Dawson-Tarver: The Exception To a 1st Quarter That Rules

**Ribitton** · 01-03-2009, 03:09 PM

Wow.... It's a shame how bad showtime boxing has become.

**boxer12** · 01-03-2009, 03:31 PM

i say we boycott dawson-tarver II

okay...i say that but i kno i cant help but watch it. sucks

**Check** · 01-03-2009, 04:10 PM

I didn't read the article because its to long and I am lazy. Wright V Williams is on the undercard so overall name wise it is 2 big star powered fights. Not saying its going to be exciting but it does have a chance to be. I think Tarver Dawson 2 will be one sided but Dawson will really show his skills.

**IMustBreakU** · 01-03-2009, 04:14 PM

I'll watch because its boxing, but if it were a pay per view, forget it. Dawson beats Tarver II will be boring, but its better than watching paint dry.

And yes, the Cotto/Pavlik pay per veiw look pretty strong, but all of these stars are fighting nobodies. Sorry, I'll probably have to forego this one and seek a free way to watch.

**Fox McCloud** · 01-03-2009, 04:25 PM

WHY are people STILL bitching about this fight?

It can't be helped... Tarver's belt was on the line the first time, so he put a rematch clause in the contract, and Tarver is making Dawson fight him again.

If Dawson refuses, he gets sued out of his mind.

This is Antonio Tarver's fault, and he doesn't have any better payday options, so who can blame him?

Yeah, it sucks, but... there's nothing that can be done about it.

**SickmyDuck** · 01-03-2009, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

WHY are people STILL bitching about this fight?

It can't be helped... Tarver's belt was on the line the first time, so he put a rematch clause in the contract, and Tarver is making Dawson fight him again.

If Dawson refuses, he gets sued out of his mind.

This is Antonio Tarver's fault, and he doesn't have any better payday options, so who can blame him?

Yeah, it sucks, but... there's nothing that can be done about it.

Dawson signed the contract knowing if he won he would probably have to fight Tarver again

He is partly to blame

HBO should never have agreed to this though

**Fox McCloud** · 01-03-2009, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by spidersilva

Dawson signed the contract knowing if he won he would probably have to fight Tarver again

He is partly to blame

HBO should never have agreed to this though

So wait... after Tarver crushed Woods and had a legitimate title, you think it was a bad fight to make for Chad Dawson?

Just because he would get ****** into a lame rematch does not diminish the importance of the first fight IMO.

**SickmyDuck** · 01-03-2009, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

So wait... after Tarver crushed Woods and had a legitimate title, you think it was a bad fight to make for Chad Dawson?

Just because he would get ****** into a lame rematch does not diminish the importance of the first fight IMO.

no it was obviously not a bad fight to make

The first fight was important but agreeing to a rematch clause was not the best thing he could have done. Its really not fair to say its all Tarver`s fault for the rematch when Chad agreed to the rematch clause in the contract.

HBO shouldnt be wasting their money on ths fight

**Fox McCloud** · 01-03-2009, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by spidersilva

no it was obviously not a bad fight to make

The first fight was important but agreeing to a rematch clause was not the best thing he could have done. Its really not fair to say its all Tarver`s fault for the rematch when Chad agreed to the rematch clause in the contract.

HBO shouldnt be wasting their money on ths fight

Well obviously the networks are dumb.

But a rematch clause is pretty much always in a contract when one fighter puts his belt up for grabs.

Taylor had one when he fought Wright.
Hopkins had one when he fought Taylor (the first time).
Barrera had one when he fought Pacquaio (the first time).

It's just a safeguard in case a fighter loses their belt.

Dawson-Tarver: The Exception To a 1st Quarter That Rules