I'll star by trying to summarize each fighter's career. Cotto began his career with a dominant reign at junior welterweight, (although there were some misses Mayweather, Hatton, and Kostya) Malignaggi and Torres standout. He had his best year as a professional in 2007 when he defeated a prime Judah and a slightly past his prime Mosley. His overall greatness, however may defined by his destruction of B level opponents, he laid beatings on both Quintana and Gomez. He gets points for fighting everyone and spending a large part of his career as an undersized,but dangerous junior middleweight. Next we have the U.K. great Carl Froch. He spent a large part of his earlier career fighting in anonymity, but this all changed significantly with a super six. Blessed with an iron chin and very good power to compliment his awkward fighting style, Froch's greatest strength may have been his resiliency. His resume reads like a who who's of the recent Renaissance at super middle. Kessler, Johnson, undefeated Dirrell, Bute, Taylor,Abraham , Pascal, and an undefeated Groves x2,. His two career losses also age extremely a close decision to a prime Ward and an avenged defeat to Kessler.
Froch was one of the best fighters to come from the UK. He had a string of top level opposition.
I thought he lost to Dirrel and had beaten Kessler in their first fight. On the Ward fight the only one that had it correct was the British judge that had it 118-110.
Don't know why the TS is comparing both fighters because they were never close in competing with each other or common opponents.
Didn't the british commentary have it wider than the judges & US commentary? I seem to remember Sky saying that the fight wasn't close at all.
In truth, it was at best a 8-4 for Ward, more likely a 9-3.
british commentators greatly embellished the diea that ward was tiring, which is a narrative picked up by a lot of the ward detractors. one guy had to work hard, the other guy knew damn well he had an insurmountable lead on points.
i don't blame the british commentators to try and conjure up some drama and help save face for their guy, but the narrative that ward faded down the stretch is just bogus. there's a difference between recogizing that a guy has late round power and that you have a lead to protect, and tiring. just because you step off of teh gas it doesn't mean you're tiring or getting broken down. honestly, i gave ward the 12th. if you get a good quality feed you can see that a lot froch's punches are unclean and that ward is still timing froch with clean shots in the 12th.
It's gotta be close between these two.
Standout wins for Cotto:
Judah
Mosley
Martinez
Standout wins for Froch:
Taylor
Kessler
Pascal
Bute
How is that close? :thinking:
Froch took tough tests. But it seems to be firgoitten that for a lo g time he was untested.
He spent most of his time chasing JC.
But he made up for it. I'd have to Google it to remember his first test.
Jean Pascal was his first test. But even on the domestic scene he fought some good guys.
Needless to say, Froch accomplished way more than anyone would ever have imagined heading into the Pascal fight when people thought he was a domestic level fighter.
i've seen that fight a dozen times at this point. easily.
you need to turn off the british commentary and score rounds based on who was the more effective puncher. then give me a scorecard and tell me why you thought froch was winning enough rounds late in the fight to make you think he had a chance in hell of winning on teh cards.
in short, if you think that fight was close you have no business at all scoring a boxing match. none. you don't know what you're looking at.
Didn't the british commentary have it wider than the judges & US commentary? I seem to remember Sky saying that the fight wasn't close at all.
In truth, it was at best a 8-4 for Ward, more likely a 9-3.
115-113, is the score from both me and the judges > lopsided fight according to some randomly biased internet guy. ✌
if you think that was a 115-113 fight you genuinely have no idea what you're looking at when you score a boxing match.
which five rounds did froch win?
Martinez wasnt a good win.
As for froch his wins are only good on paper
Taylor lost 2 of his last 3 only beat washed up hype job Lacy. Dont think he even has a single win at 168.
Pascal has only beat pension beater Dawson and Bute whom every time he has stepped up to any one above C level has lost even with the help of the judges and P.E.D he couldnt even get the win over Jack
Kessler was at best well well past his best. Judah had already been ko's by Kostya and dominated by Mayweather. Also loss every time that he stepped up. Mosley was past his prime again Cotto.
Both are good but I think Cotto benefited from more popular names like Mayweather, Pacquiao, Martinez, Margarito, Mayorga and Moseley. Those are huge names in boxing. More popular than Froch's opponents. Popularity doesn't equate to quality. He was handily beaten by Mayweather,Pacquiao, and a prime Margarito. Martinez was a crippled and Mayorga was beyond washed. Mosely is a decent win,but even he was past his best, in his 15 th year as a professional.
Doesnt really mean much as Dirrwl is a nobody hasnt beaten any one. Kessler was Shot.
That win means as much as Hopkins W against Roy Jones lolIt doesn't mean very much in your revisionist mimd. Pre - Abraham Dirrell was a very good fight. Also many people laud Cotto for his revenge victory over cyborg eye and war torn Margarito. I don't know in what world that the version of Margarito that Cotto beat is a better fighter than the Kessler that Froch defeated.
Froch took tough tests. But it seems to be firgoitten that for a lo g time he was untested.
He spent most of his time chasing JC.
But he made up for it. I'd have to Google it to remember his first test.
It's gotta be close between these two.
Standout wins for Cotto:
Judah
Mosley
Martinez
Standout wins for Froch:
Taylor
Kessler
Pascal
Bute
Martinez wasnt a good win.
As for froch his wins are only good on paper
Taylor lost 2 of his last 3 only beat washed up hype job Lacy. Dont think he even has a single win at 168.
Pascal has only beat pension beater Dawson and Bute whom every time he has stepped up to any one above C level has lost even with the help of the judges and P.E.D he couldnt even get the win over Jack
Kessler was at best well well past his best.
In what reality is that the " bottom line" ? The bottom line is that on his resume there is a w in the column next to both of those fights. Everything that you said was your own concocted opinion.
Doesnt really mean much as Dirrwl is a nobody hasnt beaten any one. Kessler was Shot.
That win means as much as Hopkins W against Roy Jones lol
Bottom line is Froch got a disgraceful gift against a nobody in Dirrell and barely beat if that a shot Kessler.In what reality is that the " bottom line" ? The bottom line is that on his resume there is a w in the column next to both of those fights. Everything that you said was your own concocted opinion.
How can you defend Ward's tactics against Kessler, but cast aspersions on Froch for his tactics against Dirrell? Biased, delusional or both. If you can use the internet successfully, then one would hope that you could count. Either way I'am not your grade school teacher.
Bottom line is Froch got a disgraceful gift against a nobody in Dirrell and barely beat if that a shot Kessler.
in your first post you called the fight "extremely close"
you're welcome to clarify what you meant, but as it stands i have zero confidence in your ability to score a boxing match based on your evaluation of the closeness of what was very lopsided boxing match.
115-113, is the score from both me and the judges > lopsided fight according to some randomly biased internet guy. ✌