Should Dawson be judged from his last preformance over Tarver?

There's a saying, "You're only as good as your last fight." Dawson re-matched Tarver in an unanticipated waste of a fight which was, for some reason, picked up and pushed by HBO. In this re-match, Dawson fought a somewhat uninspired, sloppy bout in which he gave Tarver opportunities to fair better than he did in the initial fight. Nonetheless, Dawson prevailed again and is now re-matching Glenn Johnson which most boxing fans requested. After that fight, though, Dawson received a lot of hate for that performance as if his previous domination of Tarver never existed. As if all of Dawson's previous performance never happened as well. His complete schooling of the current CW champ Adamek, his tough, hard fought, exciting and CLOSE decisioning of Johnson. It's as if the Tarver rematch was the first fight those who criticize Dawson had ever seen of his. But why forget the first fight? Dawson fought a PERFECT fight against Tarver. His footwork, his positioning, his combination punching was on point. Jab, Jab, combination, sidestep, right hand, dip. Beautiful. Then he did something no one had done in a very long time: he legitimately knocked Tarver down. He made Tarver look his age more than Hopkins did. Johnson? Who looks good against Johnson. He's a tough sunavabiitch who's seen the short end of the stick too many times. I feel for him, but I think Dawson got the nod correctly in that fight. People want to use the crowd booing Dawson as proof that he lost, but Dawson was in Johnson's turf soooooooo how is he not going to get booed? but even as a Dawson fan, I feel the fight with Johnson was so close that there should be a rematch. I forgot why I started this thread.