Usyk In The Early 1900's?

Tommy Burns??

Look at the Burns-Johnson fight... and then imagine we replace Johnson with an Usyk that is 15 lbs heavier, 2½" taller and with a 4" longer reach.

How do you imagine Burns would beat that guy? Would he outbox him? Out-strength him? What could he possibly do?

 

Lol the point was lost somewhere within the convo

 

obviously not only would he be a HW, but also would need to adapt to different styles and some rule fundamentals that we might not be clear on today. All of that might be too big a hurdle to expect from someone who has yet to embark as a HW in the present. Give him time.

Burns is irrelevant he was a fake champ.

 

Usyk like a lot of fighters has an exaggerated height listing. I met Usyk and Anatoly a few years ago at Nazo’s shop when I was getting a pair of gloves and a heavybag for my friend’s son and he was basically my height, so Usyk is 6’1” not 6’3” while his reach is anybody’s guess. That said Usyk doesn’t have Johnson’s inside game or the strength in the clinch that Johnson had, which completely neutralized burns.

Also, Usyk’s defense isn’t that great, since like a lot of southpaws he’s a sucker for a counter right, which I could see Burns landing considering the only decent fighter he’s fought that wasn’t shot was Bellew. Briedis is durable, but has garbage timing and can’t put combinations together and Gassiev is novice with a good punch, but nothing else.

Burns unlike Bellew was always in excellent shape and wouldn’t gas out after 4-5 rounds, since Bellew admitted he didn’t do any roadwork for the fight with Usyk. Bellew over relied on setting up his left hook on Usyk, but gassed out before he ever got a chance to sneak one in.

 

This. None of the guys that Usyk fights at cruiserweight today applied the kind of pressure he would be facing against guys back in 1900-1910. Like Crawford he dominated a very weak division, but if he moves up and does the same with the heavyweight division then there would be something to talk about, but until that day comes Usyk struggle badly based off of what he’s shown.

 

A bunch of these guys also had Burns beating Tony Tubbs.

 

I’ve noticed that you tend to call out various modern boxers as being “suckers” for certain punches. By your criteria, I think Burns would be a sucker for damn near every kind of punch Usyk throws. And just look at how wide open for uppercuts Burns was on the inside against Johnson.

Btw, Usyk wouldn’t be standing around in Burns’ (limited) punching range.

 

Tubbs is completely overrated. He was a guy with a lot of potential that never lived up to it. I can't think of anybody he beat as a pro that Marvis Frazier wouldn't.

 

Overrated or not, he’d spank tiny Tommy Burns. Unless you believe in magic.

Marvis beats Burns too.

 

With all that said, I'd favor Tubbs over Marvis

 

This content is protected

 

Modern or past doesn't matter to me. If I think the present guy is better I say so. Also, some fighters are a sucker for certain punches such as Ali being a sucker for a left hook, but Ali beat excellent competition while Usyk has only for the most part fought mediocre competition. That said Usyk moves in straight lines like a lot of guys with extensive amateur careers, which is why Bellew was countering him as easily as he was. If Usyk moves up and also cleans out the heavyweight division then I'd obviously change my mind about him.

As for Burns Johnson isn't as reliant on his jab as Usyk is and has better timing than Usyk. Usyk has a bad habit of circling his opponents, which would put him right in range for Burns to counter him. Medzhid Bektemirov used to put a ton of heavyweights on their backs at the fight factory for making that mistake, which included Wilder, who he put on his back twice. It took Sergio Nunez, my roommate at the time and one of the instructors at the fight factory screaming at Wilder to get Wilder to make the necessary adjustments.

 

Can't tell whether you're being disingenuous or you just don't know much about Tubbs' life and career.

 

Modern or past doesn't matter to me either. I care about skills, styles, technique, and physical attributes (particularly in the case of heavyweights). Especially based on what I see on video, but I guess I would also be open to plausible written accounts too, in theory. You and I seem to fundamentally disagree on the value of certain technical and stylistic approaches to boxing that fighters with decent trainers now learn as basic fundamentals. I think that the kind of past fighters you tend to think highly of would be in over their heads against bigger, more recent heavyweights who consistently work off their jabs, use footwork to control the distance of the fighting, avoid unnecessary shootouts and slugfests, and keep tighter guards. Guys like that would pick Burns apart, imo. It's not as dazzling or entertaining but it's a highly effective approach to the art of hitting without being hit, especially against guys who can't physically overwhelm you with speed or power advantages.

Do you have any sources for your claims about Medzhid Bektemirov? No offense to you or your roommate but I learned a long time ago not to put too much stock in stories I hear from anonymous strangers on the internet. Nothing personal.

 

"Giant" was just a nickname for any heavyweight. Tommy Burns' nickname was "the little giant" for goodness' sake. Johnson was smaller than his average opponent. It's the same as how "young" was a nickname for lower weight classes. Believe it or not, but the average heavyweight is larger than the average human being (5'9" 170ish back then)

I couldve sworn Willard had fights in the 1900s... My bad on that one. He still wouldn't be a giant, just an above-average sized man with a good skill set