BoxRec

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Book that Burns wrote that I got last year. Was a very interesting read, written during his time in Europe as champion and addresses his critics. I believe it was just before the Johnson fight, as he talks about Gunner Moir and some others.

I often wonder, had he fought Sam McVey in Chantilly, France as originally planned would he have faced Jack Johnson at all (win or lose) or would this of forced Johnson into facing Sam Langford a second time in order to get a shot at Burns (had he defeated McVey) and how that would have turned out.

I usually consider Burns to be perhaps the most underrated champion, regardless of weight classes, of all time. Mostly due to his reputation and credibility being destroyed after losing to Johnson. He was a very good fighter on the p4p sense.

why was the fight with Sam McVey called off ?

BTW Who was the first Boxer to ever publish a book or manuel on Boxing techniques ?
Did Gentleman Jim Corbett ever write one or plan to write one ?

Caractacus wrote:why was the fight with Sam McVey called off ?

I believe that McVey got injured, however, it was also due to money. Burns (as with all his fights as champion) demanded a rather large sum, and France wasn't quite capable of making the deal. All of those things, effectively ended the McVea-Burns contest.

Caractacus wrote:BTW Who was the first Boxer to ever publish a book or manuel on Boxing techniques ?
Did Gentleman Jim Corbett ever write one or plan to write one ?

I do know John L. Sullivan's REMINESCES OF A 19TH CENTURY GLADIATOR was both autobiography and textbook on techniques he used throughout his career. If I'm not mistaken, many champions prior to Sully (including Jem Mace) wrote books on defense. I'm for certain Jack Broughton did, and if not mistaken I believe James Figg had some literature as well.

It would be interesting to know if Tommy Burns book was published in England before
both he and Jack Johnson went to Australia.
Maybe Johnson read it to gets some clues how to fight against Burns.

Caractacus wrote:BTW Who was the first Boxer to ever publish a book or manuel on Boxing techniques ?
Did Gentleman Jim Corbett ever write one or plan to write one ?

In Gene Tunney's book "Arms for living" He talks of going to Corbett's estate and sparring with him... Corbett drew out diagrams of offensive and defensive footwork on paper that Tunney found fascinating and very worthwhile studying.. Tunney was a lot like Corbett.. He never saw himself as a fighter but a boxer. Like Jack Johnson, they both believed in the art of pugilism and not the brutality of the professional prize ring.

Caractacus wrote:It would be interesting to know if Tommy Burns book was published in England before
both he and Jack Johnson went to Australia.
Maybe Johnson read it to gets some clues how to fight against Burns.

I believe it was, because, Burns says the following: "Maybe it'll be Roche, or maybe it'll be Johnson as some suggest..." in reference as to who may beat him, so it was after Moir but before Roche. It was also around this time that he'd beat Jewey Smith and McVey kayos Smith faster than Burns did which spurned negotiations for them to fight. But he was well aware of Johnson and wasn't against fighting him, contrary to popular opinion.

yeah.Tommy Burns book was first published in 1908.
Interesting enough Gunner Moir also published a book iearlier n 1907 entitled THE COMPLETE BOXER (London Health and Strength books).

on a similiar note I had a hunch and was right that Prof. Mike Donovan may have published a similiar book on the subject
and he did.
THE SCIENCE OF BOXING.
It was published in 1893 and contains a number of HOW-TO photographs were he is demonstrating techniques .
This book can be seen over at Google books for free.

Caractacus wrote:BTW Who was the first Boxer to ever publish a book or manuel on Boxing techniques ?
Did Gentleman Jim Corbett ever write one or plan to write one ?

I'm sure there's some old bareknucle manuels

Edit: http://www.chelseabookfair.com/index.pl ... age=528722;
This is from about 1784

Another early one is The Modern Art of Boxing from the 1790's seemingly by Daniel Mendoza

Alledgely from 1713.

thank goodness for the Marquies of Queensberry Rules.

I wonder if Castor and Pollux ever wrote a book about pugilism back in ancient Greece times ?
If so it it was probably destroyed in the burning of the great Library of Alexandria in Egypt ( 48 BC).

He was good but not elite.

Caractacus wrote:thank goodness for the Marquies of Queensberry Rules.

I wonder if Castor and Pollux ever wrote a book about pugilism back in ancient Greece times ?
If so it it was probably destroyed in the burning of the great Library of Alexandria in Egypt ( 48 BC).

Later bareknuckle rules were much more sane. 1713 was a good bit before the Prize Ring rules or even the Broughton rules. Medonza's writings would be interesting to read though

I looked, and I couldn't find any manuscripts on ancient boxing, but it sounds more civialized than the early 1700's boxing, they even had gloves, and none of the chokes or anything. In Greece supposedly they had no ring, rounds or weight classes though.

I might make a thread on very early boxing.

Caractacus wrote:thank goodness for the Marquies of Queensberry Rules.

I wonder if Castor and Pollux ever wrote a book about pugilism back in ancient Greece times ?
If so it it was probably destroyed in the burning of the great Library of Alexandria in Egypt ( 48 BC).

James Figg, generally is called the father of boxing, but this is no altogether correct. When he fought, he demanded that his opponents fight him in "three round bouts" where the first round was boxing and the second round was wrestling and the last round was either fencing or quarterstaffs. Each round was "to the finish", so no time limit, and whoever could beat Figg two out of three rounds was the champion.

Even with Figg's conditions there was no uniform set of rules in the sport until Broughton came along. In truth, rules changed on a match by match basis with the two combatants having their own "gentleman's agreement" on what was doable and what wasn't. Alot of times fights were "all in" (anything goes) and men acted as their own referees. If a man head butted another man, then the other man had every right to head butt back, etc.

Quite a far cry from Ancient Greece and Rome where there was a clear distinction that only punches were allowed, and that if fights went on too long metal studded gloves would be worn and the enclosure would shrink around them (was a group of men holding reeds and they would take a step forward as the rounds went on) until the two men were literally standing right in front of you.

I seem to recall a boxing match in Greece where a dead man was actually awarded victory because his opponent hit him with the points of his fingers and pulled out the man's guts, and the judge overseeing all of this said that instead of throwing one punch the man threw five (five fingertips) and that violated the rules because in this instance the two men fought under "I hit you, you hit me" rules.

HomicideHenry wrote:I seem to recall a boxing match in Greece where a dead man was actually awarded victory because his opponent hit him with the points of his fingers and pulled out the man's guts, and the judge overseeing all of this said that instead of throwing one punch the man threw five (five fingertips) and that violated the rules because in this instance the two men fought under "I hit you, you hit me" rules.

There is no way this is anything but mythical.

https://books.google.com/books?id=3Wdh6 ... ws&f=false

Truth is stranger than fiction my friend.

Caractacus wrote:BTW Who was the first Boxer to ever publish a book or manuel on Boxing techniques ?
Did Gentleman Jim Corbett ever write one or plan to write one ?

I was right,Gentleman Jim Corbett did write (with Richard K.Fox)a boxing manuel entitled
SCIENTIFIC BOXING: Together with Hints on Training and Official Rules.
but it wasn't published until 1912.
It was also re-printed in 2008 by Promethean Press.

another book of that time by "Britain's foremost pugilist" Jim Driscoll
THE TEXT BOOK OF BOXING by Jim Driscoll (featherweight champion and Lonsdale Belt holder).
It was originally published in 1914 but re=printed in 2008 by Promethean Press
(104 pages)

yeah, Promethean Press (a small publishing company establlshed in 2001)
re-printed a number of classic boxing manuels
includinging The Art of Boxingand Manuel of Training by William Edwards (with originally published in 1888)
guess I wasn't paying attention.
Reportedly they plan to re-publish how to box manuels written by Bob Fitzsimmons and John L. Sullivan in the future
(if there is a demand that is)

HomicideHenry wrote:via Imgflip Meme Generator

Book that Burns wrote that I got last year. Was a very interesting read, written during his time in Europe as champion and addresses his critics. I believe it was just before the Johnson fight, as he talks about Gunner Moir and some others.

I often wonder, had he fought Sam McVey in Chantilly, France as originally planned would he have faced Jack Johnson at all (win or lose) or would this of forced Johnson into facing Sam Langford a second time in order to get a shot at Burns (had he defeated McVey) and how that would have turned out.

I usually consider Burns to be perhaps the most underrated champion, regardless of weight classes, of all time. Mostly due to his reputation and credibility being destroyed after losing to Johnson. He was a very good fighter on the p4p sense.

My goodness...Burns was such a terrible defensive boxer that Jack Johnson made a fool out of him... Jack London wrote: "Fight? ... There was no fight."

Kalan wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:via Imgflip Meme Generator

Book that Burns wrote that I got last year. Was a very interesting read, written during his time in Europe as champion and addresses his critics. I believe it was just before the Johnson fight, as he talks about Gunner Moir and some others.

I often wonder, had he fought Sam McVey in Chantilly, France as originally planned would he have faced Jack Johnson at all (win or lose) or would this of forced Johnson into facing Sam Langford a second time in order to get a shot at Burns (had he defeated McVey) and how that would have turned out.

I usually consider Burns to be perhaps the most underrated champion, regardless of weight classes, of all time. Mostly due to his reputation and credibility being destroyed after losing to Johnson. He was a very good fighter on the p4p sense.

My goodness...Burns was such a terrible defensive boxer that Jack Johnson made a fool out of him... Jack London wrote: "Fight? ... There was no fight."

The irony? Jack London wasn't even there in Sydney. Burns just was too short. Johnson was too big and strong. I don't think losing to the #1 heavyweight of the era is a disgrace.

what if Tommy Burns had been 5 ft 10" instead of 5 ft 7" ?
How much more effective would he have been especially considering he already had a long reach for his height (73 inches).

I don't think it would have helped that much. He was effective at darting in and out and it actually helped him being shorter.