Who is the last middleweight who was the best heavyweight on the planet at some point

Jimmy Ellis--was never the best heavyweight--Not only Frazier, but also Ali, were better.

Jack Dillon--probably deserves a mention here. Fought generally in the 160's, and was only 5 7 1/2. Between 1914 to 1916 Dillon defeated Fireman Jim Flynn (190 lbs), Charley Weinert (193 lbs), Gunboat Smith (182 lbs), Tom Cowler (206 lbs), Frank Moran (205 lbs) and Bob Devere (192 lbs). It might be because many of these were no-decison bouts that he is not considered as a heavyweight slayer, but Dillon was at least as impressive against heavyweights (180 or over) as Greb, and I think actually moreso.

Dillon weighed only 158 when he lost to Greb in 1917 and often fought at less than 165. He seems to have gone back very rapidly after 1916 or so, when he was only 25.

Dillon's success against the big fellows was well regarded by contemporaries, as his nickname was "Jack the Giant Killer".

 

Stanley Ketchel had his moment vs Johnson but it did not last long but for that KD, he was on top of the world for a minute

 

Bob Fitzimmons. He started out as a middleweight,and eventually became heavyweight champion.

 

Les Darcy, the stocky wizard from Maitland, although unproven at this weight, had the kind of talent and strength to give the big boys some real trouble. A match between him and Willard was actually proposed at some point.

It is not inconceivable that he could have risen to the top of the pile in the late teens.

 

As a general rule, while there were no middleweights who actually did a Fitzsimmons and rose to the top, do you think it would be fair to say that this was probably the period where the most middleweights came closest to becoming the number one?

 

Duo beat me to the punch.

I'd argue that the last middleweight who was the best heavyweight on the planet had to have been

This content is protected

. And the reasoning for it is his "draw" with Sharkey that absolutely should have been a decision win in his favor; this according to at least one reliable source who was in press row watching. Westbrook Pegler spent the previous jok making jokes about Mickey's chances. He was completely converted by the end of the Walker-Sharkey bout, and said that Walker won easily.

Sharkey was considered the best HW on the planet after the first Schmeling fight were Schmeling ended up writing on the canvas and Sharkey got disqualified. Sharkey was rattling him, tossing him around, and then, he said, Schmeling "came in too high."

Despite the fact that Schmeling "won," it was Sharkey that was considered the best HW on the planet.

A month and a half later, little Mickey Walker fired him up and got ripped off.

That makes Walker the best HW on the planet in my book and he stayed that way for about a year.

This content is protected

 

Although Sharkey looked good in the first 4 rounds against Schmeling, it was only 4 rounds. Of course, the bulk of the American press favoured Sharkey over the newcomer imported from Europe.

Walker wouldn't have been able to beat Schmeling.

 

Sharkey was handling Schmeling, that's a fact. Their respective places of origin have nothing to do with that.

-Speculating on what Walker would have done or not done with Schmeling is beside the point.

It was the era after Dempsey and Tunney and there wasn't much around in the division. Sharkey was considered the best HW by many if not most after the first Schmeling fight. Walker then got the better of Sharkey. If a fighter is considered the best in the division and another fighter comes along and defeats him, that fighter often assumes the title of "best" because he beat the best. Walker had just defeated a giant journeyman HW and would go on to defeat a few ranked contenders in the HW division.

It wasn't long before he was defeated, but for a short time, a natural MW has a pretty damn good argument of being the best HW around.

 

Except Walker did not beat Sharkey, even if you think he did.

 

Walker-Schmeling in 1930 would have been a much different proposition than it was when it actually did come off in late 1932. As I mentioned before, he actually trained himself below the middleweight limit for their originally scheduled date before a self inflicted injury forced a ruinous postponement. That he initially trained harder for Schmeling than Sharkey suggests that he considered Schmeling to be the greater threat, and may have regarded Max more highly than Jack in 1930 and 1931 as well.

Mickey allowed that even if he was in peak condition, Max may have been too much for him in late 1932. But what if a younger Walker applied peak conditioning to a 1930 showdown with Schmeling? The Toy Bulldog went 15(9KO)-0-0 in 1930, while Max only had the four round DQ with Sharkey. Mickey was on fire while Schmeling was in mothballs, and Sharkey stated that inactivity badly undermined both Max and himself. (When Schmeling did fight Walker, it was just three months after his 15 round rematch with Sharkey, so rust wasn't the handicap for him it easily could have been in 1930.)

A key factor in their 1932 showdown was that Max's speed was actually superior to an aging and out of shape Mickey's. But Schmeling was certainly never as well known for his hand speed as a peak Sharkey was, a clear indicator that Walker diminished considerably between Sharkey and Schmeling.

Factors like age, activity, conditioning and timing ought to be taken into account. Was Schmeling clearly a better heavyweight than Walker in 1930 and 1931?

To form conclusions based on what happened between them in September 1932 might be akin to assessing Napoleon by Waterloo, or Ali by Holmes. Still, if we must go there, Mickey did get off the deck early to produce some rousing moments, and was on his feet when the bell rang ending round eight with both eyes closed. Schmeling put Louis out for the count, but couldn't do it to a blind and bleeding, aging and slowed overweight Walker. Is it reasonable to assume he takes out a peak Toy Bulldog?

Now, we all know what a great counterpuncher Max was. But counterpunching can be a liability against a highly aggressive opponent if that opponent cannot be prevented from going the distance, and the German paid dearly for his lack of initiative in the Sharkey rematch. Is it truly a given that Walker gets stopped by Schmeling in 1930?

Look at Walker-Hudkins II in late 1929. The ring worn legs Mickey dragged in against Max three years later were nothing like the mobile springs which he brought with him into 1930. (I would also imagine that ten rounds of recent experience with Loughran at Tommy's very best brought Walker's own skills to the top of their evolution. The maneuverable Walker of Hudkins II didn't need pure aggression and doggedness to deal with powerful heavyweights.)

 

Ezzard Charles.

For the first two years of his career, he was fighting at or around the middleweight limit, He was actually rated at number in the middleweight ratings in 1941, and made the limit for both his fights with Burley, as well as his fight with another highly rated middleweight contender, Jose Basora.

Of course, he would go on the win the heavyweight title, and even though he was overshadowed by Louis, after he defeated the Brown Bomber there was no question about whether he was the best at the weight when he was on the throne.

 

OK. For 4 rounds, Sharkey was getting the better of Schmeling. That's not proof that he's the best fighter in the world, or the better fighter of the two.
Never has the accepted means of deciding superiority of a fighter at the very top level been by way of a 4 round bout.

Well, if you're going to say Sharkey was the best HW in the world because he was considered by "many if not most", then apply that method to Mickey Walker.
I doubt you would argue that Walker was considered by many as the best HW in the world.
Also, a 13-month layoff seperated Sharkey's supposedly-impressive 4 round DQ loss to Schmeling and his gift draw with Walker. 13 months of inactivity.

On the other hand, if Walker is to be considered the world's best HW on the strength of that, it's worth noting that he defended that status with 5 straight wins, and then lost to Johnny Risko a mere 11 months after "beating" Sharkey. So Risko's claim to being the best must be just as legitimate, following the same reasoning.

 

I dont think Walker was anywhere near as far gone as you imply. To evoke Holmes-Ali is laughable.
It was only a few months earlier that Walker had whipped Uzcudun and levinsky.
It was only 14 months earlier that Walker had drawn (or beaten !) Sharkey, which is arguably the highpoint of his heavyweight campaign.

 

"Walker beat Sharkey" as much as if not more than "Pernell beat Julio."

Or are you of the opinion that Pernell "did not beat" Julio because the judges saw that one as a draw too?