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

[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...

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.

Jean Pascal is a better fighter now, than when he fought Carl Froch. And your using Jean Pascal's achievements now with hindsight, to further your argument about Carl Froch's ranking now.

When at the time Jean Pascal fought Carl Froch, he was only considered a decent fighter. Who recently got rocked by a nobody in Omar Pittman and was avoiding Edison Miranda.

I mean thats like using the Vic Darchinyan argument to further Nonito Donaire's ranking, and your the one that is against that.

So i don't really see no differences, yes Nonito's Donaire's ranking is well overrated but still its the samething.

[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.

Jean Pascal is a better fighter now, than when he fought Carl Froch. And your using Jean Pascal's achievements now with hindsight, to further your argument about Carl Froch's ranking now.

When at the time Jean Pascal fought Carl Froch, he was only considered a decent fighter. Who recently got rocked by a nobody in Omar Pittman and was avoiding Edison Miranda.

I mean thats like using the Vic Darchinyan argument to further Nonito Donaire's ranking, and your the one that is against that.

So i don't really see no differences, yes Nonito's Donaire's ranking is well overrated but still its the samething.

I think you've confused me with Bilbo. I've genuinley only ever seen Donaire fight once, and that was against Darchinyan. I've never really made any objection to him being ranked in the top ten, or at least i don't think i have. I honestly don't know enough about him to make a decision either way.

But now you've brought it up, why can't hindsight be used? The truth is, it's impossible to tell just how much Pascal has improved. He was never tested to that extreme before he fought Froch. Since the Froch fight he's beaten Branco, who is and always has been fairly average. He beat Diaconu, who to be fair had only really beat Rico Hoye. Then he beat Dawson, and you seem sure that Dawson would win a rematch, which tells me you believe Dawson loss was Dawson's fault.

Don't get me wrong, it's false to say Pascal hasn't improved, but i don't think he's improved to a clear enough extent to where you could just shrug off Froch's win over him by saying 'Yeah but Pascal would beat him in a rematch'

That does Froch a dis-service in my opinion. Pascal had the tools to beat him, but chose to fight with him. Froch would be going into the fight knowing he can beat him. I don't see rematch being much different. It would be fun, but i'd be surprised if Pascal beat him.

[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...

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.

Jean Pascal is a better fighter now, than when he fought Carl Froch. And your using Jean Pascal's achievements now with hindsight, to further your argument about Carl Froch's ranking now.

When at the time Jean Pascal fought Carl Froch, he was only considered a decent fighter. Who recently got rocked by a nobody in Omar Pittman and was avoiding Edison Miranda.

I mean thats like using the Vic Darchinyan argument to further Nonito Donaire's ranking, and your the one that is against that.

So i don't really see no differences, yes Nonito's Donaire's ranking is well overrated but still its the samething.

I think you've confused me with Bilbo. I've genuinley only ever seen Donaire fight once, and that was against Darchinyan. I've never really made any objection to him being ranked in the top ten, or at least i don't think i have. I honestly don't know enough about him to make a decision either way.

But now you've brought it up, why can't hindsight be used? The truth is, it's impossible to tell just how much Pascal has improved. He was never tested to that extreme before he fought Froch. Since the Froch fight he's beaten Branco, who is and always has been fairly average. He beat Diaconu, who to be fair had only really beat Rico Hoye. Then he beat Dawson, and you seem sure that Dawson would win a rematch, which tells me you believe Dawson loss was Dawson's fault.

Don't get me wrong, it's false to say Pascal hasn't improved, but i don't think he's improved to a clear enough extent to where you could just shrug off Froch's win over him by saying 'Yeah but Pascal would beat him in a rematch'

That does Froch a dis-service in my opinion. Pascal had the tools to beat him, but chose to fight with him. Froch would be going into the fight knowing he can beat him. I don't see rematch being much different. It would be fun, but i'd be surprised if Pascal beat him.

Im not discrediting Carl Froch's win over Jean Pascal, i was the one at the time who praised Carl Froch for a very good action fight.

All im saying is that at the time Jean Pascal was green, i mean do you remember what people were saying about Jean Pascal ?

He was the fighter that was scared of Edison Miranda, and was exposed against Omar Pittman.

I just think its plain as day to see Jean Pascal has improved, Adrian Diaconu was considered a good fighter when Jean Pascal beat him. Infact many thought Adrian Diaconu would win and he was expected to be future opponent for Chad Dawson.

As for Chad Dawson vs Jean Pascal, yes i think Chad Dawson is technically better than Jean Pascal. But that still doesn't mean Jean Pascal hasn't improved. Because i rate Chad Dawson quite highly at his best.

I just thought he was lackluster and when he decided to fight, he was having success but he kept holding back and clinching. Don't ask me why but i feel Chad Dawson will have more fire in his belly in a rematch, and he will stop Jean Pascal IMO.

[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.

Jean Pascal is a better fighter now, than when he fought Carl Froch. And your using Jean Pascal's achievements now with hindsight, to further your argument about Carl Froch's ranking now.

When at the time Jean Pascal fought Carl Froch, he was only considered a decent fighter. Who recently got rocked by a nobody in Omar Pittman and was avoiding Edison Miranda.

I mean thats like using the Vic Darchinyan argument to further Nonito Donaire's ranking, and your the one that is against that.

So i don't really see no differences, yes Nonito's Donaire's ranking is well overrated but still its the samething.

I think you've confused me with Bilbo. I've genuinley only ever seen Donaire fight once, and that was against Darchinyan. I've never really made any objection to him being ranked in the top ten, or at least i don't think i have. I honestly don't know enough about him to make a decision either way.

But now you've brought it up, why can't hindsight be used? The truth is, it's impossible to tell just how much Pascal has improved. He was never tested to that extreme before he fought Froch. Since the Froch fight he's beaten Branco, who is and always has been fairly average. He beat Diaconu, who to be fair had only really beat Rico Hoye. Then he beat Dawson, and you seem sure that Dawson would win a rematch, which tells me you believe Dawson loss was Dawson's fault.

Don't get me wrong, it's false to say Pascal hasn't improved, but i don't think he's improved to a clear enough extent to where you could just shrug off Froch's win over him by saying 'Yeah but Pascal would beat him in a rematch'

That does Froch a dis-service in my opinion. Pascal had the tools to beat him, but chose to fight with him. Froch would be going into the fight knowing he can beat him. I don't see rematch being much different. It would be fun, but i'd be surprised if Pascal beat him.

Im not discrediting Carl Froch's win over Jean Pascal, i was the one at the time who praised Carl Froch for a very good action fight.

All im saying is that at the time Jean Pascal was green, i mean do you remember what people were saying about Jean Pascal ?

He was the fighter that was scared of Edison Miranda, and was exposed against Omar Pittman.

I just think its plain as day to see Jean Pascal has improved, Adrian Diaconu was considered a good fighter when Jean Pascal beat him. Infact many thought Adrian Diaconu would win and he was expected to be future opponent for Chad Dawson.

As for Chad Dawson vs Jean Pascal, yes i think Chad Dawson is technically better than Jean Pascal. But that still doesn't mean Jean Pascal hasn't improved. Because i rate Chad Dawson quite highly at his best.

I just thought he was lackluster and when he decided to fight, he was having success but he kept holding back and clinching. Don't ask me why but i feel Chad Dawson will have more fire in his belly in a rematch, and he will stop Jean Pascal IMO.

I don't think you can say he was exposed against Pittman. He dominated the fight, but was tagged and hurt. It happens in Boxing. Froch was his first fight at top level, but i don't necessarily think it makes him 'green.'

Out of interest, where do you Froch now (roughly) and where would a win over Abraham put him (again roughyl)?

[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...

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.

Jean Pascal is a better fighter now, than when he fought Carl Froch. And your using Jean Pascal's achievements now with hindsight, to further your argument about Carl Froch's ranking now.

When at the time Jean Pascal fought Carl Froch, he was only considered a decent fighter. Who recently got rocked by a nobody in Omar Pittman and was avoiding Edison Miranda.

I mean thats like using the Vic Darchinyan argument to further Nonito Donaire's ranking, and your the one that is against that.

So i don't really see no differences, yes Nonito's Donaire's ranking is well overrated but still its the samething.

I think you've confused me with Bilbo. I've genuinley only ever seen Donaire fight once, and that was against Darchinyan. I've never really made any objection to him being ranked in the top ten, or at least i don't think i have. I honestly don't know enough about him to make a decision either way.

But now you've brought it up, why can't hindsight be used? The truth is, it's impossible to tell just how much Pascal has improved. He was never tested to that extreme before he fought Froch. Since the Froch fight he's beaten Branco, who is and always has been fairly average. He beat Diaconu, who to be fair had only really beat Rico Hoye. Then he beat Dawson, and you seem sure that Dawson would win a rematch, which tells me you believe Dawson loss was Dawson's fault.

Don't get me wrong, it's false to say Pascal hasn't improved, but i don't think he's improved to a clear enough extent to where you could just shrug off Froch's win over him by saying 'Yeah but Pascal would beat him in a rematch'

That does Froch a dis-service in my opinion. Pascal had the tools to beat him, but chose to fight with him. Froch would be going into the fight knowing he can beat him. I don't see rematch being much different. It would be fun, but i'd be surprised if Pascal beat him.

Im not discrediting Carl Froch's win over Jean Pascal, i was the one at the time who praised Carl Froch for a very good action fight.

All im saying is that at the time Jean Pascal was green, i mean do you remember what people were saying about Jean Pascal ?

He was the fighter that was scared of Edison Miranda, and was exposed against Omar Pittman.

I just think its plain as day to see Jean Pascal has improved, Adrian Diaconu was considered a good fighter when Jean Pascal beat him. Infact many thought Adrian Diaconu would win and he was expected to be future opponent for Chad Dawson.

As for Chad Dawson vs Jean Pascal, yes i think Chad Dawson is technically better than Jean Pascal. But that still doesn't mean Jean Pascal hasn't improved. Because i rate Chad Dawson quite highly at his best.

I just thought he was lackluster and when he decided to fight, he was having success but he kept holding back and clinching. Don't ask me why but i feel Chad Dawson will have more fire in his belly in a rematch, and he will stop Jean Pascal IMO.

I don't think you can say he was exposed against Pittman. He dominated the fight, but was tagged and hurt. It happens in Boxing. Froch was his first fight at top level, but i don't necessarily think it makes him 'green.'

Out of interest, where do you Froch now (roughly) and where would a win over Abraham put him (again roughyl)?

Not me other people were saying that, but he did look quite badly hurt. But to be fair he did show heart and comeback.

I really don't mate i'd say between 14/12, depending how fighters like Lopez, Adamek, Ward, look in there next fight.

[ono]

I best not quote you. Don't want to crash the site

For the record, Marquez was level on one card, behind on one card and ahead on one card when he ko'd Diaz. When he ko'd Casamayor, he was ahead on one card and level on two cards.

Good posts though, and interesting debate. I'll rep you. I can live with you having him in the top 12 if he were to beat Abraham.

[JonnyFolds]

[IMG][/IMG]

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.

Aside from the Williams/Martinez fight which was actually close... I still had Martinez winning all three of those matches against the absolute best opposition he could seek out for his weight class. The guy fought for peanuts in each fight, won and nobody wants to fight him now. I wonder who you are thinking would beat this guy tomorrow in a fight? It's not like he got luck or anything. The man is all talent.

Now use that same mindset, and slate a bunch of guys against Froch in his weight own weight class. You give credit to Froch for KOing Jermain Taylor in the 12th frame. But you take credit away from Marquez for being in close matches with Casa & Juan Diaz and finishing them off. I feel it's a little bit of a double standard. Marquez is fighting his ass off against HOFers up and down the scales, Froch is struggling to be ranked top 5 in his division. There is just no comparison.

My boy, Martinez is waiting to bust up the next chump you put in front of him. If he fights Froch; I got Sig bets with anyone!!!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...w=1068&bih=560