Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
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
not massively thoroughly at all, surface reading at best. I've just not seen anything questioning his worth as champion yet.
Yeah at one point but I've altered it since then. I dont think Langford was ever regarded as better than Johnson. I'm unsure on the Willard thing though I don't want to judge him bases on retrospect in terms of his status.
Btw where have ya been man? Not seen ya post for ages, good to have ya back