I did a similar thread to this months ago with Mikkel Kessler and Ricky Hatton (who at the time had identical records, and I thought you could make a compelling argument either way). This comparison is going to be a little different, but just wanted to get the feel of what the board thinks... Carl Froch- 30 (22)-2(0) Miguel Cotto- 37(30)-4(2) So, in simply a boxing perspective (not who earned more ratings on networks,etc) who do you think had the better career, and what is the criteria you would use to determine it.
Clearly Miguel Cotto has done more, he's held championships in 3 different weight classes. Miguel has fought the top guys in most of those weight classes ( at 140 Bob Arum kept him away from Mayweather). Froch has fought as a supermiddle weight, fighting all of the top guys at SMW, but his number of champions faced doesn't compare to Cotto's. Cotto is currently campaining in a weight in which he is to small, and was still able to capture and hold a title.
For now Cotto, but if Froch gets another big win he will be near equal to Cotto. Cotto having the win over Mosley is better than Froch over Taylor.
Cotto has a very nice resume...he has fought a number of fighters and styles. I'll never call him an ATG...but he has had a remarkable career
Glad I got some quality responses on this, I think it's a comparison that makes for interesting discussion in a lot of ways. Urone2, is it safe to say that you rate fighters based on how they can function in multiple weight classes and amount of titles accumulated? Or do you take more into consideration? If you incorporate ability into your rating do you have a preference to one style over another? Mag1965, how would you rate these wins based on an aggregate of quality of opponent at the time and quality of victory (I guess, what do you rank these as the best wins, all things considered): Shane Mosley Paulie Malignaggi Joshua Clottey* Antonio Margarito Ricardo Torres Carlos Quintana Yuri Foreman Andre Dirrel* Jermain Taylor Arthur Abraham Lucian Bute Glen Johnson Jean Pascal Yusaf Mack
Excellent reasoning :good multi-division accomplishments, ability, resume, longevity. It is unfortunate that Carl got a late start, not to mention that while Cotto was promoted by arguably the most powerful promoter around Froch was with the 3rd(?) most powerful promoter in the UK (I'm actually of the belief that that relationship ironically helped him). When comparing resumes between fighters, do you give any special credence to dominant wins (Malignaggi, Bute, Abraham) and do you look hard at severity of losses when comparing or do you just appreciate it as an accepted fact that most fighters will take a tough loss from time to time?
Cotto comfortably at this stage for all the aforementioned reasons mentioned by Boxed Ears, but Froch could change that with a couple big wins at super middleweight and by winning a legitimate title at light heavyweight. Wins over Kessler and Ward (as unlikely as the latter is) would push him ahead. Froch is older than Cotto and been through his share of tough fights as well, but I think he has more left in the tank and more to give of himself. The late start definitely helps him. I think the book is almost closed on Cotto's career at the top levels of the sport, unfortunately.
