Daniel Mendoza’s final boxing match with Richard Humphries took place in September of 1790 in the town of Doncaster. While all the sources and Mendoza’s memoir agree that Mendoza won the match, the accounts differ on many of the specifics.
One difference between Mendoza’s account and the newspaper articles was the exact odds that were in Mendoza’s favor at the beginning of the match. Mendoza stated that they were five to one. A report in the World claimed they were seven to four, while the Whitehall Evening Post asserted they were two to one. The London Chronicle maintained four to five odds and the General Evening Post declared the odds were six to four. While there was no doubt that most of the spectators believed Mendoza would be the victor, …show more content…
The World reported that Humphries “never recovered through the whole of the fight.” The report from Diary or Woodfall’s Register stated there were other reports that Humphries had dislocated his knee. That was false, according Diary or Woodfall’s Register, because Humphries wouldn’t have been able to fight for an hour following the sprain nor could he exhibit “great spirit.” Instead, the match would have been over in less than five minutes. Humphries had only sprained his knee, but the injury was not so bad as to affect his …show more content…
It described boxing as a “disgrace to the nation.” The paper was “stained” by the mention of a boxing match and blackguards were a dishonor to human nature. Because the author of the report was against boxing, his reporting was probably the most fair and unbiased. He didn’t care who won; therefore, the details he provided were accurate. The most significance aspect of the reporting was that he referred to Mendoza both as the “Jew” and by his name, but the author only called Humphries “Humphries” rather than a combination of Humphries and the
One difference between Mendoza’s account and the newspaper articles was the exact odds that were in Mendoza’s favor at the beginning of the match. Mendoza stated that they were five to one. A report in the World claimed they were seven to four, while the Whitehall Evening Post asserted they were two to one. The London Chronicle maintained four to five odds and the General Evening Post declared the odds were six to four. While there was no doubt that most of the spectators believed Mendoza would be the victor, …show more content…
The World reported that Humphries “never recovered through the whole of the fight.” The report from Diary or Woodfall’s Register stated there were other reports that Humphries had dislocated his knee. That was false, according Diary or Woodfall’s Register, because Humphries wouldn’t have been able to fight for an hour following the sprain nor could he exhibit “great spirit.” Instead, the match would have been over in less than five minutes. Humphries had only sprained his knee, but the injury was not so bad as to affect his …show more content…
It described boxing as a “disgrace to the nation.” The paper was “stained” by the mention of a boxing match and blackguards were a dishonor to human nature. Because the author of the report was against boxing, his reporting was probably the most fair and unbiased. He didn’t care who won; therefore, the details he provided were accurate. The most significance aspect of the reporting was that he referred to Mendoza both as the “Jew” and by his name, but the author only called Humphries “Humphries” rather than a combination of Humphries and the