BoxRec

I don't believe Tommy Burns was an all-time great at heavy-weight or anything but I've looked at some film of him and he strikes me as a very good defensive fighter/counter puncher who at a different time could have been an all-time great at light-heavy or cruiser-weight. Very strong physically and obviously with a good chin. What think you guys?

I think he was more than likely the most under-rated heavyweight champion of all time. His fourteen title defenses wouldn't be eclipsed until Louis defeated Abe Simon. He over-came great size differentials, and defeated a wide variety of challengers of styles in a time when champions seemed content to fight only in America and against certain fighters. Burns set the precedent in a sense, of taking on all comers, when he said "I will not just be the white champion. Or the American or the Canadian champion. But champion of all," and so he set out to take on all the champion's across the world, or the best available challengers.

Of course, there was a catch, and Burns was no fool. He wanted a garuntee of a certain amount of money, or certain amount of the purse split or else he wasn't going to fight at all. What we take for granted today, we often use as an excuse to criticize Burns for avoding certain challengers---- but the fact is there wasn't a man from middleweight to light heavyweight to heavyweight that Burns didn't meet in one way or another. So that logic goes out the window. Though soundly beaten by Johnson, I don't think anyone could make a solid enough argument against Burns NOT being the second best heavyweight in the world at that time. Burns potentially could have beaten any other heavyweight in the world but Johnson.

His reputation of fighting weaklings, and he himself being a weakling as a result---- is nothing more than the faint echoes of racial animous that a black guy defeated a white man and "stole" the white man's championship, though people don't realize this. They just hear the words "five foot seven" and automatically write him off, assuming that is why he is considered weak. The fact is, Burns was far from weak and was knocking out much taller, much heavier men out in devestating fashion.

Most of the 14 title defenses were a joke. Yet another reason why the sheer number of title defenses doesn't anything.
No he didn't meet everyone form middleweight to heavyweight. For example, he never fought McVey, Jeannette or Langford.

Having said, he is an underrated pound for pound fighter. Would probably have beaten than many light heavyweight champions.

At heavyweight, he would have had a serious chance against say Braddock or Johannson.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Most of the 14 title defenses were a joke. Yet another reason why the sheer number of title defenses doesn't anything.
No he didn't meet everyone form middleweight to heavyweight. For example, he never fought McVey, Jeannette or Langford.

Having said, he is an underrated pound for pound fighter. Would probably have beaten than many light heavyweight champions.

At heavyweight, he would have had a serious chance against say Braddock or Johannson.

Yeah, but the amazing thing about this site is that the few hardcore record keepers and researchers have shown that most fighters records are incomplete. Case in point, for many years it was assumed that Jem Roche was an "Irish Champion" in just name, as the only known fight he had was against Burns. A member of this forum, thank Jesus, found well over twenty fights prior to Burns and half a dozen following Burns (SteveO) which put Roche in better perspective.

One of Burns' mysterious opponents was "South African" champion Jewey Smith, and I am hopeful that in due time his record too will be rediscovered and give more weight to his credability---- as his position is the same as Roche's, where no one seems to know whether he fought multiple times as a pro before or after Burns. All I can say is that in retrospect, that it's not fair to call the men he fought "lemons" or "mediocre" or "tomato cans" or "bums", for in their day they were respected fighters else they never would have got into consideration for a title fight. You have to understand in those days people had to raise the capital in order to get fights---- there was no TopRank, GoldenBoy, etc. to showcase big time matches. If you wanted a crack at the title, you either had to defeat everyone and be so dominate that there was no way around it, or you had to come up with upwards of $100,000 or more (knowing all the while you were going to only get 20% of that split win or lose).

Journeymen with zero chance and credability are not going to get title shots in those days. You had to have connections, you had to have big time backers who were sure of your success, and you had to be credible. Yes, I will concede Jewey Smith and Jem Roche and Bill Squires weren't in the same league as Johnson, Jeanette and Langford---- but never forget, either, that Burns did fully intend to fight Sam McVey in Chantilly, France but because of Johnson's loud mouth, it never took place. I believe Burns would have beaten McVey.

As for the statement you made concerning Burns not having fought "virtually everyone" from middleweight to heavyweight..... well considering he fought the main players at middleweight and defeated the reigning light heavyweight king (though he never accepted the title) I think its a bit ridiculous for you to say that. At middleweight he splits wins and losses with the likes of Hugo Kelly and Jack Twin Sullivan all the while facing heavyweights across the nation.

How is ridiculous for me to say that? He fought several good fighters, but not all the top ones. He never fought Langford, Jeannette, or McVey.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How is ridiculous for me to say that? He fought several good fighters, but not all the top ones. He never fought Langford, Jeannette, or McVey.

Burns didnt fight langford, jeanette or mcvey and judging by his showing against johnson, hed have lost to all three of those. He was an exciting fighter and a great character and ofc far too good for the euro and austrailasia standard heavys of his day but he'd only fight johnson when he really had to and the money was right. I think hes rated about right if im honest - a good champion but way behind great.

cfang wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:How is ridiculous for me to say that? He fought several good fighters, but not all the top ones. He never fought Langford, Jeannette, or McVey.

Burns didnt fight langford, jeanette or mcvey and judging by his showing against johnson, hed have lost to all three of those. He was an exciting fighter and a great character and ofc far too good for the euro and austrailasia standard heavys of his day but he'd only fight johnson when he really had to and the money was right. I think hes rated about right if im honest - a good champion but way behind great.

Burns was very small even for his time. Outside of Braddock, I can't think of a weaker champion post Burns.

Burns might have beaten Sam McVea in 1908. I saw clips of Sam vs. Jim Johnson and he looked terrible. Burns had some skills. The fight almost happened. Bruns was scheduled to face McVea, but a higher purse with Jack Johnson changed the plans.

I think McVey would have beaten him. Burns was completely dominated by Johnson. McVey was a really good fighter who always seems to be overshadowed by not only Johnson, but Langford and Jeannette as well.
Had McVey won the title, boxing history could have been much different. What if he defended the title against Jeannette or Langford before Johnson? He could have lost to them, and they could have lost to Johnson.
It's possible that McVey, Jeannette, Langford could have all won been the champion before Johnson ever got a shot.

Burns did have skills; agree with that. He would have given almost any light heavyweight a lot of trouble. In modern times, he could have won titles at 160,168,175, and cruiserweight.