Why the **** is Amir Khan rated above Froch?

Their resumes are equal. Khan is the better boxer.

 

Khan has won more championship fights, but the quality of guys Froch has fought is better+ he wasn't made a ***** in his first lose or have lost a fight were he was a clear favorite (I know it was a robbery, but still)

 

Kessler and Ward are both A level fighters who are far surperior to Prescot and Peterson

 

Abraham and Johnson get overrated. They are average wins.

 

Until further notice, Froch is better.

Khan just has speed which causes people to overrate his actual skills. He is really not very skilled.

Froch is the opposite as people think he's skill-less since he's on the slow side and so damn awkward in the ring. He may not be super-skilled but he's better than he looks.

 

Khan has beaten his opponents far more convincingly.

 

No-one really pays attention to BoxRec's rankings. Most people, quite rightly, rank Froch higher thanks to his resume.

 

Froch has also beaten the better guys, beating the opposition convincingly is probably the last tie-breaker i use when comparing resumes..

 

Too prefer to judge a list of names instead of looking individual fights. Jermain Taylor is not as good as his name suggests, and Froch was very lucky to win that fight.

 

I disagree.

Khan destroyed Salita in less than 2 minutes. Froch went life and death with old man Johnson, who Bute had no trouble with. Johnson is the bigger name and better fighter. But the manner of the victories make them equal for me.

If Khan had gone the distance against Salita it would work against him.

Johnson and Judah are certainly equal opponents. Khan beat Judah more convincingly.

This is the criteria I use.

Remember Johnson was behind on the cards against Green before a dubious knockdown.

Many people feel Kotelnik beat Alexander.

Abraham was very poor in last fight until the stoppage. Very poor.

We could go around in circles all night doing this. I feel their resumes are even. Froch just about has the better names, Khan has the more convincing wins.

 

Rankings are based on guys who you beat, not who you face. And they're not affected by old losses. If they were, then Pacquiao would never have made it to the number one spot considering he got humiliated not once, but twice by nobodies.

I have Froch slightly ahead, but they're not that far apart. And when you look at Khan's best wins vs Froch's best wins, Khan's won his far more dominantly. When all's said and done, he's likely to have had a better career (if he can improve and work on his faults).

 

Coz Froch doesnt give a **** and Khan does.

Froch is a G, Amir's a *****, he's still crying over Lamont and still believes he'd beat Mayweather. He's on a different planet.