Who wins? Mitchell was seen as a genius boxer with considerable power for his size, knocking out 170 pound Mike Cleary and even 200+ pound Herbert Slade in a private match despite only being 140-150. Can he get the job done against Burns?
The problem here is that we have a fairly good if not complete idea what Burns was, but it is much less clear what Mitchell was. Burns secured the heavyweight title, and you might favor him on that alone, but then he did not have to go through Sullivan to get it. I would say that Burns was slightly the bigger man, for whatever that is wort. The nearest thing to Mitchell, that came in the years after him, was probably Kid McCoy.
Burns. If we want to be simple Burns was champion Mitchell was not. But everyway you cut it Burns. Burns was dominant against opponents bigger than him. Marvin Hart was better than John L Sullivan. Probably by a lot. The fact hes not in the HOF breaks my Heart.
In what way? If we go by resume then I might see your point given Sullivan's poor competition, but Hart's best win was over Root who he outweighed by 20 pounds and was a LHW who never really made a name out of himself at heavyweight. It's hard to really call his fight with Johnson a victory since Johnson by all accounts battered him. In terms of fighting ability, I'm having a difficult time thinking how Hart could've been better than Sullivan. Sure, there's no film to judge by, but as people who have seen both are concerned there seems to be no doubt who was the superior talent.
we don’t know if Hart was better although he’s very underrated … we do know that he actually fought experienced M of Q fighters while Sullivan’s quality of opposition at heavyweight in M of Q was very limited.
I don't really understand that A-B mentality. Lacking film shouldn't bother you, you can read. A popularity context is just that, why should anyone ever conflate popularity with ability? That's silly. Why not judge based on the text attributed to the style and outcomes.
I wouldn't say comparing the opinions of contemporaries who've seen both men automatically makes it a popularity contest. Sure Sullivan was ridiculously popular, but he was also ridiculously shat upon from a stylistic point of view by many. Very few observers actually appreciated his science, and those that did were some of the most experienced technicians in the game like Billy Edwards and Mike Donovan. There is also a pretty good reason why someone became as ridiculously popular as Sullivan did in the first place, pretty much everyone at the time agreed that he was the best fighter in the world by a long shot until like 1890. Hart and his skills have never been close to being regarded with such vigour by experts of the game in his own era or by those who came before him, at least from my knowledge.
I didn't give this subject proper time and reading what I wrote, seems disrespectful to me. I apologize for that bud, I did not intend on being antagonistic in anyway. That said, isn't contemporary opinion secondary to literary elements? As in: Boxer X is well known and favored by his audience. Boxer Y is despised by his audience. If Boxer X drops his guard when he throws a left hook will Boxer Y capitalize on that? Can not be known or even guessed to any degree of validity with that information alone. Conversely, If Boxer X has a habit of dropping his guard when throwing his left hook and Boxer Y has a habit of jumping on a right hand dropping as a left hook comes in, you have a good reason to believe Y hurts X when X throws his left hook. A good reason that shouldn't be detracted from by anyone saying "Well, I saw them both and I think not" in any form. Currently, with video and boxers we can see and judge for ourselves, what habits have you seen that you could be talked out of believing by way of credentialed opinion? Exactly my point. If by broadsides, blow-by-blows, or round-by-rounds one can gleam a style and gauge a style based on competitive merit isn't that a stronger case than "These dudes were respected, they watched both, they like Y more"? Secondarily, if I am to concede contemporary opinion trumps habitual attribution, do I cross reference these opinions with generational data? Let us change to something more benign for this example. I am in my 30s, my mother is in her 60s. Knowing nothing else about us you can form an accurate opinion of our juxtaposition to being "tech savvy" and also fairly accurately guess which of the two of us' opinions should matter to you if you are producing a video game. There is a lot in that, just in the generations alone. You don't know me, her, our experiences, our credentials, but if you're guessing the 30 something male knows more about coding a video game than the 60 something female, you are correct. Likewise, the 1890s has no respect for the 1840s. That, imo, should be considered. I do not think it is good enough to overlap time periods with lifetimes and then draw consensus opinion with no regard to anything else. That does very much seem like nothing but a popularity contest. No one should be shocked the forties looked down on the fifties in boxing. The forties looked down on the fifties in all aspects of life. Today we look back at the 50s as a golden period. The Forties more correct? Or perhaps just a generation of selfish people incapable of admitting progress? The 80s loved the fifties. Marciano was famous again for no real reason while Marty Mcfly took us back to the hop. Shouldn't 80's love for all things fifties be taken with a grain of salt, and likewise, forties hate for all things fifties taken with a grain of salt regardless of how many or whose lifetimes overlap or saw?
I wasn't aware that '80s boxing fans loved '50s boxing, nor that '40s fans despised boxers of the '50s. How do you figure that?
Mike Cleary was a bit chinny and Slade was nothing. Burns didnt beat many big men either but he looks good on film and the Hart, Flynn, O'Brien wins have merit. He also took a decent punch, I'll go with Tommy.
Just because a boxer was loved, or hated, by their contemporaries doesn't mean that said contemporaries couldn't acknowledge potential stylistic flaws or advantages that the more favoured or liked boxer could have. Even Sullivan, for example, was hated by a good deal of his contemporaries who had no choice but to acknowledge his superiority. It had more to do with who was respecting them, and why. From what I've read these contemporaries appeared to have a similar assessment of habits and flaws that are criticized by trainers and fans alike today. Sure, you could find contemporaries from Sullivan's era that looked down on those beforehand, but I don't think that speaks for how EVERYONE viewed them. You can find people with that mindset in any era, even when the film obviously disproves their point. You can find someone saying that the boxers from the 80s and 90s were obsolete and technically inferior. The way a few more vocal contemporaries at the time thought about the evolution of boxing does not reflect how intelligent observers of the game thought. You can still find plenty of contemporaries saying the opposite. Corbett, for example, looked at Mike Donovan and Jem Mace very highly and that was from what he saw; He (Donovan) is a great boxer & the highest tribute I can offer in praise of his science & ring generalship is he was born 20 years too soon. If old Mike was 30 today he would beat any of the middleweights champions. He is as up-to-date as I or any other of the foremost pugilists. He knows all the blows & hooks, can use his legs in side stepping & in-and-out work to perfection. Donovan is a teacher and has kept pace with the pugilistic times. His wind is good, he's one of the best judges of distance I ever saw, and altogether he is a wonderful fellow. He landed his glove on me hard & often, and it's no disgrace for me to admit he forced me on more than one occasion by his left-hand feints for the face, to duck into a hook on the jaw. Mace arrived yesterday & after renewing our London acquaintance, the famous old Champ stripped to the waist and we donned the gloves, posed for a few pictures, then shook hands for a short spar (above left) boxing two 2-minute rounds, and the old fellow really surprised me. I discovered quite early that Mace & Donovan are of 2 entirely different schools. Mace of the old English style, Donovan thoroughly American, which includes all the shifts to date. He is great on straight left leads & counters with a shifting of the head to the right. Mace is also very good with the old straight cross-counter, head shifting to the left, and his ducking is simply marvelous. He's very fast with his leads and has much quickness that more than surprised me. His ducking is simply wonderful for a man of his age. He could make it very interesting for anyone. The only thing I noticed about Mace I did not like was his leg work. Donovan is by far his superior in this respect. Mace's wind is very good, and after our bout was over he had not turned a hair." And I think the film proves him right, very little about boxing had changed since the 1860s, and likely beforehand, when compared to the 1890s. The spar between Mike Donovan and Billy Edwards demonstrates these similarities best imo (probably best at a slower speed); This content is protected Also the manuals from the 1890s-1900s compared to manuals from fighters before 1890: This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected Compared to: This content is protected For this reason, I tend to donate more weight to contemporaries who view the 1890s and early LPR technicians in similar lights. When you look at footage and manuals, the techniques they're using are pretty much the same. Fighters from the 1850s were also still looked upon highly in the 1860s like Sayers, Heenan and Morrissey and the case likely remains the same for fighters from the 1840s. If you count in the 1890s' best technicians like Fitz, Corbett, McAuliffe, Jackson being trained by early LPR fighters then you can also come to a similar conclusion in relation to their techniques. I just think the contemporaries realizing how similar these eras are have more value. Burns and Mitchell were largely compared by the same people, and it does seem like Mitchell was more highly regarded by fighters and contemporaries who've seen both.
Brother you wrote a doozey and so I must say, mad respects to you. I'll grant you this respect, you are a knowledgeable fan, you will not be getting any YDKSAB style statements out of me. That said, I whole heartedly disagree with the idea there is no such thing as generational bias. You carry the pseudonym of a man who suffered from that bias, so, I doubt there is anything I can tell you to change your mind or find a middle ground here. I assume you know all about Mendoza, Mendoza School boxing, the evolution of training thanks to Mendoza, the connection to black fighters and the colorline bit. So really nothing left to do but, for lack of better terms, shake hands and agree that from the same facts we each derive different opinions. For me, the "cowardly jew" may be a consistent contemporary opinion of Mendoza, but, I think the hindsight of "The Jew" who used defense to both rile christians and keep himself safe is more correct. ... I admit this last statement was written to be propaganda. If you think Nat's not a liar, cool bro, I can't teach you out of that and you seem plenty informed as is. Nat's a ****ing liar who stole 100% of his historical works and was paid for his ranks and so I could give less ****s what he saw in person. You're free to though.
John L has an argument as being a Top 5 greatest heavy champ ever. Marvin is a footnote on his best day.
