Let's get to the bottom of this: is it right that Dawson is not fighting Diaconu?

There used to be talk on ESB a while ago about how bad it was that mandatories were not enforced by the Governing Bodies...and that this was one of boxing's ills. Well, isn't Diaconu a bona fide mandatory? He wasn't handpicked by a promoter to pad a resume and give someone an easy ride; he earned his status by beating another fighter in an eliminator bout. And that fighter himself deserved his place in that eliminator bout...No? Why is it OK if Dawson ducks his mandatory?



On the other hand is the argument that "Dawson stands to gain more credit with dedicated fans by beating Johnson than he would Diaconu, who hasn't proved anything." Well, sure...as long as you get more credit for beating a has-been NAME than a live, prime dangerman...By this reckoning, 25 year-old Dawson should fight 39 year-old Johnson, then 40 year-old Tarver and then 43 year-old Hopkins and by beating them he should be considered an all-time great, since he beat 3 ATGs...

Well, I disagree...a lesser figher in their prime, hungry and live, full of ambition and pride, gunning for glory is more dangerous than a fighter who used to be great but now is passed it and fights just for the money...selling his skin dear as a trophee on someone's shiny new resume. Or is Johnson currently so much better than Diaconu, and so much more dangerous to Dawson than Diaconu, that it would be worth it to Dawson to drop his belt ducking his mandatory, Diaconu? If we forget about the names of the fighters and what they have or will represent in the sport altogether, and look at it objectively, is Johnson better than Diaconu, NOW? Is he more of a thread to Dawson than Diaconu, NOW? Thus, would a win against Johnson mean more in terms of his legacy than a win against Diaconu, now, for Dawson?



Then, there's another argument: "It's a business. Taking advantage of a bigger opportunity isn't a shortcut. The reason for bypassing big fights early is to avoid rushing a green fighter into something he can't yet handle. Dawson is entering his prime and is well past that stage, so there's positively no reason for him to mess around with ho-hum mandatory bouts. He should tell the WBC to be grateful to have him and put up with it."

Well, wasn't this what we were arguing against for months - that might doesn't make it right? That if a primoter can sell a fight for more money than another one it doesn't mean that that fight is best for boxing...Dawson is 25...yes...25...not 35...he has 10 more years in boxing, with good luck, why can he not wait 3-4 months to fight his bona fide mandatory before taking care of business? What is his hurry? Who is he gunning for so desperately? Whom is he in such a hurry to fight after Johnson that it cannot wait another couple of months? Tarver? Hopkins? Is he hoping to catch them before their last breath? Or is he trying to become a NAME by beating these NAMES so that he can call Calzaghe out? Why is he in such a desperate hurry? And how much more money will he make by fighting Johnson rather than Diaconu?

Is Dawson making a move that is good for boxing by ducking his bona fide mandatory and fighting NAME has-been Johnson instead?

What are your thoughts? Please enlighten me! Let's get to the bottom of this!:good

 

WBC Convention

The 2007 WBC Convention in Manila continues the meet with great success and today all the ratings in each weight class were discussed with open discourse for all promoters and managers. During the afternoon session, the mandatory defenses and final elimination bouts were voted by the WBC Board of Governors..​

WBC Light Heavyweight Champion Chad Dawson must mount a voluntary defense by January 25, 2008 while Adrian Diaconu remains the mandatory challenger of the division.​

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=13271&more=1​

The WBC decided Dawson had to fight his mandatory by 25th of April 2008, when Dawson argued he should be allowed to fight Diaconu only in autumn of 2008.​

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www2.canoe.com/sports/nouvelles/archives/2007/11/20071120-104401.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dlarouche%2B25%2Bavril%2Bdiaconu%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBF​

Original: http://www2.canoe.com/sports/nouvelles/archives/2007/11/20071120-104401.html​

 

Yeah, as I said: Dawson is allowed a voluntary by the 25th of January and a mandatory by the 25th of April. Diaconu is his mandatory.

 

:think unless it were some kind of unification fight...no chance.

 

Not sure what you meant in your last sentence.

No, I am assuming that Dawson doesn't fight Diaconu in January...i.e. he drops the belt altogether.

 

No...Dawson is due to fight Johnson on the 12th of April in Atlantic City:

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=060393&cat=boxer

This means that unless he fought Diaconu in January (??) he couldn't fit both in by 12th of April...

Dawson signed to fight Diaconu but he wasn't happy with this fight. He was chasing Tarver at the time and did all he possibly could not to have to fight Diaconu. Still, he was his mandatory so he had no choice. Then, Diaconu pulled out, injured. (Bona fide hand injury two weeks before the fight!) So Dawson started gunning for Tarver again. But shot Tarver ducked him. In desperation, Dawson took on Mendoza as a stay-busy. He tried to convince the WBC that they should consider Mendoza as his mandatory, so that he could fight Tarver, etc. without having to worry about Diaconu. But the WBC reconfirmed Diaconu as his mandatory. Dawson then asked that he should be allowed to fight Diaconu in autumn 2008, so he could fight Tarver. The WBC said no and asked that he should fight Diaconu by the 25th of April. As a gesture of good will, they said Dawson could fight a voluntary by the 25th of January...so Dawson tried Tarver again...but Tarver ducked him yet again...meanwhile, Dawson and Diaconu couldn't agree on terms so a purse-bid was arranged for the 7th of January. It was to be won by InterBox, who also had the backing of American TV for their 29th of February galla in Monteal. (Dawson had no TV deal) And now, suddenly, Dawson arranges to fight Johnson on the 12th of April...it might be for the WBC belt but if he doesn't defend it by the 25th of April - impossible, obviously, he would have to drop it and the WBC would arrange a title fight for the vacant belt between Diaconu and Silvio Branco...

 

I think he should have fought Johnson in January and Diaconu in April and then he would have been a NAME WBC Champ who had beaten a hungry prime, limited but dangerous unbeaten fighter with 8 months of the year still to go...Hopkins? Calzaghe? The world would have been his oyster...it might still be...but I worry for his legacy and don't like the turn he is making.

 

Sure...ducking is an emotive term that has negative connotations!:good

ducking = doing your best to avoid to fight a fighter and managing to do so.

Dawson is doing his best to avoid fighting Diaconu and is managing to do so...Dawson was trying to duck Diaconu even this year, but Tarver wouldn't fight him and the WBC insisted that he fight Diaconu, so he gave in...now he is showing two fingers to the WBC and to Diaconu and Tarver because he has convinced Johnson to fight him...the trinket doesn't matter to him now...like others before him he will say: "I am still the true ABC Champ because I beat a real Champ in the ring and no one has beaten me in the ring to take my title away!"

Yeah you could certainly say Diaconu ducked Dawson when he realised he was injured and couldn't hit properly...quite right too! It's in the rules...and it was a bona fide injury...