Talk:Daniel Mendoza

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why this weirdly apologetic tone in the article? 

message: In portuguese, the spanish name Mendoza is spelled Mendonça.85.240.20.124 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese or Spanish Jewish origin ? 

message: At WP:Help desk#Dear Wikipedia. —Half Price 13:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion re family tree 

message: 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)
thread_title:  references 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  English Champion vs English Heavyweight Champion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of anachronistic mention of weight-based titles  

message: 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)
thread_title:  First pay-for-entry sporting event?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor alterations to the first two paragraphs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outstanding issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The nature of the English Championship pre-1800 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why was Jaen Spain added as Daniel Mendoza's ancetral origin.