Chad Dawson or Virgil Hill

[Humean]

Remind me of Tiozzo's career accomplshiments,,, Im not super familiar with him as i am with others

I do think that calzaghe was a better fighter than adamek but they are both in the same league

Well I rate Calzaghe extremely high but as for Tiozzo he lost a split decision to Hill in 93, went on to become European champion and then world champion when he beat Mccallum and then successfully defended it against Lucas. He stepped up to cruiserweight and became world champion and made a few defences, moderate opposition except perhaps Nate Miller until he gets knocked out by Hill in their rematch. He then goes back down to light heavy and wins the world title again and in his one defence ends the career of Michalczewski.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Well I rate Calzaghe extremely high but as for Tiozzo he lost a split decision to Hill in 93, went on to become European champion and then world champion when he beat Mccallum and then successfully defended it against Lucas. He stepped up to cruiserweight and became world champion and made a few defences, moderate opposition except perhaps Nate Miller until he gets knocked out by Hill in their rematch. He then goes back down to light heavy and wins the world title again and in his one defence ends the career of Michalczewski.

ok, thanks,, i remember him from the hill and mccallum fights, but honestly didnt follow his career that much

[MisterHardtop]

A lot of good opinions here, agree a bit with both you guys and for what it's worth, I rate Hill higher than Dawson.

Chad Dawson's best wins come against men in their late 30s or 40s, it's a bad look for a man regarded as the best light heavyweight on the planet. I never really bought into the whole show, I would never have placed him in a p4p list, it was as bad as the ranking of the likes of Canelo or Broner.

Hill never had that stand out moment but he had a long and distinguished run as champion and his wins over the likes of Tate and Cszyz are better than almost anything Dawson achieved. Remember when Bobby gave Holyfield hell?

Hill wasn't great but he was almost certainly worthy of a place in the HOF, Dawson may never get there.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

A lot of good opinions here, agree a bit with both you guys and for what it's worth, I rate Hill higher than Dawson.

Chad Dawson's best wins come against men in their late 30s or 40s, it's a bad look for a man regarded as the best light heavyweight on the planet. I never really bought into the whole show, I would never have placed him in a p4p list, it was as bad as the ranking of the likes of Canelo or Broner.

Hill never had that stand out moment but he had a long and distinguished run as champion and his wins over the likes of Tate and Cszyz are better than almost anything Dawson achieved. Remember when Bobby gave Holyfield hell?

Hill wasn't great but he was almost certainly worthy of a place in the HOF, Dawson may never get there.

While i agree it looks bad that he beat alot of older fighters, i think his wins over adamek and hopkins are much better than canelo or broner's achievements to this point,,,
Dawson is more in the jermain taylor, buddy mcgirt, roger mayweather category IMO

[MisterHardtop]

Well I rate Calzaghe extremely high but as for Tiozzo he lost a split decision to Hill in 93, went on to become European champion and then world champion when he beat Mccallum and then successfully defended it against Lucas. He stepped up to cruiserweight and became world champion and made a few defences, moderate opposition except perhaps Nate Miller until he gets knocked out by Hill in their rematch. He then goes back down to light heavy and wins the world title again and in his one defence ends the career of Michalczewski.

Great to see someone here who really knows their stuff. Tiozzo has become a bit of a forgotten man, beating McCallum is no mean feat and then winning a title at cruiserweight, only to come down and regain the WBA light heavyweight title and then to beat Dariusz Michalczewski, handing him his only stoppage loss.

[Humean]

I think it depends, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I don't think just because you were successful across a lot of weights it automatically makes you better. Obviously it's a good asset to have in your cabinet but depending on who you beat I don't think it holds much weight. So to answer your question; It depends.

Except in very recent times, such as Broner as a 3 weight world champion, what examples are there from the past than you don't think it suggests how good a fighter they are? I'm not saying that it means you are a great fighter, in fact in my previous posts I mentioned Fabrice Tiozzo, obviously not a great fighter, but the fact that he did win the world title at two different weights does suggest to me his quality. One exception might be the old jump between light heavyweight and heavyweight that numerous light heavyweight champions failed to make (eg. Lewis, Conn, Moore, Maxim, Foster) but Ezzard Charles (although he never was light heavyweight champ) did do it successfully, that is a big factor in Charles's greatness to me.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Broner being a 3 division champ, is exactly the reason why boxing is such a pathetic joke of a sport,, i dare say its not even a sport anymore,, just entertainment like some reality show,,,

There is no way to compare broner to other 3 divisional champs like pernel, ross, etc

[MisterHardtop]

While i agree it looks bad that he beat alot of older fighters, i think his wins over adamek and hopkins are much better than canelo or broner's achievements to this point,,,
Dawson is more in the jermain taylor, buddy mcgirt, roger mayweather category IMO

The Hopkins win came some time after Dawson had left many P4P lists, maybe he was still in The Ring ranking, I'm not so sure.

I disagree when you say Dawson was in the Taylor/McGirt tier of fighter, both those men weer better than Dawson. I liked Dawson the boxer but he rarely had his head switched on and spent much of his prime hesitant, reluctant to pull the trigger.

Both Taylor and McGirt did some very good work at the best parts of their careers, especially Taylor, 2 wins over a better version of Hopkins and a good fight against Winky to say the least.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

The Hopkins win came some time after Dawson had left many P4P lists, maybe he was still in The Ring ranking, I'm not so sure.

I disagree when you say Dawson was in the Taylor/McGirt tier of fighter, both those men weer better than Dawson. I liked Dawson the boxer but he rarely had his head switched on and spent much of his prime hesitant, reluctant to pull the trigger.

Both Taylor and McGirt did some very good work at the best parts of their careers, especially Taylor, 2 wins over a better version of Hopkins and a good fight against Winky to say the least.

Dawson was better than taylor,,, taylor had no ring IQ, he lost to winky IMO and probably lost to spinks as well....

They both beat an old hopkins,, there really isnt much difference between either version of hopkins they fought,, hopkins was so guarded and non active, its really hard to judge, but taylor ending his mw reign is probably a great feat..

H2H dawson and taylor would be a 50/50 fight and i think dawson would take it slightly

Taylor and dawson are pretty much in the same category and to rank one over the other you would really have to split hairs,,,

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Dawson was better than taylor,,, taylor had no ring IQ, he lost to winky IMO and probably lost to spinks as well....

They both beat an old hopkins,, there really isnt much difference between either version of hopkins they fought,, hopkins was so guarded and non active, its really hard to judge, but taylor ending his mw reign is probably a great feat..

H2H dawson and taylor would be a 50/50 fight and i think dawson would take it slightly

Taylor and dawson are pretty much in the same category and to rank one over the other you would really have to split hairs,,,

i take that back,, they both have little ring IQ,,, but i would still favor dawson