Tweet
This is an article I am just after reading on BBC about Tommy Burns. I don't know anything about him at all, and was wandering if you could shed some light on what you thought about his career, and if any of u rank him amongst the top 20 HWs of all time. I'm not sure who wrote it, i think it was just a poster on the BBC page.
Ayup lads.
A lot of talk regarding the Klitschko brothers recently, and general consensus seems to be that they are underrated Heavyweight champions. With this in mind, I remembered a point I raised a while ago, and would like to get your views on it; in particular, your views on Tommy Burns, and if you agree with me that he is one of, perhaps the most, underrated Heavyweight champions of all time. Not only that, but has his historical importance to the Heavyweight division been unfairly overlooked?
Most of you will know that Burns, at only 5’ 7”, was the shortest Heavyweight champion in history. What some may not know is that he compensated for this with a surprisingly long reach and some considerable punching power; 36 of his 46 wins (or 39 of his 48 wins, sources seem to vary) came by knock out or stoppage. He was responsible for a number of notable ‘firsts’ in the Heavyweight division. He was the first non-American of the gloved era to hold the title. He was the first to defend the title (at least in the gloved era) outside the States. And, most notably, he was the first to defend his crown against a “coloured” fighter.
But a closer look at his record shows that his achievements go a long way beyond simply being a trend setter. He took the title from an average champion in Marvin Hart, but proved his worth by making 11 successful defences, which stood as a divisional record until a certain Joe Louis came along.
And while his era wasn’t a golden one for the Heavyweights, successful defences against the Langford, Dempsey and Papke-conquering Jim Flynn and Light-Heavyweight great ‘Philadelphia’ Jack O’Brien show that Burns was still an impressive performer, with some worthwhile wins under his belt – albeit, there was later some controversy surrounding the O’Brien bouts (see my article on O’Brien a few weeks ago for a bit more on that if you need it).
Burns was also the definition of a “world” champion, risking his title four times in America, twice in England, once in Ireland, twice in France and twice in Australia. That kind of globetrotting for a Heavyweight champion would be impressive now; in the early 20th century, it is nothing short of astonishing. He eventually lost his title to Jack Johnson after 14 gruelling rounds in 1908, and the significance of this win – Johnson becoming the first black Heavyweight champion – has probably made people forget that it was, in fact, a fine champion that he took the title from in the first place.
I’ll stress that I’m not arguing Burns’ case for being an elite Heavyweight great, because he isn’t. But I can’t remember him gracing many top 20 lists, or even being mentioned as a stand out performer of his era. For me at least, he’s worthy of both these accolades – and may well be the most underrated Heavyweight champion of all time. Do you agree, disagree or are you indifferent?
Ayup lads.
A lot of talk regarding the Klitschko brothers recently, and general consensus seems to be that they are underrated Heavyweight champions. With this in mind, I remembered a point I raised a while ago, and would like to get your views on it; in particular, your views on Tommy Burns, and if you agree with me that he is one of, perhaps the most, underrated Heavyweight champions of all time. Not only that, but has his historical importance to the Heavyweight division been unfairly overlooked?
Most of you will know that Burns, at only 5’ 7”, was the shortest Heavyweight champion in history. What some may not know is that he compensated for this with a surprisingly long reach and some considerable punching power; 36 of his 46 wins (or 39 of his 48 wins, sources seem to vary) came by knock out or stoppage. He was responsible for a number of notable ‘firsts’ in the Heavyweight division. He was the first non-American of the gloved era to hold the title. He was the first to defend the title (at least in the gloved era) outside the States. And, most notably, he was the first to defend his crown against a “coloured” fighter.
But a closer look at his record shows that his achievements go a long way beyond simply being a trend setter. He took the title from an average champion in Marvin Hart, but proved his worth by making 11 successful defences, which stood as a divisional record until a certain Joe Louis came along.
And while his era wasn’t a golden one for the Heavyweights, successful defences against the Langford, Dempsey and Papke-conquering Jim Flynn and Light-Heavyweight great ‘Philadelphia’ Jack O’Brien show that Burns was still an impressive performer, with some worthwhile wins under his belt – albeit, there was later some controversy surrounding the O’Brien bouts (see my article on O’Brien a few weeks ago for a bit more on that if you need it).
Burns was also the definition of a “world” champion, risking his title four times in America, twice in England, once in Ireland, twice in France and twice in Australia. That kind of globetrotting for a Heavyweight champion would be impressive now; in the early 20th century, it is nothing short of astonishing. He eventually lost his title to Jack Johnson after 14 gruelling rounds in 1908, and the significance of this win – Johnson becoming the first black Heavyweight champion – has probably made people forget that it was, in fact, a fine champion that he took the title from in the first place.
I’ll stress that I’m not arguing Burns’ case for being an elite Heavyweight great, because he isn’t. But I can’t remember him gracing many top 20 lists, or even being mentioned as a stand out performer of his era. For me at least, he’s worthy of both these accolades – and may well be the most underrated Heavyweight champion of all time. Do you agree, disagree or are you indifferent?
Comment