Originally Posted by lufcrazy
you could be right but based on the cursory reading I've done he was inactive because until Dempsey beat Fulton there wasn't perceived to be a standout champion.
He was considered too bid and durable from what I can gather.
is there any suggestion at the time he was ducking wills or Fulton?
Langford, Fulton and Wills were stand outs for sure. Wills went to Willard-Johnson to challenge the winner but was not allowed to do so.
Fulton-Willard was talked about allot, just type in 'Fulton Willard' into google newspaper archives between 1917-1918 (and before 1917 for that matter) to read some of that. Many consider Fulton number 1 contender from 1917 when he beat Langford, although there's a racial element to that given Wills had already beat Langford numerous times
I'm not sure Willard ducked Fulton, as I know he talked about them fighting and donating the proceedes to charity, but he didn't fight him either and he didn't fight anyone of note either. So I don't think he can be called a dominant champion on that basis, especially given his lacklustre pre-title form
Originally Posted by KuRuPT
Yes, on some of the reading I've done, I haven't noticed some abundance of writings on how crappy a champion he was. I'm sure there were negative press, but you're saying that was the norm, which is where I disagreement is. So, if you want to produce the overall consensus on him being viewed as a crap champion.. I would change my mind.
I never said he was 'crappy', I said he wasn't a dominant champion because he didn't fight anyone of note as champion and was semi-retired, I also noted he was also old when Dempsey fought him. I can tell you haven't read the papers of the time to form your opinion