Who currently has the stronger resume, Kessler or Dawson?

No matter how you see it, Dawson takes this.

 

I agree, but I think this still means Dawson has the stronger resume, just barely. Frankly, Dawson's best three wins are all better than any of Kessler's wins (I guess you can make the argument that beating green Mundine is better than old Tarver, but that's about it), but Kessler has seven wins that are better than Dawson's fourth best win (although I guess you could argue Harding was a better name than Siaca). Kessler also faced the best opponent between the two, but he lost, and frankly, it wasn't close. I keep seeing people say that it was close, but he lost pretty clearly and convincingly.

 

Dawson has big wins over Johnson and Adamek, but the Johnson decision was a bit controversial. So, I'd go with Dawson by a little, or about the same. I do think that Kessler will dominate his division (assuming he stays at SMW) longer, and that Dawson is ripe for the picking.

 

Why is Dawson getting SO MUCH credit for beating Tarver and (just about) beating Johnson; yet Calzaghe gets slated for beating Hopkins and Jones?

I'd go for Kessler just because he has more "decent" fighters on his record than Dawson - who has time to make that up.

 

Who gives Dawson SO MUCH credit for the Tarver win?

And what has Calzaghe got to do with this thread?

Anyway, Dawson gets a little more credit for the Tarver win than Joe does for the Jones win cause Tarver was a champion at the time, Jones wasn't.

And I give both Dawson and Calzaghe same credit for the Johnson and Hopkins wins, respectively. Dawson barely beat Johnson, and Calzaghe barely beat Hopkins.