Both fighters cut from the same cloth. Big fan of both. Who do u rate higher?
Printable View
Both fighters cut from the same cloth. Big fan of both. Who do u rate higher?
Thats almost as easy as saying would Froch beat Dawson (at light heavy)? I think he would.
Froch by a long way and thats based on the Adameks record at 175 and his sd win over cunningham at cruiser meaning he has never dominated a divison , although i havent seen the cunningham fight
Froch hasn't dominated a division either...accomplishment wise I don't know, if they ever had met at light heavy I would have favored adamek.Quote:
Originally Posted by oakleyno1
Very random question. I'd have to go with Audley Harrison.
currently, I'd say Froch. Taking their whole careers and judging them based on that, I'd slightly favor Adamek
I don't see any logic in rating Adamek higher than Froch.
I like 'em both but Adamek, definitely! He's fought bigger and more experienced fighters, and always--almost always--figures out a way to win.
He lost to Dawson though and Froch wouldnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Pascal beat Dawson and Adamek couldnt.
I think some people are over rating Adamek because hes moved up and beaten some mediocre heavies but he just wasnt that great as a light heavy and id bet he gets found out for taking steroids too.
Adamek had trouble making weight for the Dawson fight, so it could explain his weak performance. He was an excellent cruiser and should of stayed there. How do y'all see his fight vs Cunningham ( the rematch) ?
To be honest Adamek and Froch, are not the best in there division's to start with, and before some one
has a hissing fit, they ARE NOT. Both have been beaten, Froch is probable the better fighter they are both
very good , but Froch is the man you would have to say.:)
Not sure what we're judging on ??? As a whole I go Froch today. He has stayed in one spot and has had less ifs..mights..and maybes. That said Adamek adapted and switched his game. If he continued to fight at heavy like Froch does at his weight he would be ko'd...a few times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dia bando
I agree with some points you've made but definitely not all. It's one of the few "what if" matchups I'd pay to see.
and? Pascal beat Dawson, Hopkins schooled Pascal twice, and then lost to Dawson, your logic of fighter A lost to fighter B so fighter A would lose to fighter C because he beat fighter B, is retardedQuote:
Originally Posted by rossHe lost to Dawson though and Froch wouldnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
Pascal beat Dawson and Adamek couldnt.
I think some people are over rating Adamek because hes moved up and beaten some mediocre heavies but he just wasnt that great as a light heavy and id bet he gets found out for taking steroids too.
On accomplishments it's Froch clearly. Surely?
Considering he's the only man to defeat Banks who battered Mitchell, Battered Cunningham (Who stopped Marco Huck) then i consider adamek a top fighter! Don't u? Also consider Adamek is lean and comfortable @ 220lbs nowadays supports the fact that he was not comfortable @ 175lbs! Imagine Adamek v Dawson now! That end's that argument! Add Oneill Bell, Golota, Grant, Arreola etc and u have a very good resume...
Froch has the better resume but all in all very evenly matched. I consider Adamek a top p4p figher and minus K2 in the division would have a good shot at being a 3 weight world champ!
I don't even know anymore. I'm assuming there will be a punch line somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanman