Tommy Burns

[HomicideHenry]

Tommy Burns was as solid a HW champion as any other champion was. And here are my reasons why:

-Don't hold it against Burns that he was only 5'7". This man had a rather long reach for a man of his size (75"). I myself at 5'10" have a 72" reach. This man went from MW to HW in just a matter of years, and handled their asses to them in short order.

-How good were his opponents? To compare our era with his is totally unfair. If you look back at his record, as a HW, you see he defended the title against the English champion, the Irish champion, the Australian champion and so on. If a champion today did that he would be considered a joke, as 'world' champions fight the best under worldwide rankings, not against local or state or country champions---that would be like Klitschko defending against Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.

But in those days, Ireland, England and Australia were main players on the boxing stage. Other than America, who was still relatively feeling its oats as a power in boxing, England/Ireland and Australia was the place that housed the best fighters on the planet. And Burns beat them all.

-Don't hold it against Buns for taking so long to fight Jack Johnson, what many fail to realise is that Burns was actually in negotiations to fight with another all-time great HW in Joe Jeanette, a black man who the majority of the white world ducked in the ring. Whether he would have won or not is another question, but Burns wasn't ducking black men. He took on all comers.

-Claim to the title? Let's face it. He never won it from James Jeffries, but he did beat title claimer Marvin Hart, as well as other champions around the world to lay his claim as the rightful holder of 'best HW in the world'. There was talk for a time that a Jeffries-Burns match was going to happen to show who was the 'true' champion, though it never came off.

Burns also could have claimed Philadelphia Jack O'Brien's LHW title as well, as he beat him in a decision, and few were better than O'Brien at that time.

-How would he have faired today? I don't see Burns making HW today or even Cruiserweight but MW to LHW. don't think under the 12 round format that he would beat too many of the better elite fighters today at those weights, but I do see him easily making the top 10. A very hard puncher with good skills, combined with an iron will and confidence, he would be a tough test for any man today at 160 to 175.

11 title defenses against the world's best, as well as beating the best MW's and LHW's of his time...to put it into perspective, he's like a modern day Roy Jones, in the aspect that he was so good he won titles from 160 to HW---albiet he fought better fighters over all than what Jones did.

[HomicideHenry]

You cannot compare today's champions from other countries with the champions of then. I have said this countless times, Europe/Britain/Ireland/Australia were primarily the Mecca(s) of boxing in those days, while America was still feeling its oats as a boxing power.

To put it into a more accurate perspective, it would be compared to one of the alphabet champions taking on another alphabet title holder. It was more like a unification.

Burns wasn't ducking nobody, he was going after the best fighters in the world of that era.

Edit Note- It wasn't Joe Jeanette that Burns was going to fight it was Sam McVey, another highly regarded black fighter of that time.

-Is the only man to defend the Heavyweight title two times in a single day. Though these bouts are regarded as exhibitions by some sources, they were in fact billed as being for the Heavyweight championship of the world. Both were 1st round kayos.

-Burns bouts with Hugo Kelly were in actuality ‘wins’ for the ‘Little Giant’ as Burns agreed prior that had the bout(s) went the distance it would be declared a draw, and in both cases they were, though most observers say that Burns won easily.

-In 1906 he was to fight Paddy Ryan for the Middleweight title, and the set weight was to be 158 pounds. The bout fell through. Take into consideration that just the year prior Burns was having trouble making 158, though he was fighting Heavyweights and knocking them out.

-Among his ‘minor’ title(s) that he won were the Michigan State Middleweight and Pacific Coast Middleweight championships, easily making Burns one of the top contenders of that weight class. Arguably his best showing against a rival Middleweight was his two fights against Mike “Twin” Sullivan, going 0-1-1 against him, the last for the ‘title’ that Sullivan claimed.

-Not even a month after Ryan challenged Burns the diminutive Burns battled against title claimant Marvin Hart for the ‘Heavyweight Championship of the World’. The bout went the full 20 rounds with Burns as the winner. Not too long after his victory the former champion James Jeffries proclaimed that he was the ‘true’ champion as he never lost and he vacated the title.

-Burns would go on to defend his title 11 times. 2 against Philadelphia Jack O’Brien, 3 against Billy Squires, the rest were kayo victories over Jem Roche, Jewey Smith, Jack Palmer, Bill Lang, James ‘Gunner’ Moir, Fireman Jim Flynn, James J. Walker, Jim O’Brien; as well as seeking matches against James J. Jeffries and Sam McVey, which fell through in negotiations.

-Not to take anything away from Jack Johnson, whom Burns lost to, but during Burns time in the ‘land down under’ he contracted jaundice and this could have severely hurt Burns while in training and during the fight it’s self.

-After he lost his Heavyweight title Burns would fight on until 1921 sporadically. He would win the British Empire Heavyweight title with a decision over Bill Lang and would vacate the title later that same year.

[Collins2000]

Bill Squires, the Australian champ of those days is on a par with Colin Wilson, the Australian champ of today, isn't he?

Or, as Jimbo often alludes to, maybe several stunning victories over world contenders have been somehow omitted from his record...

So, if Burns was fighting the best in the World, why 3 bouts with Squires?

[HomicideHenry]

You have to figure, it wasn't until John L. Sullivan fought the likes of Charlie Mitchell (English champion) America was considered THE joke of the boxing world. Sullivan, a man whose parents were natives of Ireland, beat in many peoples eyes THE best fighter in the world, who was in Mitchell who was from England.

Mitchell fought Suillivan three times and Mitchell also beat the legendary 'Gypsy', who was considered THE greatest fighter on the planet. After Sullivan lost to Jim Corbett, America was now starting to gain a hold in boxing---From Sullivan to Burns (who won the title in 1906) which was a period of 14 years, America was still in competition with Europe/Britain/Ireland/Australia who were and had been the perennial best of the world for hundreds of years.

You can't look at things back then as they are now. Yes Johnson, McVey, Jeanette were the best HW's overall in the world, but Burns did try like hell to fight McVey, only to end up fighting Johnson and losing his crown.

As far as the question of WHY foreign fighters would fight in the USA more than their own, you have to figure on Island countries like Australia, Ireland and Britain there is going to be a shortage of fighters to face off against, and a trip to another country would help not only get your name out there across the pond but to get used to different styles (its safe to say the American style of boxing is far more aggressive than any other country) and of course rack up more victories and money.

[The Great John L]

By 1906, the best fighters were American, PERIOD.

Yes, that’s a generally accepted opinion.

Further, Mitchell only fought Sullivan once, when he was stopped very easily by the American champion.

Actually, they fought twice, once with gloves and later under the LPR rules. The first fight, fought with gloves, was stopped by the police and while Sullivan was generally having his way, he did not technically KO Mitchell although it appears that way in most sources. It’s possible that I’m confusing that fight with another Sullivan fight, but that’s what I recall. The LPR bout went to a 39 round draw.

Also, don't you know that "Gypsy" Jem Mace was 57 when Mitchell fought him? Hardly the best fighter in the world! And was that even a professional bout? I always thought it was an exhibition, where the two men fought four two-minute rounds.

Yes, I’m pretty sure that was an exhibition, although I’m unsure of the duration.

Charley Mitchell was not very well received by boxing pundits and the press of the day, and not considered anywhere near as good as the top American fighters, who repeatedly kayoed him easily.

Perhaps you could list the “top American” fighters who easily KOd Mitchell? I know Corbett stopped him pretty easily, but Mitcell was near the end of his career by that time. Were there others?

Fact: 25 years before Burns was champion, America was the MECCA of boxing, not a bunch of dumb little islands.

I don’t think I’d exactly call this a fact, at least not the 25 years before Burns part. Especially since prize fighting was still a pretty fringe activity in the US prior to the infusion of Sullivan’s strong personality and public antics. In fact, I think Australia was home to quite a few of the better HWs of the 1880’s and early 1890’s as I believe that it was a popular sport in that emerging country.

The acceptance of the US as the MECCA of boxing pretty much coincided with our economic growth during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the US also attained world recognition for its industrial might. However, it took quite some time for many on that “little island” off the coast of Europe to accept that the US had become the center of prize fighting. However, I would definitely agree that the best fighters were US throughout Burns career.

[The Great John L]

[*]Hung over from "French champagne and American whiskey," he had trouble as the fight went on.

[The Great John L]

That line was in the original article from 3/10/1888. The author also said that Sullivan's poor performance was a sign of his deteriorization. I don't know. Drunk and fighting in the rain for three hours, how's he supposed to look good?

Someone once called me the John L. Sullivan of trolling because I suck when I'm sober.

Great stuff, Dec! I don't recall reading that particular line, although it's most likely very accurate. Which paper published that article?

BTW, drunk or sober, I look forward to your many posts -- especially the off-beat ones!!