Whch other lineal heavyweight champions could Tommy Burns have beaten?

Marvin Hart, Jim Braddock, Rocky Marciano, and Joe Louis. Perhaps he can give Ali problems with his swarmer style.

 

Realize that Tommy was a lightheavy at best but one blessed with excellent power and exceptional reach for his height. He beat some very good to great fighters. Allegedly he was sick in his bout against Johnson, weighing a very light 168 lbs. In the a P4P context, he was quite good, as a heavyweight, very overachieving.

 

Well, he is better than Hart who was puffed up by his "victory" over Johnson which might have been an unfair decision.

Other than that, I can't think of anyone I would favor him over. Burns was negotiating to fight middleweight champion Tommy Ryan in 1906 for a title fight at 158. Ryan held out for the bout being set at 154. Burns did not think he could make that weight. As a favor to the promoter, Hart stepped in and offered to defend his heavyweight title against Burns. There is some doubt if Hart trained seriously. Burns was actually a modern middle or lightheavy at most. He would be at a severe physical disadvantage against most champions. I just don't see him beating Carnera, for example.

A good fighter, but lucky to be at the right time and place to become a heavyweight champion through a fluke.

 

Hm, Spinks for sure. Perhaps Braddock and when Sharkey has an off-night him too. He beat Hart so he must count too. I think he also has a chance aginast Moorer. While Briggs isn´t very good the size advantage would be too much for Burns imo.
It´s often overlooked how good Burns was in p4p terms.

 

The media of the time spun it well to make it seem Burns had a real chance against Johnson.

The truth is Burns was a big Middleweight who fought in an era where most of the white heavyweights would be little more than pick-em against me!

Burns made the most of his reign and made sure he got payed well to fight Jack. But he knew he stood little chance and to be fair was as brave as they come losing the bout with a Galveston Giant who pretty much toyed with him.

 

Marvin Hart, and maybe Bob Fitzimmons

 

Joking i hope?


He'd be slaugtered by Louis or Marciano.

 

Let's see...

Hart, Braddock,,Sharkey (on a good day), Spinks, Willard

Wouldn't rule out his chances against Corbett and Fitz, either.

 

No, no, no.

 

No more a "victory" than some of Johnson's bouts. Back then, what went around came around in the regards to wins and losses. Certainly Hart did enough to warrant a win or draw. The fight was close according to newspaper accounts. I don't see a lot of begrudging in regards to Johnson's "victory", and a title victory no less, against Jim Johnson, what would surely be a KO today. Ultimately, we must face the fact that there were no all-inclusive regulatory bodies at the time and much was left to the influence of money and the whims of the powerful, if not downright chance. Thus, for me, a victory is just that.

 

1. Johnson did not win against Battling Johnson. It was a draw. And why would it be a KO today? Jack Johnson lasted the distance according to every source anyone has ever shown me to read. I would be interested in a primary source which states that this fight was stopped short of its scheduled distance. I have not seen one yet.

2. Okay. Fair point on Johnson-Hart--without film, who can tell. The referee made it clear coming in he was going to make a big deal of "aggressiveness". Johnson's style was simply not aggressive. Hart plodded forward, off the newspaper accounts, fairly ineffectively, but he met some peoples criteria of aggressiveness.

My problem with the Johnson-Hart fight is that almost all accounts come from sources at best unfriendly to Johnson and at worst racist. I would hesitate to get very worked up about Hart's victory under those circumstances without viewing the film.

Here's the papers in a nutshell:

San Francisco Chronicle--"On the score of aggressiveness, Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score, Johnson should have been favored."

San Francisco Bulletin--"Looking at it from a scientific angle, Johnson should have been declared the victor. It is true Hart did all the forcing and was ever on the aggressive, but his blows rarely landed on a vulnerable spot and he never had his opponent in distress."

San Francisco Examiner--Felt Johnson was better man, but fought passively, giving away rounds to the pressing Hart.

San Francisco Call--"At the end of twenty rounds, Referee Alex Groggins gave an entirely just decision in favor of Hart."

Obviously, Hart had his supporters, but I doubt if these opinions reflect unbiased observers.

 

I read the fight was supposed to be 15 or 20 rounds but was shortened to 10 when Johnson complained of his arm. I am trying to remember where I read this. If true, it would have been a ko to the likings of Vit K vs. Byrd. I will look for the source but I am a little out of it, on two vicodin awaiting some oral surgery. Hooray!

Otherwise, we seem to have read the same press regarding the Hart fight and it does not dissuade me from the veracity of a Hart victory. Neither does the perfunctory assumption that the entire world was racist and thus every sporting loss by a black athlete was intrinsically unfair. That's painting with too broad a brush for my tastes.

 

Forgot to mention Rahman. He would beat Rahman but not McCall.

 

When I read that I thought it was about Hopkins-Taylor