Carl Froch or Tomasz Adamek..

**ElTerribleMorales** · 11-16-2012 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by beenKOed

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.

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.

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 retarded

**ryanman** · 11-16-2012 05:08 PM

On accomplishments it's Froch clearly. Surely?

**THE PHILOSOPHER** · 11-21-2012 08:08 PM

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!