I'm going with Walker even though I'm honestly not very educated on Burns. Just going on what I already know. Very Interesting actually. Nice call out.
Walker's boxing ability and use of angles gets undersold. And obviously he had some success with bigger men. As far as size difference, it's all in Tommy's reach and some extra pounds in his pear shaped physique. He could punch but Walker was all but impossible to stop in his prime.
at first thought you'd have to choose the HW, albeit a small one, (think Langford, Qawi), and especially when you consider Walker was bounced all over the Ring by Schmeling, and without too much effort. but then there is the question of Boxing evolution from Burn's time to Walker's time to Schmeling's time... some people don't think there was much of one. I happen to think there was, from about circa mid 1920's until present, though dropping off some since the 60s/70s. I believe the evolution went from Tough Durable Good & Great fighting men, though crude in Style, 'generally speaking', to the Same Tough Customers, but now more Athletic & Stylish, again generally speaking. So on that point, you could give a sound argument for Walker, but the STRONG Stout and Tough little HW could still figure into it, and on that note I'd say Burns. the flip side of all of this would be Walker v Qawi, or better yet Burns v Qawi, the Evolution of Athleticism & Style would almost certainly offer a clearer picture. just one man's thinking and understanding of the said periods & fighters.
