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.
oh no doubt. Adamek was 31-0 and he is now the CW king. That win certainly deserves its due.
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.
Very mis-leading. He fought Thomspon for the Cruiserweight title in two close wars. One was a close decision loss and the other he was winning on the cards before getting stopped on a swollen eye.
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.
well you see, you just compared tarver and johnson to hopkins. calzaghe SHOULD be criticized for facing hopkins and jones because he hasn't faced any prime great fighters before or after those fights, yet he is being made out to be one of the greatest all-time.
Very mis-leading. He fought Thomspon for the Cruiserweight title in two close wars. One was a close decision loss and the other he was winning on the cards before getting stopped on a swollen eye.
Oh and Harding......lol
which makes Dawson's win over Adamek all the more impressive.
well you see, you just compared tarver and johnson to hopkins. calzaghe SHOULD be criticized for facing hopkins and jones because he hasn't faced any prime great fighters before or after those fights, yet he is being made out to be one of the greatest all-time.
Why would he be criticised for fighting Hopkins? Jones maybe but Hopkins was the champ at LHW........?!?
There is no doubt that Dawson's resume at 26 is lightyears ahead of Joe's at the same age. To argue otherwise would be insane.
Still, Joe's best wins came after that so it doesn't really prove anything.
Yeh because age is not the relevant factor. Dawson at 26 was more seasoned than Calzaghe at 26 who was more green. Roy Jones resume at 26 was probably better than Hopkins at 36......doesnt prove much.
Yeh because age is not the relevant factor. Dawson at 26 was more seasoned than Calzaghe at 26 who was more green. Roy Jones resume at 26 was probably better than Hopkins at 36......doesnt prove much.
Calzaghe at 26 had 25 fights to Dawson's 28. Only a 3 pro fight difference. Unless you have a different definition of "seasoned".
Tweet
Comment