What are the excuses if Joe took Dawson and won?

I tried to be more "formal" in my response, but this pretty much sums it up.

 

Good to see Calzaghe has knowledgeable and logical fans as well.

Solid post mate, 100% agreed. :thumbsup

 

:good

People who say things like "this fight has finally won me over" disgust me. Calzaghe proved just how good he was when he soundly beat Mikkel Kessler, he iced the cake by beating an old but still very good Bernard Hopkins. He put a cherry on the cake by adding the name of Roy Jones to his resume, but it proved nothing, and as you say, it wasn't really meant to.

Unfortunately for Jones, his name is being smeared in the dirt in this situation as a result of the amount of bull**** American fans have talked about Calzaghe and other European fighters. As now the British fans are firing back with equal amounts of garbage in retaliation, acting as though this fight is solid evidence that Calzaghe would beat a prime Jones. And the respectful Jones comes out of a scenario where he gave Calzaghe the farewell he wanted and in return gets the earlier work of his career discredited by a combination of bitter fans.

 

What are you talking about. He according to many doesnt get credit for either of those wins because Lacy was an overrated power puncher and Kesseler was a Euro champion and his only good win and therefore it doesnt really mean anything.

He could beat Dawson and all we would hear about is how he was overrated and Glen Johnson already exposed him.

 

Prime Hopkins backed out of a verbal deal.

IMO, he would have beaten Hopkins worse in 2002.



Prime Jones ?

Joe probably would have lost that one.

But it would have been closer than many think.

 

People will say Dawson was overrated and untested at that.

 

JCs best wins are Bhop and Kessler in that order. Dawson would IMO be a better win for JC than Kessler..he is a 2 belt holder at a higher division. At worst a dawson win is as good as a kessler win.

 

But people are interested in this matchup because they know Calzaghe has a very good chance of losing.

 

You're kidding aren't you?

Lacy has been called an overhyped bum since Calzaghe demolished him and Kessler a Eurobum.

 

Sup mate.

Anyone who calls Kessler a eurobum should switch to watching badminton instead.

But Lacy... cmon man. He WAS hyped to death.

 

i must say that you have some of the best neutral threads that i read...

most of the time i come across a thread or post i like or agree with 100% its usually from you...

so once again i must say

:good you got it!

 

not old fighters idiot,joe is old too he is fighting his own age fighters.
if joe fought dawson you wouldn`t be slagging off dawson saying he is picking on an old joe would you.no i didnt think so.

 

Get out of here please

 

Chad wasnt experienced enough!

 

People would say that Johnson already "exposed" Dawson, that Dawson was inexperienced and that he was unproven. They'd be right in 2/3, I think. He is not experienced enough to be ready for someone like Calzaghe, no matter how talented or good he is. He is also quite unproven. How good is his chin? He doesn't recover very well after getting hit...How good is his mental strength? He rarely manages to stick to the plan - even against Tarver he gave him a whole round to take him out and Tarver simply couldn't do anything. How well does he choose his tactics? Less well than many lesser fighters, that's for sure.

Calzaghe would make Dawson look quite silly, in my view, and people would just think of Dawson as they think of Pavlik now, whether rightly or wrongly, in both Dawson's and Pavlik's case. Calzaghe would not be given much credit, because if they didn't give him credit against a top world class, prime/peak and proven fighter like Kessler...why would they give him credit against Dawson, who is less proven and inexperienced, a Dawson before his prime and peak?