Greatest fighters head to head under London Prize Ring Rules

Where did you get these ideas? Have you actually read reports of above fights or other fights of King or opinions of people who had seen King's fights? He was not a technician, very far from that, possessing little or no science at all.

 

Which report exactly portrayed it like King gave Heenan a boxing lesson?

 

I don't see how Heenan figures in this ,as far as I know he had 2 fights,both losing ones,giving him a total of 35 rds ring experience.The best that can be said for him is he looked the part.

 

why no mention of tom molineaux?? amazing fighter,

 

So I've read it and I don't see it anywhere that King gave Heenan a boxing lesson. I have Bell's Life report re-printed in 3rd volume of Pugilistica, and I have Harry Furniss' report in Famous Fights Past & Present, and both reports on multiple occasions remark that both men were devoid of science. Up to the 17th round Heenan had the better of the fight, and only from 18th he grew weaker and weaker, until his seconds (McDonald in Heenan's corner was argueably the best second of his time, strange that the report above mentions only his "opponent" Noon regarding the quality of seconding) threw up the sponge in the 24th. On a couple of occasions King might have been saved by the time between the rounds being longer than was allowed by the rules (one time Noon started accusing Heenan and his seconds that the cross-buttock he did to King was foul, and thus gained almost an extra-minute of rest for King to recover from the effects of that severe throw).

I also have reports in both sources of King's fight with Young Broome (Furniss was a friend of Evans/Broome), and it also doesn't mention any science on King's part. He was a hard hitter and was pretty durable, but that's it. One of the reports re-printed in the Eagle above notes exactly that, that he mproved in activity (throwing a lot of punches), but that's the only thing he may have improved in, although the Broome fight consisted of one of the fastest milling the reporters had seen, both were trading punches a lot, both hands, to the head and to the body.

 

Why don't you type the part I don't see?

 

Ripping the things out of context.

King had improved in activity, not in science. Although, I have doubts that author of that statement had seen the fight with Young Broome where two highly-respectable authors pointed out how fast the fight was, the Heenan fight wasn't even close in activity/quickness to the Broome fight.

The article never once praised his cleverness or overall skills. He could hit, that can't be taken from him (one can look at that lucky punch against Mace too, for example).

The part about Heenan fighting a man his own size... The author obviously had seen only his second fight of Heenan. King wasn't even close to Sayers in cleverness/skills, you can compare what was being said about either fighter by contemporary writers, if you don't believe this. Young Broome, while a second-rater at best, was a more clever fighter than King. Broome was an all-round athlete, for whom pugilism was only one of his interests, together with sculling and running.

First blood is about winning some bets by the spectators. King cut Heenan's lip, big deal. First knockdown was scored by Heenan.

Heenan had all the worst of it in the last several rounds of the fight. Up to 17 he had the better of the fight both in betting and in overall impression from the description of the fight.

Where did you see that King could box again? Which part of the report? He could fight, but he lacked defensive skills, footwork and judgement of distance (missing a lot of punches at mid and long range). The best work he had done was at close quarters, where Heenan was eager to go in for his wrestling style. That was Heenan's conscious choice of tactics for the fight - to use his strength superiority and wrestling skills, and he treated King like a new-born baby in the clinches, throwing him around at will, and scoring several of the most impressive and severe cross-buttocks two highly-experienced reporters had seen, both noted several times two or three throws that ended the rounds were among the best they had seen in their life.

King was a second-rater at best, who was lucky to come up at time that was among the lowest points of heavyweight history. Claiming that he was the best a that period means little, because there weren't any good big pugilists at all, at the time, whoever had been good had already retired.