Why the call for Dawson?

Dawson would give it to Joe Calzaghe. I definetely see Joe on his a$$

 

Adelaide Byrd and her scoring (and not only in this fight) would make a great specsavers advert...

 

I don't think Tarver ever seemed like the obvious option for Calzaghe. Not to anyone who saw Tarver being schooled by Hopkins, who Calzaghe then beat. And I doubt anyone who saw Tarver defeating the most pathetic version of Clinton Woods to ever set foot in a ring changed their minds based on that.

 

:huh You're comparing apples and oranges. Who cares where Kessler beat Andrade and Mundine. Neither Andrade nor Mundine have ever been on Johnson or Tarver's level. At least yet. They may still be able to.

 

You asked for the comparison.

IMO, the versions of Mundine and Andrade that Kessler beat compare favourably to the versions of Johnson and Tarver that Dawson beat. And, once again, Kesslers victories were dominant, whereas one of Chad's was dubious, at best.

 

You're implicitly making the assumption that the quality of their respective opponents was identical. I disagree. To me a narrow win over Johnson is still worth more than a demolition of Librado. Mundine is a good win (and with back problems as well) but IMO Tarver - coming off a good win over Woods - is better. Again we can discuss until tomorrow, but what I think is clear that neither set of wins is 'obviously superior' to the other.

 

This is gonna be a topic where me and you agree. Kessler & Lacy dont compare to Hopkins & Toney

 

Funny you say that cos Calzaghe mentioned him after one of his fights. He mentioned fighting legends and referred to BHOP, RJJ and Tarver... I don't have a link here, but I would bet money that it was post the Kessler fight...

 

I disagree (as above) that the Dawson wins are superior.

I agree that neither set is 'obviously superior'.

The main reason I would prefer Kesslers is the nature of the victories.

 

Damn! You were faster this time :smoke

EDIT: FCUK I initially replied to the wrong post. I was aiming at Lance_Uppercut's...

 

After Lacy.

That would be before Hopkins thrashed Tarver.

 

I like them both. Kessler's had his go at Joe. Now, if anyone, it should be Chad - I think.

If you think Chad is crap - it's an easy defense for Joe. If you like Joe, and care about his retirement finances - that can't be a bad thing, right?

It Chad is good - it could be an awesome fight. Nothing wrong with that either, right?

So let's get it on!

 

:good

 

I don't think he's crap. On the other hand he's yet to convince me that he's that good. He has potential.

If Calzaghe wants to carry on, it's the only non-rematch that makes much sense.

It's not the kind of challenge that I think he needs to delay his retirement for, if retirement is the way he feels he should go now.

 

when i saw DAwson vs Adamek there was nothing brutal about it. We must have seen a different fight. I saw a slow lethargic fighter get outpointed by a younger, faster fighter. Nothing brutal about it at all, I don't know what you saw.

And people have been saying Tarver is shot since his loss to Hopkins. You forgot the Muriqi debacle? Everyone who gave Tarver the benifit of the doubt after Hopkins was saying Tarver was shot after Muriqi.

If Dawson performs, its not bad, but perform against fighters who are also performing.