Dawson has a better resume than Donaire, Williams, and Martinez. I'm not sure about Wonjongkam and Montiel because I don't follow those divsions closely.
Let me try to answer this. I thought I was quite clear that I do not rate faded versions of Tarver and Johnson especially high, good as they may still be. If you rank them higher than Williams and Pavlik then I can understand you having them Chad above Sergio. I do not. I said that I might change my rankings if Chad beats Pascal. It all depends on how much you value linearity. I, for one, value it highly as it almost always speaks of accomplishments. And btw, wasn't it you who said that you should look at H2H in some parts and not just resumes? This is always the problem and such a big reason as to why p4p concept is flawed; there's so much subjectivity. Even if accomplishments like linearity and trinkets are valued highly, one could always say "the fighters he beat wasn't very good", "he did not look good in the fight or "I do H2H rankings". This means that also accomplishments is subjective. You are trying to say what and how p4p criterions should be, but who really stipulates that? There is no "official criterion". Some people do 80%H2H, some do 20. This basically renders our argument pointless because we can never prove anything and even if we could, we may not have the same criteria. Speaking of criteria, mine is to rank mostly on recent accomplishments - say 2 years or so. 4 years is a stretch. If you feel it's not - go ahead. And I include personal scorings when doing my rankings. I agree it may be wrong but if I clearly feel fighter A beats fighter B it would seem strange to do rank B ahead. Doing official rankings, I would probably not however. But the fact remains it was a hell of a fight - much better quality than Dawson-Johnson. In my rankings i factor in performance EVEN when losing. Like when I thought Hopkins lost to Calzaghe, he still proved he was an excellent fighter... or when Duran lost to Hagler. But this also is subjective. I simply feel only going with wins and losses is too one-dimensional. You have to look at the fights to determine. Oh come on, surely Pavlik at the wrong weight for Sergio is better than faded Tarver? I agree that a lot of what we're arguing about is subjective with no right and wrong but... You must admit that's a stretch. And as I say, I think Sergio simply looked the better fighter than Chad in these bouts. These two combined counts for a lot. I can discard whatever I like. If it is who beats who I would put Ward, Rigo, Gamboa and Golovkin much higher than I do now. And no, I never joke when doing my rankings so let's keep it without that stuff. Haye was cruiserweight champ and now beat a lousy (I know) giant to become a contender at heavy. He sparked Ruiz, Macca and Fragomeni. Even if you do not rank these highly they should be counted in for Haye. I value championship status and weight jumping. Perhaps you don't, and that's all good for me. :good
Adamek has overcome a huge size advantage against Arreola and Estrada. He performed well and has developed since Dawson. He's done more than Dawson since their fight IMO and looks more comfortbale and these weights. But yes, it may seem like a stretch to rank him above the man that outclassed him 4 years ago. Questionable, at least. Then we have the Bell bout at CW where he dominated. THREE weight divisions where he have proved himself. Not has-beens, paper-champs or similar. Contenders and champions. This ranks highly for me and Goral's underrated run warrants a top 10 spot for me. Above Chad or not is more unclear. I must also add that just like Donaire cannot piggyback Darchinyans later achievements, Dawson can't either with Adamek.
I rank every win Dawson has over Williams because Sergio did not beat Williams. Yes, which is why I get why you are so hung up on Sergio being the linial MW title. Even you insist on being infatuated with it, Dawson will that distinction soon enough at LHW. P4P rankings are very subjective. However, Dawson has Martinez beat H2H and and resume wise. I don't why you value linial titles so much but you want to completely disregard Johnson and Tarver even though both guys were top 5 LHWs when Dawson fought them. That doesn't make much sense to me. The 10th best guy in a divsion wins the lineal title and now beatin him means more than someone else beating say the 2nd best guy in their division? Even the Tarver that Dawson beat would more than likely beat Pavlik. But your criteria lacks consistency. This is what I'm talking about. You say this, but then you want to say Adamek should be ranked ahead of Dawson. Now I know damn well you didn't score that fight for Adamek when he fought Dawson. 160 is a lot better suited for Martinez than it is for Pavlik. Pavlik had to kill himself to make weight. Dawson fought Tarver after Tarver just wiped the floor with Woods to take his belt. I'm not sure how Tarver is faded when he's winning titles in dominant fashion. Regardless, Adamek definately trumps Pavlik. So name me a win on Sergio's record that trumps Tarver?(You can't use Pavlik because he's already been trumped by Adamek) More inconsistency. Beating a 38 year old Ruiz who had been irrelevant for years means something for Haye but Dawson beating Tarver and Johnson means nothing for Dawson because they're supposedly faded to you? Dawson could jump to CW and beat a bunch of bums and has beens like Haye has done at HW, but what does that really prove?
Let's see if I can answer you, I'm a very slow typer, it's late in my home country and English is not my first language. The thing is, even if Tarver and Johnson were top 5 rated at the time - which I would agree with - the light-heavy weight division is very, very weak since Bernard and Joe left. Yes, middleweight is too but for the last time - I think that Pavlik at the time Sergio fought him was better than Adamek and definitely Tarver. P4P all-time - no. At the time - yes. And you're right that Tarver would beat Pavlik... But then again, Tarver is two divisions higher so I don't really see your point..? P4P Pavlik was clearly higher ranked by most and that's what counts. As for the criteria thing - you're right. But I haven't seen a clear criteria from you either. Care to give me one? I really don't have the energy to pick up contrdictions on your part but thay are there. First you say Tarver and Johnson aere top 5 as an argument on your part but then call me "infatuated" when I say beating the numero uno has to count for something. Then there was the H2H thing. Assumptions and excuse makings on Pavlik's behalf. If you want to play that game, I could say that Tomek was drained against Chad. I won't. But what I will do is factor in later accomplishments and Adamek trumps him there IMO. I definitely think Tarver looked non-prime against Woods and I remember most of the board did too. It was a horrible fight - lucky for us we had Dawson-Johson before! And I've already stated that Johson and Tarver were GOOD wins. Certainly not "nothing"! Of course these fighters are better p4p than Ruiz or Valuez. It's just that Haye was facing a disadvantage in size which narrows the gap between the wins. So you're saing you would NOT skyrocket Chad up the rankings if he were to beat Cunningham, Wlod or Lebedev for the cruiserweight championships? I think you would and that's my point - prove your worth as a fighter in multiple divisions is always good. Adamek has done this. Haye too. It's not a must (see Hagler, Monzon, Ali), but when in a weak division that might be the only way to go.
if pascal beats dawson then pascal goes up to no 5 on the p4p list, with carl froch sneaking up to number 4 :rofl its gonna be so funny when american hype job chad dawson gets his suspected china chin smashed to smitherines by a B-level carl froch victim :smoke
Chad Dawson is already a proven fighter so to be calling him a hype job is ludicrous. I think he should just stay put at 175 and try to dominate and the big fights will come.