How can anyone legitametely have Bradley over froch in your p4p rankings.

Tim's resume is better. Peterson, Alexander, Pacquiao, JMM, Prov, Witter and Holt is better than what Froch has done. I respect Froch and he is very entertaining but this isn't even debatable. Very close resume if you think about it...especially at the time of when Froch fought these guys. Im not going into losses or whether there were gifts, etc- just looking at who they fought. Bradley has 2 legends on his record, so it gives him a slight edge, but Froch's resume OVERALL is a more solid roster of opposition imo. The problem for Froch is, he is at the tail end of his career and has less room for improving this status, whereas Tim is still young with potentially more fights left in him, but being inactive before the fight with Cassamayor stalled his resume a bit. Froch- Dirrell (undefeated and highly talented), Kessler, Mack, Abraham, Groves (undefeated), Bute (undefeated champ and good power), Ward, Johnson, Taylor, Pascal (undefeated), Reid, etc Bradley- Marquez, Pac, Cassamayor, Provodnikov, Alexander (undefeated), Peterson (undefeated), Holt, Witter, Campbell

Another glaring flaw in your 'who would win if they fight tomorrow' nonsense is that you have Bradley about 5 spots above Pacquiao. Are you saying that Bradley would win the fight if they fought tomorrow, as opposed to the what, 1 round that he won last time? I'm going to bed. This is madness. watching carl froch look ready for retirement and refusing to recognize that he's no longer a pound for pound fighter is madness. a system of ranking fighters pound for pound that doesn't account for that is wrong. whatever you're doing, if it's not accounting for that, is flawed. there's no more direct comparison than fights between fighters of similar size. bradley's high on my list by virtue of his win over marquez, and marquez was top 3 by virtue of his stoppage win over pacquiao. that's why bradley is high. when pacquiao beat bradley, he was obviously ranked above him. where have i said that i don't take into account victories in my pound for pound list? the most appropriate and objective means of comparison between fighters of the same size is having them fight. that's why bradley is ranked over pacquiao. i would have probably pulled pacquiao from my list completely after he lost to marquez by stoppage i've addressed in previous posts in the thread that aging greats are going to be looked upon differently than other fighters. it's lame to add a guy to a p4p list for beating up brandon rios, but what that fight really did was let us know that pacqauio's still got a bit left in the tank, and that he's not faded too far to be discounted completely. i think the brits are just really reluctant to let froch go :lol1: it's ok, man. you'll get another good one eventually.

Who's using their entire resumes? No-one, it's you that's putting words in people's mouths in saying that. Using a fighters's last few fights is the way to go, and there's zero doubt that Froch has beaten better opponents than GGG in the last couple of years. How do we know if GGG would be the best if they fought tomorrow? No one has a clue, he hasn't been tested against a single top class guy and we don't know how he'd fare. This sport is filled with guys who've looked like world beaters on their way up fighting chumps before being exposed as soon as they get to the elite level. Absolutely criminal to rank a guy who has been feasting on non threats in the top 10 p4p. In fact while we're out here looking beyond resumes let's put Anthony Joshua in that #1 spot. He's looked much more impressive in his recent fights than Mayweather has. froch only needs to look bad once to get removed from a pound for pound list. that's how they work. they're not just an evaluation of a fighter's last few fights. you value their last fights primarily in a pound for pound list. froch didn't perform like a pound for pound fighter on saturday, taking a ton of punishment from george groves. what has he done in his past few fights to give him this rock solid spot in your top 10, anyway? kessler looked extremely old. extremely slow, and lacking snap in his punches. mack is a nobody, and he was also clearly drained of weight. lucian bute can punch, but his career has been largely farcical. he didn't even enter the super six. and before that froch was totally undressed by ward. how did this thread become about gennady golovkin, anyway :lol1:?

Another glaring flaw in your 'who would win if they fight tomorrow' nonsense is that you have Bradley about 5 spots above Pacquiao. Are you saying that Bradley would win the fight if they fought tomorrow, as opposed to the what, 1 round that he won last time? I'm going to bed. This is madness.

2 rounds is not a wide margin, especially as the scores for froch Kessler were exactly the same as for froch ward.... Ward clearly beat froch, and it wasnt close despite the late rally both froch and bradley are p4p in my eyes, i just feel ATM bradley is higher than froch like i said earlier, if froch was a welter, manny, jmm and ruslan would be nighmares for him, Manny and jmm beat him, and ruslan has a good chance of stopping him because froch has no defense, gets hit alot, and ruslan has good stamina unlike groves

first kessler was a toss up, just like ruslan-bradley,,, yes bradley should have lost to manny, not trying to debate that,, But honestly, how would froch do vs manny, ruslan, jmm,,,, I think jmm and manny school him in different ways, and i think ruslan has a legit chance at stopping froch,, Ruslan wont gas like groves did Anyway you slice it, bradley has fought the tougher and more proven competition,, Manny, jmm, ruslan, witter, peterson, abregu, alexander, holt are slightly better than kessler twice, ward, bute, mack, groves, taylor, pascal,,, I dont know how one can agrue that froch has had the tougher fights, when bradley has faced top p4p guys and won or at least 1-1, and froch has faced one and lost by a wide margin, even though he did rally down the stretch manny jmm > than froch wins, by a landslide 2 rounds is not a wide margin, especially as the scores for froch Kessler were exactly the same as for froch ward....

for starters, a p4p is list absolutely made out on paper. it's inherently subjective by definition. these men are not all the same size. we're giving credit as if they were. you're not asking "who looks best on paper." you are asking "who is the best fighter if they were all the same size." it's quite simple. and yes, that's the definition used historically. i've boiled it down to its simplest terms. the definition i'm using is the one used by bert sugar, whose top 100 might be the most famous of all time. he's using it in a historic context, where you take a fighter on his best day and compare him with the rest of the fighter in history based on their resume. that's not the same as a contemporary pound for pound list, where you don't weigh the entire resume equally. it's a measure of what has been done lately, and more importantly, what will be done in the next fight if all men were the same size. simply listing who a fighter has defeated doesn't address the phenomenon intended by the pound for pound list. that's a resume, and something different. that's a measurement of accomplishments over the course of a career. the "p4p list" is all about now. really, it's about the next fight. if all fighters were the same size, and they fought tomorrow, who is the best? froch looked like his bones were starting to sieze up, and george groves bounced punches off of his head that he never even saw. he is not a p4p fighter. you have to be able to look beyond a resume, because it doesn't tell the story of a fighter's p4p place contemporarily. Who's using their entire resumes? No-one, it's you that's putting words in people's mouths in saying that. Using a fighters's last few fights is the way to go, and there's zero doubt that Froch has beaten better opponents than GGG in the last couple of years. How do we know if GGG would be the best if they fought tomorrow? No one has a clue, he hasn't been tested against a single top class guy and we don't know how he'd fare. This sport is filled with guys who've looked like world beaters on their way up fighting chumps before being exposed as soon as they get to the elite level. Absolutely criminal to rank a guy who has been feasting on non threats in the top 10 p4p. In fact while we're out here looking beyond resumes let's put Anthony Joshua in that #1 spot. He's looked much more impressive in his recent fights than Mayweather has.

Many thought he beat Kessler in the first match, many thought froch won against dirrell including this yank.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxWNh7QjoKo nice try though but that really was a terrible post. and ALL thought Bradley lost to Pacquio, not many, allllllllll. For the record Manny stewart thought froch bea dirrell, but was speechless when Bradley "beat" many pac. So go figure. first kessler was a toss up, just like ruslan-bradley,,, yes bradley should have lost to manny, not trying to debate that,, But honestly, how would froch do vs manny, ruslan, jmm,,,, I think jmm and manny school him in different ways, and i think ruslan has a legit chance at stopping froch,, Ruslan wont gas like groves did Anyway you slice it, bradley has fought the tougher and more proven competition,, Manny, jmm, ruslan, witter, peterson, abregu, alexander, holt are slightly better than kessler twice, ward, bute, mack, groves, taylor, pascal,,, I dont know how one can agrue that froch has had the tougher fights, when bradley has faced top p4p guys and won or at least 1-1, and froch has faced one and lost by a wide margin, even though he did rally down the stretch manny jmm > than froch wins, by a landslide

Wouldn't say so. Froch had Groves badly hurt and would have probably knocked him out in a few seconds. Bradley arguably dropped a 12 round decision if you score correctly with regards to the knockdowns etc. Provodnikov isn't that good whatsoever and Yank buttboys only hype him because he got up in Bradley's arse. He would lose to any good boxer between 140 and 147. Bradley is just below good - he's average. dirk, that's one of the worst stoppages of all time. bradley won quite a few rounds against provodnikov, and got the nod in a fight that was only close on the cards because of the knockdowns. the controversy does not compare. provnikov isn't a great fighter, but he's done much more than groves. the resume do not compare.

i'm not going to stand here and tell you that matt macklin is somebody to write home about, but he was a top three-five middleweight when golovkin fought him. everybody thought he beat sturm, myself included. sturm wasn't a great himself, but he was ranked high, and that's how rankings work. he gave a good showing against martinez, dropping and hurting him. considering how little the rest of his division has done, that win makes golovkin the second rated middleweight. you can ask matt macklin who he'd rather fight again, golovkin or martinez. macklin probably still has nightmares about that russian kid who snarls when he punches. I agree with everything, just cant have ggg top 10 until he lands a big victory, Danny has lucas and khan, mikey beat salido, roman gonzales has been a good little champ, and guys like wlad and froch are much more proven and have the high quality wins,, I cant put GGG over those guys,, I would if he beats serg, or stops quillen, but until he lands a top level fight, he is close but no cigar for me,, I have him and roman at 11,12 p4p

Froch has also fought alot of top guys, but he lost to kessler and lost to ward, and many think he lost to dirrell, Many thought he beat Kessler in the first match, many thought froch won against dirrell including this yank.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxWNh7QjoKo nice try though but that really was a terrible post. and ALL thought Bradley lost to Pacquio, not many, allllllllll. For the record Manny stewart thought froch bea dirrell, but was speechless when Bradley "beat" many pac. So go figure.

i agree with you that GGG isnt deserving of p4p status yet,, one top level win and he is there, I have him as an honorable mention I was only defending NE logic behind his p4p criteria, and his logic is solid, but i dont think he follows his own criteria by having GGG on the list, GGG is extremely talented but until he proves it against an elite competitor, i can have him no higher than honorable mention i'm not going to stand here and tell you that matt macklin is somebody to write home about, but he was a top three-five middleweight when golovkin fought him. everybody thought he beat sturm, myself included. sturm wasn't a great himself, but he was ranked high, and that's how rankings work. he gave a good showing against martinez, dropping and hurting him. considering how little the rest of his division has done, that win makes golovkin the second rated middleweight. you can ask matt macklin who he'd rather fight again, golovkin or martinez. macklin probably still has nightmares about that russian kid who snarls when he punches.

Froch needs to take out someone of note. His greatest accomplishment to date is finishing 2nd in the super six tournament (IMO he should have been 3rd, Dirrell boxed the ***** out of him). Since then he's been feasting on has beens and over rated fringe contenders. He's got 1 HoF name on his resume and he lost that fight by a wide margin. boxrec had froch outlsnding dirrell, many stewart, dan Rafael, graham Houston, teve bunce, jim watt, jimmy iowle, bigragu and even the press row had froch schooling dirrell, hell even allan green said froch schooled dirrell. Froch was unmarked, dirrell was running snd still a bloodied mess. Dirrell outboxed himself by not boxing....nice try though.

I am reading what you're writing. But it doesn't make any sense. The definition you're using to judge p4p is one that you have come up with yourself. No one uses the method of 'who is the best on paper' because it's flawed. If resume didn't come into it then Mayweather would have a legitimate claim to being the #1 p4p all time. Which is why you need to take resume into account and it's why your criteria doesn't work. P4p lists have always gone off who you've fought/beat. Fact. If you want to talk about who the 10 most skilled fighters in the sport are then fine, but that's a different discussion. It isn't a p4p list. for starters, a p4p is list absolutely made out on paper. it's inherently subjective by definition. these men are not all the same size. we're giving credit as if they were. you're not asking "who looks best on paper." you are asking "who is the best fighter if they were all the same size." it's quite simple. and yes, that's the definition used historically. i've boiled it down to its simplest terms. the definition i'm using is the one used by bert sugar, whose top 100 might be the most famous of all time. he's using it in a historic context, where you take a fighter on his best day and compare him with the rest of the fighter in history based on their resume. that's not the same as a contemporary pound for pound list, where you don't weigh the entire resume equally. it's a measure of what has been done lately, and more importantly, what will be done in the next fight if all men were the same size. simply listing who a fighter has defeated doesn't address the phenomenon intended by the pound for pound list. that's a resume, and something different. that's a measurement of accomplishments over the course of a career. the "p4p list" is all about now. really, it's about the next fight. if all fighters were the same size, and they fought tomorrow, who is the best? froch looked like his bones were starting to sieze up, and george groves bounced punches off of his head that he never even saw. he is not a p4p fighter. you have to be able to look beyond a resume, because it doesn't tell the story of a fighter's p4p place contemporarily.

I'm English, and to be fair I'd have Bradley higher than froch. Pacman & Marquez wins alone regardless of anyone personal opinion on who won the fight makes him top 3. Froch is prob somewhere between 7-9 on list. Also that man was born slow lol, its not just theses days he has always been slow. froch's body has always been slow, but this is the first time punches have bounced off of his head consistently before he even noticed them. he had decent timing at his best. he's fading fast. he's been eating bombs in victory and defeat for a while now. it's expected.

Of course resume isn't the ONLY factor. But NE is saying p4p lists go off skill and nothing else, which is absolute nonsense. For the record I'd have Bradley higher than Froch. But GGG can GTFO with regards to p4p. i agree with you that GGG isnt deserving of p4p status yet,, one top level win and he is there, I have him as an honorable mention I was only defending NE logic behind his p4p criteria, and his logic is solid, but i dont think he follows his own criteria by having GGG on the list, GGG is extremely talented but until he proves it against an elite competitor, i can have him no higher than honorable mention

resume plays a part but is not the whole part,, a guy like ggg looks like the goods but until he gets a top level victory i have him as an honorable mention,, p4p is who is the best most PROVEN fighters,,, froch and bradley have both proved that they are deserving, but bradley has accomplished more and has fought the much better competition ie marquez, manny, ruslan, peterson, alexander, vasquez, holt, witter, abregu,, Froch has also fought alot of top guys, but he lost to kessler and lost to ward, and many think he lost to dirrell, plus he beat an old kessler, and barely made it past groves much like bradley barely made it past ruslan, but in the grand scheme of things, ruslan is better than groves, and manny and jmm are leagues above mack, old kessler, and unproven bute Bradley should be rated higher, he has beaten alot of top guys that still went on to big wins, alexander is a welter champ, abregu is #1 contender, peterson went on to win belts, vasquez is currently the lightweight champ, wheras bute hasnt done anything, kessler is finished, mack was a never has been, Ward is the only guy that has gone on to do anything and he clearly beat froch,, So there is no logical way to have froch in front of bradley,, both are deserving of their spots, but bradley has to be ranked higher, if froch was a welter, guys like manny, jmm, ruslan would be nightmares for froch and he would be lucky to win one fight Of course resume isn't the ONLY factor. But NE is saying p4p lists go off skill and nothing else, which is absolute nonsense. For the record I'd have Bradley higher than Froch. But GGG can GTFO with regards to p4p.

What do Toney and RJJ have to do with anything? Froch is currently beating better guys than GGG is beating and is therefore rightly ranked higher p4p. When GGG starts getting wins against higher tier opponents/Froch starts losing then GGG will overtake him. Basic stuff. I don't care how many nobodies GGG knocks out or looks great against, get a good win then start talking about p4p lists. Dont get it twisted, i never said GGG is p4p,, i give him an honorable mention but until he gets a top level win, i cant have him on my list,, I was just talking about the criteria involved,, me and NEW ENGLAND may differ on GGG, but his reasoning as far as criteria for p4p lists is spot on,,, I dont think he follows it if he has GGG on his list, but his logic behind the criteria is very good,, I only bring up jones and toney, because people have posted that p4p is all about resume which it is not

froch's win is much more controversial than bradley's. lots of those bradley - provodnikov rounds are easy to score for bradley. the only real controversy over bradley - provodnikov was the knockdown that was not called. lets not forget that provodnikov was beat up much worse than groves in that fight as well, pissing blood after the fight. you might find a couple of biased limeys / middle aged british women who think provodnikov is a less accomplished fighter than groves. the rest of us won't be kidding ourselves. Wouldn't say so. Froch had Groves badly hurt and would have probably knocked him out in a few seconds. Bradley arguably dropped a 12 round decision if you score correctly with regards to the knockdowns etc. Provodnikov isn't that good whatsoever and Yank buttboys only hype him because he got up in Bradley's arse. He would lose to any good boxer between 140 and 147. Bradley is just below good - he's average.

I am reading what you're writing. But it doesn't make any sense. The definition you're using to judge p4p is one that you have come up with yourself. No one uses the method of 'who is the best on paper' because it's flawed. If resume didn't come into it then Mayweather would have a legitimate claim to being the #1 p4p all time. Which is why you need to take resume into account and it's why your criteria doesn't work. P4p lists have always gone off who you've fought/beat. Fact. If you want to talk about who the 10 most skilled fighters in the sport are then fine, but that's a different discussion. It isn't a p4p list. resume plays a part but is not the whole part,, a guy like ggg looks like the goods but until he gets a top level victory i have him as an honorable mention,, p4p is who is the best most PROVEN fighters,,, froch and bradley have both proved that they are deserving, but bradley has accomplished more and has fought the much better competition ie marquez, manny, ruslan, peterson, alexander, vasquez, holt, witter, abregu,, Froch has also fought alot of top guys, but he lost to kessler and lost to ward, and many think he lost to dirrell, plus he beat an old kessler, and barely made it past groves much like bradley barely made it past ruslan, but in the grand scheme of things, ruslan is better than groves, and manny and jmm are leagues above mack, old kessler, and unproven bute Bradley should be rated higher, he has beaten alot of top guys that still went on to big wins, alexander is a welter champ, abregu is #1 contender, peterson went on to win belts, vasquez is currently the lightweight champ, wheras bute hasnt done anything, kessler is finished, mack was a never has been, Ward is the only guy that has gone on to do anything and he clearly beat froch,, So there is no logical way to have froch in front of bradley,, both are deserving of their spots, but bradley has to be ranked higher, if froch was a welter, guys like manny, jmm, ruslan would be nightmares for froch and he would be lucky to win one fight