Diaconu new WBC champ, Nice Ducking Dawson!!!

Also, saying that Dawson is ducking Diaconu is ridiculous. Diaconu only was a 2nd option for Dawson. I guess that Diaconu fans are just pissed off because if (and that's a very big if) Diaconu had been able to beat Dawson, he would have become a clear top 5 in the division but now, he's left with a paper belt.

 

It's funny how Americans will defend Dawson to the hills, yet if a European fighter pulled this little stunt you'd cry to the hills about the Eurobum hiding in his backyard.

Beggars belief :-(

 

Sure but that's typical Diaconu. He did all he could to get Henry out of there in the first 8 rounds but Henry really proved he had a great chin and then Diaconu faded and was out of gaz in the end.

But, had Diaconu not been aware that he was ahead on the cards because of that stupid open scoring rule, maybe he would have kept fighting and would have either koed or been koed.

 

What, another European name?

Get the **** out of here, you know as well as I do he'd still be criticised.

There is time for the so called big name later, defend your ****ing belt and give an upcoming guy the chance.

 

Agree but in the case of Dawson... there's nothing signed as of yet. To be fair, maybe people should be saying : "Dawson better fight Tarver, wich makes more sense", instead of acting like it's a done deal when it's not.

 

Did Dawson "duck" Diaconu just like Mayweather "ducked" Cotto, or are we talking about something serious/real?

 

I'm so sick of people shirking their mandatories. Certain fighters think the belts are important enough to consider themselves champs when they win one but suddenly don't consider them important when they have to fight a mandatory against an "unfashionable" opponent. He had the chance to hold two thirds of the light heavyweight title if he went on to beat Tarver. Dawson is just another Yank hype job with delusions of grandeur.

 

Diaconu was a Mandatory. Cotto was not.

Mayweather didn't have to fight him. Dawson did.

Bring on Johnson vs Diaconu

 

Yep. For example, Pavlik fought Lockett. Now that it's done, he can go on. In the mean time, Dawson is not fighting Diaconu AND still doesn't have a fight against Tarver. For the moment, he's refusing his biggest payday for nothing.

 

If Pavlik would have given up the belt to face AA or Winky then he would be applauded for the decision.

Similar case here if it does happen.

Give up one belt to fight one of the biggest names in the sport for another belt.

Mandatories are fine but if you get the chance to make a bigger and better fight than do it.

Facing mandatories is good.

Facing the best is better.

 

The Pavlik/Lockett situation is slightly different because the WBO isn't a credible title so it would have been acceptable for him to give it up to fight Arthur for one of the other three proper belts.

I disagree with your statement about mandatories as well. To me thats just a ready made excuse to avoid people. To me "fighting the best" in boxing circles has largely become an elite boys club merry go round.

People should be more upset about this. We're always talking about unification yet people seem to brush it off when someone vacates a belt. Without the alphabets (WBC, WBA, IBF) some of the "little people" would never get a shot. Good luck to Diaconu, Tarver has said he wants to face other belt holders so I hope Dawson gets left out in the dark.

 

Glass freakin jaw & he knows it. Adamek was sick as hell & still dropped his ass in the 10th. Had he been 100%, Adamek would have KO'ed Dawson within 6 rounds.