The Ring P4P Rankings

[oakleyno1]

Dawson is in the top ten while Froch fails to make it?? Doesnt make sense to me considering Dawsons loss to Pascal and beating of Hopkins, tarver and Johnson while Froch has lost to Ward and Kessler but beaten Pascal, Bute, Johnson, Abraham, Taylor and Dirrell

Opinions anyone or am I giving Froch too much credit!?

[shza]

Froch has faced tougher competition overall, sure. But Dawson is clearly the better fighter. It's no accident that Floyd Mayweather himself said Dawson is one of the top P4P fighters in the sport. Do you honestly think Carl Froch could beat Dawson at 168 or 175? I sure don't. Froch couldn't even beat Mikkel Kessler. (I rate the Pascal loss for Dawson as something of a fluke -- he lost because he took off half the fight and then the fight got ended on an injury when he was really coming on.)

I don't want to trash Froch. He's great for what he is -- a guy who has fought all comers. He deserves massive credit for that. But that's not the same thing as talent. I wouldn't argue with him somewhere in the 8-10 spots, even.

[piye]

The ratings don't mean much they kept Pac a 1 after Marquez beat him saying they have to go with the official verdict but then ignored the official verdict when he lost to Bradley. I completely ignore them now.

[shza]

The ratings don't mean much they kept Pac a 1 after Marquez beat him saying they have to go with the official verdict but then ignored the official verdict when he lost to Bradley. I completely ignore them now.

Pac-Marquez III -- highly controversial; maybe 55% of viewers thought Marquez won
Pac-Bradley -- a clearly wrong decision; 95% of viewers thought Pac won

Seems like a clear distinction to me.

There are much better examples if you want to make that argument (Lara/Williams, Capillo/Cloud, Rios/Abrillo, etc.). I do agree that since Michael Rosenthal took over a couple of years ago and introduced a bunch of seemingly ad hoc rules and new "policies," the ratings have become much less principled/credible.

[piye]

The ratings don't mean much they kept Pac a 1 after Marquez beat him saying they have to go with the official verdict but then ignored the official verdict when he lost to Bradley. I completely ignore them now.

Pac-Marquez III -- highly controversial; maybe 55% of viewers thought Marquez won
Pac-Bradley -- a clearly wrong decision; 95% of viewers thought Pac won

Seems like a clear distinction to me.

There are much better examples if you want to make that argument (Lara/Williams, Capillo/Cloud, Rios/Abrillo, etc.). I do agree that since Michael Rosenthal took over a couple of years ago and introduced a bunch of seemingly ad hoc rules and new "policies," the ratings have become much less principled/credible.

The principle remains one rule for Pac another for everyone else.

[erics44]

Froch has faced tougher competition overall, sure. But Dawson is clearly the better fighter. It's no accident that Floyd Mayweather himself said Dawson is one of the top P4P fighters in the sport. Do you honestly think Carl Froch could beat Dawson at 168 or 175? I sure don't. Froch couldn't even beat Mikkel Kessler. (I rate the Pascal loss for Dawson as something of a fluke -- he lost because he took off half the fight and then the fight got ended on an injury when he was really coming on.)

I don't want to trash Froch. He's great for what he is -- a guy who has fought all comers. He deserves massive credit for that. But that's not the same thing as talent. I wouldn't argue with him somewhere in the 8-10 spots, even.

youre probably one of many whosaid he couldnt beat bute and AA

[oakleyno1]

Froch has faced tougher competition overall, sure. But Dawson is clearly the better fighter. It's no accident that Floyd Mayweather himself said Dawson is one of the top P4P fighters in the sport. Do you honestly think Carl Froch could beat Dawson at 168 or 175? I sure don't. Froch couldn't even beat Mikkel Kessler. (I rate the Pascal loss for Dawson as something of a fluke -- he lost because he took off half the fight and then the fight got ended on an injury when he was really coming on.)

I don't want to trash Froch. He's great for what he is -- a guy who has fought all comers. He deserves massive credit for that. But that's not the same thing as talent. I wouldn't argue with him somewhere in the 8-10 spots, even.

I actually do think Froch vs Dawson would be a very close fight, wouldnt like to pick either way - Point is Dawson did lose to Pascal - Who i actually rate very highlly so dont get me wrong it wasnt a bad career defining loss BUT compared to Froch's defeats and wins I cant see how he gets near froch in terms of p4p rankings - I also for the record would pick froch over Hopkins right now as well, just dont think bhop could go 12 rounds with Froch even if he outclassed him in the openining 4 or 5 rounds which would not surprise me

[shza]

Froch has faced tougher competition overall, sure. But Dawson is clearly the better fighter. It's no accident that Floyd Mayweather himself said Dawson is one of the top P4P fighters in the sport. Do you honestly think Carl Froch could beat Dawson at 168 or 175? I sure don't. Froch couldn't even beat Mikkel Kessler. (I rate the Pascal loss for Dawson as something of a fluke -- he lost because he took off half the fight and then the fight got ended on an injury when he was really coming on.)

I don't want to trash Froch. He's great for what he is -- a guy who has fought all comers. He deserves massive credit for that. But that's not the same thing as talent. I wouldn't argue with him somewhere in the 8-10 spots, even.

youre probably one of many whosaid he couldnt beat bute and AA

I don't believe there was anyone who said he couldn't beat the previously-exposed AA -- certainly not me. I did say he couldn't compete with Ward, which was true.