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 '****py', 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
Errr do you even understand the argument.. The argument isn't whether or not I believe Willard was a great champion or even a good champion. I believe he was a **** poor champion and the main reason Dempsey is so overrated (that win) That isn't the argument.. Luf claimed that many believed there were no rightful challenges to Williard and that nobody was viewed as being better than him during much of his reign. THAT is the argument... and what we were talking about. You claimed that williard was viewed in his own time as being a poor champion.. Those are the sources I want to read more on. Should I make a snide remark about you not being able to grasp the argument at hand?