Cotto or Froch - who is better boxer?

Cotto or Froch - who is better boxer? Let's look at their losses and best wins... Cotto's losses: - Pacquiao - Mayweather - Trout - Margarito Froch's losses: - Ward - Kessler - Dirrell (yes, I count this as a loss) Comparing their losses, we see that Cotto has 4 and Froch has 3, but losing to Mayweather, Ward and Pacquiao is no shame and neither of them should get criticized for losing those fights. Let's look at their losses to Dirrell, Trout, Margarito and Kessler... Froch avenged his loss to Kessler and Cotto avenged his loss to Margarito. Margarito is a far worse boxer than Kessler, though, and Margarito was hopelessly shot when Cotto beat him, so this definitely gives Froch an edge regarding the losses. Now, for Dirrell and Trout... Both are good boxers, but Dirrell more so than Trout and Trout completely outboxed Cotto, which wasn't the case with Dirrell and Froch, which was generally an ugly match that Dirrell got the better of. Looking at losses, Froch seems better than Cotto. Looking at wins, Froch had victories against undefeated Bute and undefeated Pascal, both quality boxers even if not great. He also had a very good win against Kessler in a rematch and beating Abraham is no joke. Cotto's best wins are probably the old-and-injured Martinez and Carlos Quintana and Paulie Malignaggi, but there is honestly nothing holding up to the wins of Froch in sheer quality. Shouldn't it be clear to everyone that Froch is a better boxer than Cotto, even if both are very good?