Thread: Cotto or froch?

Who is the greater fighter as of right now?

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Who is the greater fighter as of right now?

they're IMO at two different points of their careers right now, Cotto nearing the end and Froch still has a couple good fights in him and can look upwards (in weight) at other options, so hard to say, both have taken on all comers

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Who is the greater fighter as of right now?

they're IMO at two different points of their careers right now, Cotto nearing the end and Froch still has a couple good fights in him and can look upwards (in weight) at other options, so hard to say, both have taken on all comers

Froch is mid 30's and will fight 3 more times at the most imo.

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Who is the greater fighter as of right now?

they're IMO at two different points of their careers right now, Cotto nearing the end and Froch still has a couple good fights in him and can look upwards (in weight) at other options, so hard to say, both have taken on all comers

Froch is mid 30's and will fight 3 more times at the most imo.

dunno bout that he just revived his career with his win over Bute, he still has options, Dawson, Cloud, Campillo, Cleverly or rematches with Kessler or Pascal

Both are determined, both fight anyone, both have amazing heart,
both can bang, but Cotto is the better boxer .

It's pretty crazy that this has even become a legitimate question because comparing Froch's career to Cotto's would be laughed off three years ago. If Froch beats Kessler in a rematch, beats Bute again, and then has one more key victory, he has a good shot at the Hall of Fame. At one point, I doubted Cotto's resume for the Hall of Fame, after having thought more about it, I believe he's probably in there now. I would like to see Cotto earn one more victory on the big stage to solidify it. Bottom line, both are top quality.

What's the point in comparing them? They are both amazing entertainers and have consistently given their all.

.... But to answer the question ( ) Id say Cotto is the better boxer but like Memphis once said "Froch has to be the best shit boxer there ever was"

Carl Froch is everything Tony Margarito wished he was.

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

What's the point in comparing them? They are both amazing entertainers and have consistently given their all.

.... But to answer the question ( ) Id say Cotto is the better boxer but like Memphis once said "Froch has to be the best shit boxer there ever was"

Carl Froch is everything Tony Margarito wished he was.

I think his boxing ability is underrated, fair enough he can get sloppy at times, but he wouldnt have got to the stage he is at now if he wasnt a good boxer. Hes just got a different style which some people think is shit, but it surely does get the job done as he has proved throughout his career. Ward who is probably one of the best fighters in the world right now gives Froch a lot of credit for his performances and said it was no doubt the hardest fight he had in his career. If Froch started a bit earlier you never know he could have done something in that fight. I hope Froch beats Kessler and Bute and maybe has one more go for Ward. If he could win those three fights he know doubt goes down as one of the greatest 168 fighters of all time.

Probably Froch coming off a great win against an undefeated champion whereas Cotto lost to p4p smaller fighter at his weight. Cotto could argue that he is the best at his weight but Froch cannot say the same thing. Although I believe Ward is underrated and is equally as good as Floyd.

Ward might be better than floyd?? I think so. I don't think any super middle of any era in boxing history could beat him.

Originally Posted by Dropanuke

Ward might be better than floyd?? I think so. I don't think any super middle of any era in boxing history could beat him.

Are you and Master on glue

Originally Posted by p4pking

Originally Posted by Dropanuke

Ward might be better than floyd?? I think so. I don't think any super middle of any era in boxing history could beat him.

Are you and Master on glue

Ward is the best at his weight he has beaten Kessler and Froch but I am not saying he has acheived what Floyd has yet but he may do in the future. He may not be the best to watch, and I thought he was going to become the next Roy Jones Junior but he may be the next Hopkins which is not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by p4pking

Originally Posted by Dropanuke

Ward might be better than floyd?? I think so. I don't think any super middle of any era in boxing history could beat him.

Are you and Master on glue

Ward is the best at his weight he has beaten Kessler and Froch but I am not saying he has acheived what Floyd has yet but he may do in the future. He may not be the best to watch, and I thought he was going to become the next Roy Jones Junior but he may be the next Hopkins which is not a bad thing.

He fights a lot like Hopkins except he's much younger and more active.

That is why he will beat Dawson by a mile.

Dawson barely beat a 48 year old Hopkins last time out. He's lazy in there.

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by p4pking

Originally Posted by Dropanuke

Ward might be better than floyd?? I think so. I don't think any super middle of any era in boxing history could beat him.

Are you and Master on glue

Ward is the best at his weight he has beaten Kessler and Froch but I am not saying he has acheived what Floyd has yet but he may do in the future. He may not be the best to watch, and I thought he was going to become the next Roy Jones Junior but he may be the next Hopkins which is not a bad thing.

It is if we have to watch him. At times, and particularly now at the tail end of his career, one Bernard Hopkins is one too many

Interesting.