Dawson can't be compared to Calzaghe....just yet

[-Swizzy-]

How are people comparing Dawson's career to Calzaghe's right now? Calzaghe didn't fight anyone his whole career in the UK and when he actually decided to come to America to face some real talent, he fought 2 40 year olds.

Dawson is only 26 years old. So he's fighting Tarver and Johnson right now. Thats the equivalent of Calzaghe fighting Eubank. Calzaghe didn't catch any flak when he faced Chris. Only after he made his 20 or so title defenses against bums did he really get criticized.

The point is, Dawson is still relatively at the beginning stages of his career. Sure Tarver and Johnson are past their primes, but Dawson himself hasn't reached his prime and his career still has a long ways to go. Its not like Dawson is retiring after his next fight. He still has a long way to go and a lot more to accomplish before he retires.

If you do want to compare the 2 fighters however, you have to compare them when they were at the same point in their careers. And thus far Dawson is EASILY ahead of Calzaghe as far as accomplishments at the same age(26). Adamek + Johnson + Tarver(2) > Eubank.

So for all the irrational and illogical idiots comparing these 2 fighters, you need some perceptive and need to realize that by comparing Calzaghe's whole career to Dawson's young career, you are effectively pwning yourselves and unwittingly insulting your favorite fighter.

[Guest]

He just needs two fights with Mario Veit and he will be on pace.
I demand a Dawson fight with Diaconu or Zsolt Erdei who is the lineal champ.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Eubank was a better win than both Tarver fights and Johnson combined to be perfectly honest.

[Silencers]

Kessler?......

[-Swizzy-]

Eubank was a better win than both Tarver fights and Johnson combined to be perfectly honest.

maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, either way, isn't it ridiculous that Dawson's career is being compared to Calzaghe's? Now be honest, even as a Calzaghe fan, do you think Dawson should be criticized for the fights he is picking right now like Calzaghe was for fighting Hopkins and Jones? I don't think its the same thing. And I'm not a Dawson fan at all but I find this comparison to be very absurd.

And this thread is mainly a reply to the tunney thread but seeing as how tunney has me on block, I couldn't reply to his thread.

[Kevin Jesus]

Who ever compares Dawson to Calzaghe is crazy. At 26, Calzaghe hadn't fought anyone near as competitive as Harding, Adamek, Johnson, and Tarver. It was at 25 where Calzaghe fought his first big name in Eubank and Eubank was past his prime he went on to lose like two more times to Thompson. Basically Calzaghe fought his frist big threat at 33 years old against Jeff Lacy, which was a hell of a performance and his first career defining win. At 35-36 he fought Kessler, Hopkins, Jones and i have always given him a lot of credit for beating Kessler but not Hopkins and Jones.

Dawson has at 26, already fought the same kind of oppostion that Calzaghe had fought when he turned 36, imo.

[-Swizzy-]

Who ever compares Dawson to Calzaghe is crazy. At 26, Calzaghe hadn't fought anyone near as competitive as Harding, Adamek, Johnson, and Tarver. It was at 25 where Calzaghe fought his first big name in Eubank and Eubank was past his prime he went on to lose like two more times to Thompson. Basically Calzaghe fought his frist big threat at 33 years old against Jeff Lacy, which was a hell of a performance and his first career defining win. At 35-36 he fought Kessler, Hopkins, Jones and i have always given him a lot of credit for beating Kessler but not Hopkins and Jones.

Dawson has at 26, already fought the same kind of oppostion that Calzaghe had fought when he turned 36, imo.

oh, I forgot Adamek. gonna add him to the first post.

[Kevin Jesus]

oh, I forgot Adamek. gonna add him to the first post.

Yeah man, people can ignore that name all they want but Adamek was undefeated and was a huge threat and big puncher for such a young Dawson at what age was Dawson? 23 years old? and Adamek had come off 3 straight wins against Briggs and Ulrich which were the top Light Heavyweights at the time.

[BadNewz]

Of course Dawson is better. Calzaghe didn't beat a single good fighter in his career. Hopkins won their fight but was robbed by two biased judges.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, either way, isn't it ridiculous that Dawson's career is being compared to Calzaghe's? Now be honest, even as a Calzaghe fan, do you think Dawson should be criticized for the fights he is picking right now like Calzaghe was for fighting Hopkins and Jones? I don't think its the same thing. And I'm not a Dawson fan at all but I find this comparison to be very absurd.

And this thread is mainly a reply to the tunney thread but seeing as how tunney has me on block, I couldn't reply to his thread.

It was. Based on the manner of performance from Calzaghe in his first big fight. Whereas Dawson was already champ when he fought those guys. Tarver was past his best a long time ago. Johnson is more comparable to Eubank at the time but Dawsons performance was not as impressive as Joes obviously (i thought he lost tbh).

I actually like Dawson though. Joe shouldve fought him (not Pavlik) instead of Roy Jones. Joe should not be criticised for fighting Hopkins though who was the best at LHW. Just as Chad shouldnt be criticised for Tarver who was champ and Johnson who is still up there.