Your Mickey Walker ranking?

He defeated Maxie Rosenbloom in a fight at heavyweight.

Obviously his most impressive accomplishment at the weight, is the draw against Jack Sharkey.

 

Maxie beat him pretty convincingly six months earlier so that's pretty much a wash IMO. And Max Schmeling liked to have killed him when they fought.

 

I've thought for a while before responding to this because I have always liked Walker too. He's a no-brainer ATG and somebody who was going to be a difficult, brutal night at the office for any opponent. I just think he's gotten pushed down the list at both welterweight and middleweight by people who have come along afterward. Top 20, I could be convinced of Top 15 maybe, at welterweight, top 25 at middleweight.

And while it was certainly memorable, I think people are getting a little too fired up about the draw with Sharkey being such a transcendent moment in history. First because as I've noted often, Sharkey was a manic depressive fighter and it really was a crap shoot as far as what you were going to get from him on a given night

Second, I've been looking through old real-time coverage of the fight on Newspapers Dot Com and the gist of what was reported was that Sharkey didn't take the fight seriously, assumed he could handle a middleweight and had a rematch with Schmeling on his mind.

For the record, though, the New York Daily News ... which always was anti-Sharkey, they carved him up with regularity ... scored the fight 11-3-1 for Walker.

But James Dawson of the New York Times, another noted boxing writer of the era, had it 10-4-1 Sharkey.

And Col. Dave Egan of the Boston Globe ... Ted Williams' favorite sports writer ... just crucified Sharkey for this fight (as did Paul Gallico in the Daily News, I've said before that Newspapers Dot Com is a treasure trove of great writers and writing on boxing), said Sharkey, "... Lazed along in a don't-give-a-whoop manner, scoring when he pleased with left jabs to Mickey's shaggy head, but in general giving the the opinion that he did not wish to seriously harm or knock out Walker," and then outright levied the accusation that Sharkey had carried Walker for 15 on the direct orders of Al Capone.

I guess nobody did libel/slander suits back then LOL.

 

Your point being?

 

I thought that's what you meant but please... Maxie made his hay at lightheavy and was three pounds over that limit. That is hardly a heavyweight accomplishment by any measure but semantic. Sharkey could fight down to any level of opposition.

Again, I started a Walker thread a couple years back saying he was underrated and that he was no simple brawler but a really good boxer with great use of space and perfect timing. But it's getting over your skis to say Top 5. I would entertain the back end of Top 20.

 

That him splitting with Rosenbloom is less earth shattering and significant than him beating Rosenbloom in a single meeting.

 

I am going to half agree with you on the first point.

Rosenbloom was a very successful heavyweight contender, but he is obviously in the Hall because of his work at light heavy.

On your second point, about Sharkey being able to train down to any level of opposition, that I must take issue with.

He had a ridiculous number of fights against elite opponents between 1925 and 1931.

During this run of form his only losses are to Jack Dempsey, Johnny Risko, and Max Schmeling (I am sure you know the circumstances).

That represents a significant window where Sharkey is very hard to beat

Walker draws with him during this period.

 

I am not sure that I agree.

If you split a series with somebody, does it really undervalue your win?

 

He was ranked only twice in Ring's annual poll at heavyweight, both years being exceedingly weak. He was not much of a heavyweight force. He had no power and lulled his opponents and the audience to sleep. He was an operator. I guy who knew how to erase rounds. In short, the perfect opponent for the cyclone Walker.

The fact that ham and egger Risko beat him is damning enough.

 

Meh, maybe not.

I've been doing some Newspaper dot com research as well on the Walker-Rosenbloom fights.

Fight 1 was a clear victory for Maxie in the judges' eyes, they had 3- and 8-round margins; and the newspaper round by round guys' eyes, the NY Daily News had it 10-4-1 for Maxie. But apparently not in referee Eddie Forbes' eyes. He had it 9-4-2 for Walker, but because the two judges were unanimous, under NY rules at the time Forbes' card was tossed out. BoxRec says Forbes warned Maxie many times for "holding, hitting on the break and striking with open gloves," and the coverage at the time echoed that and actually wondered if the referee just had it in for Maxie because of his "unique" style. In the coverage of the Sharkey-Walker fight, there was speculation that Arthur Donovan (who cast the ballot for Walker) might have felt likewise because Sharkey was not exactly the cleanest of fighters.

Fight 2, where Walker came back and won in Los Angeles ... apparently there was enough of a scent around this to where according to one LA newspaper the boxing commission called both Maxie and Mickey in to talk to them, and the chairman specifically instructed the referee to stop the fight and throw them both out of the ring if he thought there were any shenanigans going on; and the LA Daily News actually reported in its story about the fight that the scuttlebutt around ringside was that they had agreed for it to be a draw (since it was a non-title fight) but that Mickey double-crossed Maxie and fought to win. Another LA newspaper said Maxie looked so bad that "it made one wonder if the boys really were shooting straight or if the scrap was another of 'those things.'"

 

Since I am not hanging a lot on this win, we can both agree to both make what we will of it.

Now there we are going to disagree.

Risko was the best heavyweight of the 30s, who never held a title.

In that seven year run of form, where Sharkey was actually consistent, he only loses to three men, and two are Hall of Famers.

Two of the wins involved a low blow, so Risko's win is by far the most satisfactory of the three.

 

As a former sports writer I resent the term “journo hack” because that assumes facts not in evidence. Perhaps I am wrong but I tend to give credence to people who were actually on the scene reporting these events in real time, instead of people offering their opinions nearly 100 years after the fact.

I gave Walker what I thought was due praise and respect. I just don’t think him drawing with Sharkey or beating Rosenbloom one out of two when the title wasn’t on the line are among the greatest and most significant events ever to take place in a boxing ring, and I am trying to temper the excitement with a little reality. I have my favorite boxers but I try to look at this stuff in a cold, unemotionally, unexcited fashion before offering my opinions, which are just that, completely subjective opinions.

 

Risko was a 5-10, almost .500 fighter. A plugger. A gatekeep at best. God Bless Him, he was tougher than I'll ever be. But in the wider context of the division he was a minor factor. Even in the depleted era of the 20's he should be a C level victim.

 

Risko wasn't a "ham & egger," he was a dangerous contender & notorious spoiler throughout the 20s & early 30s. he has numerous other elite fighters & even hofers on his resume. Even when he lost fights, he was known for being a pain in the @$$, such as against Tunney.