Can someone explain to me why Timothy Bradley is in the p4p top 10??!

Froch has a bit better resume? His resume is stacked and probably one of the best of the prime fighters at the moment. Look at his last 5 fights.

I used to hate the guy because of his attitude and mouth but he earned my respect with his fighting. He talks too much but he backs it up.

 

Tommy, though I'll never agree with you I think you've justified your points well. Personally I try not to go by who I like or I think looks good but what they've proven. You have Dawson at #9 which I'm guessing is above Froch....that to me is pure bias. I agree Dawson has fantastic technical ability (much more so than Froch), but there is more than one way to skin a cat and I think there are question marks still surrounding Dawson's boxing fundementals (heart??). Bear in mind Froch has greater depth in his resume and has beaten Dawson's conquerer.

However, I think the argument in this thread is started by the fact that Popkins started a thread questioning how Bradley could be in anyones top 10, whilst also having had Dawson at #3. That to me is contradictory.

The reason these arguments are so regular these days is there are very few fighters than deserve to be on this list in terms of resume/ability/activity.

I'd say other than PBF, Pac, Martinez & JMM, you could criticise any one person on someones list.

 

If Froch beats Johnson, Bute and then Dawson, do you think it would be fair to rank Ward higher than him because you think he'd win head to head?!?! Of course not!!

By this rationale if someone thinks Berto beats Pac H2H he could have Berto P4P #1. Bit of a silly comment really.

 

He is decent and is slowly proving himself but I dont think he is one of the top 10 in the world.Top 20 yes.Top 10 no.