BoxRec

G0mez wrote:Pound for pound is a total load of bollocks.

Why do you say that?

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hmm, not sure about that. He's not proven himself the dominant force at 168 yet, so how can he be top 10 P4P?

I mean, well done Carl and all, but let's not get carried away. There's a lot of other fighters deserve consideration out there.

Can you name 10 that should definitely be above Froch?

I would say Pacquaio, Mayweather, Marquez, Martinez and W. Klitschko should definitely be above him. I also have Cotto, Lopez and Hopkins above Froch.

Do Williams, Darchinyan, R. Marquez, Bradley, Ward, Montiel, Haye, Adamek, Wonjongkam, Pascal, Segura or any others have a better case than Froch?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Taylor and Abraham remember were never 'the man' at 168, and so we need to take that with a pinch of salt. It's an impressive run alright, but he needs to beat Ward and Bute for me to enter the top 10. If he then beats a triumphant Pascal, then he goes top 5 for me possibly.

If he beats Johnson, Ward, Bute and a triumphant Pascal; on top of what he has already done, then he is a contender for the P4P No. 1 spot.

Cotto? Haha, he's one of the most overrated fighters in boxing. His best opponents were Mosley (won a close unanimous decision and was on his bike at the end), Margarito (lost by TKO), Pacquiao (lost by TKO) and Clottey (split decision win). And you rank him higher than Froch?

johnswan1 wrote:Cotto? Haha, he's one of the most overrated fighters in boxing. His best opponents were Mosley (won a close unanimous decision and was on his bike at the end), Margarito (lost by TKO), Pacquiao (lost by TKO) and Clottey (split decision win). And you rank him higher than Froch?

Cotto has wins against: Torres, Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah, Mosley, Gomez, Clottey and Foreman.

Froch has a better recent record, but Cotto is a three weight world title holder and he has a better overall record, in my opinion.

cotto is quality and not overrated at all...

but puh-lease:

Torres, Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah, Mosley, Gomez, Clottey and Foreman.

are you serious!?!?

dekker88 wrote:cotto is quality and not overrated at all...

but puh-lease:

Torres, Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah, Mosley, Gomez, Clottey and Foreman.

are you serious!?!?

He was rated as a top 10 Welterweight at the time and he is arguably in the top 10 now. However, I wasn't being very serious when I added him.

Horse wrote:

dekker88 wrote:cotto is quality and not overrated at all...

but puh-lease:

Torres, Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah, Mosley, Gomez, Clottey and Foreman.

are you serious!?!?

He was rated as a top 10 Welterweight at the time and he is arguably in the top 10 now. However, I wasn't being very serious when I added him.

boxrec has him at 6!!

ww is actually quite a weak division outside of the top 5....shiiit it must be if gomez is in at 6!

amir khan is gonna clear up in a few years...

Problem with P4P is its a stretch-to-fit measure. What I mean is that some people will use it to cover the last 1 or 2 years, some will consider their last 2-3 fights, while others will consider a whole career, some will also consider performance while others will consider only the result. I guess it's like the difference between The Ring Magazines Fighter of the Year and their P4P leader.

For me, I like to consider only the last 12 whole months in terms of performance as well as result, in which case Froch makes a top 10 worldwide list. I think his 2010 outranks that of Haye and Khan, so he's my No 1 in the UK too.

My top 10, globally, in a rough order much dependent on my mood at the time of writing:

1 - Pacquiao (W Margarito, W Clottey, W Cotto)
2 - Marquez (W Katsidis, W Diaz)
3 - Mayweather (W Mosley)
4 - Martinez (W Pavlik, W Williams)
5 - JM Lopez (W Marquez, W Concepcion, W Luevano)
6 - Pascal (W Dawson, W Diaconu)
7 - Montiel (W Hasegawa, W Morales, W Concepcion)
8 - W Klitschko (W Peter, W Chambers)
9 - Froch (W Abraham, L Kessler)
10 - Segura (W Vargas, W Jaro, W Calderon, W Tello, W Ramos)

If he beats Johnson and goes on to win the super six final, most likley against Ward, i think he'd probably just make my top ten, or just miss it by a spot or two. If he went on to beat Bute, that would seal the deal, and if he could move up to 175 after that and take a belt, he'd have to be in just about everyone's top ten i reckon.

ALI wrote:If he beats Johnson and goes on to win the super six final, most likley against Ward, i think he'd probably just make my top ten, or just miss it by a spot or two. If he went on to beat Bute, that would seal the deal, and if he could move up to 175 after that and take a belt, he'd have to be in just about everyone's top ten i reckon.

Can we see your top 10? Who the hell do you think is out there that is so bloody amazing?

Anyone who would leave him out of their top 10 P4P rankings if he goes on to beat Johnson, Ward and Bute would be a liar or a complete buffoon.

Horse wrote:

ALI wrote:If he beats Johnson and goes on to win the super six final, most likley against Ward, i think he'd probably just make my top ten, or just miss it by a spot or two. If he went on to beat Bute, that would seal the deal, and if he could move up to 175 after that and take a belt, he'd have to be in just about everyone's top ten i reckon.

Can we see your top 10? Who the hell do you think is out there that is so bloody amazing?

Anyone who would leave him out of their top 10 P4P rankings if he goes on to beat Johnson, Ward and Bute would be a liar or a complete buffoon.

If you re-read my post i think you'll find were in agreement on this one!

Many fighters get highly ranked on P4P lists just because they look great and not neccesserily down to their achievements. I have seen both Amir Khan and Timothy Bradley very highly ranked on P4P lists before, thats definately not on merit IMO.

Froch, on the other hand, has an awkward, unusual style, hands low and often taking punishment, and occassionally getting himself outboxed. Therefor he's not neccesserialy shooting up the P4P lists on how good he looks in the ring, but on hard earned achievements, or in better words, on merit!

Horse wrote:Do Williams, Darchinyan, R. Marquez, Bradley, Ward, Montiel, Haye, Adamek, Wonjongkam, Pascal, Segura or any others have a better case than Froch?

Yes, to the ones bolded. In terms of overall career, all of them do, but Williams and Marquez lost their most recent fights, so I'd put Froch over them. Haye and Adamek are below him due to recent opposition level.

oliverfennell wrote:

Horse wrote:Do Williams, Darchinyan, R. Marquez, Bradley, Ward, Montiel, Haye, Adamek, Wonjongkam, Pascal, Segura or any others have a better case than Froch?

Yes, to the ones bolded. In terms of overall career, all of them do, but Williams and Marquez lost their most recent fights, so I'd put Froch over them. Haye and Adamek are below him due to recent opposition level.

Do you really think that Tim Bradley, with career defining (to date) wins over Witter, Campbell, Holt and Peterson ranks higher than Froch?

I'd also not have Darchinyan anywhere near a top 10 - combined record of last 3 opps - 82-28-5!

I have Ward and Froch at similar levels, don't know enough about Wonjongkam but I do like the recent work of Segura, Pascal and Montiel.

In a P4P sense then YES, Bradley's opponents are much better. How many defending champions has Froch beat again? Won the belt twice, aint for a defending champion in any of them.

In those wins - Bradley beat the a belt holder (who had made a few successful defences). Another regining and defending champion in Holt (who had avenged his sole loss), he then fought the universally recognised #1 the devision below. A former unified champion who didn't lose his belts in the ring - and in Peterson he fought a tasty prospect.

2 of Froch's big wins had lost their previous fight. At the time of the contests, none of Froch's big wins had scored wins over world class Natural Super Middleweights - the only one that had, lost his last fight.... and he beat Froch.

The only reason we are rating the opponents of the Super 6 more highly, is because of the coverage. Nate Campbell at the time of the Bradley fight should have been in the P4P rankings. Only reason he was not, was cause he is not in the most attractive of devisions.

stujones wrote:In a P4P sense then YES, Bradley's opponents are much better. How many defending champions has Froch beat again? Won the belt twice, aint for a defending champion in any of them.

In those wins - Bradley beat the a belt holder (who had made a few successful defences). Another regining and defending champion in Holt (who had avenged his sole loss), he then fought the universally recognised #1 the devision below. A former unified champion who didn't lose his belts in the ring - and in Peterson he fought a tasty prospect.

2 of Froch's big wins had lost their previous fight. At the time of the contests, none of Froch's big wins had scored wins over world class Natural Super Middleweights - the only one that had, lost his last fight.... and he beat Froch.

The only reason we are rating the opponents of the Super 6 more highly, is because of the coverage. Nate Campbell at the time of the Bradley fight should have been in the P4P rankings. Only reason he was not, was cause he is not in the most attractive of devisions.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Bradley beat a defending champ in Witter while Froch only beat Jean Pascal. Witter had won a vacant title fight against DeMarcus Corley who wouldn't ever have been near a P4P top 100. Pascal was unbeaten and went on to become the consensus number 1 at Light Heavy. Froch remains the only man to ever beat him

Whilst the Holt victory was impressive, his defeat next time out puts it in perspective. He may have fought the Universal champ from a division below, but he didn't beat him (and again his subsequent form places the Bradley fight in perspective). Froch fought the former universal champ from a division below (Taylor) and knocked him out.

Peterson may have been a tasty prospect, but was this in the same way that Ortiz was considered a tasty prospect - ie unbeaten for a couple of years and fed on a diet of beatable opposition but shown up when making a step up in class? Ie, a fight that a competent fighter like Bradley should easily win? Frochs tasty prospect would be Dirrell, I guess. A man who went on to outbox the unbeaten former Middleweight champion?

Abraham and Kessler had lost their previous fights, but had lost to Dirrell and Ward - top level contenders. Only Taylor of Frochs run of opponents has gone on to lose a fight, while Campbell has 2 defeats, Holt lost to Mabuza and Witter lost comfortably to Devon Alexander.

I'll admit there's not much in it, but while Froch has had an uninterrupted run against top challengers, Bradley took a breather against the likes fo Edner Cherry and Luis Abregu.

If someone put a gun to my head and said make me a P4P list, it would probably look something like this:

1) Manny Pacquiao
Juan Manuel Marquez
Sergio Martinez
Floyd Mayweather
Juan Manuel Lopez
Miguel Cotto
Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
David Haye
Carl Froch

Notes: I'm very aware that there are several worthy contenders below featherweight, but you cant rank what you dont know and i dont know much about 122lbs and below.

The only thing i am certain about is that Manny Pacquiao should be ranked #1. Other than that, i would not argue the toss about any other fighter being moved up/down/off the list.

I'm not a big fan of the Klitschko's, but they are a dominating force in the heavyweight division and have been for years, also its often to easy to overlook the big guys in P4P lists. I also feel Haye is deserving of a spot. He unified titles at cruiserweight and is on a good run at heavyweight. He beat Valuev to take the WBA belt, lets not forget Valuev had made many defences of that title, and though he looks very cumbersome, due to his size he would'nt be an easy fight for anyone!

Having spent some time looking over records (excluding the wee men), Froch makes it onto my list, just. If he can beat Johnson and Ward, he'll move up a couple of notches further. Beating Bute would see him in my top 5.

He unified titles at cruiserweight

re: haye - that's a point which a lot of people seem to be missing entirely....he's not an untested fighter....he proved his mettle, his skills at CW.....he may not have fought the very best at HW but he beat an established champion that many other established HW's had fought and lost to.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hmm, not sure about that. He's not proven himself the dominant force at 168 yet, so how can he be top 10 P4P?

I mean, well done Carl and all, but let's not get carried away. There's a lot of other fighters deserve consideration out there.

Taylor and Abraham remember were never 'the man' at 168, and so we need to take that with a pinch of salt. It's an impressive run alright, but he needs to beat Ward and Bute for me to enter the top 10. If he then beats a triumphant Pascal, then he goes top 5 for me possibly.

i have froch in my top ten around 9 or 10. pascal,taylor,abraham,dirrel and the razor tight kessler war thats a hell of a resume. the scary thing for the naysayers is i said all along froch has fantastic boxing skills. now if he chooses to be more disciplined i see no way the overrated ward beats him . glen johnson is his biggest threat he could old man him, bute is a terrific fighter and pascal if he gets past hopkins which is a big if. ward is just a front runner who caught kessler on the worst night of his life.

earsjohn wrote:

stujones wrote:In a P4P sense then YES, Bradley's opponents are much better. How many defending champions has Froch beat again? Won the belt twice, aint for a defending champion in any of them.

In those wins - Bradley beat the a belt holder (who had made a few successful defences). Another regining and defending champion in Holt (who had avenged his sole loss), he then fought the universally recognised #1 the devision below. A former unified champion who didn't lose his belts in the ring - and in Peterson he fought a tasty prospect.

2 of Froch's big wins had lost their previous fight. At the time of the contests, none of Froch's big wins had scored wins over world class Natural Super Middleweights - the only one that had, lost his last fight.... and he beat Froch.

The only reason we are rating the opponents of the Super 6 more highly, is because of the coverage. Nate Campbell at the time of the Bradley fight should have been in the P4P rankings. Only reason he was not, was cause he is not in the most attractive of devisions.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Bradley beat a defending champ in Witter while Froch only beat Jean Pascal. Witter had won a vacant title fight against DeMarcus Corley who wouldn't ever have been near a P4P top 100. Pascal was unbeaten and went on to become the consensus number 1 at Light Heavy. Froch remains the only man to ever beat him

Whilst the Holt victory was impressive, his defeat next time out puts it in perspective. He may have fought the Universal champ from a division below, but he didn't beat him (and again his subsequent form places the Bradley fight in perspective). Froch fought the former universal champ from a division below (Taylor) and knocked him out.

Peterson may have been a tasty prospect, but was this in the same way that Ortiz was considered a tasty prospect - ie unbeaten for a couple of years and fed on a diet of beatable opposition but shown up when making a step up in class? Ie, a fight that a competent fighter like Bradley should easily win? Frochs tasty prospect would be Dirrell, I guess. A man who went on to outbox the unbeaten former Middleweight champion?

Abraham and Kessler had lost their previous fights, but had lost to Dirrell and Ward - top level contenders. Only Taylor of Frochs run of opponents has gone on to lose a fight, while Campbell has 2 defeats, Holt lost to Mabuza and Witter lost comfortably to Devon Alexander.

I'll admit there's not much in it, but while Froch has had an uninterrupted run against top challengers, Bradley took a breather against the likes fo Edner Cherry and Luis Abregu.

Personally, I would rank a fighter higher who won in "breather" contests (hardly like Cherry and Abregu are bum of the month contenders) than someone who has had an uninterupted run - but that run consistutes a defeat (against a fighter who lost his last fight).

stujones wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

stujones wrote:In a P4P sense then YES, Bradley's opponents are much better. How many defending champions has Froch beat again? Won the belt twice, aint for a defending champion in any of them.

In those wins - Bradley beat the a belt holder (who had made a few successful defences). Another regining and defending champion in Holt (who had avenged his sole loss), he then fought the universally recognised #1 the devision below. A former unified champion who didn't lose his belts in the ring - and in Peterson he fought a tasty prospect.

2 of Froch's big wins had lost their previous fight. At the time of the contests, none of Froch's big wins had scored wins over world class Natural Super Middleweights - the only one that had, lost his last fight.... and he beat Froch.

The only reason we are rating the opponents of the Super 6 more highly, is because of the coverage. Nate Campbell at the time of the Bradley fight should have been in the P4P rankings. Only reason he was not, was cause he is not in the most attractive of devisions.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Bradley beat a defending champ in Witter while Froch only beat Jean Pascal. Witter had won a vacant title fight against DeMarcus Corley who wouldn't ever have been near a P4P top 100. Pascal was unbeaten and went on to become the consensus number 1 at Light Heavy. Froch remains the only man to ever beat him

Whilst the Holt victory was impressive, his defeat next time out puts it in perspective. He may have fought the Universal champ from a division below, but he didn't beat him (and again his subsequent form places the Bradley fight in perspective). Froch fought the former universal champ from a division below (Taylor) and knocked him out.

Peterson may have been a tasty prospect, but was this in the same way that Ortiz was considered a tasty prospect - ie unbeaten for a couple of years and fed on a diet of beatable opposition but shown up when making a step up in class? Ie, a fight that a competent fighter like Bradley should easily win? Frochs tasty prospect would be Dirrell, I guess. A man who went on to outbox the unbeaten former Middleweight champion?

Abraham and Kessler had lost their previous fights, but had lost to Dirrell and Ward - top level contenders. Only Taylor of Frochs run of opponents has gone on to lose a fight, while Campbell has 2 defeats, Holt lost to Mabuza and Witter lost comfortably to Devon Alexander.

I'll admit there's not much in it, but while Froch has had an uninterrupted run against top challengers, Bradley took a breather against the likes fo Edner Cherry and Luis Abregu.

Personally, I would rank a fighter higher who won in "breather" contests (hardly like Cherry and Abregu are bum of the month contenders) than someone who has had an uninterupted run - but that run consistutes a defeat (against a fighter who lost his last fight).

It's purely a matter of opinion then as I would rank a good performance in a close defeat over one of the divisions top guys over unremarkable, stay busy wins against unambitious, filler opponents.

Yeah, all a matter of opinions. Personally, I wasn't impressed by either Froch or Kessler that night. If you viewed my comments on the round by round thread I was stating - irrespective of what happens, Kessler is undoubtedly faded.

I think a FANTASTIC last 3/4 rounds has made many people over-rate that fight. I don't think we can call it a fight of the year contender when for the first 7 to 8 rounds John Rawling was continually saying "just waiting for the feeling out process to stop" - "its going to get going soon".... I think cause of the last 3/4 rounds (which were savage, and certainly a winner for last 3rd of a fight of the year award) - people have overated the performances of both men.

I also don't think it was particularly close to be honest. Not the razor tight decision people have been stressing on here, and of course I have the Dirrell fight and the controvesial result account in my P4P ranking. I just don't think Froch has come really close to calling himself the dominant force in the devision. Indeed, I think it would be probably a little bit kind to him to have him inside the top 3.

But, all a matter of opinions - no right or wrong answer.

Taking the topic as I am saw it this is my opinion. If you are saying as a Super Middleweight in the top 1 without a doubt perhaps a top 3-4 at 12 stone as he is a former Commonwealth title holder and he has won the Lonsdale Belt outright (which Joe Calzaghe never did during his career). He has fought some of the best Super Middles in Andre Dirrell, Mikkel Kessler, defeated both Jermain Taylor a former undisputed Middleweight world champion and Arthur Abraham who stepped up to the weight, the former after being knocked down early in the fight, later whom he dominated. As for a pounder for pounder you would give him some serious consideration at the very least, but whether or not he makes it I am not sure.