It took Dawson 2 fights to get past Glen Johnson, 2 fights to get past Tarver...

[texasboi15]

..he already lost to Pascal so it's gonna take at least 2 to beat him.

I'm just not convinced with this guy.

[jrosales13]

LOL @ Dawson needing to have two fights to get past Tarver...Did we not see the fight and just went through boxrec or what?

[Jack Napier]

Johnson was robbed the 1st time
but Dawson whooped Tarver easily both times
there was only a rematch because Tarver had a clause
Dawson is a boring twat, want Hopkins to knock his fucking teeth out
not gonna happen though

[texasboi15]

Johnson was robbed the 1st time
but Dawson whooped Tarver easily both times
there was only a rematch because Tarver had a clause
Dawson is a boring twat, want Hopkins to knock his fucking teeth out
not gonna happen though

JN, Tarver also had a rematch clause with Hopkins but instead elected to go become a commentator...

[jrosales13]

JN, Tarver also had a rematch clause with Hopkins but instead elected to go become a commentator...

Your point?

Does this post take anything away from Dawson Damn near winning 10 rounds in the first fight?

Really? Needed two tries to beat Tarver, really?

[texasboi15]

Your point?

Does this post take anything away from Dawson Damn near winning 10 rounds in the first fight?

Really? Needed two tries to beat Tarver, really?

jro, he didn't beat the fight outta tarver like hop did.

he ain't want no more of hop

[texasboi15]

jro, he didn't beat the fight outta tarver like hop did.

he ain't want no more of hop

not to get into triangle theories but you dig what i'm saying?

had he destroyed Johnson, there would not have been a rematch

had he destroyed Tarver, Antonio would not have accepted the rematch.

[jrosales13]

jro, he didn't beat the fight outta tarver like hop did.

he ain't want no more of hop

But, that doesn't matter because he still beat Tarver so decisively in the first fight that there was no need for a rematch. No one wanted to see the Dawson-Tarver rematch because of how clear the winner was in the first fight.

You making it seem as if the first fight was competitive or close that a rematch had to happen. So we could find out who the better fight was. But, far from it the rematch happened cuz' of a clause.

Now Dawson-Johnson that's different. A rematch was absolutely necessary. It had to happen cuz' there was no clear winner in that fight. Some say Johnson won, others say Dawson, few had it a draw. But, the Dawson-Tarver fight? No, that one had a clear decisive winner.

It probably wasn't a damaging physically to Tarver as the B-Hop fight. But, Tarver still lost damn near every round against Dawson the first time.

So I don't see how Dawson needed 2 fights to get past Tarver at all.

[jrosales13]

not to get into triangle theories but you dig what i'm saying?

I get what you're saying, that common opponents wise. B-Hop has looked much more impressive. And, he has no doubt. Doesn't mean he will beat Dawson though...He could very well beat him though. But, sooner or later age will catch up to you. And, Dawon is a little different from Pascal. However, Dawson mentality and lack of urgency might be his downfall against cerebral assassin like Hopkins. Only time will tell sir.

[texasboi15]

I get what you're saying, that common opponents wise. B-Hop has looked much more impressive. And, he has no doubt. Doesn't mean he will beat Dawson though...He could very well beat him though. But, sooner or later age will catch up to you. And, Dawon is a little different from Pascal. However, Dawson mentality and lack of urgency might be his downfall against cerebral assassin like Hopkins. Only time will tell sir.

i agree.

and you're right, tarver was a bad example.

but that still leaves the two fights it took him to get past Johnson and the loss to pascal.

if he was this killer some people make him out to be, he would have ran through Johnson in 1 fight.

and he would have beat pascal.