Tommy Burns -Phila. Jack O'Brien: the "running away" fight.

[Graham Houston]

I was doing research at the university the other day and had occasion to look up the two meetings between Tommy Burns and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien.

In BoxRec, there is a notation under the result of the first bout, which took place in Nov. 1906, that O'Brien "literally ran away for the remainder of the 20 rounds" after bloodying Burns's nose in the first round.

I wonder if the "ran away" description should have been applied to the REMATCH and not the first, drawn meeting?

Here are passages from the account of the rematch, as published in the Manitoba Free Press newspaper (May 9, 1907): "...20 rounds of fighting that was for the most part a foot race ... O'Brien ran away from Burns from the first round to the finish and only occasionally was the latter able to overtake him... The crowd hooted and jeered O'Brien and shouted all sorts of raillery at him...O'Brien ran as though in terror of his antagonist."

In the account of the FIRST meeting, published in the same newspaper, there is no mention of O'Brien literally running from Burns, although, according to the report, the Canadian did, several times, urge O'Brien to stand and fight. The report indicates that O'Brien clinched on those occasions when Burns managed to hurt him.

Anyway, the two reports lead me to the conclusion that the "running away" fight was the rematch, not the original. (There is no source of reference for the "ran away" notation under the first-fight result on BoxRec.)

Over to you, John.

[Emaster]

I was doing research at the university the other day and had occasion to look up the two meetings between Tommy Burns and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien.

The two of them also fought a six rounder in October 1904 so that we're talking about their second and third fights.

In BoxRec, there is a notation under the result of the [second] bout, which took place in Nov. 1906, that O'Brien "literally ran away for the remainder of the 20 rounds" after bloodying Burns's nose in the first round.

The text might have been changed; at least now it says that "Burns bloodied O'Brien's nose early and the latter literally ran away for the remainder of the 20 rounds." So, according to the notation, it was O'Brien's nose which was bloodied. It may have caused his running, which indeed seems to have occurred throughout their third meeting; at least the corresponding wiki article quotes yet another source claiming: "[O'Brien] subsequently backpedaled away from the oncoming champion for a full twenty rounds until referee Charles Eyton granted Burns his decision."

[Emaster]

The comment on the second meeting ("Burns bloodied O'Brien's nose early and the latter literally ran away for the remainder of the 20 rounds.") has not yet been moved to the third encounter, which it is likely to refer to.

[klompton]

The "running away fight" which is the fight that was filmed (the second fight and first 20 rounder) occurred because there was a deal whereby if the fight went the distance it would be ruled a draw. The only way Burns could get the fight was to agree not to knock out Obrien. When they went to shake hands Burns approached Obrien smiling and said "deals off" This prompted O'brien to run the entire fight so as to last the distance and not lose the fight.

[Emaster]

Maybe O'Brien ran in both the second and third meetings.

[klompton]

I guess more to the point, you can actually watch the entire second fight, as opposed to the third, on film and see for yourself that Obrien did indeed literally run away for most of the fight. It was a horrid, atrocious performance.

[Emaster]

The comment on the second meeting ("Burns bloodied O'Brien's nose early and the latter literally ran away for the remainder of the 20 rounds.") has not yet been moved to the third encounter, which it is likely to refer to.

Rightly so considering klompton's explanations. The

deal whereby if the fight went the distance it would be ruled a draw

could be added to the comment on the second fight.

Maybe O'Brien ran in both the second and third meetings.

If the accounts Graham Houston and I quoted are correct, this is true, too.