Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
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
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
I didnt mean dominant like Louis was. I meant in terms of he was viewed as a level above his peers based on what I've read. I don't believe I've ever seen any questioning his status until he lost to Dempsey.
Dempsey was constantly hounded for not fighting Greb and wills. Both were seen as on his level and when he went Hollywood it could be argued his status as best in the world went with him.
I'm trying to say I dont think willards championship worth was ever questioned at the time.