Did Chad Dawsons resume get any better last night?

Yes it has.

A bit like when Hopkins beat Pavlik, Calzaghes win looked all the better.

The Lacy incident is a bit more subjective, simply because of the severity of the beating given to him by Calzaghe. Gas that imparied his ability to fight physically and mentally? I'd say so. He has looked **** against fighters like Manfredo that I believe he would've destroyed pre-Calzaghe, not just Taylor who is world class.

People hold a double standard that way. Does anyone really **** on Titos win over David Reid? Or do people recognise he was never the same following that beat down....Think it's the latter judging my discussions about it on here with people in the past.

A stronger argument in regards to Lacy is to dispute his record before the JC fight...was he ever really that good?

 

Actually, I'm going to go against the grain and say no, for the same reason Jermain Taylor's wins over Hopkins get less acclaim now than at the time- in both cases, it was the fighters' final fight at the weight, and once they moved up, they immediately looked much better. Given how much Adamek moved up, the credit Dawson gets should be limited to TA's resume at LHW because he's essentially a different fighter now at Cruiserweight. Which isn't to dis Dawson- Adamek is still his best win by a clear margin in my book.

Adamek winning will get Dawson more attention, but as far as making the resume genuinely better? I think it gives Adamek more ammo to say he was too weight drained and to chase a rematch than anyhing else.

It should also be noted that I'm not too big on revising wins too much after the fact period because I don't see the point in giving the winning fighter additional credit for anything beyond what the loser was going into the fight. How the loser develops from there is irrelevant in most cases because the winning fighter didn't face that version of him. Adamek was an undefeated beltholder going into the Dawson fight, so Chad should get credit based on that, not Thomasz's CW resume.

 

This is an interesting point, but I wasn't aware that Adamek was having problems with the weight....I thought he left because he was so badly outclassed there was no point really in continuing to campaign in the division with Dawson around.

 

On the basis of the Omar Sheika fight, no he was never that good, but most people never saw that fight, Calzaghe's win over Lacy was a sensation at the time, but since then all those who never saw the Sheika fight (the VAST majority of boxing fans) have saw Lacy for what he really was, and so the win is now valued far less by the boxing community at large.

 

I wouldnt say it got any better. To me at least, I always thought adamek was a solid fighter who would challenge anyone. What chad did to him made me believe chad is going to be p4p #1.

Now to the guys who might have thought adamek was trash until he trashed supernova and cunningham? yeah, some of their opinion's might have changed after last night.

 

That's an interesting point, but I disagree that it is always relevant.

Sometimes further performances give us additional information as to the merits of the fighter that we are evaluating. Adamek's resume prior to facing Dawson was hard to evaluate - he was undefeated, but a lot of the opponents were unknown/untested themselves. Beating more known quantities like Cunningham give us information about how good a win it was for Dawson that we did not have before.

 

I remember that fight being discussed on here...and I did see it. There was definetly limitations exposed, but the consenus thereafter seemed to be that he was young and it was a good learning fight, that he still won convincingly. I think many people scored the fight 8-4 Lacy....though it seems most now say 7-5. I've not seen it for years myself...

I think with Lacy, the win should be viewed for what it is. A good win over a then unbeaten up and comer belt holder. It was a worthwhile fight, I don't think anyone would debate that. However, I felt uncomfortable even at the time with people calling it 'legacy defining' for despite the Americans hyping the **** out of him, he hadn't ever beaten anyone THAT good to warrant it.

However, I do think Lacy, whilst never being a truely elite fighter in the division, has lost something following Calzaghe. His subsequent performances have been poor, he hasn't been knocking people out, mediocre opponents as well, whereas before he had enough about him to stop Robin Reid and Sandman Pemberton....

He was never great, but he's not as good as he once was and I attribute that to the beating that Joe Calzaghe gave him.

 

I agree with all of this.

But for me, the Taylor fight was a clear dent to the quality of Joe's win over Lacy and so was detrimental to Joe's resume, both now and in the future.

IMO :bbb

 

The fact that Adamek was underrated has an affect on people's perceptions on Dawson's resume. I don't disagree with you, but I think you're using faulty logic if you're saying that Adamek's stock improving doesn't improve Dawson's stock.

I agree that Adamek has generally been underrated though. I had him at #2 at LHW at the time he lost to Dawson.

 

That's fair enough. I think it remains to be seen what the overall view of the boxing community be. Will the general consensus be that Calzaghe 'ruined' Lacy and thus deem that everything that has happened since does not alter the quality of the win?

Or will people think he was never that good to begin with, and the schooling doled out by Taylor is further evidence of this?

I personally rate it as I always have: a good win over an up and comer with a belt. A worthwhile fight, and a decent add to Calzaghes resume.

 

I agree with you, but my rule of thumb is that every fight has an affect. Had Lacy beat Taylor with a storming performance, Calzaghe's win over him increases in value. By the same principle, as Taylor dominated Lacy, Calzaghe's win decreases in value - all regardless of how good he was before or after.

 

Very good points Cobbler. For anyone who had question marks about how much beating Adamek was worth, last night likely established that Adamek should be regarded as Chad's best win.

 

Dawson's resume is still weak. He only has two respectable, convincing wins, against Adamek and Tarver.

 

Then by your rule of thumb effect, Calzaghe's win over Roy hits Tarver's resume, Diaz's win over Morales hits Pac resume, Berbick's win over Ali hits Fraziers resume etc etc, it's ridiculous.

Where you hold the win is paramount in determining if it is possitively or negatively impacted.

For example someone on this thread had Adamek as Dawson's best win, so for them the affect Adamek's win over SC had on the resume was less than it was for me because i had it behind Tarver and Johnson.