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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 didn't say he didn't look good against those fighters, i said i don't think he looked as good as he did at Featherweight. And he's getting busted up more, i feel he's pushing his luck at Lightweight and moving up against any top Jr Welterweight would be a big no/no.

But i still feel he performed very well against those fighters, although it was a struggle he showed alot of bottle and stopped both of them in impressive fashion.

But i do feel he is showing his age a bit more, because he never used to get busted like that and he never used to take as many punches. Plus he used to be a sharper counter puncher.

JMM was ahead in both fights against Casamayor, Diaz, when he stopped them. Thats bit different being atleast 4 rounds behind going into the last round. Needing a JCC/Meldrick Taylor type stoppage to rescue the win.

Most people had Carl Froch losing to Andre Dirrell, the only people who have Carl Froch winning. Is because Carl Froch was coming forward and because Andre Dirrell fought going backwards.

They can't actually come up with a good reason why they thought, Carl Froch won other than that. But when your coming forward you have to actually land punches. Andre Dirrell was outboxing Carl Froch. He had him hurt, and he made it his kind of fight.

I'd say about 10 percent of people had Carl Froch winning, and out of that 10 percent none of them have ever gave me good reason why they think he won.

As for Carl Froch vs Mikkel Kessler, again a very small amount think Carl Froch won. And i really don't know how they think that.

Mikkel Kessler used a good steady attack, with decent body punching and decent jabbing. To outwork and outhustle Carl Froch. And if there was any doubt in the scoring, Mikkel Kessler won the last round to seal the deal.

In both fights Carl Froch lost by atleast 3 rounds IMO.

From my memory that was a flash knockdown vs Kelly Pavlik, where the feet got tangled up not really a knockdown. Sergio Martinez dominated early, then Kelly Pavlik comeback a bit in the middle rounds.

But after that flash knockdown Sergio Martinez put a beating on Kelly Pavlik, making his face look a mess. It was a pretty clear win for Sergio Martinez, at no time in the fight was he behind and he won by atleast 4 rounds, nothing like Froch/Taylor plus Sergio Martinez moved up a weightclass.

Well Kermit Cintron is a big puncher and a good athlete, he lacks the heart and the mental game. But he he ain't a bad fighter at all, and Sergio Martinez not only deserved a KO win over Kermit Cintron, he deserved a decision win and got neither.

Again i don't think anyone who has watched the fight, would consider that anything else than a KO win for Sergio Martinez.

Paul Williams is a top 10 P4P fighter and as i said, considered the best Jr Middleweight. Going even with Paul Williams makes Sergio Martinez look good and should make him rate higher.

As for your last comment i agree, i want to see the young fighters become superstars. Im really excited about Bradley, Mares, Lopez, and yes even Khan.


Sorry couldn't quote you, it said there were too many words.

[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.