Resume battle: Miguel cotto or Carl Froch

[Robbie Barrett]

Too many people disrespecting Cotto.
Many forgot Cotto wouldve easily last the last round against Pacquaio but was stopped out of pit by the ref, wasnt even getting tagged anymore since he went on the back foot.
Margarito might have possibly been cheating.
Mayweather fight was close almost a pickem.

Froch also never fought anyone on the level of pacquaio/mayweather(ward comes closest).

[Public_Enemy]

Martinez and Margarito II were at catchweights if I'm not mistaken. I would lean towards Cotto though. He's won belts in four different divisions and has faced the better opposition.

Their wins are really close imo. It could really go either way.

[bojangles1987]

A fighters career isn't just about wins. A resume is supposed to provide detail of your career. Including the losses gives perspective. A close loss to a HOF fighter your expected to lose to is a better indicator of one's status than a 1 rd destruction of an overrated average fighter you were expected to destroy.

We're looking at two fighters with very close careers here. So why list fights where they got beat up?

If Cotto had fought evenly with Mayweather, Pacquiao, or Margarito, I'd give him credit in this discussion. All three whooped his ass, and I don't. If Froch had fought close with Ward, I'd give him credit for it. He got dominated, and I don't.

[gmc_rfc_06]

Froch.

Better resume, better wins.

Miguel also has a great resume though.

[RlCKY]

I'd give it to Froch for winning more fights than he was supposed to lose than Cotto did.

Froch wasn't supposed to beat Kessler, Dirrell, Taylor, Groves 2 a lot of people picked against him.

So Froch>Cotto for constantly rising up.

[Kagami Taiga]

We're looking at two fighters with very close careers here. So why list fights where they got beat up?

If Cotto had fought evenly with Mayweather, Pacquiao, or Margarito, I'd give him credit in this discussion. All three whooped his ass, and I don't. If Froch had fought close with Ward, I'd give him credit for it. He got dominated, and I don't.

Pretty much on point. Both fighters lost against the best they fought tho. Difference is, Froch beat more b level guys whereas Cotto lost to the likes of trout and margarito. To me it's still close but I would go with Froch.

Frikkin spell correct

[The Big Dunn]

We're looking at two fighters with very close careers here. So why list fights where they got beat up?

If Cotto had fought evenly with Mayweather, Pacquiao, or Margarito, I'd give him credit in this discussion. All three whooped his ass, and I don't. If Froch had fought close with Ward, I'd give him credit for it. He got dominated, and I don't.

Credit isn't the point. The thread is about overall resume-what you did in your career-not just who has the better wins. Losses, give perspective on a fighters complete resume.

[RlCKY]

Credit isn't the point. The thread is about overall resume-what you did in your career-not just who has the better wins. Losses, give perspective on a fighters complete resume.

What exactly do you mean, what kind of perspective? A resume is basically a list of in ring accomplishments. How exactly does getting destroyed twice and thoroughly outpointed twice do anything for Miguel? Props to him for taking those fights...

Do you mean you give him credit for taking the fights and getting his ass beat, as opposed to NOT taking the fights and leaving a glaring question mark instead?

[Black Barty]

TS might as well have just asked "who do you like more, Cotto or Froch".

Seems like some people like Cotto so much more that no amount of reasoning will convince them that "more losses to great fighters" doesn't trump "more quality wins".

[Divine Hammer]

is that a shiba inu? i love shiba inus. such adorable dogs.