Greatest fighters head to head under London Prize Ring Rules

You again ripped the quote out of context. The complete sentence reads as:

King has improved in his fighting more than ever could possibly be supposed, and the once-called "slip shod" getter about the ring, proved himself yesterday to be one of the most active men in the P. R., as well as one of the hardest hitters in the world.

The second part of the sentence clarifies what has improved about him.

Straight hitting - if you had read the round-by-round reports, you'd be aware that most of the time he used round punches that often missed or landed on the back of Heenan's head (due to Heenan's rushing tactics). Although his straight punches were good, but he seldom used them in this fight, before Heenan got completely weak, only after that King began to look good.

Countering like never before - exaggerated claim due to lack of experience of the author (there were many big men before King who could hit straight as good or better than him, beginning from John Jackson; read 1st Mace report, it is noted several times that King "seemed to hit from the forearm rather than the shoulder", which is clearly not the most effective punch power-wise). Other reports don't mention anything like that, on the contrary note on multiple occasions that King was poor at judging the distance, was throwing wild punches most of the time.

King had reach advantage over Mace and was quite active, and was the more powerful of the two by much. Those were the only reasons why Mace had some trouble in their fight, not because King was particularly skillful or clever.

What other heavyweights were there in early 1860's in England? He was a cut above whom?

First knockdown is what it is called - first time when one of the fighters goes down from a punch. Throws or slipping down don't count. Heenan claimed first KD in the 15th round, which was one of his first attempts to throw a meaningful punch during the fight, not counting the in-fighting).

The fight was fought under different rule-set. Scoring it by gloved boxing standards is meaningless.

Again, where does it state King gave Heenan a boxing lesson? Here are a few quotes from round-by-round report, if you like:

Round 1. The men threw themselves into attitude, and opened the round with a little sparring, but there was a hurried, not to say nervous, manner about each of them, which indicated that the scientific display would not be very prolonged. Heenan led off once or twice, but was not close enough. King was equally out of distance in trying to return.

Round 2. some wild but heavy exchanges took place with both hands.

Round 3. This led to some more exchanges, desperately heavy, it is true, but made in a wild style, and not like two finished boxers. (Unpleasant as was Heenan's style of fighting, he was considered to be getting the best of the battle, as King evidently could not resist his rush and clinching throw.)

Round 6. The fighting had been wild enough before, but in this round there was no attempt at precision or steadiness. The men punched--or punched at--one another wildly

Round 7. yet still to the advantage of King, who showed what little science was exhibited, and hit straightest.

Round 10. The wildest and fastest of fighting still continued, in fact, the really more resembled a "turn-up" of two angry navvies than the tactics of skilled boxers. The exchanges were of the severest description, although most of the blows seemed given at random.

Round 15. After a little sparring, heavy counters were exchanged, and then three or four smashing hits left and right, without a semblance of stopping or avoiding.

Round 16. In some more heavy punching--pure slogging give-and-take, without any show of science

Remarks.--We may well spare any lengthened comment upon a contest the leading characteristics of which were "clinching," rushing, squeezing, and attempts at strangulating hugs on the one side, and wild, desperate sledge-hammer defensive hitting on the other.


When you give me a list of top English pugilists of big size (not middleweights, like Sayers or Mace) during 1860-1863 (before King retired), we can compare it with some other epochs and see which were stronger.

 

I repeat my question. What other big heavyweights of the day? If you read the report of Heenan's fight against Morrissey, you'd feel Heenan was an excellent boxer (until he tired out). Because Morrissey was a very poor boxer as well.

Bareknuckle pugilism was governed by a different set of rules. It was a mix of boxing and wrestling, so that landing more punches than your opponent didn' always mean having an advantage, because cross-buttocks could were in some situations playing very big role in the fight. There are plenty of examples when a more clever and skillful boxer who was landing punches and rarely being hit by anything in return, lost the fight because he was weakened by throws of more powerful opponent.

Hurst and Paddock? I'm not greedy, and will give you some read about these two.

 

See bareknuckle thread.

 

Probably Jem Mace or Bendigo Thompson, due to their described technical brilliance. I have a hard time seeing Broughton era boxers find success, if the uppercut wasn't invented until Dutch Sam!