The English Conspiracy

[Willie Pep 229]

Sullivan mostly fought under queesberry rules where hair pulling was illegal. No spiked shoes either! In short he was not worried about hair pulling.

No, he had four major bare knuckle fights and he cropped his hair for those events. Donaldson, Ryan, Mitchell, and Kilrain.

"Mostly" is a distraction word. You did not address the bare knuckle fights he did have.

You don't play this game fair. You deliberately confuse arguments with vague terms, irrelevant points, and repeated goal post moving.

Whether Sullivan cropped his hair or shaved his mustache for his gloved fights I have not yet been able to confirm.

P.S. Sullivan didn't fight all of his gloved fights under the MQB Rules. In some fights, they wore gloves but fought undert the LPR Rules.

I am still trying to find proper sources to confirm this.

[Bronson66]

No, he had four major bare knuckle fights and he cropped his hair for those events. Donaldson, Ryan, Mitchell, and Kilrain.

"Mostly" is a distraction word. You did not address the bare knuckle fights he did have.

You don't play this game fair. You deliberately confuse arguments with vague terms, irrelevant points, and repeated goal post moving.

Whether Sullivan cropped his hair or shaved his mustache for his gloved fights I have not yet been able to confirm.

P.S. Sullivan didn't fight all of his gloved fights under the MQB Rules. In some fights, they wore gloves but fought undert the LPR Rules.

I am still trying to find proper sources to confirm this.

Perhaps as you imply grasping an opponent by the hair in one hand and punching him with the other relied solely on opportunity, similar to women when they scrap, they go for the hair?

Mendoza wore his hair long ,affording his opponent the chance to employ this then legal tactic.

[Bronson66]

The idea that you can convince yourself this nonsense is convinces anyone that you are anything more than a mongrel is staggering.


Whitaker, Jackson, Cribb, Spring, Ward, well known for their cheating ways. Like the racists then, this racist thinks he can semantics his way out of a charge that has exist since 1728. 1795, 1810, 1824, 1833, 1864, and 1885


As I've said, at worst you can say my language is harsh. He used a tactic that hadn't a rule against it because no man nor crowd would accept it without class politics for protection, if we're to speak by the card. As did Whtaker, as did Cribb, as did Spring. Soon enough your ****** ass is going to tell me but mob interference was with in the rules and then after that you'll point out the era in which the umpire judges when the ring is broken. Semantics, I didn't invent the controversy. I cited it. You've changed **** all nothing.

This idea the topic is about my own gradizing, bro, you make the subject me you moron. Flexing on how little you know if easy and off the cuff. I pop no tabs, I search nothing. I simply take a critical eye to the same post you attempt to criticize. Meanwhile off you pop to read about issues you have no interest in only because I said let's talk about this ****. Dumbass. Your hand is the hand that wrought that deed.

Just a silly, gross, old man putting on full display how silly and gross he is. Have you a nice white day sir, hope you don't run into any annoying lowriders or god forbid a man call you friend by any term but a good English one.

I posted a contemporary source,that extolls Jackson for his gentlemanly behaviour both in and out of the ring.You posted your own , self inflated opinion.

What grounds to you have for calling me a racist? Post your evidence that I am?

Anti ***ish? My first Wife was ***ish.

Anti Irish? My Wife is Irish from Co Cork.

Anti American? I posted all my cultural favourites,from Authors,Actors,Composers,Singers ,and Boxers,all of them are American.

"Have a nice white day?" Is this meant to imply I am racially prejudiced against black people?

If it is, post your proof that I am ?
Produce one single post of mine that is anti black in its content?

You are a pathetic mental case ,playing the race card about a fight involving two White British fighters ,that isn't from left field,its from an entirely different universe!
I've challenged you to produce proof and sources several times in this and the other thread.

I produced mine.

BOXIANA AND BELL'S LIFE .WHERE ARE YOURS?

I DO SO AGAIN

NOW PRODUCE ONE SINGLE SENTENCE IN ALL MY CONTENT ON THIS FORUM THAT INDICATES I AM PREJUDICED AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE!

YOU WONT FIND SUCH A SENTENCE BECAUSE NONE EXIST!

I'VE REFRAINED FROM INDULGING IN THE VERBAL EXCESSES AND OBSCENITIES YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY THROWN

AT ME ON THESE TWO THREADS ,BUT NOW I'M RATHER TIRED OF YOUR LUDICROUSLY UNBALANCED BEHAVIOUR .


BRO[LOL] YOU ARE A LYING COWARD,WHO BELONGS IN A STRAIGHT JACKET.

[Bronson66]

[QUOTE=Dr Z;n32474764]

YES i DO.


This was a bare-knuckle prizefight for the English Prizefighting Championship, with John Jackson defeating Daniel Mendoza in nine rounds. The fight was notable for Jackson’s controversial use of hair-pulling, which was legal under the rules at the time, and Mendoza’s reputation as a scientific boxer. Below is the round-by-round account based on historical records:

• Round 1: Both fighters begin cautiously, feinting and sparring to gauge each other’s style. Mendoza, known for his scientific approach and counterpunching, avoids committing fully, waiting for Jackson to initiate. Jackson, trained in London’s pugilistic schools, is aggressive but doesn’t land significant blows. The round is even, with minimal damage.
• Round 2: Mendoza finds his rhythm, using his speed and defensive skills to block Jackson’s punches. He lands several effective counterpunches, showcasing his technical superiority. Jackson struggles to penetrate Mendoza’s guard, giving Mendoza a slight edge in this round.
• Round 3: The pace intensifies as both fighters exchange punches. Mendoza lands well, but Jackson’s power becomes evident. Mendoza goes down once, likely from a well-placed blow, but recovers quickly. The round is competitive, with both showing skill and resilience.
• Round 4: Jackson grows more confident, pressing the attack. He ignores Mendoza’s stinging counterpunches and lands a vicious blow to Mendoza’s right eye, causing significant swelling and dropping him again. Mendoza, bleeding heavily, retreats to his corner, clearly affected. Jackson takes control.
• Round 5: A pivotal and controversial round. Jackson seizes Mendoza’s long hair with one hand, holding him in place while pummeling his head with uppercuts using his free hand. Mendoza collapses from pain and exhaustion. Mendoza’s corner appeals to the referees, citing the hair-pulling, but it’s ruled legal under Broughton’s rules. The fight continues, with Mendoza visibly weakened.
• Rounds 6–8: Mendoza, now hurt and exhausted, is forced onto the defensive. Jackson maintains pressure, capitalizing on Mendoza’s diminished state. Mendoza struggles to mount an effective offense, and Jackson’s harder hitting dominates these rounds. Mendoza’s durability keeps him in the fight, but he’s clearly fading.
• Round 9: Jackson overwhelms Mendoza, who can no longer withstand the barrage. Jackson beats Mendoza into submission, and the fight is stopped, with Jackson declared the winner. Mendoza’s attempt to reclaim the championship fails, and Jackson’s victory solidifies his reputation.

Now I found a round that Mendoza won, which you asked for. It is over. Now you can reply all you want to the name calling. School is in session.

You might resort to hair pulling



"Mendoza held the title until 1795 when John Jackson rather easily knocked him out in nine rounds. Mendoza retired only to return, for financial reasons, at the age of 41 with a victory over Harry Lee in 1806. He even fought one losing effort in 1820. He ran boxing schools and owned a tavern in retirement. Mendoza’s contributions to boxing had a lasting impact. His impressive ring displays further popularized boxing, and by teaching and example, he advanced the use of more sophisticated tactics in the ring."

[Dr Z]

No, he had four major bare knuckle fights and he cropped his hair for those events. Donaldson, Ryan, Mitchell, and Kilrain.

"Mostly" is a distraction word. You did not address the bare knuckle fights he did have.

You don't play this game fair. You deliberately confuse arguments with vague terms, irrelevant points, and repeated goal post moving.

Whether Sullivan cropped his hair or shaved his mustache for his gloved fights I have not yet been able to confirm.

P.S. Sullivan didn't fight all of his gloved fights under the MQB Rules. In some fights, they wore gloves but fought undert the LPR Rules.

I am still trying to find proper sources to confirm this.

As I said , Sullivan had 40+ fights. Only a handful of them, 4 according to you, were bare knuckle fights. At any rate, Sullivan was not concerned with hair pulling and I find zero reference to this in MQ and bare knuckle fights of his time.

[Bronson66]

[QUOTE=Bronson66;n32475106][QUOTE=Dr Z;n32474764]

YES i DO.


This was a bare-knuckle prizefight for the English Prizefighting Championship, with John Jackson defeating Daniel Mendoza in nine rounds. The fight was notable for Jackson’s controversial use of hair-pulling, which was legal under the rules at the time, and Mendoza’s reputation as a scientific boxer. Below is the round-by-round account based on historical records:

• Round 1: Both fighters begin cautiously, feinting and sparring to gauge each other’s style. Mendoza, known for his scientific approach and counterpunching, avoids committing fully, waiting for Jackson to initiate. Jackson, trained in London’s pugilistic schools, is aggressive but doesn’t land significant blows. The round is even, with minimal damage.
• Round 2: Mendoza finds his rhythm, using his speed and defensive skills to block Jackson’s punches. He lands several effective counterpunches, showcasing his technical superiority. Jackson struggles to penetrate Mendoza’s guard, giving Mendoza a slight edge in this round.
• Round 3: The pace intensifies as both fighters exchange punches. Mendoza lands well, but Jackson’s power becomes evident. Mendoza goes down once, likely from a well-placed blow, but recovers quickly. The round is competitive, with both showing skill and resilience.
• Round 4: Jackson grows more confident, pressing the attack. He ignores Mendoza’s stinging counterpunches and lands a vicious blow to Mendoza’s right eye, causing significant swelling and dropping him again. Mendoza, bleeding heavily, retreats to his corner, clearly affected. Jackson takes control.
• Round 5: A pivotal and controversial round. Jackson seizes Mendoza’s long hair with one hand, holding him in place while pummeling his head with uppercuts using his free hand. Mendoza collapses from pain and exhaustion. Mendoza’s corner appeals to the referees, citing the hair-pulling, but it’s ruled legal under Broughton’s rules. The fight continues, with Mendoza visibly weakened.
• Rounds 6–8: Mendoza, now hurt and exhausted, is forced onto the defensive. Jackson maintains pressure, capitalizing on Mendoza’s diminished state. Mendoza struggles to mount an effective offense, and Jackson’s harder hitting dominates these rounds. Mendoza’s durability keeps him in the fight, but he’s clearly fading.
• Round 9: Jackson overwhelms Mendoza, who can no longer withstand the barrage. Jackson beats Mendoza into submission, and the fight is stopped, with Jackson declared the winner. Mendoza’s attempt to reclaim the championship fails, and Jackson’s victory solidifies his reputation.

Now I found a round that Mendoza won, which you asked for. It is over. Now you can reply all you want to the name calling. School is in session.

You might resort to hair pulling



"Mendoza held the title until 1795 when John Jackson rather easily knocked him out in nine rounds. Mendoza retired only to return, for financial reasons, at the age of 41 with a victory over Harry Lee in 1806. He even fought one losing effort in 1820. He ran boxing schools and owned a tavern in retirement. Mendoza’s contributions to boxing had a lasting impact. His impressive ring displays further popularized boxing, and by teaching and example, he advanced the use of more sophisticated tactics in the ring."


You post an unattributed load of nonsense that omits the fact that Jackson knocked Mendoza down in the 1 st round.

That fails to mention Mendoza went down in the 2nd round to save himself.

That says the 3rd round was competitive even though Mendoza was floored heavily in it.


This is your original quote.

"Jackson was underhanded. If not for the hair pull , who knows who would have won.".

The hair pulling was legal and the anonymous source you quote clearly states this.


Now you say Mendoza only won one round ,[which actually he didn't even manage,] Jackson won every round.

So what basis is there for you to state," who knows who would have won?

Can't you see how ****** your position is?

[Marchegiano]

I posted a contemporary source,that extolls Jackson for his gentlemanly behaviour both in and out of the ring.You posted your own , self inflated opinion.

What grounds to you have for calling me a racist? Post your evidence that I am?

Anti ***ish? My first Wife was ***ish.

Anti Irish? My Wife is Irish from Co Cork.

Anti American? I posted all my cultural favourites,from Authors,Actors,Composers,Singers ,and Boxers,all of them are American.

"Have a nice white day?" Is this meant to imply I am racially prejudiced against black people?

If it is, post your proof that I am ?
Produce one single post of mine that is anti black in its content?

You are a pathetic mental case ,playing the race card about a fight involving two White British fighters ,that isn't from left field,its from an entirely different universe!
I've challenged you to produce proof and sources several times in this and the other thread.

I produced mine.

BOXIANA AND BELL'S LIFE .WHERE ARE YOURS?

I DO SO AGAIN

NOW PRODUCE ONE SINGLE SENTENCE IN ALL MY CONTENT ON THIS FORUM THAT INDICATES I AM PREJUDICED AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE!

YOU WONT FIND SUCH A SENTENCE BECAUSE NONE EXIST!

I'VE REFRAINED FROM INDULGING IN THE VERBAL EXCESSES AND OBSCENITIES YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY THROWN

AT ME ON THESE TWO THREADS ,BUT NOW I'M RATHER TIRED OF YOUR LUDICROUSLY UNBALANCED BEHAVIOUR .


BRO[LOL] YOU ARE A LYING COWARD,WHO BELONGS IN A STRAIGHT JACKET.

I am a lying coward?

Let's take stock:


First you call it clickbait. I quickly expose your agenda driven motives.

Then it's personal, to which I rightly show you are culturally bias and even take offense when your own culture isn't coddled

That's a waffle and I could have just stopped right there. If you were not dense as dirt you would have.

Once you are totally juxtaposed into talking about the actual subject, hyper focus on Jackson and some round by round, begins

I rightly point out three levels of cosignage from the Advertiser, IBRO, and IBHOF.

You cast this as dismissal of your sources

I explain highlighting other sources does not dismiss any sources

You recast the same juxtaposition as lacking primary

I point out I already posted primary and it is your source that is nearly 20 years removed from the events.

Now you double down



This is without the absolutely ridiculous personal attacks like charging me with "Anti-English Agenda" not many posts after admitting it is you who is agenda driven.




Jittering monkeys climb trees to call themselves tall. Men stand on the shoulders of giants to look beyond the veil.


It is clear you've never read any of the material in full. It is clear you cherry pick sources to suit your debates. It is clear your sole motivation here is me and it is clear your real issue with me is my refusal to coddle your sensitivities.








This is a story about English boxing, written in English, with references to Will E. Shakes, posted on a boxing forum in the history section. The villains are English, the heroes are English. Rules? English. History keepers? English. Locations are English, backers are English, fans are English. Hell bro, there's a few examples in this thread of Irish and American participants but you chose to attack one of the all English affairs. You Smort. Both fighters, English.


So, one has to think, for this thread to be Anti-English, you must be still denying the Englishness of Daniel Mendoza, born in London, raised in London, hunted with the King, crowned champion by her people, died in her capital having never once moved away from his home nation.


Anti-English?

Try anti-class. Dumbass.



I didn't bury the English. I bured the high class interfering with boxing. Everyone in the story is English, dumbass.

There is that at least. There is no story of the English being nationalistic without the English also being the ones who refuse to put up with that ****. Not saying there wasn't Irish lad in the crowds just that the English as a whole are not to blame and I only use the term for lacking a better identifier.

**** that must be from some other thread right? Not right here in OP is it? Not been there the whole time has it? Gee, it's almost like as if, just in case some moron took this as anti-english , it is as if I was making an attempt to clarify it is also the English who right the wrongs. Because it's English history. Because ALL major players are English.





Nice use of caps. You're clearly not an emotional wreck or nothing. Over ****ing John Jackson FFS.




Finally, there should be none more respected than the historians of the IBHOF. Disrespecting me is one thing, don't let your hate for me spill over to disrespecting them. Talk to one, they are marvelous. ​

[Bronson66]

I am a lying coward?

Let's take stock:


First you call it clickbait. I quickly expose your agenda driven motives.

Then it's personal, to which I rightly show you are culturally bias and even take offense when your own culture isn't coddled

That's a waffle and I could have just stopped right there. If you were not dense as dirt you would have.

Once you are totally juxtaposed into talking about the actual subject, hyper focus on Jackson and some round by round, begins

I rightly point out three levels of cosignage from the Advertiser, IBRO, and IBHOF.

You cast this as dismissal of your sources

I explain highlighting other sources does not dismiss any sources

You recast the same juxtaposition as lacking primary

I point out I already posted primary and it is your source that is nearly 20 years removed from the events.

Now you double down



This is without the absolutely ridiculous personal attacks like charging me with "Anti-English Agenda" not many posts after admitting it is you who is agenda driven.




Jittering monkeys climb trees to call themselves tall. Men stand on the shoulders of giants to look beyond the veil.


It is clear you've never read any of the material in full. It is clear you cherry pick sources to suit your debates. It is clear your sole motivation here is me and it is clear your real issue with me is my refusal to coddle your sensitivities.








This is a story about English boxing, written in English, with references to Will E. Shakes, posted on a boxing forum in the history section. The villains are English, the heroes are English. Rules? English. History keepers? English. Locations are English, backers are English, fans are English. Hell bro, there's a few examples in this thread of Irish and American participants but you chose to attack one of the all English affairs. You Smort. Both fighters, English.


So, one has to think, for this thread to be Anti-English, you must be still denying the Englishness of Daniel Mendoza, born in London, raised in London, hunted with the King, crowned champion by her people, died in her capital having never once moved away from his home nation.


Anti-English?

Try anti-class. Dumbass.



I didn't bury the English. I bured the high class interfering with boxing. Everyone in the story is English, dumbass.





**** that must be from some other thread right? Not right here in OP is it? Not been there the whole time has it? Gee, it's almost like as if, just in case some moron took this as anti-english , it is as if I was making an attempt to clarify it is also the English who right the wrongs. Because it's English history. Because ALL major players are English.





Nice use of caps. You're clearly not an emotional wreck or nothing. Over ****ing John Jackson FFS.




Finally, there should be none more respected than the historians of the IBHOF. Disrespecting me is one thing, don't let your hate for me spill over to disrespecting them. Talk to one, they are marvelous. â

I don't hate you,I just dislike you.

You called me a racist multiple times ,and when I asked you to post evidence of my racism,you responded with another load of Bollocks.

I'm culturally biased? I come from a dirt poor background, two families with 5 kids between them and a Grandmother, living in a ,3 bedroom terraced house ,on an estate popularly called Rat Island, backing onto marshland.
We living there ,kept chickens ,rabbits,ducks, and some kept goats,apart from these, and the wild animals we managed to catch with snares,,dogs, or shoot with patched up guns ,we never ate meat,because we couldn't afford to.
The kids wore their older brothers hand me downs, or second hand clobber, often trousers cut down with jackets that looked like over coats on our smaller frames.
When we were old enough for school our Mothers went to work in the fields,pea-picking,bean-picking,carrot and onion pulling,cabbage cutting,and on week end we kids would be next to them doing the same to earn a couple of shillings to supplement Father's wages
Don't talk to me about culture or class .

You have no idea of my upbringing, or my culture, you ignorant fool!

I know where Mendoza was born, its 40 minutes from my home and many of the LPR battles occurred local to me,2 in my own town.

Any one can be a member of the IBHOF the only requirement is to ante up with the necessary $$$,for which you receive a certificate and a plaque.

WHOOP DE DOO!

All you buried on this thread was the remnants of your own credibility.

I should tell you ,far from making a case for yourself as any kind of serious poster, you are now being referred to in private messages as"emotionally unstable,"and ,"having mental issues"

You are not well.

Get some help,whilst you still have some vestiges of your sanity.

[Marchegiano]

I don't hate you,I just dislike you.

You called me a racist multiple times ,and when I asked you to post evidence of my racism,you responded with another load of Bollocks.

I'm culturally biased? I come from a dirt poor background, two families with 5 kids between them and a Grandmother, living in a ,3 bedroom terraced house ,on an estate popularly called Rat Island, backing onto marshland.
We living there ,kept chickens ,rabbits,ducks, and some kept goats,apart from these, and the wild animals we managed to catch with snares,,dogs, or shoot with patched up guns ,we never ate meat,because we couldn't afford to.
The kids wore their older brothers hand me downs, or second hand clobber, often trousers cut down with jackets that looked like over coats on our smaller frames.
When we were old enough for school our Mothers went to work in the fields,pea-picking,bean-picking,carrot and onion pulling,cabbage cutting,and on week end we kids would be next to them doing the same to earn a couple of shillings to supplement Father's wages
Don't talk to me about culture or class .

You have no idea of my upbringing, or my culture, you ignorant fool!

I know where Mendoza was born, its 40 minutes from my home and many of the LPR battles occurred local to me,2 in my own town.

Any one can be a member of the IBHOF the only requirement is to ante up with the necessary $$$,for which you receive a certificate and a plaque.

WHOOP DE DOO!

All you buried on this thread was the remnants of your own credibility.

I should tell you ,far from making a case for yourself as any kind of serious poster, you are now being referred to in private messages as"emotionally unstable,"and ,"having mental issues"

You are not well.

Get some help,whilst you still have some vestiges of your sanity.

Look at the ****ing state of you bro.

Yes, I did, multiple times. You and Pep are the only two i have ever charged with this. I come to the defense of Queen, Ghost, Tony, Z, you know, the others who have been accused. When I say there is not a man here I have not defended in some way, including you, I am not half whistling dixie.

The fact that you would reframe your hate speech juxtaposed to my reminder I actually love you doe dog as "load of bollocks" should be your ****ing clue.


Go watch Pocahontas or some ****.




BTW you can't hate me for calling you racist, I just started that. Something else motivated this. Let me help you out; your perception. Nothing but English glory found in this thread friend, by the ****ing card, by the bard.

[Bronson66]

Look at the ****ing state of you bro.

Yes, I did, multiple times. You and Pep are the only two i have ever charged with this. I come to the defense of Queen, Ghost, Tony, Z, you know, the others who have been accused. When I say there is not a man here I have not defended in some way, including you, I am not half whistling dixie.

The fact that you would reframe your hate speech juxtaposed to my reminder I actually love you doe dog as "load of bollocks" should be your ****ing clue.


Go watch Pocahontas or some ****.




BTW you can't hate me for calling you racist, I just started that. Something else motivated this. Let me help you out; your perception. Nothing but English glory found in this thread friend, by the ****ing card, by the bard.

. There is only one poster I hate on this forum,Dr Z and I have good reason to do so.

You I just dislike,all that self justifying,bleating and wallowing in self pity you indulge in,it's quite sickening.

Pocahontas is buried in my towns churchyard there is a statue there commemorating it.

Now , unless you have some boxing to talk about F*** Off !