John L v Sailor Tom???

I'd have bet on prime Charley Mitchell vs Sharkey, Choynski and Fitz. Jeffries - depends on rules and length of the bout.

 

I'm curious to know why you hold him in such high esteem. What did he do (or whom did he beat) that made you feel that he would conquer Sharks, 'ski and Fitz?

 

Reports for many of his fights, plus opinions of his contemporaries. I know, it's probably not fair, but the fact that Fitz is on film, turns me skeptical about the praise he received for his skills. It may well be that it's the same with Mitchell, but no film - less scepsis.

 

And no, I didn't correspond with Tracy Callis on Mitchell's rankings or anything, I only sent him my corrections to the records.

 

To say Mitchell was better in a pound for pound basis can be a point of view. However, I highly doubt Mitchell would defeat Sharkey in the ring. Sharkey by the standards of the time was a legit heavyweight with power, stamina, and durability to spare. He had a relentless attacking style that ate up top level boxers with speed in Corbett, Choynski, and McCoy. Mitchell was but 5’9” with a prime weight of 160 pounds. He did not hit hard, and never went past 10 rounds. The fact that he floored Sullivan once again makes me wonder about John L’s defense and to an extend durability.

Boxing pre 1870-1879 did not have a great field of talent in comparison to 1880-1890. Sullivan’s prime years ( 1870’s ) had an easier field. As I chronicled, he didn’t meet or beat the best four-five best fighters of the 1880’s in Slavin, Jackson, Corbett, Maher, and Goddard. So to say he cleaned up in the 1880’s is false. To say he has a great resume of wins compared to other champions is also false. John L’s resume of wins over quality gloved fighters is in fact thin. We don’t know if he would have beaten the top five contenders of the 1880’s. I would say he loses at least twice if the above 5 matches were made.

Getting back to the fantasy match- up between Sullivan and Sharkey. While I do think Sullivan could hit, which man over 170 pounds with a distingusihed record did he finish in the early or mid rounds? Not Kilrain. Not McCaffrey. Not even Burke, who was only a middle weight. So either Sullivan’s accuracy and delivery wasn’t great, or perhaps his power wasn’t great vs. men near his size and skill.

Another point to ponder is which punchers did Sullivan really face? You might say Kilrain. Box Rec says his KO ratio is a lowly 35.42%. I would say Sharkey hit harder than Kilrain.

 

Was he?

Charles Watson Mitchell, born November 24, 1861

Mitchell came from Birmingham, England and fought John L. Sullivan in 1883, knocking him down in the first round.

Their second meeting took place in 1888 on the grounds of a chateau at Chantilly, France in driving rain. It went on for more than two hours, at the end of which both men were unrecognisable and had suffered much loss of blood; neither could lift his arms to punch and the contest was considered a draw.

1883-1861 = Age 22 knocked Sullivan down, but lost. Gave up lots of size and weight.

1888-1861 - Age 27, gave up lots of size and weight. Draw.

 

A single flash knockdown in which Sullivan was off balance but he immediately got right back up to deck Mitchell and stop him in 3 rounds should not be used to denigrate Sullivan's defense or chin. Muhammad Ali got decked more times than that - does that mean his D and chin were suspect? Everyone knows the answer to that is hell no. The first Mitchell fight was with 2-5-ounce gloves using Queensberry rules, meaning the fighter only had 10 seconds to recover from being knocked down and resume and get hit again. Under those rules, Mitchell got crushed quickly, in 3 rounds, by a tremendous two-fisted fast punching machine. Mitchell lasted the 39 rounds under LPR bareknuckle rules, in a much larger 24-foot ring for Mitchell to run around, in muddy rainy conditions, where a fighter's hands were more vulnerable to being hurt, where grappling and holding was legal, and where, if a fighter got dropped or went down, he had up to 38 seconds rest before fighting again. Sullivan said Mitchell's two best attributes were he could run fast and hit hard.

Up through the 1889 Kilrain fight, Sullivan was considered the best fighter in the world. Only potential argument for a duck at that point was Jackson, who was then emerging as a real good contender and garnering momentum for consideration. However, Kilrain was a bigger name and bigger fight at that point. After Kilrain, Sullivan was de facto retired and not active except in friendly exhibitions and plays, and that is when fighters like Jackson, Slavin, Goddard, and Corbett emerged and were considered as threats to the title. Sullivan eventually fought Corbett in 1892, after Jim had fought Jackson to the 61-round no-contest.

 

And the reason its hell no is Ali proved his durability vs the likes of Shavers, Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, and company. Ali's had good defense thanks to quick reflexes, height, and fast feet, yet he could be tagged due to an un-orthodox style. To mention Ali's defense and Sullivan's in the same sentence is a reach.

Which big punchers did Sullivan face with gloves? It might be none? So how do we know how durable he was?

And how many times was Sullivan down in QB rules from a punch in his career, excluding the Corbett fight?

Sorry Adam, Mitchell was giving up a lot in height, and weight here. The knockdown, flash variety or not makes me wonder if John's defense was suspect. I believe it was as the fundamentals of defense for gloved boxing were evolving when Sullivan was at his best. Mitchell was a middle weight without a big punch.

 

Why not read contemporary writers about Mitchell's punching power? Not that it matters regarding this flash knockdown.

 

To start with the blindingly obvious, Frank Herald.

 

Sullivan faced plenty of big strong men. Just read John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion. That is where the saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" actually originated - with Sullivan. He said he could knock out big men more easily. None of the big strong men he faced decked him, and he fought plenty. IF you want to question the defense of every fighter who got dropped once in their career for a momentary flash knockdown, then there will be few who meet such criteria. All I know is other than that one moment, Sullivan was never down in his entire career from a punch, at least not until 1892 when he went down in the 21st round to Corbett more from exhaustion than anything.

 

But I asked which big punchers did Sullivan face with gloves? Strong men are not necessarily big punchers. If your having a hard time coming up with names of punchers with records we can examine here, I may have a point.

I have not read John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion.

 

I suppose. But Fitz beats Mitchell in any and every comparison I can think of, including glowing reports on fights and opinions of contemporaries. For every good report one could find on a Mitchell fight, I could find 5 for Fitz. For every example of praise from contemporaries that can dug up for Mitchell, I could dig up 10 for Fitz.

It's a slam-dunk any way you slice it really. So how does one feel safe betting on Charlie Mitchell over Fitz? I don't know.

 

Mitchell had good mobility with his feet. That is the only edge he would have on Fitz.

Remember Jim Corbett smashed Charlie Mitchell in 3 one sided rounds. I agree, Fitz or Sharkey would beat Mitchell. You could argue Kid McCoy, and Tommy Ryan too.

For Sullivan backers, Mitchell is one of his best opponents. However Mitchell once floored Sullvian in a loss, and drew with him in the second match. Not too impressive as Mitchel gave up a lot of size in both matches.