Dawson outpoints Tarver again, inspires few
Chad Dawson improved to 28-0 with another wide, 12-round decision over Antonio Tarver tonight in Las Vegas, but if HBO or anyone else was looking for a scintillating performance from the 26-year old light heavyweight, it wasn't there.
Part of this is owed to Tarver's defensive ability, which was again pretty sound. Tarver (27-6, 19 KO) is not anywhere near a great fighter at this point, but he's not easy to look good against, and Dawson again didn't look particularly good.
This might have been the end of the road for Tarver, who lost on scores of 117-111 (twice) and 116-112. My scorecard had it 117-111 for Dawson, but Tarver did clearly hurt him one time in the bout.
The discussion for much of the bout -- and I'll assume the aftermath will be the same -- centered on what's next for Dawson. He has said he won't fight Glen Johnson again unless he absolutely has to, and I think that's sort of weak. I don't blame him for taking more money to fight Tarver last October and taking this rematch, but you'd like to hope Dawson would have the guts to fight the man who's given him his greatest challenge. Many feel Johnson won that fight. There's some intrigue there, and there might not be much out there that's better.
We'll have more tomorrow on this fight (or maybe not). We will have a look at what Dawson might do next.
0 recs |
1 comment
|
Comments
I thought 116-112 was pretty much correct, though I could have seen someone going even to 115-113 to be honest. Neither man was hurt, and Tarver fought much better. Dawson is in a terrible situation. If he fights Johnson, he could certainly lose, and never get his big fights (Hopkins, Calzaghe). If he wins, he probably still won’t get those fights, so where is the upside? Your only viable option is to put your undefeated record on the line against the toughest opponent you have faced in your career, with a win gaining you little leverage to get the fights you need to become a star, and a loss halting years of work. Talk about a lose-lose.
by jjstraka on May 9, 2009 11:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













