Why the call for Dawson?

Adamek, Johnson and Andrade are NOT shot.

 

Lacy had a proven chin, which Dawson doesn't. As to Kessler, he is obviously much more proven, I am not sure why you would even want to argue otherwise.

 

Kessler has achieved his credentials at 168, not 175 where Calzaghe is now fighting. Where Dawson is fighting. Hopkins had a very good win over a middleweight moving up. But he lost to Calzaghe several months beforehand. Dawson has beaten several top opponents. He is a legit threat to Calzaghe's 0. Hopkins is aswel, of course, but he already had his chance and he came up short. What better way for Dawson to prove himself than against the best fighter at 175?

 

I think Dawson is less proven than Kessler in all sorts of ways - chin, tactical proficiency and discipline, fewer convincing performances against good quality opposition that performed well...

Hopkins gave Calzaghe his hardest fight to date and this is the reason why I would like to see Calzaghe rematching him before fighting anyone else.

 

well imo Adamek, Johnson, and Tarver are shot.

I wasn't referring to Andrade.

 

What better way for anyone at 175 lbs to prove themselves, indeed! What makes him particularly meritorious, though, given that Calzaghe's time is very limited indeed? As a Dawson fan, I can see why you would want him to fight Calzaghe. As a fan of both Calzaghe and Dawson and Hopkins and others, and as a fan who wants to see the best fights, I would want to see Calzaghe fight Hopkins again, to prove that he can beat him clearly.

 

Fair enough. I was against a Hopkins rematch at first. But if they decide to fight again, i'd certainly watch it.

 

Since when is Adamek shot? He claimed he had some weight issues going into the fight, but he was brutally owned like never before or after... If Adamek beats Cunningham, in what IMO is a pick-em in December, then Dawson's win over him will have even more weight...

And I only heard Tarver was shot, once he was dominated by Dawson. That's the problem. If Dawson doesn't perform - it's bad (as in the match with Johnson). If he shuts his opponent out - it's also bad (cos the opponent was clearly shot). It's a no win situation for this guy.

 

None of them looked shot before their fights w/ Dawson. That is what they are to be based on. You can't 'retroactively' label someone shot AFTER a fight. that's what newbs do.

 

Cmon. What was unclear in his win? I'm not a big Calzaghe fan, but the only two people who felt BHOP won, were BHOP and his mum.

 

Weak...very weak. So because Lacy has a perceived better chin then Dawson, he's more proven? I'll let you re-read that a few time to allow that snippet to sink in. Maybe you can re-think that part.

As for kessler. He's not really very proven as well. If you think Kessler is WAAY more proven then Dawson, you're just taking a **** for sure. If anything, what each has done to date is somewhat comparable. But if Kassler is SOO much more proven, tell me on what basis? Why is a wiun over Mundine and Andrade so muvch better then wins over three top 5 LtWHs in tarver, Adamek and Johnson?

 

When something is 'obvious' it often means it's hard to muster arguments supporting it. Shall we look at the respective CVs prior to fighting Calzaghe? I'd say they're comparable and you can make a case for either.

And btw. up until his loss to Dawson, and following his win over Woods, Tarver seemed like the 'obvious' option for Calzaghe... If you beat the man, who was meant to fight the man, clearly that should give you the right to fight the man. That is 'obvious', right?

 

That explains things.

That ol' black lady with the thick glasses at ringside ?

That's 'Nard's mamma ?

(She musta remarried 'cause she's listed as Adelaide Byrd).

 

:good

 

The fact that Kessler went to Mundine's hometown and utterly dominated him, and dominated Andrade completely whereas many people feel that Dawson didn't beat Johnson at all would factor into it somewhere I would have thought.