, and Johnson was an effective defensive boxer with not the most entertaining style, and the reputation for putting the fans to sleep. Everyone agreed that Hart was more aggressive than Johnson. So that basis was used to justify the decision.

The reporters who questioned the decision felt that race played a factor in the fan support for Hart (as well as entertaining style and fact that Hart was the betting underdog), which probably influenced Greggains. They cheered everything Hart did, but remained silent when Johnson did well. It clearly was considered a decision that was open for debate and was considered to have the stamp of controversy attached to it.
from all of the local papers are in my book, In the Ring With Marvin Hart.

Johnson won the fight in terms of science and number of clean blows landed. He had the better defense, landed more clean blows, and when he fought hard in spurts, often sent Hart back to the ropes. However, Hart kept coming on no matter what, throwing more punches, throwing harder, and clinching less. Johnson would spurt, then back off and defend for a while. Johnson only fought hard when Hart landed a good one or forced him to do so, but when Johnson fought hard, he was far superior. But then he would relax and take breaks again. At the end of the fight, Johnson was unmarked, but Hart's face was cut, bloody and puffed up. At the time, Johnson claimed that he was robbed.​

Hart won in terms of sheer indomitable aggression, nonstop activity level, exciting style, and power. At least that is how the decision was justified.​

Johnson probably should have received no worse than a draw. ​

The fight was held in San Francisco. The San Francisco Examiner, Call, and vast majority of the fans (most of whom were white) wholeheartedly agreed with the decision. However, the Chronicle, Evening Post, and Bulletin all questioned it (in varying degrees), feeling that Johnson either deserved the fight or no worse than a draw. ​

It seems pretty clear that referee Alex Greggains had said that if there was no knockout, that he was going to award the fight to the man who was the most aggressive and tried to give the fans their money's worth. Of course, that gave Hart a distinct advantage in the scoring because there wasn't a fighter alive who was more aggressive than him, and Johnson was an effective defensive boxer with not the most entertaining style, and the reputation for putting the fans to sleep. Everyone agreed that Hart was more aggressive than Johnson. So that basis was used to justify the decision. ​

The reporters who questioned the decision felt that race played a factor in the fan support for Hart (as well as entertaining style and fact that Hart was the betting underdog), which probably influenced Greggains. They cheered everything Hart did, but remained silent when Johnson did well. It clearly was considered a decision that was open for debate and was considered to have the stamp of controversy attached to it.​

Thank you very much for your detailed analysis,especially as you have kindly allowed us some free access to what has been a very well received biography.

On a related subject, I note that Amazon are offering the Burns book by McCaffery at a higher price than your own book,on Tommy , having spotted countless mistakes in the few pages shown on here ,I think anyone who purchases it in preference to your own biography of Burns ,[another well received tome ,praised for its research,] will be bitterly regretting it.​

May you live long enough to write Wladimir's biography:good ​

This content is protected

This content is protected

Top

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

​

This is Adam's take on the Johnson v Hart fight, and my response to it. it differs widely from your own. Adam is a respected poster who has several times requested primary sources from you, and been ignored on every occasion​

​

 

Please stop embarrassing yourself McVey. There are plenty of reports that say Hart won. In fact I posted Johnson own words here in the Boxing Illustrated interview where he point blank says Hart whipped him!


Most importantly Johnson himself pulled an Oscar Del La Hoya doing little for the second half of the fight, and did little which is why he lost. It was a high stakes fight, and you boy bottled it. Live with the facts, and stop acting like one or two fight reports can change history.



I have pointed this out before. When Johnson meet decent opponents with some expeirnce in their prime or near in Hart, Choynski, or Griffin, he LOST!!!!

 

There are plenty of reports that state Hart received the decision, whether he deserved it is a different matter as George Siler, who was ringside said, Johnson was robbed.

Johnson was not in his prime when he fought either Choynski or Griffin ,he was a super middleweight at best for both those fights.


Photos of Johnson squaring up to Hart show a sinewy light-heavweight
It's interesting that you mention Kevin Smith, and the fact that he does not post here any more.
Here are a couple of his excellent posts that leave no one in doubt of his opinion of you as a poster.
For the benfit of newer posters, you are referred to as both Mendoza ,and as Dr Z ,your earlier name.
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22377&page=7
Re: Jack Johnsons resume, why I consider him a top 5 all time heavyweight
I too have been following this Jack Johnson topic over the variety of threads that Dr. Z, oh I mean Mendoza, and others have started and I have found it meddening and interesting. A couple of points I would like to make.

Dr. Z keeps referring to Johnson's title defenses against Ketchel, O'brien and Bat Jim as proof of one thing or another, yet he does so with only half the facts, or the facts as he interprets them.

These are just some random thoughts I had while reading through the various posts.

1) Does anyone have a primary source that the Battling Jim fight was scheduled for 20 rounds and not ten. Z's own NYT article states clearly that it was a ten rounder.
2) The Ketchel fight was a flagrant rip off. It is continually mentioned that Johnson got dropped by the middleweight champ, but rarely is it discussed that Jack nearly killed Ketchel some ten seconds later. Gee ya think he was holding back?
3) The Obrien fight was a joke--a money maker for Johnson that he neither trained for, nor took seriously. He wanted his money and he got it, a lot of it for six rounds of walking around with O'brien. To twist it in to anything but what it was, is simply wishful thinking. Nobody would have paid to see a rematch, nor do I think any promoter would finance one.
4) Jeff Clarke was a middleweight and only fought heavyweights because those were the only men he could get to share the ring with him. he had no designs on challenging Johnson and never did. Yes he was good, he was damn good(the best middleweight on the planet in my opinion between 1910 and 1914), but to list him as someone who Johnson should have fought is ridiculous. PBF is a great deal better than most all of the heavyweights roaming around these parts but it hardly qualifies him as someone who should challenge for the heavyweight title.
5) Using statistics cannot give anyone the insight or the information needed to truly make an assesment of the quality of any opponent--nor does a newspaper report from one source give us the entire story of what was or what was not happening. I think Janitor said it best a number of posts ago--you have to consider all the factors of the time, the particulars of the fights and fighters and then evaluate everything that was happening around them. You cannot simply go to BoxRec and say, fighter A beat fighter B and Fighter C beat fighter A and so on an so forth.
6) Johnson was not a knockout artist. If anyone knows anything abotu Johnson, his style was defensive and that is how he fought. The fact that he didn't knockout so and so and somebody else did, has little to do with anything about Johnson.
7) Marvin Hart took a beating from Jack Johnson.
Neither Jeanette nor Young Peter Jackson knocked out Sam Langford. He retired in both bouts because of injury.
9) There is a certain amount of folly in the stating that Johsnon should have fought the fearsome threesome. They were constantly fighting one another and constantly beating and losing to one another. Langford was clearly the cream of the crop and Johnson ducked him--no doubt in my mind on that one.
10) I think Jeffries comp as champ is highly over-rated--a mixture of much smaller men and older champs. Because they were name fighters, and former champs, they tend to get the benefit of the doubt.
11) How come Johsnon's win over Langfordis dismissed--a fight he dominated by the way--because of the weight difference, yet Jeffries wins and draws versus Sharkey and Fitz and even Corbett are not. Did he not hold 20 plus pound weight advantages over these men. To dismiss the win versus Langford is ridiculous.
12) Jeff Clarke did not merely earn a draw with middleweight Frank Mantell. He slammed him around the ring and boxed his ears off--oh and Jeff weight less than Frank at the time.
13) McVey was not as green as he is being made out to be by some folks here. Again, dismiss Johnson's wins over him at your own peril. He was a heck of a lot better then than he is being given credit for. Sam had been around the block a few times before meeting Jack. I would not argue that he was at his peak, but he was still a fairly formidable foe. I would also argue that Jack was hardly as his peak when the two met either.

I think it can clearly be seen that Mr Smith comprehensively trumps your biased arguments.

 

Another post in which Mr Smith exposes your rabid bias.

THis is the man whom yesterday, you stated was the modern foremost authority on early black fighters.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24008&page=8

 

Adam Pollack did NOt "seem to agree with you".
His stated opinion ,which I posted earlier, said he believed Johnson deserved no worse than a draw

I would not dismiss Mr Smith's work because it is researched ,and backed up by primary sources. I have been through ALL Kevin Smith's posts today there is NO mention of Burns,"having a jaundice".

I was amused by your saying that Hart hurt Johnson in the 12th round, Kevin jumped straight on you saying he did not, and asked you for a primary source to back up your claim,you ignored him of course.

There are plenty of examples of him calling you to task, and stating you are padding fighters records for your own agenda Some of the exchanges are quite hilarious, he totally shits all over you.
I particularly like the post where you are reduced to making personal remarks to him calling him " Mr Expert", after he has just demolished you. THE GUY OWNED YOU.:yep