Tarver lost the fight badly, and it was far from exciting, so the only controversial thing was that the rematch actually happened. It made no sense as Dawson had nothing to prove there, neither it was something boxing fans were waiting for.
Tarver lost the fight clearly. BTW was it just me or did Hopkins say on FNF that Dawson should of lost the fight but got his revenge in the rematch?
It was not controversial. Dawson beat him clearly. It was the rematch clause. Tarver decided to use it. It is understandable - one final pay day before retirement. I think that even HBO did not want that rematch.
dawson clearly won, plus had a kd. tarver as champ had a rematch clause and activated it, just as dawson is doing now. the 2nd fight was closer than the first imo.
Any fight that goes to points and isn't a massive schooling is generally regarded as controversial these days. And there is ALWAYS someone claiming this guy got robbed, or whatever. Most of the time its just bollocks. And no, Dawson beat him clearly. The rematch was closer and showed Tarver was still a good fighter.
it wasn't controversial. what was controversial was when 14 defeat, c-level gatekeeper glen johnson kicked hypejob dawsons ass and then got robbed by the judges.
As I recall Hopkins didn't say that Dawson outright "lost", but Hopkins DID say that Dawson "got his revenge in the rematch"... which I found strange given Dawson won the first one clearly and... again, as I recall, people were pissed off at the time that Tarver was invoking the rematch clause when the first fight wasn't close. I could be wrong about some of that.
Tarver was shot to **** in that fight and the rematch. It looked like he couldn't even throw a punch, his shots had no steam on them at all. If I remember correctly, Dawson won every round except maybe 1.
It was clearly for Dawson and even knocked down Tarver in the 12th, not the best looking knockdown but it was a knockdown. The rematch happened because Dawson didn't really have enough choices at the time.
