How Far Away Is Froch From Being a Pound 4 Pounder?

[0james0]

How can people still think Froch got a gift against Dirrell? There was only one boxer in the ring that night and it sure as hell wasn't Dirrell! That result shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Same goes for the Kessler fight, was close, but Froch didn't win.

If he wins the super 6, then beats the number one guy in his div, then he'll be knocking on the door.

[ElTerribleMorales]

How can people still think Froch got a gift against Dirrell? There was only one boxer in the ring that night and it sure as hell wasn't Dirrell! That result shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Same goes for the Kessler fight, was close, but Froch didn't win.

If he wins the super 6, then beats the number one guy in his div, then he'll be knocking on the door.

are you kidding me? lmao Dirrell was the only one doing any BOXING, Froch just landed low blows and repeated shots to the back of Dirrell's head, add in the ONLY guy hurt in that fight was Froch, it was a clear win for Dirrell

[JonnyFolds]

How can people still think Froch got a gift against Dirrell? There was only one boxer in the ring that night and it sure as hell wasn't Dirrell! That result shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Same goes for the Kessler fight, was close, but Froch didn't win.

If he wins the super 6, then beats the number one guy in his div, then he'll be knocking on the door.

are you kidding me? lmao Dirrell was the only one doing any BOXING, Froch just landed low blows and repeated shots to the back of Dirrell's head, add in the ONLY guy hurt in that fight was Froch, it was a clear win for Dirrell

As much as it pains me to say it, ElTerrible is right. Froch got wobbled twice hard by Dirrel. A man who isn't even convinced himself that he has power. I know Dirrel ran the whole night, but he was the only guy land any clean shots. Froch was exposed, and Kessler smartly took note on how to neutralize Froch's strength.

I think if Froch wins out the tournament with all KOs, KOs Hopkins, then KOs Bute, he is #1 p4p.

[skel1983]

I know there is only a top 10 p4p but if there was a top 20 and he beat Abraham he has to be between 10-15 for me. Maybe 13.

[ono]

I suppose p4p is subjective. You can go on resume, or you can go on actual performances, or a mixture of both.

I just have a hard time believing a guy who holds wins over Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal and if he beat him, Abraham, doesn't even register with most people as being anywhere near worthy. I can understand if you are judging purely on talent alone, because being honest, he is nowhere near. But talent alone doesn't win you fights and it doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter.

I hear the calls for him cleaning out Super-Middleweight, but Super-middleweight is absolutely stacked with talent, and by the time he got round to fighting everyone, he'd be about 37.

It's just a shame really, because guys like Hatton cleaned up a pretty weak 140 and that earns him respect, wheras it will be very tough for any fighter at 168 to clean up, as the range of talent means that it's quite likely that somebody has the style to beat you.

As for him losing around 30 rounds in hist last half dozen fights, i think you have to take into consideration his style. Guys like Ward are slick, so they won't give too many rounds away. Froch goes to war, and leaves himself open. He'll lose rounds, but that shouldn't take away from his victories.

The reason i even brought this was up was basically because i was looking at the p4p rankings, and Marquez and Mosley are both in the top 5, despite Mosley losing to Cotto, looking awful against Mayorga and losing soundly to MAyweather. Marquez is in the top 3, despite many people on here believing he's struggled greatly with Casamayor and Diaz, and of course he was easily beaten by Mayweather.

Then i look at Sergio Martinez who is number 7, and he's only really gone 1-1-1 against Williams, Pavlik and CIntron. IS that any better than Froch going 3-1 against Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell and Kessler (two of those in his opponents backyard)? I mean, even Williams has question marks hanging over him...

So that begs the question, how do people on here form their p4p lists? What criteria do you all use? Do you all list a few bankers (Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Mosley etc) and then add a few of the champions from the lower weights, after checking them out on Boxrec - of course pretending you've watched them fight more than twice?

I'm genuinley interested. For me, the p4p top ten is full with dark clouds and question marks. It needs shaking up. I can't help but feel a few fighters are holding down spots based on their past reputations, and maybe because there are no obvious front runners to take over the mantle.

When all that is said and done, if he beats Abraham, for me Froch is pushing 10th. He has to be...

[skel1983]

I suppose p4p is subjective. You can go on resume, or you can go on actual performances, or a mixture of both.

I just have a hard time believing a guy who holds wins over Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal and if he beat him, Abraham, doesn't even register with most people as being anywhere near worthy. I can understand if you are judging purely on talent alone, because being honest, he is nowhere near. But talent alone doesn't win you fights and it doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter.

I hear the calls for him cleaning out Super-Middleweight, but Super-middleweight is absolutely stacked with talent, and by the time he got round to fighting everyone, he'd be about 37.

It's just a shame really, because guys like Hatton cleaned up a pretty weak 140 and that earns him respect, wheras it will be very tough for any fighter at 168 to clean up, as the range of talent means that it's quite likely that somebody has the style to beat you.

As for him losing around 30 rounds in hist last half dozen fights, i think you have to take into consideration his style. Guys like Ward are slick, so they won't give too many rounds away. Froch goes to war, and leaves himself open. He'll lose rounds, but that shouldn't take away from his victories.

The reason i even brought this was up was basically because i was looking at the p4p rankings, and Marquez and Mosley are both in the top 5, despite Mosley losing to Cotto, looking awful against Mayorga and losing soundly to MAyweather. Marquez is in the top 3, despite many people on here believing he's struggled greatly with Casamayor and Diaz, and of course he was easily beaten by Mayweather.

Then i look at Sergio Martinez who is number 7, and he's only really gone 1-1-1 against Williams, Pavlik and CIntron. IS that any better than Froch going 3-1 against Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell and Kessler (two of those in his opponents backyard)? I mean, even Williams has question marks hanging over him...

So that begs the question, how do people on here form their p4p lists? What criteria do you all use? Do you all list a few bankers (Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Mosley etc) and then add a few of the champions from the lower weights, after checking them out on Boxrec - of course pretending you've watched them fight more than twice?

I'm genuinley interested. For me, the p4p top ten is full with dark clouds and question marks. It needs shaking up. I can't help but feel a few fighters are holding down spots based on their past reputations, and maybe because there are no obvious front runners to take over the mantle.

When all that is said and done, if he beats Abraham, for me Froch is pushing 10th. He has to be...

For sure the p4p top ten at the moment looks pretty weak on a whole if you lookat past lists, but Froch got beat by Kessler who is nowhere near top 10 right now and the Dirrell win was a dodgy one in most peoples eyes.

[ono]

I suppose p4p is subjective. You can go on resume, or you can go on actual performances, or a mixture of both.

I just have a hard time believing a guy who holds wins over Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal and if he beat him, Abraham, doesn't even register with most people as being anywhere near worthy. I can understand if you are judging purely on talent alone, because being honest, he is nowhere near. But talent alone doesn't win you fights and it doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter.

I hear the calls for him cleaning out Super-Middleweight, but Super-middleweight is absolutely stacked with talent, and by the time he got round to fighting everyone, he'd be about 37.

It's just a shame really, because guys like Hatton cleaned up a pretty weak 140 and that earns him respect, wheras it will be very tough for any fighter at 168 to clean up, as the range of talent means that it's quite likely that somebody has the style to beat you.

As for him losing around 30 rounds in hist last half dozen fights, i think you have to take into consideration his style. Guys like Ward are slick, so they won't give too many rounds away. Froch goes to war, and leaves himself open. He'll lose rounds, but that shouldn't take away from his victories.

The reason i even brought this was up was basically because i was looking at the p4p rankings, and Marquez and Mosley are both in the top 5, despite Mosley losing to Cotto, looking awful against Mayorga and losing soundly to MAyweather. Marquez is in the top 3, despite many people on here believing he's struggled greatly with Casamayor and Diaz, and of course he was easily beaten by Mayweather.

Then i look at Sergio Martinez who is number 7, and he's only really gone 1-1-1 against Williams, Pavlik and CIntron. IS that any better than Froch going 3-1 against Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell and Kessler (two of those in his opponents backyard)? I mean, even Williams has question marks hanging over him...

So that begs the question, how do people on here form their p4p lists? What criteria do you all use? Do you all list a few bankers (Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Mosley etc) and then add a few of the champions from the lower weights, after checking them out on Boxrec - of course pretending you've watched them fight more than twice?

I'm genuinley interested. For me, the p4p top ten is full with dark clouds and question marks. It needs shaking up. I can't help but feel a few fighters are holding down spots based on their past reputations, and maybe because there are no obvious front runners to take over the mantle.

When all that is said and done, if he beats Abraham, for me Froch is pushing 10th. He has to be...

For sure the p4p top ten at the moment looks pretty weak on a whole if you lookat past lists, but Froch got beat by Kessler who is nowhere near top 10 right now and the Dirrell win was a dodgy one in most peoples eyes.

The weird thing is, my gut instinct was Dirrell beat Froch, albeit barely. I actually had Froch beating Kessler by 1 round iirc.

His win over Pascal does look very good after what happened this weekend. Imo anyway. I just find it odd that Martinez makes a lot of people's list despite only winning 1 of 3 against Pavlik, Williams and Cintron. Froch goes 3-1 against Taylor, Dirrell, Pascal and Kessler and he isn't even on anyone's radar, even if he managed to beat Abraham, it seems only me and you would have him remotely close to cracking the top ten.

[ICB]

I suppose p4p is subjective. You can go on resume, or you can go on actual performances, or a mixture of both.

I just have a hard time believing a guy who holds wins over Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal and if he beat him, Abraham, doesn't even register with most people as being anywhere near worthy. I can understand if you are judging purely on talent alone, because being honest, he is nowhere near. But talent alone doesn't win you fights and it doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter.

I hear the calls for him cleaning out Super-Middleweight, but Super-middleweight is absolutely stacked with talent, and by the time he got round to fighting everyone, he'd be about 37.

It's just a shame really, because guys like Hatton cleaned up a pretty weak 140 and that earns him respect, wheras it will be very tough for any fighter at 168 to clean up, as the range of talent means that it's quite likely that somebody has the style to beat you.

As for him losing around 30 rounds in hist last half dozen fights, i think you have to take into consideration his style. Guys like Ward are slick, so they won't give too many rounds away. Froch goes to war, and leaves himself open. He'll lose rounds, but that shouldn't take away from his victories.

The reason i even brought this was up was basically because i was looking at the p4p rankings, and Marquez and Mosley are both in the top 5, despite Mosley losing to Cotto, looking awful against Mayorga and losing soundly to MAyweather. Marquez is in the top 3, despite many people on here believing he's struggled greatly with Casamayor and Diaz, and of course he was easily beaten by Mayweather.

Then i look at Sergio Martinez who is number 7, and he's only really gone 1-1-1 against Williams, Pavlik and CIntron. IS that any better than Froch going 3-1 against Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell and Kessler (two of those in his opponents backyard)? I mean, even Williams has question marks hanging over him...

So that begs the question, how do people on here form their p4p lists? What criteria do you all use? Do you all list a few bankers (Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Mosley etc) and then add a few of the champions from the lower weights, after checking them out on Boxrec - of course pretending you've watched them fight more than twice?

I'm genuinley interested. For me, the p4p top ten is full with dark clouds and question marks. It needs shaking up. I can't help but feel a few fighters are holding down spots based on their past reputations, and maybe because there are no obvious front runners to take over the mantle.

When all that is said and done, if he beats Abraham, for me Froch is pushing 10th. He has to be...

JMM lost to Floyd Mayweather at Welterweight, JMM is far too small for Welterweight and pretty much every boxing fan knew that. Which is why people were calling it a warm up fight for Floyd Mayweather Jr. Plus Floyd Mayweather Jr is considered one of the best fighters of the last 20 years, so having all the physical disadvantages and losing a decision to Floyd Mayweather Jr, should not take anything away from JMM.

Joel Casamayor at the time was the Ring Magazine champ, he was also considered to be a dangerous fight for JMM. Yes he wasn't at his peak but it was still considered to be a dangerous fight, and JMM did KO him for the 1st time in his career.

Also Juan Diaz the 1st time was considered a dangerous fight for JMM. Juan Diaz, Joel Casamayor, at the time JMM beat them were considered the best Lightweights in the world wern't they ?

And he did KO them both in spectacual fashion, and remember neither man had ever been stopped in there career so you must take that into consideration.

I mean just look at JMM's last 10 fights or so, has he really had an easy fight ? and look at the way he beat those opponents.

As for Shane Mosley i agree his rating is overrated, i think his only good performance in years was against Antonio Margarito who isn't even legit.

Sergio Martinez was robbed against Kermit Cintron, he beat the man twice and somehow didn't get the decision. I don't think anyone would hold that against him when ranking him. He also dominated Kelly Pavlik at "Middleweight" and went even with Paul Williams who's considered the best Jr Middleweight in the world.

Carl Froch scored a miracle come from behind KO against Jermain Taylor, Arthur Abraham done it much easier. Carl Froch won atleast 4 rounds vs Andre Dirrell and somehow won the decision, and he was beaten decisively against Mikkel Kessler.

The reason Carl Froch wouldn't be top 10 is because in his last two outings, he's been beaten decisively twice. His skills are well quite poor, and he has had no dominant performances against a top level opponent in his weightclass.

I mean what if Andre Ward beats Andre Dirrell, Juan Manuel Lopez beats Rafael Marquez, Tomasz Adamek beats Michael Grant, Timothy Bradley beats Devon Alexander. Does Carl Froch rate above any of those guys ?

Or what about even Chris John who hasn't faced alot of good opponents, but when talking consisent performances and his long reign. You can't fault the man.

[ono]

I suppose p4p is subjective. You can go on resume, or you can go on actual performances, or a mixture of both.

I just have a hard time believing a guy who holds wins over Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal and if he beat him, Abraham, doesn't even register with most people as being anywhere near worthy. I can understand if you are judging purely on talent alone, because being honest, he is nowhere near. But talent alone doesn't win you fights and it doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter.

I hear the calls for him cleaning out Super-Middleweight, but Super-middleweight is absolutely stacked with talent, and by the time he got round to fighting everyone, he'd be about 37.

It's just a shame really, because guys like Hatton cleaned up a pretty weak 140 and that earns him respect, wheras it will be very tough for any fighter at 168 to clean up, as the range of talent means that it's quite likely that somebody has the style to beat you.

As for him losing around 30 rounds in hist last half dozen fights, i think you have to take into consideration his style. Guys like Ward are slick, so they won't give too many rounds away. Froch goes to war, and leaves himself open. He'll lose rounds, but that shouldn't take away from his victories.

The reason i even brought this was up was basically because i was looking at the p4p rankings, and Marquez and Mosley are both in the top 5, despite Mosley losing to Cotto, looking awful against Mayorga and losing soundly to MAyweather. Marquez is in the top 3, despite many people on here believing he's struggled greatly with Casamayor and Diaz, and of course he was easily beaten by Mayweather.

Then i look at Sergio Martinez who is number 7, and he's only really gone 1-1-1 against Williams, Pavlik and CIntron. IS that any better than Froch going 3-1 against Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell and Kessler (two of those in his opponents backyard)? I mean, even Williams has question marks hanging over him...

So that begs the question, how do people on here form their p4p lists? What criteria do you all use? Do you all list a few bankers (Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Mosley etc) and then add a few of the champions from the lower weights, after checking them out on Boxrec - of course pretending you've watched them fight more than twice?

I'm genuinley interested. For me, the p4p top ten is full with dark clouds and question marks. It needs shaking up. I can't help but feel a few fighters are holding down spots based on their past reputations, and maybe because there are no obvious front runners to take over the mantle.

When all that is said and done, if he beats Abraham, for me Froch is pushing 10th. He has to be...

JMM lost to Floyd Mayweather at Welterweight, JMM is far too small for Welterweight and pretty much every boxing fan knew that. Which is why people were calling it a warm up fight for Floyd Mayweather Jr. Plus Floyd Mayweather Jr is considered one of the best fighters of the last 20 years, so having all the physical disadvantages and losing a decision to Floyd Mayweather Jr, should not take anything away from JMM.

Joel Casamayor at the time was the Ring Magazine champ, he was also considered to be a dangerous fight for JMM. Yes he wasn't at his peak but it was still considered to be a dangerous fight, and JMM did KO him for the 1st time in his career.

Also Juan Diaz the 1st time was considered a dangerous fight for JMM. Juan Diaz, Joel Casamayor, at the time JMM beat them were considered the best Lightweights in the world wern't they ?

And he did KO them both in spectacual fashion, and remember neither man had ever been stopped in there career so you must take that into consideration.

I mean just look at JMM's last 10 fights or so, has he really had an easy fight ? and look at the way he beat those opponents.

As for Shane Mosley i agree his rating is overrated, i think his only good performance in years was against Antonio Margarito who isn't even legit.

Sergio Martinez was robbed against Kermit Cintron, he beat the man twice and somehow didn't get the decision. I don't think anyone would hold that against him when ranking him. He also dominated Kelly Pavlik at "Middleweight" and went even with Paul Williams who's considered the best Jr Middleweight in the world.

Carl Froch scored a miracle come from behind KO against Jermain Taylor, Arthur Abraham done it much easier. Carl Froch won atleast 4 rounds vs Andre Dirrell and somehow won the decision, and he was beaten decisively against Mikkel Kessler.

The reason Carl Froch wouldn't be top 10 is because in his last two outings, he's been beaten decisively twice. His skills are well quite poor, and he has had no dominant performances against a top level opponent in his weightclass.

I mean what if Andre Ward beats Andre Dirrell, Juan Manuel Lopez beats Rafael Marquez, Tomasz Adamek beats Michael Grant, Timothy Bradley beats Devon Alexander. Does Carl Froch rate above any of those guys ?

Or what about even Chris John who hasn't faced alot of good opponents, but when talking consisent performances and his long reign. You can't fault the man.

The reason i brought up Marquez's fights against Casamayor and Diaz was because you've previously considered JMM to not be a suitable opponent for Khan at 140, based on the fact that he didn't look good against either Casamyor and Diaz (apologies if i've confused you with someone else, although i'm certain it was you). But now you're jutifying having JMM in the top 3 or so, because he had wins over two of the best lightweights in the world (fair enough imo). You're not showing consistency, because you're trying to detract from Froch's win against Taylor, because he struggled in the 1st half of the fight, yet explosively ko'd him. You can't give JMM credit for doing it, and detract from Froch for doing what is essentially the same thing.

I also don't see how you can say how Froch was beaten decisively twice. I'd imagine a fair amount of people believe Froch beat Dirrell, and a small handful even believe Froch did enough to beat Kessler. Either way, it's not decisive.

Moving onto Martinez. Against Pavlik, he was knocked down earlier, before taking over the 2nd half of the fight. Again, similar in some ways to Froch - Taylor. I've never been sold on Cintron at any level, so, although Martinez deserved it, i wouldn't rate it as being overly impressive. The Williams fight was a great fight, but it was very close.

You make some good points with Ward, Bradley etc. If Ward was to beat Dirrell, surely he can't be that far off
Especially if it was decisive. Same for Bradley if he beats Alexander decisively, although Alexander's stock has dropped a fair bit i imagine. The whole reason of starting this thread was because of the p4p list looking short on young, active fighters who've fought and come out on top against consistently good competition.

[amat]

I suppose p4p is subjective. You can go on resume, or you can go on actual performances, or a mixture of both.

I just have a hard time believing a guy who holds wins over Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal and if he beat him, Abraham, doesn't even register with most people as being anywhere near worthy. I can understand if you are judging purely on talent alone, because being honest, he is nowhere near. But talent alone doesn't win you fights and it doesn't necessarily make you a good fighter.

I hear the calls for him cleaning out Super-Middleweight, but Super-middleweight is absolutely stacked with talent, and by the time he got round to fighting everyone, he'd be about 37.

It's just a shame really, because guys like Hatton cleaned up a pretty weak 140 and that earns him respect, wheras it will be very tough for any fighter at 168 to clean up, as the range of talent means that it's quite likely that somebody has the style to beat you.

As for him losing around 30 rounds in hist last half dozen fights, i think you have to take into consideration his style. Guys like Ward are slick, so they won't give too many rounds away. Froch goes to war, and leaves himself open. He'll lose rounds, but that shouldn't take away from his victories.

The reason i even brought this was up was basically because i was looking at the p4p rankings, and Marquez and Mosley are both in the top 5, despite Mosley losing to Cotto, looking awful against Mayorga and losing soundly to MAyweather. Marquez is in the top 3, despite many people on here believing he's struggled greatly with Casamayor and Diaz, and of course he was easily beaten by Mayweather.

Then i look at Sergio Martinez who is number 7, and he's only really gone 1-1-1 against Williams, Pavlik and CIntron. IS that any better than Froch going 3-1 against Taylor, Pascal, Dirrell and Kessler (two of those in his opponents backyard)? I mean, even Williams has question marks hanging over him...

So that begs the question, how do people on here form their p4p lists? What criteria do you all use? Do you all list a few bankers (Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Mosley etc) and then add a few of the champions from the lower weights, after checking them out on Boxrec - of course pretending you've watched them fight more than twice?

I'm genuinley interested. For me, the p4p top ten is full with dark clouds and question marks. It needs shaking up. I can't help but feel a few fighters are holding down spots based on their past reputations, and maybe because there are no obvious front runners to take over the mantle.

When all that is said and done, if he beats Abraham, for me Froch is pushing 10th. He has to be...

This is a good post so I'll quote it, forgive it for being long.

First I'll address Froch. No, I don't have Froch near my top 10 list but I will still admit he has some good wins. However, the list is subjective, meaning it doesn't have to be by the book. To me, he didn't come close to winning against Dirrell. I had it 9-3, anything closer then 8-4 is just kind of ridiculous to me and if you think any differently then me and you are just of entirely different schools of thoughts. A gifted (imo) win by the judges might be enough to improve your divisional ranking (it's only fair) but with something so touchy like P4P ratings, it is pretty much worthless. I am never going to think Froch was the better man that night just because he got the win in that fight.

For the Martinez comparision, Martinez is number 7 in the rankings because he is just a better pound for pound fighter then Froch. Yeah the Cintron bout may show up as a draw on his record but anyone who thinks that fight was actually a draw, or that Froch fought a better fight against Dirrell then Martinez did Cintron simply doesn't have a clue. This is my opinion of course, yet that's what the pound for pound rankings are about.

What I'll give Froch is that he did better in the Kessler fight then I expected him to do but he still lost (I think he lost too) and that he is a better fighter (a much better fighter) then what I had previously given him credit for. However, I just don't think he has the skills to match up anywhere close with a great little fighter like Sergio Martinez. I don't care what the record says, I'm just judging how they performed against fairly similar levels of talent and I think Martinez has performed better even if on paper it's not immediately apparent.

The part about your post I love is about how people make up their P4P lists. I think for the most part, it's all recycled. I'm perfectly content with someone putting Guillermo Rigondeaux in their top 10 P4P if they truly believed that he was one of the top 10 in the sport. To avoid looking ridiculous, I put in the criteria that to be top 10 P4P, you should probably at least be top 10 in your division. Other then that, I throw the records completely out of the window and just look at what I see in the ring. I made one a while back and put Bradley at 3. I think so many of these lists are just recycled and I think the little guys are included FAR to easily. I think the biggest problem with the pound for pound lists are just that there simply isn't enough variety.

[ono]

Great post amat.

I'd love to see how many people include the guys they haven't really seen fight. I'm sure i've done it. I had Calderon in despite me only seeing him fight once. I can't be the only one.

[0james0]

How can people still think Froch got a gift against Dirrell? There was only one boxer in the ring that night and it sure as hell wasn't Dirrell! That result shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Same goes for the Kessler fight, was close, but Froch didn't win.

If he wins the super 6, then beats the number one guy in his div, then he'll be knocking on the door.

are you kidding me? lmao Dirrell was the only one doing any BOXING, Froch just landed low blows and repeated shots to the back of Dirrell's head, add in the ONLY guy hurt in that fight was Froch, it was a clear win for Dirrell

As much as it pains me to say it, ElTerrible is right. Froch got wobbled twice hard by Dirrel. A man who isn't even convinced himself that he has power. I know Dirrel ran the whole night, but he was the only guy land any clean shots. Froch was exposed, and Kessler smartly took note on how to neutralize Froch's strength.

I think if Froch wins out the tournament with all KOs, KOs Hopkins, then KOs Bute, he is #1 p4p.

I think I'll go back to the "should dirrell be removed from the super 6" thread!

Like Ono said, Froch has fought some very tough fights recently, much tougher than many of the pfp top 10.

I still dont think he's there yet, but he's close.

Although if Kitchko only just makes it, Froch has no chance

[Preme]

wouldn't even put him in the top 50

[Deanrw]

I don't pay any attention to P4P rankings and personally find the whole idea of them to be foolish. Are they are basically is a popularity contest dictated mainly by the media and heavily influenced by geographic location.

On that note, what matters most is Froch has been in there fighting the top togs. He has a willingness to fight absolutely anyone and has a true belief in himself. He is also underrated by most which helps him land the big names.

I have a lot of respect for guys like Froch and Pascal. All you need to do is look around other fighters records to see all the padding. Those guys are there to fight and that to me is truly what matters.

[Niko's Girl!]

Quite. He's a good fighter but he's not a p4p fighter.