Originally Posted by lufcrazy
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.
How much have you researched it though because I think those in the know probably would question this. He won the title in conditions that suited him down to a T, losing most the rounds and didn't provide a rematch. Then never fought the top guys in Langford, Wills or Fulton. I'm not sure why a rationale person would therefore conclusively consider him the best of this time
I can't remember but doesn't Langford make your 'premier HW' at some stage? Because Willard doesn't fight him or his successor in Wills.
Or Fulton for that mater, who I think was considered the number HW of the time according to some around here, that I don't really trust due to their agendas