Talk:Daniel Mendoza

Why this weirdly apologetic tone in the article?

Mendoza was charged with aggravated assault, murder attempts and many other offenses, yet this article paints him as a brilliant revolutionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.8.211 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese or Spanish Jewish origin ?

In portuguese, the spanish name Mendoza is spelled Mendonça.85.240.20.124 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion re family tree

At WP:Help desk#Dear Wikipedia. —Half Price 13:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

references

There aren't many. The reasson I case is because I want to read the "combative letters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.167.108 (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Mendoza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428094538/http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c346_a15227/The_Arts/Theatre.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c346_a15227/The_Arts/Theatre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

T.C. Boyle Water Music

Daniel Mendoza appears in the 1981 novel "Water Music" by T.C. Boyle 89.247.171.252 (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

English Champion vs English Heavyweight Champion

I made a minor change to the text of the article... The text used to say that Mendoza was the only middleweight ever to hold the English Heavyweight Championship. At the time that Mendoza was fighting (mostly the 1780s) there were no weight-based classifications, only the English Championship, which fighters of all weights could compete for. I've therefore changed the text to say that Mendoza was the only middleweight ever to be English Champion. (Incidentally, while it is commonly held to be true that Mendoza was the only middleweight to achieve this feat, there are strong grounds to suggest that the claim is incorrect. For example, Jem Mace won the English Championship in 1861 while weighing at least 50 pounds less than his opponent, he then lost the title the following year while giving away 20 pounds, and then in 1863 he beat Goss for the middleweight championship at catchweight of 68kg/150lb, i.e. at a very light middleweight. Then, three years later he fought Goss again, this time for the overall English Championship, with both fighters at only a slightly greater weight than in 1863.) 2A02:C7C:5AED:8E00:35CA:51B1:D650:DE5C (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Mace certainly fought (and won) English Championship bouts while weighing 150-160lb (e.g. in 1862 Mace, 158lb, beat King, 176lb). So, Mace is another example of what would today be called a middleweight. However, Mace vs Goss wasn't a fight for the middleweight championship (which didn't exist at that time), it was a fight for the English Championship where Mace agreed to fight at a catchweight of 150lb because that happened to be Goss' usual fighting weight. (This is somewhat off topic, I accept. I will mention it over at the Jem Mace page.) Axad12 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of anachronistic mention of weight-based titles

I’ve removed several anachronistic references in the text to various of Mendoza’s fights having been for the English Lightweight Championship and the English Middleweight Championship. These titles did not exist at the time that Mendoza was fighting, or for many decades afterwards (see or example Wikipedia’s page on Middleweights, which states that the first middleweight championship bout was fought in the 1860s).

The main early references for Mendoza’s career, none of which mention weight-based championships, are Pancratia (1812), Boxiana (various volumes c.1820s), Fistiana (1841) and Pugilistica (1906), all of which are available to view online, and Mendoza’s own autobiography (1816). The most comprehensive recent work is The Fighting Jew, Life and Times of Daniel Mendoza (2019). Most of the references currently attached to this article relate to generalised non-specialist works, and links to non-specialist websites. When I get the opportunity I’ll review these and supplement/replace them with references to first hand (or specialist) sources where possible. Axad12 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for removing Cyber Boxing Zone as a source! Unfortunately, that site has been spammed as a reference on articles about 18th and 19th century boxing. There's hardly a page in Category:Sports by year that doesn't use it as a source multiple times. I don't really know where they get their information from (though it seems they indiscriminately borrow quite a bit from Henning's fairly unreliable Fights for the Championship). But is seems that CBZ has some serious issues with trying to anachronistically applying modern ideas about weight classes and formalized championships back into the days when boxing was a sport staged in the same venues as dog fighting and bear baiting. I have been meaning to remove more of CBZ from Wikipedia (or at least insert "[better source needed]" tags), but it's so widespread that the task is quite daunting. CoatGuy2 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately there is a lot of material about prizefighting (both in print and online) where authors repeat the errors located in earlier second or third hand sources, rather than researching the topic by going through the original source material (most of which is easily accessible at Google Books and Archive.org). Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy of the commentary in this article

There are a number of places in this article where the text gives commentary on the progression of Mendoza’s career. Usually this sits in between sections of historically determined facts to provide colour. However, the commentary on some occasions does seem to go well beyond what can reasonably be deduced from the original source material about Mendoza’s life.

For example with regard to Mendoza-Tyne 2 (c.1783), the text currently describes Mendoza as ‘giving a brilliant display of scientific boxing that bolstered his reputation’. The only contemporary source that mentioned this fight was Mendoza’s own autobiography (p.41 of the Joanides edition). Mendoza doesn’t claim there that he gave ‘a brilliant display [etc]’, only that Tyne fought with ‘uncommon shyness’ and that it took Mendoza almost an hour to beat him (so presumably not a brilliant display of scientific boxing).

Also, Mendoza doesn’t claim that his reputation was bolstered, only that ‘several sporting gentleman […] assembled on this occasion’ - which suggests that the crowd (if there was a crowd) was rather small. Early boxing sources such as Pancratia and Boxiana were either unaware of this fight or they chose to ignore it. Both of those sources considered Mendoza’s notable career to have started with Mendoza-Martin (1787), which doesn’t support the claim that Mendoza had much of a reputation to bolster in 1783 (see Pancratia, p72 / Boxiana vol 1, p258).

There are a number of locations in the text where similarly unsubstantiated commentary exists. I'm not sure if this issue originates from the two sources which appear most commonly in the citations ('The Jewish Strong Man' and 'The Jewish Boxers Hall of Fame'). However, my feeling is that it would usually be better to include direct quotes (or paraphrase) from the original contemporary sources, rather than employ text which makes unfounded assumptions – especially when, as in the example quoted above, the assumptions begin to resemble hagiography. Axad12 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The example you cite sounds like Original Research to me. I'd say you can delete any unsupported claims like that when you come across them. CoatGuy2 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a complete re-write of the section on the Mendoza-Tyne bouts, based on info in Mendoza's own autobiography and Wheldon (2019).

Incidentally, I mentioned above that Mendoza didn't seem to have had much of a reputation at the time of the second Tyne match-up (which this article used to say was in 1783). It turns out that these fights probably date to 1785 & 6 and that a report for the first fight actually described Mendoza as 'the noted fighting Jew'. So in 1785 it appears he did have something of a reputation (although in 1783 it seems fairly clear that he didn't). Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

First pay-for-entry sporting event?

The text of the article currently states: 'The second bout with Humphries [1788] made history. It was the first time spectators were charged an entry-payment to a sporting event'. However, this seems to be incorrect because Figg's Amphitheatre (opened 1719) was a dedicated boxing venue in London that charged a fee for entry. For example, Boxiana states that 'money was charged for admission' to this amphitheatre (vol 1/pg 7) and that 'it was no uncommon thing for the receipts of the house [...] to produce from one hundred to one hundred and fifty pounds'. (vol 1/pg 30). This was in the days when prizefighting was still a legal activity and could take place openly in central London. I suspect there are probably a fair number of other examples of paid events from other sports / other countries, which predate 1788.

So, the fee charged for Mendoza-Humphries 1788 was definitely unusual, but not a first. Any thoughts on how the relevant section of the article here might be reworded? If the fight was claimed at the time to be a first then it might perhaps help us here... Axad12 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Section on Mendoza's new style of boxing

The original contemporary sources say that Mendoza contributed significantly to the science of boxing. However, the section in this article on ‘Mendoza’s new style of boxing’ seems to overplay his influence to an unrealistic degree.

For example, the following quote from the article is clearly untrue: ‘Before Mendoza, boxers generally stood still and merely swapped punches’. Looking at contemporary descriptions of pre-Mendoza boxing, it’s evident that throws, headlocks, etc, were used, and that opponents used to shift around and try to avoid their opponents’ blows - all of which clearly infers movement around the ring as opponents closed and separated from one another (not ‘standing still and exchanging blows’).

Another incorrect claim in this part of the article is that Mendoza invented the guard. The guard was well-known in prizefighting circles pre-Mendoza, for example it is mentioned in the section on boxing in Godfrey’s 1747 treatise on self-defence (e.g. ‘his left arm, which is a kind of buckler to him’, also described elsewhere as ‘his guardian arm’). Pierce Egan described various pre-Mendoza boxers as using a guard, including Broughton, of whom he said ‘his guard was considered so complete that his frame appeared as well secured as if by a fence’. There are also various pre-Mendoza pictures showing early prizefighters using a guard (see for example the well-known 1743 document showing Broughton’s Rules which features several such pictures (this can be seen on the Wikipedia page for Jack Broughton).

The idea, expressed in the article, that no boxer had employed a straight left until Mendoza invented it, is also obviously incorrect (hopefully no detailed explanation is required on that point, as the straight left is the most basic blow in boxing and its use flows naturally from the guard).

The extent to which Mendoza’s influence is being overplayed is illustrated by the fact that his book ‘The Art of Boxing’ is described in the article as a ‘masterpiece’ (rather than, say, ‘an influential early work on scientific boxing technique’). Also by the claim that the book is said to have ‘became a primer for a new generation of English and American boxers, and its techniques spread across Europe’, a comment which would seem impossible to verify. For example, is it even true that any significant number of English or American boxers in this era were receiving tuition? Most were surely entirely self-taught (and illiterate). And can it really be demonstrated that prizefighting was being taught ‘across Europe’?

There are other claims in this section of the article which seem dubious, but hopefully the above notes suffice. Ideally this section of the article would be replaced wholesale by a passage with less speculative technical discussion about what boxing looked like prior to Mendoza, but which still makes it clear that Mendoza played a very important role in setting down some of the principles of scientific boxing. Axad12 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I've re-written the whole section on Mendoza's style of boxing, using solely contemporary or near-contemporary sources to try to draw out exactly what was characteristic (and new) about Mendoza's technique. I've also separated out the discussions of (a) his style as a boxer and (b) his ability as a teacher, as these are evidently different aspects (although there has sometimes in the past been a tendency to conflate the two). Hopefully it is clear that his role in the development of scientific technique was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and that he was building very much on the achievements of others and adding his own characteristic elements.

I've left in, for the time being, the bit from the earlier version of the page (at the end of the section) re: changing the perception of Jews and meeting the king. Really these comments have always belonged in a different section, but I thought it best to leave them in rather than delete them altogether.

It always seemed to me that this whole section on Mendoza's style of boxing was located in an odd place within the article and disrupts the flow of the discussion of Mendoza's career. However, I've left it in its current position for the time being. Axad12 (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Minor alterations to the first two paragraphs

a) I’ve removed reference to Mendoza being the eighteenth boxing champion of England. The early history of prizefighting (prior to champion Tom Johnson, 1783-91) is too confused to allow such exactitude. The exact number is, in any case, rather irrelevant.

b) I’ve also removed reference to Mendoza having ‘revolutionised self-defence with his book The Art of Boxing’. As per a previous note, Mendoza’s achievements in that regard are sometimes subject to exaggeration. I’ve changed it to say that he ‘played a significant role in the development of scientific technique in boxing’.

c) I’ve clarified (in the sidebar) that Mendoza’s place of death, Horseshoe Alley, was off Petticoat Lane. Axad12 (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

Some thoughts on the current condition of this article…

Section ‘Early Life & Ancestry’: All good, except that the last paragraph includes the incorrect statement that Mendoza was undefeated in 27 straight fights prior to 1788 (he had lost to Tyne & Humphreys during that period). Also it includes a long non-encyclopaedic list of Mendoza’s opponents, none of whom are notable and (to the best of my knowledge) none are known to have fought anyone other than Mendoza. My impression is that this paragraph would best be removed – in any event the more appropriate place to cover this info would be under the next section [Early Career Highlights (1780-90)].

Section: ‘Early Career Highlights (1780-90)’: From Mendoza’s autobiography it is fairly clear that many of his early fights (e.g. those mentioned above) were either streetfights to resolve arguments, or arranged prizefights against local people who happened to fancy their chances. My impression is that all of the material prior to the bouts with Tom Tyne could perhaps be compressed into a single paragraph, which is probably how much space they deserve in terms of notability. For example: at present, the telling of a very detailed version of Mendoza’s first fight (at age 16) means that it’s afforded more space than any of his individual fights vs either Humphries or Warr, which has to be wrong. At the end of the day, this is an article about an English champion - the important fights in his career are the ones that were reported on by the press and discussed in contemporary sources. The early and more local affairs are not really noteworthy, except when addressed in bulk.

Section ‘Bout with Sam Martin, 1787’: No details of this fight are provided at the moment, the text just begins with the statement ‘After his fight with Sam Martin…’

Section ‘Bouts with Humphries’: It may be useful to clarify the background with Humphries, as Mendoza and Humphries had initially been on good terms (the previous section just relates that Humphries became jealous of Mendoza, but gives no indication of their previous friendship). There are very few details of the first (Sept 1787) fight and the text says ‘This fight was not considered as important by historians, perhaps because Humphries dominated, or because there were fewer people in attendance’. This is all a bit questionable and needs drawing out a bit I think.

Re: the second M vs H bout there is the unresolved issue (addressed in a previous note) re: it being the first pay-to-attend bout. Also, are there any solid references for the US papers who are said to have covered the fight? After this there is a very passing reference to the notorious Mendoza-Humphries newspaper correspondence, although it doesn’t really clarify that this went on for some time and related to the attempts to arrange the M vs H bouts, Mendoza having been sick, etc., etc.

Re: The Times declared in 1789 that Mendoza was champion of England – if this is genuinely true it needs a citation in terms of the exact date on which the Times published this statement. Are we sure that this claim was ever made, as Tom Johnson was the established champion at this time. Wheldon’s 2019 book on Mendoza is very comprehensive and includes many contemporary newspaper references to Mendoza not previously published in Mendoza books. I don’t recall it including this reference though (which, if true, would presumably have been irresistible to include in the book, and very easy to track down).

Section ‘Becoming the All England Champion’: The final part of this section, re: the fight vs Squire Fitzgerald, is out of chronological order – it dates to 1791, i.e. before Mendoza became champion, but is described in the text after he became champion. Also, is this Fitzgerald fight actually notable or is it just a very insignificant event in comparison to the major fights in this period vs Humphries, Warr and Jackson? Mendoza’s own autobiography describes it as an impromptu fight (held indoors) with someone who happened to walk in off the street and challenge him, i.e. not even a prizefight. Presumably prizefighters used to have to deal with these sort of optimistic types on a fairly regular basis, and no doubt so do modern-day boxers. But is it noteworthy?

Section ‘Later career 1793-95’: This section kicks off by discussing various non-boxing issues that affected Mendoza at around this time. Maybe that info needs to be in a separate section. Also, the current text gives a fair amount of coverage to these issues, but only one line to Mendoza’s successful 1794 defence of his title vs William Warr. This must surely be the wrong way round in terms of how much relative coverage these events should receive? Also, is there really any firm contemporary evidence to support the claim that Mendoza’s popularity declined during the period when he was champion? Most of the difficulties that Mendoza was experiencing were presumably going on outside of the public eye – and (then as now) most fans were presumably more interested in fighting ability and results than in whatever boxers might be up to outside of the ring. The reference to the criminal records of Mendoza’s sons is also clearly non-notable.

Section ‘Loss of English Championship’: Is the discussion of age (Mendoza 31 vs Jackson 26) really at all relevant? The current text presents Mendoza as a significant underdog for various reasons, but the near-contemporary source Boxiana states that directly prior to the fight ‘the bets were in favour of Mendoza’, which indicates that the text here is the opposite of how the fight was actually viewed at the time. There is another comment towards the end of this section re: a marked decline in Mendoza’s popularity and that he had ‘lost respect with much of the public’. Is there really any evidence for this? (E.g. he appears to have remained popular even during his comebacks, and there is no mention of him being held in poor regard in any of the contemporary sources, to the best of my knowledge).

Section ‘Work at Admiral Nelson pub, 1806-09’: The title of this section seems rather odd, as the most important event during this period is surely his comeback fight vs Harry Lee, not the fact that he was a pub landlord (which is only covered in 2 sentences in any case). It might be better to include all of the information included in this section, including the 1799 paragraph in the preceding section, and the current ‘Final loss and death’ in a single section called ‘Post retirement’ (or similar). The exact details of Mendoza’s life in this period are, by and large, not massively noteworthy (he seems to have drifted from job to job, trying to make ends meet). Once again there is further mention of Mendoza becoming increasingly unpopular, which seems to be part of a continuing narrative in this article that frequently lacks contemporary evidence to back it up.

There are also a number of minor factual errors throughout, such as Thomas A Price (should be Thomas Apreece) and claiming that the Strand is the government district of London (that would be Whitehall, whereas the Strand was a district of coffee houses and theatres in Mendoza’s day), etc.

Hopefully these notes give some helpful thoughts on how the current article might be usefully improved. Any comments pro or con would be welcomed. Axad12 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Minor changes

A few minor changes....

Thomas Owen (Mendoza's last opponent) was the landlord of a pub in London (exact location St Katherine's Dock in east London, as is recorded in the contemporary sources on Owen). Text here used to say his pub was in Hampshire, which is just where he was born (Portsmouth to be exact), but he lived most of his life in London apart from his youth.

Removed reference to Owen's victory over Mendoza being by knockout. All prizefights effectively ended in knockout, when an opponent was unable to get up and return to scratch. The term is thus essentially an anachronism in this context as no one ever won a prizefight on points.

Changed Horseshoe Ally to Horseshoe Alley and Pettycoat Lane to Petticoat Lane. Axad12 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the English Championship pre-1800

In the absence of any central organising body (and perhaps more importantly in the absence of a belt), it isn’t always straightforward to determine exactly who was champion from what dates during the early period of prizefighting. (This issue is also complicated by the fact that sometimes the word ‘champion’ is used in contemporary sources in what would seem to be rather a looser way than the word would be interpreted in the modern day.)

If we take the example of John Jackson (conventionally accepted as having been Champion from 1795-1800) he only fought three fights (with record WLW) and the only one of those fights in which he could have won the English Championship was his third fight, the victory over Mendoza in 1795.

So, Mendoza was evidently the English Champion until 1795 (when he lost to Jackson), and the only fights in which Mendoza could have originally won the title are his two fights against Warr in 1792 and 1794. However, if you look at those three fights, Mendoza-Warr I, Mendoza-Warr II and Jackson-Mendoza, none of the contemporary accounts state that they were ‘for the championship’. Indeed, I’m not convinced that many of the earlier bouts (e.g. those of Johnson) which are generally accepted these days as having been ‘for the championship’ are specifically described as such in contemporary accounts.

Prior to about 1800 the reality seems to have been that ‘the championship’ was determined entirely by public consensus – which may have only emerged some time after specific results. This explains why it is so rare that contemporary accounts of boxing during that period (or in the later writing of Pierce Egan, when describing this period) ever describe a particular fight as having been anticipated as a battle for the championship, or as someone having specifically become champion directly after a victory. This being the case, the whole idea of specific pre-1800 bouts being ‘for the championship’ (in the modern sense of that term) is probably completely anachronistic. See also, for example, Mendoza’s own autobiography and the complete lack of any mention of particular fights having been ‘for the championship’.

Anyone who has read a lot of prizefighter biographies on Wikipedia will be aware that there is a lot of anachronistic prose present – at one end of the spectrum there used to be plenty of incorrect mention of weight-category championships which simply did not exist at the time (derived ultimately from the very flawed ‘cyberboxingzone’ website), but at the other end of the spectrum there is frequent reference to specific victories having been by ‘knockout’ (an unknown concept at the time, as pretty much all fights ended approximately in that way), to fighters having ‘turned pro’ (they are almost all known to have had other regular jobs), to the existence of ‘promoters’ (really, in an era when the sport was illegal?), etc, etc. All of this illustrates the great difficulty that we sometimes have in shaking off the trappings of modern-day boxing – which, in terms of its organisation, was entirely different to prizefighting in almost every way.

So, this note is essentially a request that editors consider quite carefully whether it is actually useful to describe specific pre-1800 fights as having been ‘for the championship’. It seems that it would be far more useful to locate contemporary source material to directly support the idea that specific fighters were recognised as champion at a particular time. E.g. in many cases it may be more appropriate to omit reference to ‘Fighter X fought Fighter Y in a battle for the English championship’, and instead to say ‘After this victory Fighter Y seems to have begun to be recognised as English Champion’ and provide contemporary sources as references.      

[I have cross-posted this note in the talk sections for Johnson, Brain, Mendoza and Jackson. Hopefully it is useful.] Axad12 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Surprising lack of evidence for Mendoza having been champion

The Wikipedia article currently expresses the 20^th and 21^st century consensus that Mendoza was English champion between 1792 and 1795. This is in accordance with, for example, Wheldon’s Mendoza, The Fighting Jew (2019), where it states (without providing any supporting evidence) that ‘With the defeat and retirement of Johnson and the ill health of Brain, the championship of England was vacant. It was not an official title, but it was generally agreed that whomsoever won this fight [i.e. Mendoza-Warr, 1792] would be regarded as holding it'.

Reference to contemporary sources, however, reveals a rather different picture. We have multiple contemporary reports of Mendoza’s supposed title fights in 1792, 1794 and 1795 (e.g. in the Evening Mail and the Oracle, both quoted in Wheldon) and in The Sporting Magazine (which was essentially the journal of record for sporting events at this time) – but none of these reports mention that the fights were for the championship, or describe Mendoza as the champion. Similarly, although The Sporting Magazine mentions Mendoza on several occasions during his supposed reign as champion, it never describes him as the champion.

Similarly, 1812’s Pancratia (which describes all fights of note from, say, 1780 to 1812) makes no mention to these 3 Mendoza fights having been championship bouts or to Mendoza having been champion. The same position is expressed in Pierce Egan’s Boxiana volume 1 (1813) where at no point in the 23-page chapter on Mendoza is there any mention of him having been champion. Compare, for example, to the Boxiana chapters on Tom Johnson, Ben Brain and Jem Belcher, in each of which it is made clear on multiple occasions that they were champions of England. Indeed, Egan says that Brain was champion until his death (8^th April, 1794, i.e. two years into Mendoza's supposed reign).

Furthermore, even Mendoza’s own autobiography does not describe the 1792, 1794 and 1795 fights as having been for the championship, and he does not ever describe himself as having been champion. (He is not generally slow in mentioning his own achievements, so this omission is particularly troubling.)

This all raises the uncomfortable question, was Daniel Mendoza ever actually the English champion? Mendoza’s championship seems to be a historical event for which there are no contemporary references that can be produced as proof, despite the fact that Mendoza’s career at that time is very well documented (including in his own autobiography). Normally, under Wikipedia rules, the idea that Mendoza was champion would be considered highly dubious, and there certainly appear to be grounds to suggest that his supposed championship is an act of 20^th century historical revisionism that lacks clear evidence (and appears to stem from Henry Downes Miles' Pugilistica, written over 100 years after the events in question, in 1906).

I’m thinking of adding a brief section to the article to clarify the lack of clear sources to support Mendoza’s championship. (Troublingly, the same lack of evidence is found when trying to track down clear evidence for John Jackson having been acclaimed as champion between 1795 and 1800).

I've added some of the raw sources discussed here as External Links at the foot of the article, for the benefit of anybody wishing to acquaint themselves with the surprising lack of mention in contemporary sources to Mendoza having been champion.

Any thoughts? Axad12 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you make a compelling case. I've also reviewed Fred Henning's Fights for the Championship from 1902, which makes similar claims about Mendoza and others being 'the English Champion', and have some serious doubts about the reliability of such claims. His book seems to be the origin of quite a few sensational stories and myths (see my post at Talk:Broughton Rules#Stevenson's death for an example). It seems that Henning and Miles (and a good number of boxing enthusiasts) have a desire to see a clear lineage of champions going all the way back to Figg and Broughton, but as you rightly point out, the primary sources and 19th century secondary sources paint a much more complex picture than 'X was the English Champion until Y beat him in a fight'. The notion of 18th century belt-style championships seems to be an anachronistic notion propagated by sources such as Henning, Miles, and cyberboxingzone.com. It's unfortunate that some otherwise-reliable secondary sources have adopted anachronistic view in recent years as well. I'm in favour of removing it, though, in light of how the 19th century sources present the subject. CoatGuy2 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are certainly correct about Henning’s Fights for the Championship. Henning’s method, as far as I can see, was to take events about which not a great deal was known, and to work them up into detailed narratives through invention. A similar method was used in the magazine Famous Fights (also early 20^th century). Both of these sources are effectively useless for anyone intent on serious research because (a) they never quote their sources and (b) the line between fact and fiction is impossible to discern (i.e. without referring back to the original contemporary sources to work it out for yourself – and if you’re going to need to do that, better only to look at the contemporary sources in the first place!).

You are also correct about the need some people seem to have to create an unbroken linear succession of champions, even though it's abundantly obvious from early sources that no such succession existed.

However, returning to Mendoza and Jackson, and whether they were ever acclaimed as English Champions…

If we try to establish a timeline:

Ben Brain either retired in 1791 after beating Johnson, or (if we follow Egan) he remained champion until his death in 1794. The concept of ‘retiring’ is actually very unhelpful here, because most fighters went through phases where they didn’t fight for long periods. Whether they considered themselves retired is difficult to say, given that most (if not all of them) always had a primary occupation which was not prizefighting. In Mendoza’s autobiography it’s clear from his own words that he had given up fighting entirely at various points in his career prior to losing to Jackson (including, notably, for at least one extended spell during part of Mendoza's supposed championship). Similarly, when exactly did, say, Jackson retire? Or Cribb? Does the word ‘retire’ have any real meaning in any of these cases? The more important issue really is whether or not someone was active.

(Brain was in ill health for much of 1791-4, but it's clear from the chapter on him in Boxiana that he always seems to have been intent on a return to the ring. The idea that he had 'retired' in 1791 is thus clearly untrue, although whether he was universally accepted as champion for all of this period is certainly open to question.)

So, from either 1791 or 1794 until the advent of Jem Belcher (in 1800) there seems to be a kind of inter-regnum where prizefighting was in the doldrums in terms of competitive energy (and popular support) and where there were no acclaimed champions. During this period the two boxers who were the most highly acclaimed teachers (Mendoza and Jackson) attained a significant platform in the popular imagination, although neither seems to have ever been acclaimed as Champion of England.

It is notable here, I suspect, that fighters like Johnson, Jem Belcher, Cribb, etc. were active champions who put the English Championship on the line, beating multiple challengers, and were therefore popularly acclaimed as Champions. Mendoza and Jackson, on the other hand, were hardly active from 1792-95 and 1795-1800 respectively and (perhaps unsurprisingly) were therefore not acclaimed as champions. What they were acclaimed as were very capable instructors of pugilism (which is what they were primarily working as during the periods in question) – but clearly that is an entirely different thing to being the Champion of England.

I’m currently unsure of how to proceed regarding changing the articles for Mendoza and Jackson on this point. It seems to me that the unanimous pre-1900 consensus was clearly that they were not Champions of England. The more recent consensus, however, is that they were (albeit that this is clearly dubious as there is no contemporary evidence to support it). The position I've outlined doesn’t seem to be ‘own research’, it is simply detailing the unanimous consensus in contemporary late 18^th/early 19^th century sources. Axad12 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A short while ago I made a fairly significant edit to the Mendoza article, primarily as follows:

1) Altered the lead section to describe Mendoza as 'a prominent English prizefighter in the 1780s and 90s'. Also noted briefly that modern sources usually describe him as champion from 1792-95 but that the original contemporary sources never do so.

2) Added a section at the foot of the article ('Claim to the English Championship') which details the evidence given in an earlier note here on the Talk page re: late 18th and early 19th century sources. The idea that Mendoza was champion is described as deriving from Henning's unreliable 1902 Fights for the Championship.

3) I have removed several references in the main text to fights having been for the championship, to Mendoza having been champion, etc. I may not have caught them all, will have to review later.

4) While going through the article I also removed/corrected some of the issues noted in an earlier Talk note on the various outstanding issues with the article. (Most of the issues, however, I did not work on.) I also removed or toned down some of the more hyperbolic / hagiographical text found in the article.

As things currently stand, most of the Mendoza article appears to have been sourced from two places, Blady's The Jewish Boxer's Hall of Fame and Brodie's The Jewish Strongman. Some of the material in the article referenced to these sources suggests that these are sub-Henning, third- or fourth-hand sources which introduce multiple elements not found in the contemporary source material.

Ideally, the whole article needs to be gone through with a fine toothed-comb, with these references being removed and systematically replaced with specific page references to the authoritative original source material such as Boxiana, Pancratia, The Sporting Magazine and (perhaps) Pugilistica. Various elements of commentary in the article which cannot be traced to those sources (or to, say, Wheldon's 2019 Mendoza the Jew, which is a work of very high calibre) should really be removed as they are probably just later inventions by Henning (or other similar authors).

The article would definitely be significantly improved by adding some direct quotes from the original sources, particularly in relation to the original descriptions of the fights. (This will always be a far better option than paraphrasing from accounts given in more modern descriptions).

I will try to get round to doing this work at some point in the future when I get the opportunity and have the relevant sources to hand. Unfortunately I suspect it will end up being rather time consuming...

In the short term, however, I've made the change detailed above re: Mendoza and the championship. Hopefully I've expressed it in a way that other editors will agree is accurate and proportionate.

Any comments pro or con would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Why was Jaen Spain added as Daniel Mendoza's ancetral origin.

I checked all the links to the references / sources that appear to be attached to this claim, however most links have Erro 404 attached to them with the remaining link giving NO reference to Jaen. ALL family history online sources referring to Daniel Mendoza's ancestral origin is recoreded as Seville Spain. Could whoever rewrote this paragraph PLEASE attach a credible source to give credence to this change to a person's ancestral origin, OR remove or change it. Thank you. 124.179.2.10 (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)