John L v Sailor Tom???

Mendoza says: 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.

We agree Fitz beats Mitchell.

I made no mention of height in this post, I said Mitchell gave up a lot of size vs Suillivan, and he did. 30-40 pounds. Boxing in Sullvian's day did not feature much movement, so getting into rage was easier.

As for Shareky's durability, he fought Choysnki 2x. You think Choynski was the era's hardest hitter. Choysnki did not stop Sharkey. Sharkey got the better of Choynski.

Matt thinks Peter Maher was the Ernie Shavers of the era. He could not stop Sharkey either! Neither could Goddard or Jeffries who could punch, or McCoy who hit hard for his size. Only Fitz, who had deadly power stopped a prime Sharkey. Some say there was foul, others say the blow was above the belt.

Now, which big punchers did Sullivan really face with gloves? I have asked this question to the board.

IMO, Sharkey's durability vs punchers is far more tested than Suillivan's, he fought better fighters, and he also KO'd better fighters. Those points should be acknowledged.

I have no doubt Sullivan was a puncher, however he took a few of his better name guys the distance, or took a long, long time to stop them. Some will say oh, but he was out of shape for that match, or not in his prime. Sullvian's prime seems to have went quickly. Counterpoint. Punchers who are active should be able to carry their power.

I'm willing to throw out the Corbett fight, but five years prior to that, Sullivan took Cardiff, McCaffery, and Burke the distance. These three had solid records...yet Suillvian could not finish them? Burke was only a middle by the way.

 

And Corbett wasn't a puncher, yet he blew him out in 3 rounds. Mitchell was active prior to the fight. While Mitchell was past it at age 32 I think you need to examine the other side of the coin.

Oh I do. In one match Mitchell floored him. Flash knockdown or not, it happened. In the second Sullivan, who had over 2 hours and was also badly marked up, flailed to finish a man giving up 30-40 pounds.

I know, but I must ask why Sullivan could not finish a middle with rules that allowed wrestling and throws, in addition to punches. He had over 2 hours to get the job done.

 

In terms of size, Sharkey had at least 20 pounds on Mitchell. :deal You paint yourself in a corner anytime you bring up Choynski ( who you think was the era's hardest hitter ), as Sharkey got the better of him.

Its clear I was correct on Mitchell being a middle. I am correct on Mitchell giving up a lot in weight vs. Sullivan. Maybe there was only an inch and a half difference in height, but I bet the reach difference was greater that than. So hang your hat on the height alone, and skip the rest of my points on Sharkey's resume and durability. Its your MO.

 

Senya has certainly raised an interesting point, in terms of how Charlie Mitchell would have done against fighters from Sharkey’s era. Personally I think that Dominic McCaffrey was the best of Sullivan’s title challengers.

I do think that Sullivan’s era was much weaker than Jeffries era, where Sharkey was one of the better contenders. This allowed him to destroy the top contenders, while he was progressively slipping into an alcoholic fuggle!

I don’t think that Mitchell was as good as Bob Fitzsimmons, but he might not have been as far off as people think. He was beating up the bigger fighters of that era. If Sullivan had not been around, he would have been the world champion at some point!

 

Which point do you say would have been his best chance? I dont think he would have become world champion (although i admit he would have been a very good chance). Without Sullivan, he would have been put in his place by Jackson, Slavin, Goddard, Dooley, Fitzsimmons and Co.

 

Mitchell was already the British Champion in 1883, and I don't think there were any American fighters who could beat him at this time.

Take Sullivan out of the picture, and Mitchell likley defeats whoever happens to be the American Champion at this time, and is subsequently recognised as the world champion.

He likley wouldn't have held it for long, but he would have held it.