Why is Carl Froch in the top 10 p4p?

i really dont think you would struggle for 25 names unless you are brand new to the sport

and i dont feel like arguing with people who argue just to argue
you would be arguing fighters better p4p then him cause you dont know them very well..

froch best win ever was over bute and i've known bute wasnt sh!t since he was KO'd (which he was) against a very limited andrade years ago. thats the fight that exposed his stamina and chin problem, which go hand in hand.

the 2 MOST important attributes to be a great, (elite) fighter is chin and stamina. i know sounds so basic and unflashy but those 2 are vital. cannot be great without them

 

atsch
**** me, do you know what the meaning of the word "contradiction" is ?

 

Worked up? No not at all, I'm simply astounded that you couldn't read the mocking tone of my post, not too bright are you?

 

Hmmm so me sarcastically pointing out to dumb****s like yourself that names on a resume mean nothing if you don't beat them is not making a point? It's like bragging about jobs you've got fired from on a cv. I think it's you that is struggling with that concept. Oh and exagerrating for effect is sarcasm, which is exactly what I did by pointing to Boone's **** record which has a lot of good names on it. So try again.

 

So Elvizz and Arsehole, instead of going back and forth trying to grasp the concept of sarcasm, it's useful to understand it but not what this thread is about, why don't you both put forward your case for Froch? I mean I would be really interested to hear both of you break down Carl's amazing resume, detailing which wins are his most impressive and why, which fighters he faced were truly great, etc

Don't just keep spouting ****, back up your reasons for holding Froch in such high esteem. I can certainly make a case to the contrary, so go for it fellas :good

 

Who claimed that names on a résumé mean anything? No one. You're just pulling arguments out of your ass.

Froch is highly ranked because of the big wins on his résumé. Not because he has big names on it.

You're too stupid to understand what a résumé is. It's not just a list of names who the fighter has fought. atsch

We know you wheren't claiming Boone is p4p, but your ironic comparison is pointless. Froch has actually won his fights. Thats what counts. You're ironically arguing against an argument that no one even made.

Dumb*ss.

 

Concept of sarcasm. atsch

You're a ****ing idiot.

You haven't made a case against us saying Froch has a strong Résumé. You've just argued against points that no one has even made. Well done.

 

Froch has one of the best resumes in boxing to go along with fighting one of the toughest schedules even though I felt the Groves stoppage was premature lets not forget his competition since 2008

Groves (bad stoppage but I didn't see anyone else fight him also undefeated)
Ward (fought in America p4p #2 in the world)
Johnson (fought in America)
Kessler x2 (first fight in Denmark)
Bute (undefeated)
Abraham
Mack
Dirrell (undefeated)
Pascal (undefeated)

He is easily England's best fighter tough as nails so yes he deserves to be on that list

 

You really are one stupid ****er aren't you? Now try to follow me, it's not that hard.

This thread is about whether Carl Froch should be on the p4p list.

Most argue he should be because of his resume

I and others have pointed out that his wins are not that impressive and he has lost to some of the names often cited when speaking of said resume, so listing all the fighters he's faced ( Kessler X 2, Dirrell, Ward,etc) does not make sense because he is being credited with wins AND losses.

To show you how stupid this is I compare it to lauding a guy like Boone who has good names on his resume but he lost to them all. An obvious sarcastic post which you and Elvizz jump on fully believing that I was actually saying the two fighters were comparable and in doing so proved that the tone of my post went right over your head.

Now you are telling me that no one is justifying Froch's p4p place by constantly bringing up his resume??

So again, you absolute ****ing moron, tell me what are these impressive big wins you speak of and what is so impressive about them? Remember he lost to Ward, lost Kessler 1 and got a gift v Dirrell so don't include those. If you can't break it down and at least try to back up what you are saying just admit it and **** off to some other thread.

 

His resume takes whether he won or lost into account you dumb ****er. atsch

Thats what a strong resume means, it doesn't mean he fought alot of good fighters, it means he's beat alot of good fighters. Who here is claiming Froch should be p4p because he fought and was outclassed by Ward? No one. Were claiming he's p4p because he's fought and beat alot of good fighters. Sorry you've struggled to grasp that.

I'm not going to sit and argue with you whether Froch's resume is strong. Negative arseholes and revisionists will always find a way to degrade a resume.

Groves
Johnson
Kessler
Bute
Abraham
Mack
Dirrell
Pascal
Taylor

What terrible winsatsch

I wouldn't even have him top 10, but it's hardly that ridiculous to include him, and he certainly isn't far off.

People talking about his strong Résumé aren't just talking about a list of fighters he's faced.atsch

 

Here you go Arsebandit, you asked who said names on a resume mean anything. This guy is citing Ward and Kessler x 2. So there's your answer numbnuts :hi:

 

fights should be taken into account win or loose
also should be considered that calzaghe vacated his belt and ran from a possible froch fight
whilst the cobra was calling his name out constantly

 

Well good for him. Thats it settled. We all think that Ward and Kessler #1 boost Froch's resume, p4p status and achievements because this guy does.

A résumé takes your win/loss into account. Thats a fact. Are you claiming it doesn't? If you aren't then whats your problem with people saying Froch has a strong résumé?

Here's his Resume:

Win

Groves
Johnson
Kessler
Bute
Abraham
Mack
Dirrell
Pascal
Taylor
Magee

Loss:

Ward
Kessler


It's really weakatsch

 

dont forget the brutal Magee KO win ,even though that is no where near the level of say a Kessler win

 

are you implying that froch is a great, eliet fighter because h has a decent chin and decent stamina ?

those 2 are vital, yet you NEED the skills which froch has NON that could be considered remotely close to great.

do you know what a contradiction is ?