Cotto or Froch - who is better boxer?

[TheJudge]

how do you come to the conclusion that cotto is better?

Nothing on Cotto's resume indicates he is better. His losses to Trout and Margarito certainly doesn't and he got no great wins compared to the ones of Froch, so it's merely favouritism if anyone considers Cotto to be better than Froch.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Cotto is a much superior boxer/better skills. Froch has the better resume. Who's greater? Depends how you look at it.

[TheJudge]

Cotto is a much superior boxer/better skills. Froch has the better resume. Who's greater? Depends how you look at it.

Where did Cotto's skills go against Trout and Margarito and Pacquiao?

[JoeKidd]

Froch boxes?

[AliBombaye]

Not sure punching power and a good chin count as 'boxing', they are attributes.

So my answer is Cotto easily.

[Humean]

Definitely Cotto, better skills and better career.

[George Orwell]

Where did Cotto's skills go against Trout and Margarito and Pacquiao?

Trout - No Roach

Margarito - loaded gloves, allegedly...

Pacquiao - too fast

[Doctor_Tenma]

Lol...at counting the Dirrel fight as a loss.

Got nothing but respect for Froch, I thought he lost clearly.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Where did Cotto's skills go against Trout and Margarito and Pacquiao?

They didn't go anywhere, it was a matter of styles and quality of opposition.

[gmc_rfc_06]

Cotto is the better boxer.

Froch is the better fighter.