Why is Byron Mitchell considered so highly?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 30 Aug 2006, 16:32

Many folks here count Mitchell as a great Calzaghe opponent and victory. I wonder why - Mitchell was easily outboxed by an ageing Ottke in his previous fight; and Calzaghe himself totally owned Mitchell (a brief unattentive moment of Calzaghe notwithstanding).

Other that that, Mitchell's career consists of razor thin encounters with not-so-great Bruno Girard; and come-from-way-behind knockouts over Manny Siaca and Frank Liles (admittedly I haven't seen any of these bouts).

Sylewise, Mitchell was unusually big for a super-middleweight, very strong, a good puncher. But he had slow hands and even slower feet, and was fairly easy to hit.

So, Mitchell was certainly solid, but not much more than that.
Or was he?

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 30 Aug 2006, 16:35

Didn't he also get decked by blown up Light Middle Julio Cesar Green on the undercard of John Ruiz V Kirk Johnson? Hmm i remember too many irrelevant facts.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 30 Aug 2006, 16:47

I remember that, not a bad fight while it lasted.
I know what you mean though, Calzaghe beat him so people have to say he was better than he actually was to make the win look better.
A pre-emptively similar thing seems to be happening re: Witter v Corley, whereby Corley who was regarded his entire career as a defensively minded light hitting southpaw slickster is all of a sudden being referred to left right and centre as a "banger" in the brit press*.

*That may be due to his wobbling Cotto (weight-drained) and momentarily stunning Mayweather (former superfeatherweight) though

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 30 Aug 2006, 17:02

Bit of a dodgy stoppage against Calazage with Mitchell being the last to throw a punch

Axe · Post by **Axe** » 30 Aug 2006, 17:23

Well, Ill be the one to point out the obvious and state that Mitchell didn't get "totally owned" by Ottke. He lost the fight by a round at the most.

He moved well, boxed well, and hit hard. Still, it didn't look good on JC's resume that he was coming straight off a loss (even though it was a SD). He was not what I'd call "gifted", but he was fairly well rounded and strong in every area.

JC really shouldve fought him before Ottke did if he wanted more credit...or at the least make Mitchell take a few tune-ups to make sure the confidence issue was nonexistant.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 30 Aug 2006, 17:33

Axe wrote:Well, Ill be the one to point out the obvious and state that Mitchell didn't get "totally owned" by Ottke. He lost the fight by a round at the most.

My friendly advice: don't write about fights you haven't seen. An ageing, post-his-prime Ottke was leading by at least 4 rounds after round 10 (=7:3), then threw the last two rounds away. Mitchell was one of Ottke's easier wins (and the overhand right that floored Calzaghe wouldn't have caught Ottke in a 100 years).

He moved well, boxed well, and hit hard. Still, it didn't look good on JC's resume that he was coming straight off a loss (even though it was a SD). He was not what I'd call "gifted", but he was fairly well rounded and strong in every area.

He moved well??

Boxed well??

Hit hard-yes: but--one--punch--at--a--time--and--don't--forget--to--step--foward.

JC really shouldve fought him before Ottke did if he wanted more credit...or at the least make Mitchell take a few tune-ups to make sure the confidence issue was nonexistant.

Actually, this thread is neither about Calzaghe nor Ottke but about Byron Mitchell. And Bryon Mitchell was one of the poorer beltholders in the 168 divison of recent years--I'd have at least Calzaghe, Ottke, Kessler, Beyer, Lucas, Mundine, Woodhall, Brewer above him.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 30 Aug 2006, 19:05

Axe wrote:Well, Ill be the one to point out the obvious and state that Mitchell didn't get "totally owned" by Ottke. He lost the fight by a round at the most.

He moved well, boxed well, and hit hard. Still, it didn't look good on JC's resume that he was coming straight off a loss (even though it was a SD). He was not what I'd call "gifted", but he was fairly well rounded and strong in every area.

JC really shouldve fought him before Ottke did if he wanted more credit...or at the least make Mitchell take a few tune-ups to make sure the confidence issue was nonexistant.

I agree with your assessment of a very close fight.

It's hard to call Ottke ageing at that point, as he turned pro so late!

But I give Ottke his dues for winning in that clever style of his. Byron was NOT robbed, like some ppl say. IMO the Glen Johnson fight was more clear cut for Ottke, who TOTALLY OWNED Johnson in the last rounds.

As i pointed out in another post, Mitchell is typical of the TITLISTS that Ottke and Calzaghe beat on, making the clear distinction between titlist and CHAMPION

Mitchell was capable of beating and losing to top ten fighters, like some others mentioned below. His power was something that could bail him out. A fight with Brewer or Echols would've been good. Byron's no better, no worse than Woodhall, Brewer, Reid, Eubank at the time, etc. It is good to be able to beat a handful of these guys. Ottke didn't really step it up a level from these sorts. Calzaghe has the option too, by taking on the winner of two major upcoming bouts.

Looking forward to it.

states · Post by **states** » 30 Aug 2006, 21:05

pundit wrote:Actually, this thread is neither about Calzaghe nor Ottke .

Bollocks Pundit. This thread is clearly about Calzaghe, as you well know.

Not that I'm leaping to Joe's defence, because God knows the man has his flaws. But surely you have something other to discuss,rather than Calzaghe's resume, and/or Kessler's rise to the top?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 30 Aug 2006, 21:09

states wrote:
pundit wrote:Actually, this thread is neither about Calzaghe nor Ottke .
Bollocks Pundit. This thread is clearly about Calzaghe, as you well know.

Not that I'm leaping to Joe's defence, because God knows the man has his flaws. But surely you have something other to discuss,rather than Calzaghe's resume, and/or Kessler's rise to the top?

Well, look a bit around in the forum, mate...

PS: btw, the thread is indeed about Mitchell.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 30 Aug 2006, 21:25

viciousmaussa wrote:I agree with your assessment of a very close fight.

Really? Normally your assessments are spot on, but I couldn't say that this one is.

It's hard to call Ottke ageing at that point, as he turned pro so late!

Prime Ottke in my book was 1999/2000. He fought Mitchell in 2003.

But I give Ottke his dues for winning in that clever style of his. Byron was NOT robbed, like some ppl say. IMO the Glen Johnson fight was more clear cut for Ottke, who TOTALLY OWNED Johnson in the last rounds.

Ottke came from behind to beat Johnson, losing the early rounds but dominating the second half -- as you write. But against Mitchell Ottke was never behind and never at risk of losing -- he put in the rounds he needed early on, and took it easy towards the end. If it was close on the scorecards it was so only because Ottke knew he had won and gave the final rounds away, just trying to stay out of trouble.

Mitchell was capable of beating and losing to top ten fighters, like some others mentioned below. His power was something that could bail him out. A fight with Brewer or Echols would've been good. Byron's no better, no worse than Woodhall, Brewer, Reid, Eubank at the time, etc.

Prime Brewer had much better defense than Mitchell. Prime Reid had much faster hands, and both -- especially Reid -- moved better. Prime Glencoffe Johnson was better than Mitchell in every department. I put all these guys at least half a class above Mitchell. As I do with slick Mundine, even the green Mundine Ottke fought in 2002. And I take prime Lucas and prime Woodhall over Mitchell any day.

It is good to be able to beat a handful of these guys. Ottke didn't really step it up a level from these sorts. Calzaghe has the option too, by taking on the winner of two major upcoming bouts.

If you say Mitchell is just as good as the above then of course Ottke didn't step up. But in my view Johnson, Mundine, Brewer II were much better, ore significant wins for him. Even Branco. Calzaghe has fought Reid and a younger, a bit faster carbon copy of Mitchell in Lacy.

states · Post by **states** » 30 Aug 2006, 21:37

pundit wrote:
states wrote:
pundit wrote:Actually, this thread is neither about Calzaghe nor Ottke .
Bollocks Pundit. This thread is clearly about Calzaghe, as you well know.

Not that I'm leaping to Joe's defence, because God knows the man has his flaws. But surely you have something other to discuss,rather than Calzaghe's resume, and/or Kessler's rise to the top?
Well, look a bit around in the forum, mate...

PS: btw, the thread is indeed about Mitchell.

Come on Pundit, the thread may be about Mitchell in theory, but your point is that he wasn't such a great win for Calzaghe. You know it, and so do I.

Again, I'm not trying to get all Max Molyneux on your ass, but don't pretend that isn't your point. For the record, I'm with you: Calzaghe's next fight must be against the Kessler/Beyer winner. Which will surely be Kessler.

Axe · Post by **Axe** » 30 Aug 2006, 21:56

pundit wrote:My friendly advice: don't write about fights you haven't seen. An ageing, post-his-prime Ottke was leading by at least 4 rounds after round 10 (=7:3), then threw the last two rounds away. Mitchell was one of Ottke's easier wins (and the overhand right that floored Calzaghe wouldn't have caught Ottke in a 100 years).

Ive seen it twice, actually. Scored it 7-5 Ottke the first time around and 6-6- the second time.

pundit wrote:He moved well??
Boxed well??
Hit hard-yes: but--one--punch--at--a--time--and--don't--forget--to--step--foward.

I'm actually basing all of this on the Ottke fight (I have the JC fight, but its rather short). Yes, he moved well, he cut the ring off decently on Sven (and that's impressive, considering Ottke was a runner), and he boxed well: how many times did he circle and snap Ottke's head back with double and triple jabs? He threw some solid combos as well, but both guys tied up too frequently when they were in close.

pundit wrote:Actually, this thread is neither about Calzaghe nor Ottke but about Byron Mitchell.

Sure pundit, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 31 Aug 2006, 00:51

pundit wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:I agree with your assessment of a very close fight.
Really? Normally your assessments are spot on, but I couldn't say that this one is.

It's hard to call Ottke ageing at that point, as he turned pro so late!
Prime Ottke in my book was 1999/2000. He fought Mitchell in 2003.

But I give Ottke his dues for winning in that clever style of his. Byron was NOT robbed, like some ppl say. IMO the Glen Johnson fight was more clear cut for Ottke, who TOTALLY OWNED Johnson in the last rounds.
Ottke came from behind to beat Johnson, losing the early rounds but dominating the second half -- as you write. But against Mitchell Ottke was never behind and never at risk of losing -- he put in the rounds he needed early on, and took it easy towards the end. If it was close on the scorecards it was so only because Ottke knew he had won and gave the final rounds away, just trying to stay out of trouble.

Mitchell was capable of beating and losing to top ten fighters, like some others mentioned below. His power was something that could bail him out. A fight with Brewer or Echols would've been good. Byron's no better, no worse than Woodhall, Brewer, Reid, Eubank at the time, etc.
Prime Brewer had much better defense than Mitchell. Prime Reid had much faster hands, and both -- especially Reid -- moved better. Prime Glencoffe Johnson was better than Mitchell in every department. I put all these guys at least half a class above Mitchell. As I do with slick Mundine, even the green Mundine Ottke fought in 2002. And I take prime Lucas and prime Woodhall over Mitchell any day.

It is good to be able to beat a handful of these guys. Ottke didn't really step it up a level from these sorts. Calzaghe has the option too, by taking on the winner of two major upcoming bouts.
If you say Mitchell is just as good as the above then of course Ottke didn't step up. But in my view Johnson, Mundine, Brewer II were much better, ore significant wins for him. Even Branco. Calzaghe has fought Reid and a younger, a bit faster carbon copy of Mitchell in Lacy.

I do think Ottke-Mitchell was pretty close. But that is no big deal with Ottke as he does tend to win close fights. Mitchewll did land some very hard shots and it is difficult to judge how much movement, defense, and little punches from Ottke offset that. Mitchell's problem was that he didn't fight more than a minute a round.

To this day, ppl say that Mitchell was "robbed blind" but that is worthless wank of an opinion.

Lacy is better than Mitchell, faster, better body puncher and capable of a better workrate

So how did Ottke-Branco play out? I never saw that one

Nels · Post by **Nels** » 31 Aug 2006, 04:48

Not wishing to interrupt the de rigeur Calzaghe thread slanging match which I am sure this will devolve into -- if it hasn't already, mind -- I thought I'd just chime in and say that I've seen a couple of Mitchell's fights, and I always thought -- heavy hands aside, natch -- he looked like shit.

Liles beat on him for about 90% of their fight until he couldn't keep Mitchell off him any more -- it's been years since I've seen that one so you'll have to forgive my haziness.

But in the Julio Cesar Green fight BM looked fekking awful. He was down twice I believe (not sure if one of the knockdowns was disputed) against a guy who seemed to come up to his collarbone, was repeatedly beaten to the punch and the stoppage that he scored was eerily reminiscent of Mitchell's own loss to Calzaghe, Green in trouble but seemingly not threatened, with the added caveat that Mitchell looked absolutely fucked earlier in the fight, while Green just looked tired and dispirited.

There you go. Pundit, tell everyone how Kessler would destroy JC in a round. Max or someone declare that Kessler wouldn't be able to lace up Calzaghe's gloves. Normal service shall be resumed...

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 31 Aug 2006, 05:27

Reason it's seen as an excellent win by Calzaghe is....because it was.

Seriously hurt for the first time in his career, he got up and blasted the other guy out of there in the same round, thereby confirming a few things: when the going got tough it didn't faze him at all. And also he had an excellent chin. The first round was vintage Calzaghe, and early indication of the form he'd show v Lacy.

And Mitchell was a very heavy handed banger, with a big heart as well. He really hurt Ottke too, in the final round, and Sven was hanging on for dear life.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 31 Aug 2006, 06:45

MW, I think Eubank really nailed him in the last round and had Calzaghe at sea - but was to late in the day.

It was an excellent fight, I don't say its an excellent win though. Yes, Calzaghe was hurt and showed TREMENDOUS recovery powers - but the shot that turned the tide was so lucky that it connected, it was one of several wild swings and Mitchell just walked on to it.

Given generally the lack of quality opponents Joe has faced, it has to rank among his best 3-4 wins but I've always thought Mitchell wasn't a particularly good champion.

I also consider Ottke generally schooling Mitchell (rediculous how that was a split decision) was a better performance than Calzaghe's war.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 31 Aug 2006, 07:02

Yes you're right Stu, Eubank nailed JC good in the last, but didn't hurt him as badly as Mitchell: dropped heavily and didn't look like he was too sure where the hell he was when he got up on his knees.

Lucky shot? Lennox Lewis' favorite line.

Debatable if it's "lucky" when you're winging punches at the other guy's chin and one lands flush...

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 31 Aug 2006, 07:36

Lets not forget Calzaghe had never been beyond 8 rounds before that. He looked shattered in that last round against Eubank and was hanging on but it was his first 12 rounder.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 31 Aug 2006, 08:24

A Calzaghe's resume bashing thread from Pundit... surely my eyes deceive me!

Compare Kessler's banner opponent to Mitchell, with common oppnent, Ottke.

Mitchell: wrong end of a home town decision.
Mundine: KTFO.

Like it or not, Mitchell was a top 5 SM when Calzaghe fought him.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 31 Aug 2006, 08:29

MightyWarrior wrote:Yes you're right Stu, Eubank nailed JC good in the last, but didn't hurt him as badly as Mitchell: dropped heavily and didn't look like he was too sure where the hell he was when he got up on his knees.

Lucky shot? Lennox Lewis' favorite line.

Debatable if it's "lucky" when you're winging punches at the other guy's chin and one lands flush...

No dout Mitchell hurt Calzaghe worse than Eubank did, I actually think a shot Mitchell landed after the KD hurt Calzaghe more - he really dipped the knees and force to give ground.

Yes, lucky is Lewis' favourite line.... although I think Calzaghe's was more luckier than any of Lewis' defeats..... if you asked Calzaghe straight after the fight what punch put down Mitchell I reckon he would have struggled to answer it.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 31 Aug 2006, 09:20

There are two ways of looking at this fight.

One is that Calzaghe showed astounding powers of recovery to get up from that shot and blast his opponent like that just 20-30 seconds later. He didn't appear badly hurt at all and was up in an instant.

The other thing is that it was worrying how wide open Calzaghe was to that shot in the first place (left hook wasn't it) and he didn't show any inclination to defend himself afterwards. He could just as easily have gone down again as Byron down.

However, got to admire his balls in going for his man like that.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Aug 2006, 11:39

jamesmcdonnell wrote:There are two ways of looking at this fight.

One is that Calzaghe showed astounding powers of recovery to get up from that shot and blast his opponent like that just 20-30 seconds later. He didn't appear badly hurt at all and was up in an instant.

The other thing is that it was worrying how wide open Calzaghe was to that shot in the first place (left hook wasn't it) and he didn't show any inclination to defend himself afterwards. He could just as easily have gone down again as Byron down.

However, got to admire his balls in going for his man like that.

I tend to discount the knockdown. Yes, Calzaghe got a bit careless, probably becasue he felt he was totally in charge. When he got up though he blasted Mitchell away with his handspeed -- by far Calzaghe's greatest asset.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 31 Aug 2006, 12:20

Yes, his handspeed is very impressive, especially for such an aggressive fighter, and he punches with enough authority to stop opponents rather than just flurry and score points. Calzaghe also has very good lateral movement, and when he chooses to use it, good boxing ability too. He's can actually box at range and jab and poke his way to victory when required, it's just that isn't how he likes to fight particularly.

It's worth noting that Mitchell himself admitted after the fight that he was completely out of it when Calzaghe drilled him into the ropes. He said he would have liked to have had the chance to continue, but had no complaints about the referee stopping it. I remember his eyes rolling back into his head when Calzaghe laid into him, he was certainly hurt, and looked likely to take a lot more shots.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 31 Aug 2006, 12:23

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, his handspeed is very impressive, especially for such an aggressive fighter, and he punches with enough authority to stop opponents rather than just flurry and score points. Calzaghe also has very good lateral movement, and when he chooses to use it, good boxing ability too. He's can actually box at range and jab and poke his way to victory when required, it's just that isn't how he likes to fight particularly.

It's worth noting that Mitchell himself admitted after the fight that he was completely out of it when Calzaghe drilled him into the ropes. He said he would have liked to have had the chance to continue, but had no complaints about the referee stopping it. I remember his eyes rolling back into his head when Calzaghe laid into him, he was certainly hurt, and looked likely to take a lot more shots.

He's also excellent at judging distance between him and his opponents. Just a shame he wasted his best years in the comfort of the WBO.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 31 Aug 2006, 14:14

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, his handspeed is very impressive, especially for such an aggressive fighter, and he punches with enough authority to stop opponents rather than just flurry and score points. Calzaghe also has very good lateral movement, and when he chooses to use it, good boxing ability too. He's can actually box at range and jab and poke his way to victory when required, it's just that isn't how he likes to fight particularly.

It's worth noting that Mitchell himself admitted after the fight that he was completely out of it when Calzaghe drilled him into the ropes. He said he would have liked to have had the chance to continue, but had no complaints about the referee stopping it. I remember his eyes rolling back into his head when Calzaghe laid into him, he was certainly hurt, and looked likely to take a lot more shots.

The thing is we haven't seen too much of Calzaghe's lateral movement and jab in his defenses, at least not against top notch opponents. Calzaghe's best victories all followed the same receipe: outscore and overwhelm an -- often stronger -- opponent from half-distance with handspeed and punch variability.

Against Lacy, Calzaghe showed some very nice infighting skills that I hadn't seen from him before; so he may well be more variable than he appears. But to establish this, Calzaghe would need to step out of his comfort zone and change the type of opponent he fights. No more ringbullies a la Mitchell or Lacy (or Glencoffe Johnson), but instead skilled counterpunchers with good defensive abilities.