Chad Dawson: Adonis Stevenson is NOT a Real World Champion!

[Ruthless-RKO]

"Chad Dawson: Adonis Stevenson is NOT a Real World Champion!"

Dawson (34-4, 19 KOs) has not been impressed with Stevenson's reign as champion. Dawson explained that during his own reign he always fought the best available opponents and Stevenson is doing the complete opposite. During his two title runs, Dawson fought Antonio Tarver twice, Bernard Hopkins twice, and Glen Johnson twice.

"Stevenson is not a real world champion. He has only beaten category B boxers since he got his title," Dawson said to the Montreal Journal. "When I owned his belt, I had faced all of the top fighters at the time. I have never taken easy fights. This is what a champion must do. That has not been the case with Stevenson since he beat me."

Dawson is not expecting Stevenson to ever face former champion Sergey Kovalev or current IBF, WBO, WBA champ Andre Ward.

He does explain that Stevenson is not the only party to blame in this situation.

"I do not know what is going on in his head to accept all of this. On the other hand, I believe that the WBC also has some of the blame in this story," Dawson added. "This sanctioning body should have forced him to face his mandatory challengers within a reasonable time. Stevenson could have faced Kovalev, but we know that this fight will never take place. This will be the same for Ward."

[Stuarty]

Is Dawson looking for a rematch?

[keirw]

Is Dawson looking for a rematch?

At this stage, that would only further prove his original point.

I wouldn't write off the possibility though.

[Stuarty]

Is Dawson looking for a rematch?

At this stage, that would only further prove his original point.

I wouldn't write off the possibility though.

Maybe if he manages to get a win and decent performance against Fonfara next week he'll fancy it...

[Ruthless-RKO]

Is Dawson looking for a rematch?

At this stage, that would only further prove his original point.

I wouldn't write off the possibility though.

Maybe if he manages to get a win and decent performance against Fonfara next week he'll fancy it...

Not ranked by WBC yet.

[keirw]

At this stage, that would only further prove his original point.

I wouldn't write off the possibility though.

Maybe if he manages to get a win and decent performance against Fonfara next week he'll fancy it...

Not ranked by WBC yet.

A minor technicality, I'm sure

[Ruthless-RKO]

Maybe if he manages to get a win and decent performance against Fonfara next week he'll fancy it...

Not ranked by WBC yet.

A minor technicality, I'm sure

Mentioning this article, he will be ranked tomorrow.

[Enlightened-One]

Chad Dawson lost his world title via a really bad first round KO to Adonis Stevenson... and then "Bad" Chad's next loss came against Tommy Karpency, who himself was subsequently obliterated inside three rounds by Stevenson during one of his title defences.

So if Dawson loses to a man he labels as a "category B boxer", what does category should he be placed in?

What motivates Chad Dawson to make such bizarre derogatory claims about another fighter, where his very own flawed logic can easily be used against himself to undermine his own status in the sport?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Chad is spot on. Stevenson iced him and he rates nowhere near as high as Chad historically. Dawson fought them all.

[Enlightened-One]

Chad is spot on. Stevenson iced him and he rates nowhere near as high as Chad historically. Dawson fought them all.

If we apply your logic to other fighters...

Gennady Golovkin rates nowhere near as high as Sergio Martinez historically. Maravilla fought them all.

Do you agree?

[boxing_rocks]

Chad Dawson lost his world title via a really bad first round KO to Adonis Stevenson... and then "Bad" Chad's next loss came against Tommy Karpency, who himself was subsequently obliterated inside three rounds by Stevenson during one of his title defences.

So if Dawson loses to a man he labels as a "category B boxer", what does category should he be placed in?

What motivates Chad Dawson to make such bizarre derogatory claims about another fighter, where his very own flawed logic can easily be used against himself to undermine his own status in the sport?

If you watched the Karpency fight, you would know that Dawson broke his hand and literally fought almost all the fight using jab only. I still had him winning.

[boxing_rocks]

Chad is spot on. Stevenson iced him and he rates nowhere near as high as Chad historically. Dawson fought them all.

If we apply your logic to other fighters...

Gennady Golovkin rates nowhere near as high as Sergio Martinez historically. Maravilla fought them all.

Do you agree?

Martinez had two opponents who are better than Golovkin's opposition - Pavlik and Williams. Even before losing while crippled to Cotto, he had an L, a D and a couple of hometown gifts, so I wouldn't be so sure who is higher historically.

[crusader]

His opposition has been very disappointing over the last few years.

[Enlightened-One]

Chad is spot on. Stevenson iced him and he rates nowhere near as high as Chad historically. Dawson fought them all.

If we apply your logic to other fighters...

Gennady Golovkin rates nowhere near as high as Sergio Martinez historically. Maravilla fought them all.

Do you agree?

Martinez had two opponents who are better than Golovkin's opposition - Pavlik and Williams. Even before losing while crippled to Cotto, he had an L, a D and a couple of hometown gifts, so I wouldn't be so sure who is higher historically.

In the same way that Chad Dawson never beats Stevenson, Martinez never beats Golovkin, despite the fact both losing fighters have better resumes, which I feel will be more important historically.

[Enlightened-One]

Chad Dawson lost his world title via a really bad first round KO to Adonis Stevenson... and then "Bad" Chad's next loss came against Tommy Karpency, who himself was subsequently obliterated inside three rounds by Stevenson during one of his title defences.

So if Dawson loses to a man he labels as a "category B boxer", what does category should he be placed in?

What motivates Chad Dawson to make such bizarre derogatory claims about another fighter, where his very own flawed logic can easily be used against himself to undermine his own status in the sport?

If you watched the Karpency fight, you would know that Dawson broke his hand and literally fought almost all the fight using jab only. I still had him winning.

I could be wrong, but Karpency was a 25-1 underdog, perceived as a club fighter and Dawson was only injured during the second half of the bout.

Regardless, my point remains valid, since Dawson's derogatory claims uses flawed logic that undermines his own status in the sport more than it affects Stevenson's.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Chad is spot on. Stevenson iced him and he rates nowhere near as high as Chad historically. Dawson fought them all.

If we apply your logic to other fighters...

Gennady Golovkin rates nowhere near as high as Sergio Martinez historically. Maravilla fought them all.

Do you agree?

Martinez had two opponents who are better than Golovkin's opposition - Pavlik and Williams. Even before losing while crippled to Cotto, he had an L, a D and a couple of hometown gifts, so I wouldn't be so sure who is higher historically.

What a ridiculous analogy. I'd bet Chad had more title defenses than Martinez had middleweight fights. Far from enlightened, an actual imbecile.

[Enlightened-One]

If we apply your logic to other fighters...

Gennady Golovkin rates nowhere near as high as Sergio Martinez historically. Maravilla fought them all.

Do you agree?

Martinez had two opponents who are better than Golovkin's opposition - Pavlik and Williams. Even before losing while crippled to Cotto, he had an L, a D and a couple of hometown gifts, so I wouldn't be so sure who is higher historically.

What a ridiculous analogy. I'd bet Chad had more title defenses than Martinez had middleweight fights. Far from enlightened, an actual imbecile.

The point I made relates to the fact that fighters with the more impressive resumes (in terms of big names faced) aren't guaranteed to have better legacies than those men they could never beat.

I guess you needed me to explain that concept to you in baby language, since you were clearly distracted by comparing the careers of Martinez and Dawson, instead of considering the point I was actually making.

If you'd paid attention, I was actually comparing Martinez's legacy to Golovkin, because Maravilla fought more names than GGG has done (so far).

It's unlikely that Dawson and Martinez will be considered as better fighters historically than Stevenson and Golovkin.

Please remember to keep yourself alive by inhaling, exhaling and blinking at regularly appropriate intervals.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I usually don't bother with you, but Dawson beat adamek, Hopkins, tarver x2, Johnson x2. Adonis only has Chad on that level. So you're logic, as usual, is twisted in knots. To consider Adonis greater you have to be cognizant of Chad's great run. Which renders that an impossible conclusion for anyone remotely qualified to assess it. Now go ahead and write up a novel I won't read and do your chest thumping internet Johnny drama 'VICTORY' scream when you're, once again, clearly wrong.

[Enlightened-One]

I usually don't bother with you, but Dawson beat adamek, Hopkins, tarver x2, Johnson x2. Adonis only has Chad on that level.

That's the point I was making. Dawson has a better resume than Stevenson (in terms of names fought), but I believe that "Bad" Chad could never beat Adonis.

Please read my posts again and you'll surely realise this.

So you're logic, as usual, is twisted in knots. To consider Adonis greater you have to be cognizant of Chad's great run. Which renders that an impossible conclusion for anyone remotely qualified to assess it.

I wasn’t talking about “greatness”… I was referring to whom would be remembered as the “better” fighter.

Please read my posts again and you'll surely realise this.

Now go ahead and write up a novel I won't read and do your chest thumping internet Johnny drama 'VICTORY' scream when you're, once again, clearly wrong.

Yada yada yada…

[Bard of Boxrec]

I believe that "Bad" Chad could never beat Adonis.

even if you do believe that, your argument is like saying Jermain Taylor should be rated higher historically than Hopkins.

I think a prime Dawson could well have beaten Adonis, but it doesn't really matter for this particular point, Dawson has clearly done more when you compare their careers and Chad should be rated higher historically in accordance.

[world ranked]

If your basis is not resume than your just adding opinion on would win. Resume are facts opinions aren't. Martinez should be considered higher than Golovkin right now. The Stevenson-Dawson debate is a little different because they actual fought each other. I don't remember many people saying Chad was done at that time.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Prime Dawson should be a firm favorite over Stevenson. Hell, many of Chad's victims would be favored too. He certainly has a punchers chance, but dawson was a superior boxer. He just burned out young, it happens. He is a borderline HOF fighter imv. He won't make it, but he was levels above a guy like Gatti.

[Enlightened-One]

I believe that "Bad" Chad could never beat Adonis.

even if you do believe that, your argument is like saying Jermain Taylor should be rated higher historically than Hopkins.

No it’s not.

I think a prime Dawson could well have beaten Adonis, but it doesn't really matter for this particular point, Dawson has clearly done more when you compare their careers and Chad should be rated higher historically in accordance.

I respect your opinion, but I don’t agree with it.

I am primarily concerned about whom the better fighter was, not who was more accomplished, fought better names or who made a greater contribution to the sport.

I believe that the history books will eventually reflect my opinion about Stevenson and Golovkin being remembered as better fighters than Dawson and Martinez.

If your basis is not resume than your just adding opinion on would win. Resume are facts opinions aren't.

This point has some merit, to a certain extent, but resumes alone don’t win fights and legacies aren’t always based on stats alone.

I am expressing my opinion that Dawson could never beat Stevenson and Martinez could never beat GGG.

Martinez should be considered higher than Golovkin right now.

I am not referring to resumes or accomplishments. I am focussed on the fighter that history will regard as the better fighter. And I don't believe that Martinez could ever beat Gennady Golovkin.

You’ll notice that the facts listed on resumes is not the only criteria used to determine those fighters that have “earned” the right to be included amongst pound-for-pound, Hall-of-Fame or all-time-great lists.

The Stevenson-Dawson debate is a little different because they actual fought each other. I don't remember many people saying Chad was done at that time.

Agreed.

[Bard of Boxrec]

I believe that "Bad" Chad could never beat Adonis.

even if you do believe that, your argument is like saying Jermain Taylor should be rated higher historically than Hopkins.

No it’s not.

How so?

Hopkins clearly had the more accomplished career than Taylor when all was said and done. Yet he lost to Taylor, twice. So surely you think Taylor should be regarded higher historically?
Dawson clearly has a more accomplished career than Stevenson. Yet he lost to Stevenson when he had suffered the effects of, in his previous fight, boiling down to super middleweight, a weight he hadn't fought at for seven years, to face Andre Ward, before coming back up to 175 to face a known puncher.

[Enlightened-One]

even if you do believe that, your argument is like saying Jermain Taylor should be rated higher historically than Hopkins.

No it’s not.

How so?

Hopkins clearly had the more accomplished career than Taylor when all was said and done. Yet he lost to Taylor, twice. So surely you think Taylor should be regarded higher historically?
Dawson clearly has a more accomplished career than Stevenson. Yet he lost to Stevenson when he had suffered the effects of, in his previous fight, boiling down to super middleweight, a weight he hadn't fought at for seven years, to face Andre Ward, before coming back up to 175 to face a known puncher.

You’re comparing two different fighters where there was roughly a fifteen year age gap. I believe Taylor was 26 years old, with Hopkins being almost 41 years of age when they had their two fights… and the outcome of those bouts were hotly disputed.

For the record, I never said that resumes were irrelevant, merely not the only criteria I use to evaluate fighters.

Whilst I believe that Sergio Martinez has mixed with better names than GGG has, with a couple of his signature wins far more impressive than the Kazakh has currently achieved, I genuinely believe that the Argentine would never be able to defeat Gennady Golovkin.

My sentiments about Dawson and Stevenson are similar in nature.

I am not claiming that my opinion should be regarded as “fact”, but I am supremely confident that the history books will eventually reflect my current belief.

I also wholeheartedly believe that the stats contained within resumes aren’t the only criteria used to determine the fighters that have “earned” the right to be included in pound-for-pound, Hall-of-Fame and all-time-great lists.