Anyone with a belt would have done fine I believe. He also could have fought any of the names at 160 or gone up and fought Michalczewski at 175, he was his mandatory since 1999 when he reached WBO superchamp status at 168.
Why the **** should Joe have to fight Dawson in the USA? That's ridiculous, Joe has more of a name & both fighters would make more fighting in the UK. Honestly, who besides serious boxing fans even knows who Chad Dawson is? Joe himself is just starting to be more well known.
"Severly faded Hopkins?" Bernie just beat Kelly Pavlik and quite easily so either Hopkins wasn't that "faded" or Pavlik wasn't ****. Judging from Kelly's multiple wins over Taylor & Miranda I'd say Hops wasn't faded.
Either that or Pavlik's style was taylor-made for Hopkins? Hopkins has been on the decline for at least 5 years. The fights with Eastman and Taylor were sure-fire signs he was past his best.
So why did he fight in the States twice, when the live gate was tiny for both those fights? The real money is in PPV's.
Because he was criticised for not fighting in America, maybe? To experience fighting in Vegas and MSG, maybe? Seriously, he gets slaughtered for not having fought in the US, and when he does, he still gets criticised.
You're avoiding the question. Names. please. (Go back and reread the initial post, if necessary). No. He made 168 nicely. He couldn't make 160. And why the **** should he ? Like Bernard did ? Or even like Roy did (and he WAS a lt heavy) ? Can't tell what the **** you're trying to say here. Can you ? He is AT PRESENT an almost certain first ballot HOF choice. A win over Dawson does little to increase the chances of something that's near certain. And it still wouldn't silence his critics. He would be 37, and this fight even now is a 50-50 proposition. Other than Kessler, Dawson is the only guy with any reasonable chance (IMO, almost a pick'em fight). And at 37, he has every right to retire as he's already past his own best.