100% true, although i'm not talking specifically about dawson, but about fighters in general. i say you can't call someone great until we see how they deal with defeat and if they can come back better and avenge the loss. i'm using one of many many examples but this one is fresh enough for all to remember, but hamed was considered the best ever rah rah rah, had one defeat and it took his fighting soul away, never to achieve anything in boxing after getting his ass handed to him, making him not great. he did great things, but not a great as far as career, poise, and perseverance; no perseverance there.
and no, it was dawsons fight to lose, he had more than enough chances to close the show or at least get a knockdown, and he didn't, for some reason dawson didn't go on the attack and didn't take advantages of the openings pascal gave to dawson. dawson's fault..........
dawson either changes his game a bit and expands his technique or he doesn't and the blue print on how to beat him is out there for all who wish to attempt to employ it............
I understand what you're saying that coming back from defeat is a measure of greatness..ok but do you think thats the only measure?
Every great should have a lose on their record if not your always going to get some stick for having a padded record. Dawson has only done himself a HUGE favour by the loss, he can now comeback to redeem himself at the top. It's healthy to taste defeat in your career.
Tweet
Comment