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

If Risko defeated the consensus-pick as the best HW in the world, and didn't get beaten by Baer and Loughran within the previous 8 months, then he'd have an argument.

Walker, in stark contrast was the former world WW champion and the former WW middleweight champion of the world. He was an established all-time great -even among the crusty older fans suffering from nostalgia. Writers of the time considered Walker a force in the division, but did not go so far as to choose him as the number one guy -he was usually cast as proof-positive that the division was at a weak point.

I am not the consensus. I offered an opinion that given circumstances and the clear victory he should have been granted over the man who most thought should have been HW champ of the world, Walker has a good argument for being, however briefly, "the best HW."

 

Having just reviewed Schmeling-Walker, I heartily agree with you about the absurdity of my ill considered Holmes-Ali analogy. Mickey had indeed gone back substantially from Hudkins II, and was chunky and slow at 174, but still raised some hell in rounds four, five and six. (I had him winning round three as well.) He was competitive enough against a passive reactive Schmeling to raise serious questions in my mind as to what might have happened between them in 1930. (Walker also stood up to a savage barrage after that second knockdown in round eight, retreating, but also returning fire for over a minute before the bell rang, ending the round on his feet, and the fight. Max implored referee Jack Denning to stop it, but Mickey was fighting back. Based on what is seen in the film, I agree with Denning allowing it to continue. Maybe with the color of blood visible in the footage, my impression would be different, but as it is only black and white, I defer to the third man in the ring.)

Although Sharkey was awarded the title in the rematch with Schmeling, he was already in decline himself by then. Regression can happen as abruptly as advancement (the way Holmes progressed from Arrington to Shavers I, and Ali did from Cooper I to Liston I being famous examples of the latter), and regression did happen so in Jack's case, as the contrast between Carnera I & II graphically illustrates. For a smaller competitor like Walker, the allowance for any deterioration is considerably less. He decked Risko in their first bout in 1930, winning handily, had to rally in the last two rounds to repeat that win in 1931, then lost in 1932, when Johnny got him in Cleveland.

Mickey had the same height and reach as Duran. He came in at a career high 174 for Schmeling, when 158 would have served him far better for mobility and speed (although two or three years less of age and ring wear would have been even more pivotal). With Duran, we saw numerous times what a difference a weight of five or ten additional pounds on a frame that size could make in performance. Again, Walker's 169 for Sharkey was described as, "surprisingly high." Although that was perhaps his most noteworthy heavyweight performance, the fact remains that he was already 30 years old, and likely past his peak! If Mickey had fought Jack a year earlier...(And he should have gone after Sharkey right after Hudkins II, capitalizing on Jack's overconfidence following his knockout of recent Walker conqueror Loughran. Mickey was no Fainting Phil Scott, as the Gob may have been fortunate not to discover in early 1930.)

Sharkey was most certainly not in decline when he took on Walker, as anybody who has seen the footage of Carnera I can attest. Jack was 28 years old, and in top form, while Mickey may have already been slightly past it, making that performance and his subsequent wins over Uzcudun and King Levinski all the more stunning. (Incidentally, that was the Kingfish's first official match after the filmed four round exhibition where he convinced Dempsey to remain in retirement, and it was sandwiched between his two distance losses to Max Baer. That was a very decent version of Levinski outpointed by Walker.)

If it's the size of the fight in the dog which counts for most, did Sharkey and Schmeling surpass Walker in that respect during the two year vacancy following Tunney's retirement?

 

Drew, by that reckoning, Patterson could arguably be thrown into the mix. He never actually made 160 as a professional, but did come in as low as 163, and fought middleweight Willie Troy as late as 1955.

Certainly he made his name as an amateur middleweight. The claim could be made that he was able to make 160 through the first three years of his career if he'd first decided to go after Olson or Robinson instead of Moore at 175, or Marciano's vacated title. (Actually, Olson, Moore and the HW Title for a Fitz trifecta would have been an astute promotional tactic by D'Amato, as triple titling had previously done so much for Armstrong, and Floyd was in a better position to attempt it than Charles ever was.)

My personal preference is to consider those who could and did make 160 following their claim to the top heavyweight position, something Charles, Patterson and Ellis would not have been able to achieve.

 

Ezzard Charles is my imminent pick... Spinks wasn't the best amongst the other beltholders... imo.. he always had someone who maybe could have beaten him technically even tho it was never proven so... Spinks was just awkward... Patterson was also good, but Liston was always looming...

 

Yes, and I'm one of those who has made a case in the past that Corbett was better. (Siler inexplicably delayed his count in the midst of it while Fitz was down. Corbett should have just shoved off his clinch immediately and stepped back. Fitz essentially admitted in his dressing room afterward that Corbett's speed was too much for him in the early going, and was perfectly brazen about no rematch ever taking place.)

However, you specified when you created this thread that you were asking who the last middleweight was who was genuinely the best heavyweight on the planet in our opinions, not explicitly according to popular consensus. As you are the thread originator, my posts are really addressed for your consideration, to accept, reject, or dismiss in favor of further candidates, as sort of an arbiter.

Stoney's independent endorsement and support of my original case for Walker is a most high honor. (And tag teaming with him in reply to Unforgiven's thoughtful rebuttals has been an immense pleasure. Civilized discourse makes this forum tick, and I consider ESB Classic to be the exclusive Gentleman's Smoking Room of this website, with General as the toilet.) However, it is YOU who has asked our opinions on the subject. (And I'm only a junior member of this forum, while you're one of the anchors.)

In Mortimer J. Adler's classic highbrow text, "How to Read a Book," he discusses the primacy of coming to terms with the author. In this thread, my priority is to come to terms with you, the author of this thread, and express a view sufficient for you to agree or disagree with, or decide that you want more feedback. (Whether or not you accept that Mace, Fitz, Greb, Walker, Charles, Patterson or Ellis is the correct answer isn't as important to me as having you arrive at a fully informed conclusion. If you decide it is NOT Walker, then I'm satisfied as long as I and others have made as strong a case on his behalf as we can for your perusal.)

 

...junior member my a--.

 

Seconded...Dou is always a quality and informative read.