is chad dawson that good?

yeah, but if calz doesn't retire, it will be a huge disappointment if calz doesn't fight dawson.

Dawson is still very much unproven, but I hope he'll make it big as boxing needs new US-stars. At least he has beaten everyone in front of him and thats a good thing. One can only hope that he gets to dominate the division for many years and that's probably needed for him to become a big star. Otherwise he'll need a win over Calzaghe or Hopkins to gain some rocognition but Dawson is likely not on their radar. So Dawson needs to clean out the division and he should start with Diaconu a fighter he so shamelessly ducked.

yeah His Good But Lacks Of Power

No he isn't a proven fighter, but he is still a good, young up 'n' comer! And i feel that Clazaghe needs to fight Chad, Pavilik and maybe david haye to be seen as a the legend he wants to be!

Well, when a guy goes up 25 lbs and immediately has greater success than he ever has in his life (i.e. has his best win to date,) it's probably safe to assume that either he was a world beater at the lower weight (which Dawson proved he was not,) or he was weight drained at the lower weight. LMAO! You send me a red K because I called you out on your bullsh*t. Dude, do yourself a favor. Go out and get laid.

Well, when a guy goes up 25 lbs and immediately has greater success than he ever has in his life (i.e. has his best win to date,) it's probably safe to assume that either he was a world beater at the lower weight (which Dawson proved he was not,) or he was weight drained at the lower weight. In other words, you made that up to explain the fact that Adamek has never said that and you have no proof other than whatever lint pick up out your ass. Thanks for clarifying.

So when did Adamek say he was weight drained again? Well, when a guy goes up 25 lbs and immediately has greater success than he ever has in his life (i.e. has his best win to date,) it's probably safe to assume that either he was a world beater at the lower weight (which Dawson proved he was not,) or he was weight drained at the lower weight.

adamek and kessler are a lot different come on. adamek is fighting good opponents like o'neal bell and steve cunningham. kessler is calzaghing his career into bolivian.

So you mean to tell me that Clinton Mitchell's win over Hopkins should count as a win over a HOFer?:puke: And Thomas Ulrich has beaten no one before or since Adamek, so I'll assume you're joking. So when did Adamek say he was weight drained again?

Umm..just because he beat O'Neil Bell - a former cruiser champ and one of the five best cruisers in the world - AFTER Dawson doesn't mean it doesn't count. Weight drained my a**. When did he tell you that? PLUS, Adamek's victory over Ulrich pretty much equals Kessler's career. So you mean to tell me that Clinton Mitchell's win over Hopkins should count as a win over a HOFer?:puke: And Thomas Ulrich has beaten no one before or since Adamek, so I'll assume you're joking.

if johnson can beat dawson, then i think dawson is not champion material imagine what a prime johnson or hopkins would do to dawson... what you dont get is that Johnson is that rare breed who has gotten better with age, he is in his prime right now.

Adamek has had a good win or two since the Dawson fight, since he moved up in weight and isn't drained anymore. But explain to me who he beat prior to fighting Chad en route to winning a vacant title and defending it twice. Kessler at least won two titles, neither of them vacant, and defended the first 4 times. How you could conclude that the Adamek win was not only better, but substantially better, is beyond me. Umm..just because he beat O'Neil Bell - a former cruiser champ and one of the five best cruisers in the world - AFTER Dawson doesn't mean it doesn't count. Weight drained my a**. When did he tell you that? PLUS, Adamek's victory over Ulrich pretty much equals Kessler's career.

Wow, I didn't expect that answer! Adamek has had a good win or two since the Dawson fight, since he moved up in weight and isn't drained anymore. But explain to me who he beat prior to fighting Chad en route to winning a vacant title and defending it twice. Kessler at least won two titles, neither of them vacant, and defended the first 4 times. How you could conclude that the Adamek win was not only better, but substantially better, is beyond me.

You're right, the Kessler win was better. Wow, I didn't expect that answer!

I had Dawson beating Johnson. And Adamek is not "about equal" with Kessler. Nice try. You're right, the Kessler win was better.

if johnson can beat dawson, then i think dawson is not champion material imagine what a prime johnson or hopkins would do to dawson...

This version of Jones would get crushed again by Johnson, though I had Glen winning the Dawson fight 7-5, so it's a mute point. Adamek is about equal to Kessler, so Calzaghe has the edge even before you get to his other 20 or so defenses. I had Dawson beating Johnson. And Adamek is not "about equal" with Kessler. Nice try.

Calzaghe is old himself, Dawson is young. Hopkins > Tarver Jones > Johnson. This version of Jones would get crushed again by Johnson, though I had Glen winning the Dawson fight 7-5, so it's a mute point. Adamek is about equal to Kessler, so Calzaghe has the edge even before you get to his other 20 or so defenses.

Calzaghe is old himself, Dawson is young. Hopkins > Tarver Jones > Johnson. Jones greater than Johnson all-time. But Calzaghe's win over Jones is not better than Dawson's win over Johnson, sorry. Not when Johnson CRUSHED Jones years before Calzaghe beat him via decision.

In a word, No. Chad is garbage.