simple question.
best wins

Dawson
Tomasz Adamek
Glen Johnson x2
Antonio Tarver x2
Bernard Hopkins (if he wins)

Calzaghe
Chris Eubank
Jeff Lacy
Mikkel Kessler
Bernard Hopkins
Roy Jones jr

best wins very close. But better resume, Calzaghe.

People need to give some credit to the longevity of ones career and unbeaten streaks. (as long as you fight someone with a pulse.)

Oliver Mccall arguably have better wins than Wladimir, but is not even close to as great.

Is this inspired from the other thread?

If Dawson beats Hopkins then their resume's are very close.

Which is laughable, really.

Is this inspired from the other thread?

If Dawson beats Hopkins then their resume's are very close.

Which is laughable, really.

you got it

best wins very close. But better resume, Calzaghe.

People need to give some credit to the longevity of ones career and unbeaten streaks. (as long as you fight someone with a pulse.)

Oliver Mccall arguably have better wins than Wladimir, but is not even close to as great.

Calzaghe didn't fight anyone with a pulse for the majority of his title defenses so the longevity aspect is irrelevant.

best wins very close. But better resume, Calzaghe.

People need to give some credit to the longevity of ones career and unbeaten streaks. (as long as you fight someone with a pulse.)

Oliver Mccall arguably have better wins than Wladimir, but is not even close to as great.


Which is the whole point of the debate. You can't seriously consider Calzaghe's win over Jones Jr in any way a good win. As it stands it's usually pointed out as one of Calzaghe's best wins. It's not debatable that Dawson's win over Tarver was a better win on the resume. You also can't equate Oliver McCall's resume to Dawson's so that point is irrelevant.

Which is the whole point of the debate. You can't seriously consider Calzaghe's win over Jones Jr in any way a good win. As it stands it's usually pointed out as one of Calzaghe's best wins.
Well, it's not a win i rate at all. Just like i don't do it for hopkins.

You also can't equate Oliver McCall's resume to Dawson's so that point is irrelevant.[/I][/B]
I wasn't. I said it to point out better wins does not always equate a better resume.

I don't feel it's irrelevant.

Well, it's not a win i rate at all. Just like i don't do it for hopkins.


I wasn't. I said it to point out better wins does not always equate a better resume.
I don't feel it's irrelevant.




In the case of Calzaghe and Dawson, it does.

The fact that Dawson is 29 and already has a comparable resume tells you how much of a joke Calzaghe was. Also Calzaghe's win against Byron Mitchel>>>>>his wins over Roy and Lacy

Better resume? Calzaghe

Better fighter? Calzaghe

Sorry haters :bottle:

Better resume? Calzaghe

Better fighter? Calzaghe

Sorry haters :bottle:

Calzaghe is a better fighter but his resume isn't that much better.

And if Dawson beats Hopkins this weekend then it's even closer.

Calzaghe is a better fighter but his resume isn't that much better.
And if Dawson beats Hopkins this weekend then it's even closer.

This^^^^. That's where it stands right now in my opinion. And Dawson is still young enough to surpass Calzaghe's resume. Calzaghe's resume alone is not strong enough to prevent that.

Chad Dawson's world title fights:

Eric Harding - had not been relevant in the light-heavyweight division for several years prior to meeting Dawson. Would retire straight after the fight with Dawson. Fair to conclude he was washed up at this point.

Tomasz Adamek - 1st step up in class for both men.

Jesus Ruiz - 4-4 in his previous 8 fights

Epifano Mendonza - had fought only 11 opponents with winning records and had a 6-4-1 record against them.

Antonio Tarver x 2 - past his best.

Glen Johnson x 2 - aging but still very much competitive. Best wins on his CV.

Jean Pascal - Defeat.

I don't consider that CV comes close to Joe's. I know Calzaghe's CV is weak for a guy of his talent but surely it's much better than this.

Even if Dawson beats Hopkins it still means his best wins were all over aging fighters. He fought 2 young guys with a pulse in title matches and lost to one of them. Calzaghe fought several guys on Jean Pascal's level, and he didn't lose to them.

Joe's win over Kessler is better than anything on Dawson's resume, cos Kessler was a top tier guy who was at his peak when they fought.

Chad Dawson's world title fights:

Eric Harding - had not been relevant in the light-heavyweight division for several years prior to meeting Dawson. Would retire straight after the fight with Dawson. Fair to conclude he was washed up at this point.

Tomasz Adamek - 1st step up in class for both men.

Jesus Ruiz - 4-4 in his previous 8 fights

Epifano Mendonza - had fought only 11 opponents with winning records and had a 6-4-1 record against them.

Antonio Tarver x 2 - past his best.

Glen Johnson x 2 - aging but still very much competitive. Best wins on his CV.

Jean Pascal - Defeat.

I don't consider that CV comes close to Joe's. I know Calzaghe's CV is weak for a guy of his talent but surely it's much better than this.

Even if Dawson beats Hopkins it still means his best wins were all over aging fighters. He fought 2 young guys with a pulse in title matches and lost to one of them. Calzaghe fought several guys on Jean Pascal's level, and he didn't lose to them.

Joe's win over Kessler is better than anything on Dawson's resume, cos Kessler was a top tier guy who was at his peak when they fought.

It's no better than the win over Adamek no matter how you spin it. And at least two of Calzaghe's best win's over over aging fighters too. (Eubank, Hopkins). I won't even mention Roy Jones jr.


Believe me. I can tear down Calzaghe's opponents too.

It's no better than the win over Adamek no matter how you spin it. And at least two of Calzaghe's best win's over over aging fighters too. (Eubank, Hopkins). I won't even mention Roy Jones jr.


Believe me. I can tear down Calzaghe's opponents too.

In my opinion Calzaghe's win over Kessler is better than Dawson's win over Adamek but I don't expect every one to agree.

I know that several of Calzaghe's big wins were over aging oppponents, but all but 1 (2 if you include the non-title win over Diaconu) of Dawson's wins were. Why does Calzaghe get accused of fighting only aging opponents and bums, and Dawson doesn't?

Of course you can tear down many of Calzaghe's opponents. He fought a ****load of opponents totally undeserving of a title shot. But he also fought several valid opponents too.

The likes of Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell, Sakio Bika, Charles Brewer. Were solid defences. Even the likes of Omar Sheika, Richie Woodhall, Juan Carlos Ferreyra were valid fights at the time. They are not names to impress anyone in an ATG conversation , but they are valid in the context of a Super-Middleweight of the time. People discount Joe's longevity cos he apparantly wasn't fighting anyone with a pulse, but I refute that he had a string of valid defences under his belt (as well as a string of invalid ones) and these solid wins, added with his more impressive wins over Kessler, Hopkins and Lacey (overrated but still better than many of Dawson's win) are why I think Calzaghe's CV is clearly better than Dawson's. Especially when you consider Dawon lost to a fighter who wasn't any better than a lot of the guys that Joe beat.

I'd like to point out I agree that Calzaghe does not have an ATG CV, I just believe it to be clearly much better than Chad Dawson's at this time.

In my opinion Calzaghe's win over Kessler win is better than Dawson's win over Adamek but I don't expect every one to agree.

I know that several of Calzaghe's big wins were over aging oppponents, but all but 1 (2 if you include the non-title win over Diaconu) of Dawson's wins were. Why does Calzaghe get accused of fighting only aging opponents and bums, and Dawson doesn't.

Of course you can tear down many of Calzaghe's opponents. He fought a ****load of opponents totally undeserving of a title shot. But he also fought several valid opponents too.

The likes of Robin Reid, Byron Mitchell, Sakio Bika, Charles Brewer. Were solid defences. Even the likes of Omar Sheika, Richie Woodhall, Juan Carlos Ferreyra were valid fights at the time. They are not names to impress anyone in an ATG conversation , but they are valid in the context of a Super-Middleweight of the time. People discount Joe's longevity cos he apparantly wasn't fighting anyone with a pulse, but I refute that he had a string of valid defences under his belt (as well as a string of invalid ones) and these solid wins, added with his more impressive wins over Kessler, Hopkins and Lacey (overrated but still better than many of Dawson's win) are why I think Calzaghe's CV is clearly better than Dawson's. Especially when you consider Dawon lost to a fighter who wasn't superior to a lot of guys that Joe beat.

I'd like to point out I agree that Calzaghe does not have an ATG CV, I just believe it to be clearly better much better than Chad Dawson's at this time.

I agree that Calzaghe has the better resume at this point and Dawson's loss to Pascal puts a serious blemish on his resume. I don't believe Calzaghe would have ever lost to someone on Pascal's level and I take that into consideration. But Calzaghe's resume is not as far ahead of Dawson's as some might think. That's why it's still possible for Dawson to surpass Calzaghe's resume considering his age and stage of career.

You can't call a freak headbutt cut as too much of demerit for Dawson

Pascal has got to be the worst champion ever - he can't fight for more than 4 rounds.... Joe Calzaghe beat Dawsons daddy (Bernard Hopkins will make a fool out of Chad Dawson).

Better resume? Calzaghe

Better fighter? Calzaghe

Sorry haters :bottle:

Who was hating?

While Calzaghes resume leaves something to be desired, Chad Dawsons resume is ASS

all he's got is Adamek who is one of the most overrated boxers in human history

how much credit does dawson get for this kind of victory?

how much credit does dawson get for this kind of victory?

None. He didn't win and it will be changed to a no-contest.

I think Chad would have won though.

how much credit does dawson get for this kind of victory?


He can't get any and I think that's why he was angry. The fight was too short and ended in bizarre and controversial fashion. But I felt before the fight that Dawson was going to beat Hopkins and I believe he would have regardless.

You can't call a freak headbutt cut as too much of demerit for Dawson

You can when he looked like crap for most of the fight.

cam newton ****s on both of them

cam newton ****s on both of them

And then loses the fight.

It's sad that Dawson is close.