Before you all jump to answer, just have a look at their careers and opposition, dont just discount fighters if they are not instantly recognised to you. Dawson beat LHW version of Adamek to win WBC belt, Adameks LHW reign was made of 2 close fights with Briggs and beating Ulrich Johnson twice who has how many losses and Tarver who had lost 4 times before they fought and was badly beaten by Hopkins and had lost to fringe fighters like Harding Erdei beat Gonzalez to win WBO title and has made 11 defences before moving up in weight for one fight. Beat undefeated Garay twice in 2 close fights, Sahnoune, Ulrich, and went up in weight for a one off fight at CW to beat WBC CW champ Fragomeni So overall who has the best resume?
Discredit Dawson's wins and boosting Erdei's while asking that question shows bias and shows you need to STFU. I can tell you're a hater.
Your obviously very sensitive. Im no hater and prefer Dawson overall to Erdei. I havent discredited Dawsons wins by any mean, thats you being sensitive, but lets be honest Johnson had 11 loses and 2 draws when they first fought, and Tarver had lost 4 times with a loss to Harding and a big loss to Hopkins, hows that discrediting its a fact. I havent boosted Erdeis wins I noted 2 close fights, but if your that fragile you may have missed that. and just noted some facts, how you choose to read is up to you. What ive said is look at who they have fought overall in their careers and compare overall to see who has a better resume, I noted Adameks LHW resume, but if I was looking to build up Erdei I could say he beat Gonzalez who was coming off a career best win in beating DM who had a claim to all the LHW titles and was a long time champ, but I didnt until you made accusations. If you can without insults why dont you try and answer the question in an honest and sensible way
If all Dawson had was Adamek on his resume that would be enough to have a better resume than that guy.
Dawson beat much bigger names (Adamek, Johnson and Tarver). However he didnt beat the best versions of this fighters (Johnson and Tarver almost 40, Adamek drained). But even when you consider that these fighters werent as dangerous as in their peaks, I still agree with you :good
You have to take the fighters at where they were in their careers, at this time Amamek hadnt moved up and was run close twice by Briggs. Adameks only known now for beating an American CW with no great resume and fighting in Americas poor HW division. Still Adamek was a good win for Dawson beating an undefeated champ. Its a shame really, because people think your a hater for acknowledging a lesser known fighter, rather than putting a discussion over
How could it be an interesting discussion? Is there really any way to seriously suggest that Erdei's resume is on par with Dawson's? I do agree that Erdei's resume is not quite as god-awful as sometimes suggested, Gonzalez, Garay and Fragomeni are decent scalps, but not on par with Adamek, Johnson and Tarver. Sahnoune and Ulrich oughtn't even be brought up in this discussion, or in any other one for that matter.
Adamek has beat Cunningham who does have a pretty good resume and now has beaten a few Heavies. Johnson also just won a title eliminator by KO against a younger fighter.
Dawson could simply just have beaten Adamek and that would be head and shoulders above anything Erdei has done.
Sahnoune was a former world champ with only one loss, and the guy who gave Sahnoune that one loss all that time ago was considered good enough as a LHW defence for Pascal all that time later, Ulrich was a fringe level fighter, and Erdei did make 11 defences even if not all in top class though he did have some close fights but as did Dawson to a guy with 11 loses