Would a win over Dawson right now be better than a win over Kessler?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by PH|LLA, Jan 8, 2008.


  1. huki

    huki huk huk ^_^;; Full Member

    6,475
    2
    Nov 12, 2006
    Not really, Dawson doesn't seem like he's the type of guy that will be ducking anybody and same goes for Calzaghe. Dawson without a doubt is going to own Johnson and Calzaghe will destroy Hopkins. Those are pretty much facts. The fight could realistically be made by the end of 2008 or early in 2009.
     
  2. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    Hmmm...Joe wouldn't really be ducking Dawson if he didn't fight him; however, he would have ducked Mikkel had he not fought him and carried on fighting. Joe will see no reason in fighting Dawson because even a Dawson who has beaten Johnson and, why not - Diaconu - will not have enough of a name for Joe. Given that Dawson would be very dangerous and not a name and not a big money draw for Joe, he won't fight him.

    Dawson I am a bit worried about since he has started to seem to want to take the road of fighting big have-been names and being overly interested in making a lot of money over concentrating on building a legacy. I really hope I am wrong though and that I am misreading the situation. Let's hope Dawson doesn't settle for trophee wins in the hope of making a Taylor-like career.
     
  3. jc

    jc Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,968
    14
    Sep 9, 2004
    The Kessler fight was much bigger.

    Nobody outside the few on ESB seems to be bothering with this fight, I Dawson is quite big enough yet, to make it a must have. A domination of johnson might change that but im not too bothered if it happens or not at this stage.

    Hopkins then Pavlik or Taylor please...:hey
     
  4. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    I see things the other way around. I won't fuss much over the Hopkins fight because in my mind it won't be a big challenge to Joe. I will watch it mainly to see how Joe outdirties him and beats him at his own game and to be able to rub it in the face of people who have picked opkins so cinfidently. Also, I don't think winner of Taylor v. Pavlik will happen (as I wrote before)...so to me, Joe's career from now on will not hold maximum interest for me.
     
  5. huki

    huki huk huk ^_^;; Full Member

    6,475
    2
    Nov 12, 2006
    Who does Dawson need to fight at LHW? Tarver didn't want to fight him and is shot anyways. Diaconu pulled out of their match with an injury. Johnson is the next best option and that's the fight that is happening. If Dawson destroys Johnson/Diaconu and Joe destroys Hopkins/Woods in 2008, everyone will want to see this LHW superfight and the money/hype will be there. Calzaghe will have the choice to retire if he feels he is too far from his prime at that point or have one more fight against the biggest threat from 168-175.
     
  6. Lance_Uppercut

    Lance_Uppercut ESKIMO Full Member

    51,943
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    I think Dawson is pretty close to Kessler in terms of big wins. Very close.
     
  7. Symphenyceo

    Symphenyceo Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,778
    40
    Nov 16, 2007
    yea its close but i think kessler would be the better win if joe fought dawson right now..i still think dawson is a little green. Maybe if joe fought him in a couple of years
     
  8. MSTR

    MSTR More Speed Than Roy!!!!! Full Member

    9,247
    2
    Feb 19, 2005
    Yes because Dawson is a much more difficult match up for Joe. If Joe could somehow adapt to defeat him (unlikely) then I would give him much more credit then the Kessler win. Dawson is bigger, faster and much more awkward then Kessler. Really who had Kessler beaten that was so great to make him such a prized victory? I would argue that Adamek was as big a victory as anyone on Kessler's resume. The only real difference is that Kessler had a couple more defences behind him. Harding was still a legitimate top contender in the light heavy division at the time that dawson beat him. Kessler's best wins were Mundine and Beyer, both of which have been beaten before by less then top level competition.
     
  9. MSTR

    MSTR More Speed Than Roy!!!!! Full Member

    9,247
    2
    Feb 19, 2005
    Good post. Agree with everything here.
     
  10. Decebal

    Decebal Lucian Bute Full Member

    34,525
    7
    Mar 10, 2007
    True. Good post. I guess I am a bit harsh in criticising Dawson for wanting to polish off a few have-been names whose names still hold a lot of appeal to the casual fans, making a name for himself in the process. The reason though is that I am a big Dawson fan and because I expect too much from him, rating him so highly.
     
  11. Amsterdam

    Amsterdam Boris Christoff Full Member

    18,436
    24
    Jan 16, 2005
    I agree that Dawson is harder for Joe, but Kessler and Dawson are about on the same level. Dawson has quicker feet and a superior defences, Kessler has faster hands and better timing.

    Dawson would have crushed Mundine easier, Kessler wouldn't have lost a single round to Harding.

    It evens out mate.
     
  12. Cerberus

    Cerberus Kérberos, Hound of Hades Full Member

    1,384
    1
    Jan 9, 2007
    Kessler has faster hands than Dawson? I think not.

    Kessler's handspeed (or lack thereof) is the reason why he lost to Joe.

    Dawson's handspeed (definitely nothing lacking) would be the reason why he could give Joe fits.

    In what Kessler fight have you seen him put punches together like Dawson can? Dawson's combos are blazing quick and so fluid. Guy's just a natural. You can't teach that.
     
  13. Amsterdam

    Amsterdam Boris Christoff Full Member

    18,436
    24
    Jan 16, 2005
    Dawson's really not as quick as would he appear, Joe's actually quite a bit faster hands and feet than Dawson. Dawson is fast, but he's nothing resembling a blaze by any means.

    His combinations are much better than Kessler's. But Kessler has better timing and is more accurate, also has a much more commanding jab and a better sense of distance.

    And I am serious, when Kessler let's his hands go, his hands are a bit faster than Dawson's, his 1-2 is like lightning compared to Dawson's 1-2.

    They both have things that the other doesn't have. All in all, they are about equal. Kessler lost to Calzaghe mostly because of Calzaghe's absurd footspeed and awkward, yet multi-dimensional style that sets a ridiculous pace that he couldn't keep under control.

    That comparison is not even worth talking about though, Dawson is not ever going to be as good or as complete a fighter as Joe Calzaghe, even if he were to edge him at Joe's coming 36 years. A prime Calzaghe would starch him.
     
  14. LockDog387

    LockDog387 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,629
    0
    Mar 23, 2007
    Calzaghe is a great fighter and all, but Calzaghe has never faced a great fighter in their prime. To say that Calzaghe is one the best ATG's when his resume doesn't prove it is a little too farfetched imo. You have to remember that Calzaghe didn't recieve the notoriety he was given until he won against Lacy. I think Dawson will be just as complete if not better than Calzaghe in years time, he's certainly shown it. What seperates Dawson from Kessler is his head movement, which is way better than Kessler's. There footspeed is about the same and Dawson has shown better foot movement in his last couple fights, being able to move in and out. Dawson's handspeed is blazing fast though, about just as fast Calzaghe's.
     
  15. robpalmer135

    robpalmer135 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,342
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Calzaghe is 1000% quicker than Dawson.