Who would have won if Sam Mcvey fought Tommy Burns as scheduled?

[pound per pound]

Well? I think Burns had enough skill to deal with a limited slugger in Sam Mcvey, but he fought Jack Johnson instead.

[Ezzard]

Burns was/is something of an enigma still. Probably would have made a fantastic MW. There are some writers/historians who paint a pretty poor picture of his escapades as champion.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was a middleweight for a while. Probably would have a very good light heavyweight under different circumstances.

He would have been more competitive with Langford, but probably would have lost. His best chance of winning would have been to last the distance and hope that the referee would screw McVey with the decision.

[HomicideHenry]

Burns is probably the most underrated of all the heavyweight champions in history, and was largely discredited and destroyed by critics and historians alike simply because he lost to a black man.

The story that Jack Johnson chased him around the world cornering him in Australia forcing him to fight is a myth but still keeps being repeated by people like Ken Burns--- when Johnson was in England the deal was already made, and Johnson only got the backing of the British Sporting Club because Johnson said he would defend the title if he wanted against Sam Langford.

I'm impressed by what little footage I have seen of Burns, and I have one of his books that he wrote. He relied on a lot of movement, darting in and out of range, and made an awful lot of large men look silly. I tend to think he could have beaten McVea in Chantilly had it went down.

In his own time I would say he was probably second or third best in the world in the heavyweight division. I think he was fully capable of beating the majority of heavyweights in his era, with the exception of Johnson and Langford. The others he would have split victories with.

[Ezzard]

In 'Unforgiveable Blackness' the author paints a picture of Burns as an intelligent man who lined up a series of no-hopers.

My guess is that McVey would have made short work of him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Though he did supposedly blow all his earnings from the Johnson fight at the track.

O'Brien and Flynn were legitimate defenses. Most of the other guys, not so much. To be fair to Burns, he was probably thinking of making money and not worrying about what people on a boxing website will think in 115 years.

"Unforgettable Blackness" is a great book. A lot interesting stuff not just about Johnson, but also about how boxing (and society to some extent) was back then.

[skanksta]

Yeah x2 - great read.

[HomicideHenry]

In 'Unforgiveable Blackness' the author paints a picture of Burns as an intelligent man who lined up a series of no-hopers.

My guess is that McVey would have made short work of him.

In fairness to Burns....

Nobody thought Bill Squires was a bum until Burns beat him. Roche had a far more impressive record than people realized for decades (thanks in part to this forum many years ago uncovering more than two dozen fights the man had). Smith's record seems to be incomplete and that he was a bit more formidable than people gave him credit for. Lang and Moir were pretty solid names for the time period as well even if they weren't exactly world beaters.

Burns, unlike his predecessors, was a rather hyperactive champion who took the title abroad wanting to defend the title against basically all comers. He did say at some point that he didn't want to be considered the "White Champion," or "American Champion," because so many people before him only fought fellow Americans and white people only. For this, he ought to be given credit and for a long time his 14 title defenses was a formidable record that would not be broken until Joe Louis came along.

[Wee Tommy]

In 'Unforgiveable Blackness' the author paints a picture of Burns as an intelligent man who lined up a series of no-hopers.

My guess is that McVey would have made short work of him.

In fairness to Burns....

Nobody thought Bill Squires was a bum until Burns beat him. Roche had a far more impressive record than people realized for decades (thanks in part to this forum many years ago uncovering more than two dozen fights the man had). Smith's record seems to be incomplete and that he was a bit more formidable than people gave him credit for. Lang and Moir were pretty solid names for the time period as well even if they weren't exactly world beaters.

Burns, unlike his predecessors, was a rather hyperactive champion who took the title abroad wanting to defend the title against basically all comers. He did say at some point that he didn't want to be considered the "White Champion," or "American Champion," because so many people before him only fought fellow Americans and white people only. For this, he ought to be given credit and for a long time his 14 title defenses was a formidable record that would not be broken until Joe Louis came along.

The forum uncovered fights? You sure?

[HomicideHenry]

In 'Unforgiveable Blackness' the author paints a picture of Burns as an intelligent man who lined up a series of no-hopers.

My guess is that McVey would have made short work of him.

In fairness to Burns....

Nobody thought Bill Squires was a bum until Burns beat him. Roche had a far more impressive record than people realized for decades (thanks in part to this forum many years ago uncovering more than two dozen fights the man had). Smith's record seems to be incomplete and that he was a bit more formidable than people gave him credit for. Lang and Moir were pretty solid names for the time period as well even if they weren't exactly world beaters.

Burns, unlike his predecessors, was a rather hyperactive champion who took the title abroad wanting to defend the title against basically all comers. He did say at some point that he didn't want to be considered the "White Champion," or "American Champion," because so many people before him only fought fellow Americans and white people only. For this, he ought to be given credit and for a long time his 14 title defenses was a formidable record that would not be broken until Joe Louis came along.

The forum uncovered fights? You sure?

Yeah because for ages Jem Roche's record was "0-1-0" and a forum poster from many years back who lived in Ireland in around the area where Roche lived gave a pretty detailed list of different fights that he had.

[Benny The Kid]

Sam Mcvey would of surely knocked Tommy Burns out in 20 round match. How long it took him I'm not sure.

There is no way they are even close to the same level of competition. Mcvey would of certainly gave Jeffries a very difficult fight. Jim Jeffries would of steamrolled Burns who would of been about as difficult as Gus Ruhlin for him.

Tommy Burns beat noone i would find of good merit. I mean Marvin Hart was a good solid win. No rematch was done. I'm not at all even convinced at Tommy Burns could get a win over Jack Root whom Marvin Hart beat. Burns had no one even close to Jack Root's ability. Beating up on the C squad of Jim Palmer, Billy Squires and a total tomatocan In Jim Flynn isn't anything impressive to me whatsoever. His best win is maybe Bill Lang (other than Marvin Hart). None of these bums would beat Jack Root. Instead he's challenging a guy who's known to throw fights in Jack O' Brien. An O' brien victory does next to nothing for me.

I'm not at all Convinced that Tommy Burns is any better than the B level competition of previous gladiators of Gus Ruhlin or Tom Sharkey. Tommy Burns has no white hope of any impact on his record other than Bill Lang & Arthur Pelkey which are on the very bottom of a long list of names. Burns was good at marketing and i think he hand picked opponents he could beat and avoid those he couldn't there's a ton of great Light heavyweights at his time frame & he didn't fight any of them. Jack Root, George Garner, mike schrek & Even Peter Maher & Gus Ruhlin & Sandy Ferguson.

Burns was fighting the C squad making "big waves" with Billy Squires & Gunnar Moir trying to sell the hype train. I think it's a bunch of BS he was selling. Any real fighter would have exposed him big time. Sorry but Jim Flynn or Jack O' Brien isn't it for me i'm not buying the hype train & he certainly isn't one of the most "underrated champions" that's totally ridiculous..

Marvin Hart has a much better win with Jack Root in his prime. It's better than anything Tommy Burns ever did.
Mcvey & Tommy Burns would be a complete slaughter.

Marvin Hart was a more accomplished fighter. He actually fought Sandy Ferguson. Took Johnson to a draw. Beat a dynamite Jack Root. Got a win over Gus Ruhlin actually fought Peter Maher. Tommy Burns did none of this stuff he didn't even get in the ring with them.

I think it's obvious that Marvin Hart got more out his ability than the smoking mirror's sideshow of Tommy Burns. Hart wasn't a gifted fighter he was a part time plummer. He actually cut his teeth with some real immortality like Peter Maher. Burns had nothing even remotely similar to anything even mildly representing boxing Immortality and furthermore the proof is in the fight's. Marvin Hart did much better against Johnson than Tommy Burns did. That right there should be the biggest indicator Marvin Hart was a more accomplished boxer than Tommy Burns ever was. I think the guy Hart beat for the title Jack Root would of put a licking on Tommy Burns. He somehow managed to make sure he sure wasn't getting a shot. Beating Billy Squires & Gunnar Moir isn't even in the same universe as Jack Root they are the C squad. Credit to Tommy burns for being an Intelligent man i don't mean to tear him down. But it's a huge gap in talent level. between Harts resume & Burns resume. A HUGE GAP.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree with some of this but not everything.
When Hart was beaten by Burns, it was only 7 months after Hart had beaten Root. Hart was just 29. That is a legitimate win for Burns.
O'Brien was a better fighter than Root. Have never heard of anyone rating Root higher.
Squires was not as good as people had thought. Can't blame Burns for fighting him the first time. (3x was obviously excessive.)

If you watch Burns on film, you can see that he could fight. Don't think he would have beaten McVey but it's not a complete mismatch either.

[margaret thatcher]

29? that's kinda old, we all know that heavyweights primes are when they are 18 like when sam fought jj

[Ambling Alp II]

I know you love to bring this fight up any time that Johnson or anyone he fought is mentioned. I didn't say McVey was in his prime. A couple of years ago, you were saying that Johnson seldom fought anyone over 200. I mentioned many fighters that were over 200 that Johnson fought; McVey was one of many that I Iisted. I didn't said McVey was in prime yet.

[Benny The Kid]

29? that's kinda old, we all know that heavyweights primes are when they are 18 like when sam fought jj

Your exactly right. It's basically his amateur career. He literally had zero training and was self taught & just a boy basically. There should be zero merit to prove anything as far as future superiority. To me,

If anything i always had the utmost respect for any fighter with zero training of any kind, fresh out of the gates as an amateur taking on the best in the boxing business without hesitation in Jack Johnson almost immediately. It takes a special kind of breed to do something like that. No one had a quicker trial by fire than Mcvey. He was the exact opposite of those whom came after him lining up tomato cans to develop some skill.Mcvey jumped off the deep end immediately. Trying to actually hold that against him that Jack Johnson was actually clearly superior is absurd. You should be giving him credit for being utterly fearless. Any deep dive into Mcvey and you know he improved rapidly after some training.

"You know that Mcvey was a green fighter" Said Frank recently. "nobody taught him anything and he depended on great strength and endurance to win his fights. When he came up to bakerfeild i put him to boxing and taught him something:.
"sam has improved more than you can think, and i would match him with Al Kaufman or Sam Berger. I will give either as large of a side bet as he wants"

This was literally several years after Jack Johnson bouts. He was a complete novice of the highest order when he fought him. You be totally ignorant to not heed the words right from his trainers mouth about how little he knew. That making Jack Johnson far superior is complete fools gold. His trainer literally spells it out for anyone how much better he got.

[Benny The Kid]

I agree with some of this but not everything.
When Hart was beaten by Burns, it was only 7 months after Hart had beaten Root. Hart was just 29. That is a legitimate win for Burns.
O'Brien was a better fighter than Root. Have never heard of anyone rating Root higher.
Squires was not as good as people had thought. Can't blame Burns for fighting him the first time. (3x was obviously excessive.)

If you watch Burns on film, you can see that he could fight. Don't think he would have beaten McVey but it's not a complete mismatch either.

It is a legitimate win for Burns but he avoided a rematch. Burns was in no way fighting the Top contenders. I listed half a dozen people off. He didnt fight them as champion or as non champion. He was just a guy. Any low level White hope would of beat him. Colin Bell i think would of beat him, Any low level white hope would resemble Joe Becket just tearing him apart. I realize Burns was past his prime during that fight. But he beat no one that would indicate anything different would happen. Bill Lang solid. But Bill Lang in like the with the Arthur Pelkey and the very bottom of any white hope list. A colin Bell victory i would of appreciated but yet another guy avoided. I'm telling he was avoiding people to fight a flyweight in Jack O'brien. It's why Jack Johnson taunted him so much. He knew the completion level he was going against. Jack was 100% correct it' was slightly embarrassing .A Colin Bell title shot? Nope i need to fight Squires for a 3rd time. At that point it's obvious he was clearly avoiding a tougher completion level and he deserved to be taunted.

And yes i 100% think Jack Root was a far superior boxer to Jack O' brien. It's not close. Root was drawing with boxing immortality in Tommy Ryan in his prime. He (ryan) was one of the toughest outs in boxing at the time. He had an amazing resume.

O' Brien was reported continuously in the newpapers of the day with "fixed fights" he was often booed mercifully for backpeddling around the ring endlessly. Jack Root is forgotten due to his short span of his career and reading of a newspaper account would tell you he was a marvelous boxer. That's not at all how they portrayed O' Brien. His best asset was his backpeddle and running from people he no ability to hurt anyone with a punch. It was stick & run for your life. Some of the newspaper accounts of his fights are pitiful the crowds boo him mercifully. Could he really box? (im sure he could) But every win on his record needs to be brought in question based on his know ability to "fix fights".

Marvin Hart was a better boxing than Burns to me. He basically faded away fast after he couldn't secure the rematch.
To Tommy Burns credit he did fight often which is more than people like Jim Corbett did. But he sure has the look of someone avoiding a certain skill level. Highly Questionable.

I don't Think as a legitimate Light heavyweight. He would of beat the other Light Heavyweight's greats of the time such as Jack Root or George Gardner. Assuming he's far superior to them just based on the sole fact he has the "title" is misguided. Burns actually lost to the sole top lightweight contender he faced Jack twin sullivan. I think he was just slightly above average which is where I'd place Jack Twin Sullivan. To me Jack Root and George Gardner were much better than average.

[margaret thatcher]

I know you love to bring this fight up any time that Johnson or anyone he fought is mentioned. I didn't say McVey was in his prime. A couple of years ago, you were saying that Johnson seldom fought anyone over 200. I mentioned many fighters that were over 200 that Johnson fought; McVey was one of many that I Iisted. I didn't said McVey was in prime yet.

i never even mentioned you or what you said bruh

[Ambling Alp II]

Please.

[pound per pound]

I agree with some of this but not everything.
When Hart was beaten by Burns, it was only 7 months after Hart had beaten Root. Hart was just 29. That is a legitimate win for Burns.
O'Brien was a better fighter than Root. Have never heard of anyone rating Root higher.
Squires was not as good as people had thought. Can't blame Burns for fighting him the first time. (3x was obviously excessive.)

If you watch Burns on film, you can see that he could fight. Don't think he would have beaten McVey but it's not a complete mismatch either.

It is a legitimate win for Burns but he avoided a rematch. Burns was in no way fighting the Top contenders. I listed half a dozen people off. He didnt fight them as champion or as non champion. He was just a guy. Any low level White hope would of beat him. Colin Bell i think would of beat him, Any low level white hope would resemble Joe Becket just tearing him apart. I realize Burns was past his prime during that fight. But he beat no one that would indicate anything different would happen. Bill Lang solid. But Bill Lang in like the with the Arthur Pelkey and the very bottom of any white hope list. A colin Bell victory i would of appreciated but yet another guy avoided. I'm telling he was avoiding people to fight a flyweight in Jack O'brien. It's why Jack Johnson taunted him so much. He knew the completion level he was going against. Jack was 100% correct it' was slightly embarrassing .A Colin Bell title shot? Nope i need to fight Squires for a 3rd time. At that point it's obvious he was clearly avoiding a tougher completion level and he deserved to be taunted.

And yes i 100% think Jack Root was a far superior boxer to Jack O' brien. It's not close. Root was drawing with boxing immortality in Tommy Ryan in his prime. He (ryan) was one of the toughest outs in boxing at the time. He had an amazing resume.

O' Brien was reported continuously in the newpapers of the day with "fixed fights" he was often booed mercifully for backpeddling around the ring endlessly. Jack Root is forgotten due to his short span of his career and reading of a newspaper account would tell you he was a marvelous boxer. That's not at all how they portrayed O' Brien. His best asset was his backpeddle and running from people he no ability to hurt anyone with a punch. It was stick & run for your life. Some of the newspaper accounts of his fights are pitiful the crowds boo him mercifully. Could he really box? (im sure he could) But every win on his record needs to be brought in question based on his know ability to "fix fights".

Marvin Hart was a better boxing than Burns to me. He basically faded away fast after he couldn't secure the rematch.
To Tommy Burns credit he did fight often which is more than people like Jim Corbett did. But he sure has the look of someone avoiding a certain skill level. Highly Questionable.

I don't Think as a legitimate Light heavyweight. He would of beat the other Light Heavyweight's greats of the time such as Jack Root or George Gardner. Assuming he's far superior to them just based on the sole fact he has the "title" is misguided. Burns actually lost to the sole top lightweight contender he faced Jack twin sullivan. I think he was just slightly above average which is where I'd place Jack Twin Sullivan. To me Jack Root and George Gardner were much better than average.

Good post.

[cfang]

Burns beat a few decentiish heavies of his time but also fought many b/c level guys. McVea fought for years and years at the top level and would KO Burns and he probably wouldn't loaf about like Jonnson did either.

[HomicideHenry]

Opponents in common between Burns & McVea:

Jack Johnson
-Burns stopped in the 14th
-McVea lost 5 matches two by knockout
-3 of the 5 came early in Johnson's career

Arthur Pelkey
-Burns drew Pelkey over 6
-McVea won kayo 4th
-Burns was 1913, McVea 1914
-Between bouts was the tragic McCarty bout

Bill Lang
-1910 Burns wins 20 round decision; 1908 kayo 6
-1911 McVea wins kayo 2
-Lang's prior 7 bouts 3-4-0 before McVea

Joe Grim
-1910 McVea stops him in 13
-1907 Burns exhibition and kayos Grim in 3

Jewey Smith
-1908 McVea kayo 3
-1908 Burns kayo 5
-Burns was in April, McVea in March

I'm sure the two men have other opponents in common when it came to sparring partners or other exhibitions, but it seems to me that Burns "peaked" in that 1907-1908 timeframe whereas McVea "peaked" sometime around 1910. They seem evenly matched for 1908.

[pound per pound]

Opponents in common between Burns & McVea:

Jack Johnson
-Burns stopped in the 14th
-McVea lost 5 matches two by knockout
-3 of the 5 came early in Johnson's career

Arthur Pelkey
-Burns drew Pelkey over 6
-McVea won kayo 4th
-Burns was 1913, McVea 1914
-Between bouts was the tragic McCarty bout

Bill Lang
-1910 Burns wins 20 round decision; 1908 kayo 6
-1911 McVea wins kayo 2
-Lang's prior 7 bouts 3-4-0 before McVea

Joe Grim
-1910 McVea stops him in 13
-1907 Burns exhibition and kayos Grim in 3

Jewey Smith
-1908 McVea kayo 3
-1908 Burns kayo 5
-Burns was in April, McVea in March

I'm sure the two men have other opponents in common when it came to sparring partners or other exhibitions, but it seems to me that Burns "peaked" in that 1907-1908 timeframe whereas McVea "peaked" sometime around 1910. They seem evenly matched for 1908.

Good data. On film Mcvey could not fight. But he was over 200 pounds and could punch hard, while Burns was 168 LBS for Johnson, and beat mostly nobodies. Its an intriguing match-up for sure. Burns on points seems one likely outcome, the other is either by knockout. A decision win for McVey however is very unlikely.