Tommy Burns v Stanley Ketchel

[Ezzard]

How about this match up?

Seems like both guys were similar sized. Burns hunted the bigger fish...

Shame this one never happened. Interested to hear from some of the experts here with a deep knowledge of the era.

[raylawpc]

I just want to know what you have against Tommy Burns. . .

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

I'm not an expert, but I admired Tommy Burns and I'm a "super-admirer" of Stanley Ketchel, and this is a very good question

As Stan knocked down Jack Johnson, I thinks he could beat Tommy by K.O.

[Ambling Alp]

It may depend a little on what wweight this is at. If it's at 160, Ketchel would probably win. If Burns can weigh his more natural weight, he would have the edge. Would probably have been a good action packed fight.

[Robinson]

Burns wins this fight. People are reading into the Ketchel-Johnson fight
to much...any time one fighter 'carries' another its hard to consider
that a legitimate fight. In MMA thats a borderline 'work'.

[Ezzard]

What about if it's around 170-160?

[raylawpc]

FYI, they had some common opponents:

Ketchel Opponent Burns
KO 3 Hugo Kelly D 10, D20
KO 3, ND 10 Phila. Jack O’Brien L 6, D 20, W 20
KO 4 Tony Caponi D 6, W 6
KO 20 Jack “Twin” Sullivan D 10, L 20
KO by 12 Jack Johnson KO by 14

Ketchel seemed to have done better against common opponents.

[Ezzard]

Thanks, Ray

Ketchel's fights with O'Brien really look good for him. From what I've read O'Brien was a master boxer. But I've also read comments from Jack Johnson claiming that O'Brien was a swindler, a man not on the level.

[Seamus]

And don't forget that Ketchel's ND10 vs O'Brien was for all intents a KO. I'd pick Ketchel over Burns at any weight, though Burns would do better at a heavier weight.

[raylawpc]

Thanks, Ray

Ketchel's fights with O'Brien really look good for him. From what I've read O'Brien was a master boxer. But I've also read comments from Jack Johnson claiming that O'Brien was a swindler, a man not on the level.

Anything Jack Johnson said should be taken with a large grain of salt. But O'Brien did try to arrange a bout against Jim Jeffries in 1907 in which Jeffries would go in the tank, but clean up by betting against himself through various straw men.

That said, years ago I read newspaper accounts of both of the Ketchel-O'Brien fights and it sounds like Ketchel really cold-cocked him both times.

[raylawpc]

And don't forget that Ketchel's ND10 vs O'Brien was for all intents a KO. I'd pick Ketchel over Burns at any weight, though Burns would do better at a heavier weight.

I agree. Didn't Burns struggle against quick swarmer types? I recall reading that somewhere. And there was no better swarmer at the turn-of-the century than Stanley Ketchel. Ketchel had quickness and power.

This fight was one that was not ever really likely to happen. Burns had abandoned the middleweight division after he lost to Jack "Twin" Sullivan in late 1905. That fight was advertised as for the middleweight title, and Burns apparently struggled to make the 158-pound middleweight limit of those by-gone days. Its doubtful he could have ever fought Ketchel comfortably at middleweight after 1905. He did not have a good year at middleweight in 1905.

Ketchel did not really come onto the scene until the following year. From 1906 to 1908, while Burns was solidifying his claim as heavyweight champion, Ketchel was doing the same thing at the middleweight division - so that fight was not likely to happen then, either.

After 1908, I doubt Ketchel-Burns would have could have drawn flies. And Burns seemed to be in some kind of semi-retirement anyway.

[Seamus]

O'Brien totally outboxed Ketchel for most of the first bout, but Ketchel got to him late.

[Ezzard]

Ketchel seems to have been a real top notch puncher. KOing a slickster so late in a fight is really something.

[raylawpc]

O'Brien totally outboxed Ketchel for most of the first bout, but Ketchel got to him late.

Here's an account of Ketchel-O'Brien from our own boxrec archives:

"Stanley Ketchel decisively beat Jack O'Brien before a packed house at the National A.C. last night, only the gong depriving him of a knockout over the Philadelphia man.

After being floored three times with savage smashes in the final round, O'Brien went down like a log from a fourth vicious blow and was motionless on his face when the bell clanged, just as Referee Tim Hurst completed the count of four.

It was strength that told the tale in the bout, for Ketchel's showing was disappointing to his friends. Although in perfect trim, he was wild and ineffective at many stages and at two or three periods of the bout O'Brien had a good edge on points. O'Brien confined himself to straight punching, stepping in and out scientifically and meeting Ketchel's wild rushes with straight jolts to the face. At some moments it looked as if he would be able to stand off the westerner, who persisted in his wild swinging, but his strength was not equal to the task. Ketchel slowly wore him down and had him helpless in the last round. In the sixth, just after O'Brien had made a brilliant showing in the fifth round by his clever sparring, Ketchel showed his superior strength by flooring his man with a blow to the solar plexus. Long before the end of the bout, however, Ketchel was bleeding from the mouth and nose and his eye was badly swollen, while O'Brien showed the effects of punishment in badly cut eyes and split lips.

The affair was notable as a species of social function, many well-known clubmen being seated around the ring. In O'Brien's corner were Anthony J. Drexel Biddle, Kid McCoy, Jack Egan and Jack Rowan. Ketchel was seconded by James Johnson, Johnny Frayne, Jimmy DeForest and Willus Britt.

O'Brien wore long green trunks and Ketchel wore red tights. Sam Langford was introduced and challenged the winner. Owen Moran and Jack (Twin) Sullivan were also introduced. It was when the men received instructions and shook hands. From the tap of the gong the spectators were treated to as fast an exhibition of sparring on the part of O'Brien and of bull-like rushes on the part of Ketchel that could be seen anywhere.

For a time the tide of the battle seemed to turn toward O'Brien, then Ketchel's (strength) told over the Philadelphia man's science and the end was in sight. The last round was dramatic in the extreme. O'Brien, carefully rubbed and evidently having partaken of some stimulant in the rest between the ninth and tenth rounds, came up briskly, but Ketchel was on him like a flash. Try as he would with desperate jabs to the face and mouth, O'Brien could not stop his rushes. Ketchel bored in, beating down the wearied arms of the Philadelphian, smashing him in the ribs with either fist and flooring him thrice in succesion. Then as O'Brien reeled unsteadily to his feet for the last time, Ketchel drew himself up and sent a hook with all his force to the jaw. O'Brien dropped face downward and the bell tolled as Hurst counted four."

Daily Review

Retrieved from "http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Fight:19257"

I'm not sure what Daily Review our editors took this from, but there was a Daily Review in Towanda.

[Ezzard]

Cheers, Ray,

Any idea what the stimulant might have been that is reported here?

[raylawpc]

No telling for sure. They had all kinds of stimulants in those days. Maybe a nip of brandy.

One of the old time champions - I think it was Tommy Ryan but I can't remember for sure - liked to take a drink of campaign every third or fourth round.

[HomicideHenry]

Now this is a fornicating fight if there ever was one; quite the toss up, and as much as I like Ketchell, Burns was just a tad bit stronger and the much better boxer and he was just as tough as Ketchell ever was....Burns wins this fight, whether it be at middleweight, light heavyweight or heavyweight, doesn't matter, Burns wins it all the way.

[raylawpc]

What did Burns ever accomplish in his career that would make you think he could "win all the way" against Stanley Ketchel at any weight?

[BoxBuzz]

What did Burns ever accomplish in his career that would make you think he could "win all the way" against Stanley Ketchel at any weight?

......asking the same question.....(often quiet but always reading).....I came up with the other conclusion based on common opponent experience which ray made readily available to us. I had this discussion with my brother about a year ago and went to the books then and sort of decided on Ketchel as the better bet myself. Glad to see that Henry would be putting up some coin for me to collect.....

[ben geoghegan]

I think Ketchel would KO Burns sometime after the 10th. Johnson toyed with Burns, he dropped him with his first punch then dished it out for 14 more rds before the merciful stoppage

[Cap]

There was talk of Burns fighting Ketchel instead of Johnson, and even after the Johnson-Burns fight, Burns considered fighting Ketchel if the money was right.

O'Brien outboxed Ketchel until the end of their fight. O'Brien literally ran from Burns in their two title matches, when he wasn't clutching for dear life.

Tommy Burns KO's the awkward Ketchel inside of 6 rounds.

[ben geoghegan]

Ketchell's record against Jack O'brien is overwhelming evidence that Ketchell would stop Burns. Don't forget that the newpaper win vs O'Brien , O'Brien was KO'ed cold at the bell. He was saved by the bell but he was unconscious.

Ketchell wins this one.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Burns' durability is being undersold, here.

[raylawpc]

What is the evidence of Burns' durability, which you say we, who would have favored Ketchel, are underselling?

[Cap]

Burns was still fighting in the 14th round against Johnson. Ketchell was flat out cold in the 12th. Burns was easily the better boxer and the harder puncher.

Ketchell was a wild-swinging middleweight who would not have been able to stand up under Tommy's bombs. Most likely he would have lasted about as long as Bill Squires at Colma.

Cap