You said that the defeat led to his ruination, you didn't mention the beating. So I thought you meant psychologically. But, sure, it could have been so. But it could also very well not have. Many fighters have taken more bad beatings than one and gone on to do great things. And in this case you also has to posit that the beating he took all had to do with the cut. Again, fighters have gone down back in weight without being useless, even though there can be adverse effects. So it could be as you say, but, no, it isn't at all clear cut that it must be.
Eeh imo killing your prime by weight-cuttin it's a thing. Tarver too wasn't the same after the Rocky movie and Duran only replicated his beautiful, prime performances few times after he ate in all the Panama restaraunts before Leonard 2...
Duran had a long history of blowing up between fights before Leonard 2. For some reason this just wasn't made a fuss about before then... But I'm not going further into that endless discussion than so. Hearns, Canelo and Pastrano are a few that have gone back down in weight and still had success. Robinson was fighting non-title fights at MW during his WW reign And Moore of course went between HW and LHW for a decade or so. Hell, every top LHW around back then was campaigning at HW between title fights. And it's not like it ruined his career. His next loss was several years later when he was around 40 and against a good fighter in Dawson. As for Tarver, he sure as hell doesn't buy the weight excuse when it comes to RJJ. Age was a more likely a factor for him, and he had lost to Johnson and other fighters below Hopkins's level when younger so I don't see why that loss was so surprising.
People are different. Some can't take much in the way of beatings...others can truck on over a hundred tough fights. Some bodies don't respond well for long to not training well/partying lifestyle, other fighters can do it for ages until it starts to get to them. Same with making poor choices in cutting weight and then getting a drawn out beating, knocked out or utterly outclassed because of it. It'll ruin some fighters quickly, others might get away with it, especially more recently since recovery methods are more sophisticated in general. Unless we're on the inside and know for sure, it's always going to be debatable to some extent, and there are usually more than just one or two factors involved in a defeat.
Why would you separate the two? The physical and psychological impacts are intertwined - they can't be isolated from one another in this situation. Some badly beaten fighters may indeed go on to do great things, but that is irrelevant here because not all fighters or situations are the same. Context matters. Dawson's circumstances --- dropping significant weight to face one of the best fighters in the world, at the time --- set this apart from a generic example of 'fighters bouncing back'. No one has claimed the beating Dawson took was entirely due to the weight cut. The argument is that the weight cut likely played a major role in leaving him drained and vulnerable, which directly contributed to how one-sided the fight turned out. While no absolute has been asserted about the weight cut being the sole factor, Dawson's decision to drop to 168 raised eyebrows at the time, and he looked noticeably poor in the ring. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that the weight cut played a significant role in Ward's dominant performance in this case.
Absolutely. Hard to know what's what exactly. That's why I find it strange that some seem to rule Ward out of the equation of ruining Dawson and placing it solely on the scales, so to speak.
Long one this. In short I can say that I find it more nuanced than when you took issue with that I said that Ward arguably ruined Dawson, as if he wasn't part of the equation. I think it's a bit of a hard sell to say that it was all due to factors that other fighters have had to contend with throughout boxing history and nothing to do with Ward. But, sure, it could have been a different story if it was held at 175. But then again, maybe not.
Yes. But every time he talks about Ward I get the feeling that he's living rent free in Froch's head.
Dawson's last fight at Super Middleweight was in 2005 to my knowledge since that he'd been campaigning at Light Heavyweight ever since until the fight vs Ward 7 years later. I would say it's quite apparent being weight drained clearly effected Dawson more than anything. And i think you could say Stevenson pretty much finished off Dawson as a world class fighter knocking him out in 1 round. As for Kovalev he clearly got robbed vs Ward in their 1st fight and the 2nd fight had a controversial ending with the low blows. I think Kovalev wasn't mentally the same a bit like Fenech after getting robbed vs Nelson the 1st time, i think that speaks more of the corruption in the sport rather than Ward putting on a career ending beat down on Kovalev.
I kind of liked Ward. A good all-rounder (somehow mistaken for technical genius) and a rough customer at times. But I do think he tended to get anything he wanted on the negotiating table. I am not sure how true this is but, apparently, Dawson preferred a catchweight and 'Team Andre' weren't having it. (Dawson allegedly made these comments prior to their fight). I can't see the drop in weight not having had an impact on Dawson - you can actually observe how listless he is in the bout. Coupled with Ward's ability, it turned into a drubbing and, as you mention, Stevenson just hammered the final nail in the lid, later on.
No, he ruined some boxing fans, with his head butts and low blows he never got penalized for, while always fighting at home, with biased refs.
I'm like you I didn't mind Ward and I do respect him as a fighter but there is some parts of his career that leave a bad taste in my mouth. Forcing Dawson to fight at 168. The blatant headbutting vs Kessler. And the controversial fights vs Kovalev.