The BARE-Knuckle PUGILISTS

[McGoorty]

PART TWO :----Daniel Mendoza
Daniel Mendoza (5 July 1764 , Whitechapel, London; 3 September 1836) (often known as Dan Mendoza) was an English prizefighter, who was boxing champion of England 1792-95. He was a Sephardic ***, and is sometimes called the father of scientific boxing.

Before Mendoza, boxers generally stood still and merely swapped punches. Mendoza’s style consisted of more than simply battering opponents into submission, his “scientific style” included much defensive movement. He developed an entirely new style of boxing, incorporating defensive strategies, such as what he called “side-stepping”, moving around, and ducking, blocking, and, all in all, avoiding punches. Sounds simplistic now , but it was revolutionary back then. His ability to overcome much heavier adversaries was a consequence of this. Though he stood only 5’7″ and weighed only 160 pounds, Mendoza was England’s sixteenth Heavyweight Champion from 1792 to 1795. Thus he holds probably the greatest record in Boxing History, as he is the only middleweight to ever win the Heavyweight Championship of the World. In 1789 he opened his own boxing academy and published The Art of Boxing the book on modern “scientific” style boxing which every subsequent boxer learned from.

Mendoza was so popular that the London press reported news of one of his bouts ahead of the storming of the Bastille which marked the start of the French Revolution. He transformed the English stereotype of a *** from a weak, defenseless person into someone deserving of respect. He is said to have been the first *** to talk to the King, George III.

His early boxing career was defined by three bouts with his former mentor Richard Humphries between 1788 and 1790. The first of these was lost due to Humphries’s second (the former Champion, Tom Johnson) blocking a blow. The second two bouts were won by Mendoza. The third bout set history in another way . It was the first time spectators were charged an entry payment to a sporting event. The fights were hyped by a series of combative letters in the press between Humphries and Mendoza.

Mendoza’s “memoirs” report that he got involved in three fights whilst on his way to watch a boxing match. The reasons were: (a) someone’s cart cut in; (b) he felt a shopkeeper was trying to cheat him; (c) he didn’t like how a man was looking at him.

In 1795 Mendoza fought “Gentleman” John Jackson for the Championship at Hornchurch in Es***. Jackson was five years younger, 4 inches taller, and 42 lbs. heavier. The bigger man won in nine rounds, paving the way to victory by seizing Mendoza by his long hair and holding him with one hand while he pounded his head with the other. Mendoza was pummelled into submission in around ten minutes. Since this date boxers have worn their hair short.

After 1795 Mendoza began to seek other sources of income, becoming the landlord of the “Admiral Nelson” pub in Whitechapel. He turned down a number of offers for re-matches and in 1807 wrote a letter to The Times in which he said he was devoting himself chiefly to teaching the art. In 1809 he and some associates were hired by the theatre manager Kemble in an attempt to suppress the OP Riots; the resulting poor publicity probably cost Mendoza much of his popular support, as he was seen to be fighting on the side of the privileged.

Mendoza made and spent a fortune. His Memoirs (written in 1808 but not published until 1816) report that he tried a number of ventures, including touring the British Isles giving boxing demonstrations; appeared in a pantomime entitled Robinson Crusoe or Friday Turned Boxer; opening a boxing academy at the Lyceum in the Strand; working as a recruiting sergeant for the army; printing his own paper money; and being a pub landlord.

Mendoza made his last public appearance as a boxer in 1820 at Banstead Downs in a grudge match against Tom Owen; Mendoza was, at the time, 57– Owen, a sprightly 52. Youth, as the saying goes, will be served, and Mendoza was defeated after 12 rounds.

Intelligent, charismatic but chaotic, he died in 1836, leaving his family in poverty. He was 72.

[McGoorty]

FROM BOXREC :--- JACKSON Vs MENDOZA

The Fight

ROUND 1-- Both fighters feint and spar with one another for the advantage, with neither committing fully to his blows. Mendoza, a natural counterpuncher, is waiting for Jackson to make the first move. Jackson complies, flooring Mendoza with a tremendous punch. Mendoza lies prostrate on the stage.
ROUND 2-- Jackson is unable to exploit his initial advantage. Mendoza gets into his stride, blocking all of Jackson's punches and replying with several good counterpunches.
ROUND 3-- Both fighters are more alert now. They begin exchanging punches, and while both land well, Mendoza goes down.
ROUND 4-- Jackson is now growing more confident. He goes after Mendoza, ignores several stinging counterpunches, and begins to pummel the champion. He lands a vicious blow on the right eye that drops Mendoza. The champion, bleeding heavily, goes back to his corner. ROUND 5-- Jackson seizes Mendoza's long hair and pummels him with the other hand until Mendoza collapses from pain and exhaustion. An appeal is made to the referees, who, after consulting Broughton's rules, conclude that this action is indeed legal. The fight continues.
ROUND 6, 7, and 8-- Mendoza is now hurt, exhausted, and forced on the defensive. Jackson never gives him time for recovery, showing complete superiority in skill. He beats the champion up badly.
ROUND 9-- Mendoza has no chance. Jackson is still as fresh as he was at the beginning of the fight, and is landing punches at will on Mendoza. Mendoza collapses from exhaustion and surrenders.
The entire fight lasted for only ten and a half minutes.
Aftermath

Mendoza retired after this fight, unable to find backers for another fight with Jackson. It is doubtful whether anyone would have been willing to risk his money on Mendoza in view of his opposition--Jackson had showed complete superiority over Mendoza even before he seized the former champion's hair in the fifth round.
Mendoza went on to start a pub, and relaxed into a moderately successful quiet life. He hated and resented Jackson long after their fight, and the breach was never healed. Mendoza also proved helpful to the English ***ish community in later life--in those days there were a sizeable number of ***ish bettors involved in boxing, and Mendoza was invaluable in appraising the fighters to help set the odds.
Jackson had a long and successful career ahead of him. He retired immediately after the Mendoza fight, but despite this Jackson spearheaded the movement to bring organization to his beloved sport. It was Jackson's influence, through the Pugilistic Club and his own appearances at major fights, that allowed English Pugilism to remain relatively respectable until the mid-1820's. He was well-regarded by all as an honest, intelligent, and hard-working promoter of pugilism.
Sources: Pierce Egan's Boxiana; Henry Downes Miles' Pugilistica.

[McGoorty]

Mid 1700s – Broughton’s Rules
Published by: Alfie Wilkinson

Boxing History in the 18th Century: Broughton's Rules Evolve Boxing & Sport
With today’s morals and enlightenment it is hard to accept the bloody and brutal world of bareknuckle boxing as a legitimate sport. However, a look back from Broughton’s rules and the birth of modern pugilism in the eighteenth century, the shift of power from London to America, and the ultimate decline in favor of gloved boxing, offers us a unique look at the organization and development of modern sport. As the first sport to match opponents from different races and religions against each other, the history of pugilism also has much to teach us of nationalism and race relations.

Broughton’s rules and the birth of modern sport:
Boxing: A Cultural History

Sale Price: $18.63
For a sport to achieve legitimacy and transparency it must first have a set code of rules and regulations for all to adhere to. Also, a legitimate sport must have regular participants and set venues. All of this sounds obvious enough but before pugilist Jack Broughton introduced such measures few sports had any such characteristics. Pugilism paved the way for the sporting world as we know it today.

Jack Broughton was born in Britain in 1703. A strong and athletic young man he worked as a waterman on London’s vast river Thames. An early exposure to pugilism and fencing saw the young Broughton gain a tremendous reputation and by the 1730s was considered Britain’s finest combatant. The groundbreaking Broughton embraced new media and openly used newspapers and his relationships with journalists to entice fans and challenge opponents. His actions were to give his sport prominence, legitimacy and entertainment, often attributes only credited to the modern form of boxing.

Before Broughton, pugilism, and many other sports, often consisted of unruly competitions between the staff of nobility. Broughton embraced a new idea of professional sport, where a fighter would dedicate his time to training and competing. Staging bouts in specially designed amphitheatres, which could charge spectators an entrance fee, allowed a regular clientele to develop and real money to be earned. But the sport was still a messy and violent past time with little to no regard for its participant's health, and wide spread reforms were needed.

So, in 1743, after opening his own amphitheatre, the undefeated Broughton sought to legitimize the sport by creating a list of rules. A bout against ‘The Coachman’ George Stevenson in 1741, in which Broughton won, but Stevenson died from the injuries he suffered, highlighted the need for change. Broughton’s rules included allowing a knocked down fighter thirty seconds in which to regain composure, the appointment of ‘gentlemen’ to serve as umpires, and most importantly that no fighter could hit an opponent who is knocked down, pull an opponent’s hair or strike below the waist.

By 1750, the famed and feared Broughton signed to fight Jack Slack for the championship of England. This bout, however, would end in controversy rather than glory and bring about Broughton’s demise.

While fighters were no longer the butlers and footmen of the British gentry, the sport certainly still needed their financial patronage and support. Pugilism had been outlawed in Britain but with the backing of the upper classes local justices would turn a blind eye. The Duke of Cumberland was one such powerful patron. He often backed Broughton and with his man the overwhelming favorite against Slack, wagered a staggering £10,000 on Broughton to win.

After just five minutes the less skilled Slack landed a powerful blow to Broughton’s eye. Virtually blinded, the hapless Broughton struggled on for a brutal ten further minutes. Utterly outclassed and injured, Broughton conceding defeat. The Duke believed the fight had been thrown and was enraged. Utilizing his power and influence over justice officials he had Broughton’s amphitheatre closed and drove the fledgling sport underground. Following this unceremonious ending, Broughton chose to leave pugilism and spend the rest of his days financially secure, but isolated from public life. Although the sport forgot him, it did not forget his rules, which were used for a further eighty-eight years before being modified.

Broughton, despite his quiet ending, was possibly the most important individual in combative sports. He gave the ‘sweet science’ legitimacy and structure. He embraced the notion of the professional sportsman, the importance of enticing spectators, and most significantly, of the safety of the pugilists themselves. These ideas laid the foundations, not only for pugilism, but for all the sports we enjoy today.

[McGoorty]

BOXING: ITS REBIRTH
In January of 1681, the Protestant Mercury (a London newspaper) reported the story of a bare-knuckle boxing match between the Duke of Albermarle's footman and a butcher. In this first-known newspaper story about a boxing match, the butcher won.

At the time, boxing was really a mixture of wrestling and boxing. (The ancients also had a mixed wrestling/boxing sport, called Pankration, whose rules would never pass muster today. Biting an opponent - or gouging his eyes, nose and mouth with fingernails - was all that was prohibited.)

Not until James Figg became a boxer, in 1719, was any effort made to train would-be participants in a boxing school. Figg, known as the "father of boxing" (he fought nearly 300 times before his death in 1734), started a Boxing Academy and died unbeaten. He was known, as well, for challenging just about anyone to boxing bouts at his Southwark Fair booth.

Although the sport was still vicious then, without rules or regulations, the King (George I) enjoyed the spectacle. His interest (in 1723 he set up a boxing ring in London's Hyde Park) helped boxing to regain respectability.

One of Figg's students, John ("Jack") Broughton, introduced the sport's first rules in 1743 - after an opponent died following a fight. His rules included breaks, if a boxer were knocked down, and gloves used for practice.

[Marchegiano]

This is all good stuff,. I love the surprises that I come across, TOM TOUGH is a bloke I never heard of, but he was a full-on all-action pre-Battling nelson - Jake LaMotta type. Tough eschewed the normal drcorum, had no time for the ceremonious type of thing and conformity of type, Tom was a fighter because he loved getting bruises as much as giving them........ man he's the god-father of the modern slugger, an Englishman who fought like a NOO York immigrant.

Yeah dude, I didn't mention it, but I didn't know **** about the guy except record w/l before you wrote this. I've been reading **** on him since. Basically the inventor of traits over skills. Like you said the godfather of all sluggers.


Pankrations would straight murder today's MMArtist.....just saying for to say it.

[McGoorty]

Pankration was the real Ultimate Fighting Championship. What I really loved was reading that bit in Boxiana about Richard III's fistic abilities,... hardly a hunchback eh !!..... I have read everything about that King, and I have always known that Shakespeare's version was total lies...... It turns out the princes in the tower weren't princes at all because grandma once had it off with a French Blacksmith, therefore Richard was right about them being bastards all along (according to the rules back then).... Yeah Richard did order the deaths of the boys but he knew that the boy hated him and Richard was saving himself from the 'ol hanging Drawing & Quartering in a couple of years time. -------------------------------------------- I write here about Richard III because he was a GREAT warrior, I have read that he was the most feared knight that that century knew, and he is the earliest name ever connected with pugilism in England although it is said that Alfred The Great, Cynning* of the West Saexons had his soldiers training in boxing skills.......... Clearly the Saexons are some of the hardest men known in antiquity, and it is my opinion that they indeed were keen on any martial endeavour, and were handy with bare fists,... I also believe that the great game of cricket was also brought to Britain by them..... there are Saexon shields for instance which have depictions of a game with bat & ball which looks very much like cricket, and on these artifacts there are also depictions of warriors shaping up to each other with bared fists. The saexons are the great-grandfather's of modern sport, they also played a kind of football where multiple deaths were known........ more like a mass brawl of hundreds of pugilists running around holding a pigskin, this football type game they played may be the most dangerous sport ever known in history..... gee I'm glad I live now instead, I have serious doubts that I'd have lasted a month among those ancestors......... Thanks for posting mate, if it wasn't for you, I would quit doing these threads due to the TOTAL lack of interest of anything Boxing before Bob Fitzsimmons came along,.. man when you think about how long ago Richard III was, you realise that Fitz is incredibly modern, it's as if he just retired a short time ago............... please keep posting replies,... have you read my NaT Langham thread ????.-

[Marchegiano]

Got to say i've missed it. I dig around a bit...a search should do it.

Yeah Richard was cool as ****. You've seen the Blackadder right? That was great. A horse, a horse. He was infamous for being out numbered. I like the fake IV they made for the show. He's a lot like the real III I imagined.


It's crazy how little people are interested in pre-Fitzs. You'd think there'd be a whole crowd of ancient fans sharing scraps of info....at least before the Internet I used to. I can't believe how many people think of Fitzs as an ATG, but don't give a god damn about NP....or hell even Fitzs bare-knuckle career. I don't know how you can be a fan and not follow the lineage back. Anyway, post not for me, but for the future you, or next one searching. That's why I keep coming back and dropping old ass names on ATG lists. ATG really means from 1890's to now for 99% of boxing fans, but one day some other fellas gone come about wondering who taught what to who, or who did what when, or something similar. You've made a hell of a foundation....It sucks that you've pushed bare knucklers into boxing scene's face and BS still don't give a damn.

I too over my father's company after he passed. It's been busy for me, but I'll probably always get online to talk boxing. I have to make time these days, which takkes a bit out of the relaxing aspect of it, but if I don't tell someone about Jem Mace, or defend Rocco. The idea that ignorant ****ers aren't bringing up names that shaped the sport. Or that ****** ****ers are calling Rocky the worst champion of all time. Will always get me to make time. I'll always be somewhere...likely here. To keep sacred the memories of those shoulders we stand on.....Newton knows what I mean..

[McGoorty]

Got to say i've missed it. I dig around a bit...a search should do it.

Yeah Richard was cool as ****. You've seen the Blackadder right? That was great. A horse, a horse. He was infamous for being out numbered. I like the fake IV they made for the show. He's a lot like the real III I imagined.


It's crazy how little people are interested in pre-Fitzs. You'd think there'd be a whole crowd of ancient fans sharing scraps of info....at least before the Internet I used to. I can't believe how many people think of Fitzs as an ATG, but don't give a god damn about NP....or hell even Fitzs bare-knuckle career. I don't know how you can be a fan and not follow the lineage back. Anyway, post not for me, but for the future you, or next one searching. That's why I keep coming back and dropping old ass names on ATG lists. ATG really means from 1890's to now for 99% of boxing fans, but one day some other fellas gone come about wondering who taught what to who, or who did what when, or something similar. You've made a hell of a foundation....It sucks that you've pushed bare knucklers into boxing scene's face and BS still don't give a damn.

I too over my father's company after he passed. It's been busy for me, but I'll probably always get online to talk boxing. I have to make time these days, which takkes a bit out of the relaxing aspect of it, but if I don't tell someone about Jem Mace, or defend Rocco. The idea that ignorant ****ers aren't bringing up names that shaped the sport. Or that ****** ****ers are calling Rocky the worst champion of all time. Will always get me to make time. I'll always be somewhere...likely here. To keep sacred the memories of those shoulders we stand on.....Newton knows what I mean..

Yeah thanks for that, as I said all this bare-knuckle stuff is spread out in snippets all over the net, and I want to put ALL of it on this thread. I don't know why they don't want to discuss these guy's,... what can you expect when they don't even put Les Darcy in any lists, I maintain that Darcy beats every MW in the last 50 years and I make NO APOLOGIES for that, I just don't see how those guys can cope with such a strong and BIG MW with all that skill.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I rate Fitz in the top 5 LHW's, but why doesn't LPRR catch peoples imagination ??.. I wish I knew, but anyway maybe one day, people will thank me for some of my REAL threads like this one and the Darcy Book. Maybe I should make more outrageous posts to get some replies here, but they probably don't even read these articles...... my time will come... if there are enough true fans left.

[McGoorty]

Got to say i've missed it. I dig around a bit...a search should do it.

Yeah Richard was cool as ****. You've seen the Blackadder right? That was great. A horse, a horse. He was infamous for being out numbered. I like the fake IV they made for the show. He's a lot like the real III I imagined.


It's crazy how little people are interested in pre-Fitzs. You'd think there'd be a whole crowd of ancient fans sharing scraps of info....at least before the Internet I used to. I can't believe how many people think of Fitzs as an ATG, but don't give a god damn about NP....or hell even Fitzs bare-knuckle career. I don't know how you can be a fan and not follow the lineage back. Anyway, post not for me, but for the future you, or next one searching. That's why I keep coming back and dropping old ass names on ATG lists. ATG really means from 1890's to now for 99% of boxing fans, but one day some other fellas gone come about wondering who taught what to who, or who did what when, or something similar. You've made a hell of a foundation....It sucks that you've pushed bare knucklers into boxing scene's face and BS still don't give a damn.

I too over my father's company after he passed. It's been busy for me, but I'll probably always get online to talk boxing. I have to make time these days, which takkes a bit out of the relaxing aspect of it, but if I don't tell someone about Jem Mace, or defend Rocco. The idea that ignorant ****ers aren't bringing up names that shaped the sport. Or that ****** ****ers are calling Rocky the worst champion of all time. Will always get me to make time. I'll always be somewhere...likely here. To keep sacred the memories of those shoulders we stand on.....Newton knows what I mean..

Richard III, was for real, he lost the battle of Bosworth because of that ****** bastard Lord Stanley... unfortunately that English generation were treasonous scum, and thankfully the nightmare that was to become Henry VII (tudor), made all their lives a misery,.. they were made to pay just as bad as the traitors who murdered Caesar, an action which doomed every Roman to follow.... (Caesar was the only genius with the nous to fix all the problems), and same with England, if I was Richard. I would have done the same, except I would have killed Stanley's son for that treason. Richard the 3rd was no where near as evil as Tudor became..... remember, he's Henry VIII's dad.