Carl Froch

How the hell did a guy who was outfought by froch manage himself to out fight a p4p consensus top guy?? Dawson is as high as p4p 3 in some lists but looked like a fish outa water at times in his fight with pascal, top p4p guys are supposed to be able to handle guys like pascal but dawson couldnt. The same people who give froch so much stick then see a guy who he beat go and beat a guy who is touted as possibly the future of boxing and as slick as hell, that is some funny stuff right there :rofl

 

Styles make fights.

 

And he was ridiculously over-rated without any kind of record to justify occupying such a high position on the p4p list

 

He was undefeated and had four wins over the top 2 guys in the division plus he was the only man to beat Ademek. That's certainly worthy of P4P inclusion. I don't think he was overrated at all. So he lost a fight against another young champ in his prime, big deal. I commend them both for taking the fight.

 

the adamek win was good, although maybe adamek was weight drained which is why he fights two divisions up now.

the 2 wins over grandads surely shouldnt count for much the same way as calzaghes wins over hopkins and jones dont to many.....even though the age gap wasnt as large

 

They are what they are. Adamek, Johnson and Tarver were all highly ranked so that's five good, solid wins. Desite their age or the weight issues. Ok, they weren't fantastic or anything, but certainly good enough to warrant a place on the P4P list, especially at a time when only two or three guys on that list were automatic choices and the rest were all bunched up together.

Also, the state Roy Jones was in against Calzaghe isn't really comprable to Johnson and Tarver's condition against Dawson. Past their best, yes. Absolutely shot to ****, no.

 

i dont et why people discredit his wins over tarver and johnson. i mean johnson is ranked 4th at lhw now, and has just gone very close to beating undefeated champ cloud. tarver was a current beltholder and the first fight was easily one of the biggest that could have been made.

 

What it comes down to is the fact that places 3-10 on the P4P list at the time were up for grabs. Cotto, Mosley and JMM had just lost badly, so there was a lot of guys bunched up together. With 5 good wins against highly ranked guys in his division, Chad Dawson was a perfectly legitimate choice for any one of those places. People who can't see that, are obviously incapable of rational thinking.

 

Jesus man you really hate Calzaghe. It was Bhop he buttfu%ked not you. Get over it.

:yep

 

I'm referring to him not having achieved enough to be ranked p4p numbr three, as I've seen ranked several times.

When you your p4p list looks like this:

1. Pac/May
2. Pac/May
3. Chad Dawson
4. Juan Manuel Marquez

then you are severely overrating him compared to what he has achieved.

I'm not calling him a hype job, or saying that he can't achieve that ranking off the back of losing to Pascal. I'm saying he was over rated by many people for that stage of his career.

 

:good

 

But...but...but...but...:crybaby

You've gone from saying Froch outboxed Pascal, with no if's or but's, and are now saying Pascal was weight drained? Laughable.

By the way, I was right again, wasn't I? When we debated it, you said Dawson would win, I said Pascal was. Our debates are getting a bit one-sided, mate.

 

Actually you've become a bit of a joke mate. I mean how bad did I embarrass you with the Haye Valuev thread, and then you tried to make a similar thread about Dirrell and mostly got shitted on.

Dont remember you picking Pascal however. That would take balls, or just stupid enough to make a pick like that like lufcrazy. You arent that stupid and you dont have balls either. So I doubt it.

 

Shall we have a look?

This is what you wrote:

This is what I wrote:

MichiganWarrior - 0
Jack - 3478348