If your comment was aimed at me, at least come at me with facts not opinons, otherwise you'll be treated as nothing more than a joke. You mention people try and "impress others" "who they will never meet". Yet you then go onto mention how you're "one of the top amateurs in the UK", and have "won numerous titles". Yes and the band played believe it if you like.
If he didnt beat Johnson then Calzaghe didn't beat Reid and Hopkins. And if you think Adamek is one dimensional then you clearly don't know what you're talking about. PS- STFU Noob
chuffy, Dawson did duck Diaconu and it's impossible to argue otherwise. Let me quickly deal with some of your concerns: 1. Why would Dawson duck Diaconu when he has no reason to be afraid of him? Ducking is not about being afraid, but about dodging your mandatory challenger because the risk/reward associated with fighting him is unacceptable to you, given your alternatives. The reason Dawson's ducking was particularly damaging to boxing was that he not only ducked Diaconu, whilst promissing to fight him eventually, and failing to, (thus keeping Diaconu waiting) but he also tried to have his status as mandatory challenger revoked indefinitely, (so that Diaconu would never get a shot at the WBC title), whilst also hugging the belt, so that Diaconu was not able to fight for a title against anyone else either! 2. How could Dawson have ducked Diaconu if he had actually signed to fight him? Well, just because Dawson was willing to fight Diaconu at one stage doesn't mean that he was willing to fight him later on. When he signed to fight Diaconu there was no chance of him getting a fight against Johnson or Tarver. Yeah, Diaconu was not a great risk/reward, but he didn't have one better, and he still needed the belt at the time, so he was forced to defend it against his mandatory. Later on, once he convinced the WBC to let him fight Johnson before fighting Diaconu, and after the Johnson fight, the equation had changed for Dawson. Diaconu was no longer a good enough risk/reward, given the alternatives suddenly available to him. So he ducked him. When the WBC insisted that he fight Diaconu, Dawson decided that it was a better move from a risk/reward point of view to drop the belt and duck Diaconu than to fight him. 3. How could Dawson have ducked Diaconu after Johnson if he ended up fighting a better fighter? Well, Tarver was much more known, much more proven and much better at his peak than Diaconu, but at the stage of his career when Dawson was looking to fight him, he was less of a risk to Dawson than Diaconu. Dawson watched Tarver against Muriqi and Woods and realised that Tarver had a very small chance of beating him. Diaconu, whilst still being an underdog against him, had a considerably better chance of beating him, by KO not least, which would have "exposed" him as chinny, something he has always denied being. Even if Diaconu's chance of beating him was not bigger than Tarver's, and even if we assume that Dawson wouldn't have been KOed by Diaconu, a decision loss to Tarver would have been much less damaging to Dawson than a decision loss to Diaconu. So, returning to risk/reward, it made sense to duck Diaconu and go for Taver. A future p4p No. 1 isn't chinny and doesn't get KOed by an unknown, unproven foreign puncture, does he? 4. Dawson didn't duck Diaconu - he just took the bigger fight, the one that meant more, the one that helped his career more! Well, even if we assume that a win against a shot Tarver means more than a win against a prime Diaconu, it would be wrong to assume Dawson had to choose between these two fights. There were no other big paydays out there for Tarver. Showtime had him lined up for Dawson. Tarver would have waited for Dawson to unify the WBC title against Diaconu before unifying the WBC and IBF titles. Dawson would have made $1m extra by fighting Diaconu, and would have had the chance to walk away with two titles too, not to mention the opportunity to finally prove his chin against a good puncher and finisher in Diaconu. So why did Dawson not do what made sense financially if he was so certain of beating Diaconu? Because he wasn't! He couldn't take the risk of getting KOed and "exposed", because that would have killed off a fight against Tarver and he's have been considered an also ran, not an elite fighter or a future p4p No. 1, as he has been described for beating up an old ineffective Tarver. 5. Why should Dawson have to travel to Europe to fight Diaconu? Dawson was the Champ. Diaconu should have come to fight Dawson in the USA! Diaconu would have done that happily had Dawson's promoter won the purse bids. But he didn't. He had no intention of letting Dawson fight Diaconu in the first place, in Europe or anywhere else, with a fight against Tarver on the horizon. Champions travel when their promoters doesn't back them up enough and they lose a purse bid. That's life. Diaconu's promoter won the purse bid but couldn't have made enough money from staging the fight in the USA to cover the purses. He could only cover the purses by staging the fight in Romania, where the event would have been of national importance. Bottom line, chuffy, is that Diaconu was Dawson's mandatory and that Dawson gave up his belt and a $1m dollar check - by far his greatest ever paycheck, possibly including what he made against Tarver (some sources say he only made $800k) - to avoid having to face Diaconu before facing Tarver. If that isn't ducking, the word is meaningless. Please read the article below for details and get back to me if you're still unconvinced. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=17400&more=1 :good
I really think we should ban 99% of the people with 08 joined dates becayse mostly all of them sound like they are 15 and just started watchin boxing 2 weeks before they joined the site. And they come on here telling me that I must have juts started watching boxing this year.....atsch Yeah that's why I have been a member of a BOXING forum for over 3 years.:roll:
:good Be easy! You obviously have a understanding that most do not about Diaconu. I wouldn't ever say he's on level with Tarver or Johnson but you seem to feel strongly about this. I'm actaully going to keep my eye out for Diaconu in the future. I've seen 3 of his fights and he's soild overall, but he didn't grab my attention like Dawson did. With that said....that doesn't mean anything if the two were to fight. But I'd still go with Dawson if I had to choose.
The ring leader of the assholes has arrived. Why don't you leave this forum like your ******* boyfriend Amsterdam did. Your nuthugging douche bags have single handly ruined the forum.:good
Decebal. One question WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DO THAT ? :good I'm not really to bothered about all that stuff if you get where i'm coming from. It's the point that idiots claim these fighters are nothing, like they're any better. Why can't they just respect what they do for the sport of boxing Decebal ? Why's that so hard to do ? It's like me saying Bute's useless. e.c.t..