What do you think?
I don't consider him a great trainer. And i'll provide plenty of reasons to back this up. First of all I have to start with Manny Pacquiao as he is the reason why Roach gets so much praise. I don't feel that Roach has really improved Pacquiao as a boxer. An example of this is his fights with Juan Manuel Marquez. Before the rematch Freddie said the following....
"I can't complain about a draw, it could have gone either way. That's all behind us now, they are two different guys now and Manny has become a much better fighter now. Marquez will have to deal with a much better fighter than he did the first time. He hasnt looked as good since the Pacquiao fight. I think he will go back to that counter punching style but Manny now has 2 hands instead of just one. We've got a great gameplan to beat that counter punching style. Pacquiao is just such a more well rounded fighter now"
Despite all of these claims. Nothing changed at all. Pacquiao was outboxed even more comprehensively than he was the first time. 4 years after the first fight. He officially "won" the fight but in reality he lost and every non biased boxing fan knows this. This is why I question Roach's skills as a trainer. He tried to come up with a gameplan to beat Marquez twice and in my opinion, he failed both times. Mayweather easily beat Marquez. Winning every round. Yet the guy who trains Floyd gets no credit from the media for being a good trainer. Ok Floyd was bigger. But Marquez and Pacquiao are the same size. You cannot say Floyd is too big for Marquez but not too big for Pacquiao.
Roach also trained Oscar De La Hoya to try and beat Floyd Mayweather. He failed in doing so. He also trained Justin Juuko against Floyd Mayweather and Diego Corrales with disastrous results. He also trained Gerry Penalosa against Juanma Lopez with a horrible outcome. Along with the two fights against Marquez, both of which I think Pacquiao lost. So in his biggest challenges when he didnt get to pick the opponents he has failed big time.
You can talk about Pacquiao's recent wins but I think that's more down to the opposition and their condition rather than anything great Roach did in the gym. The only two fighter's that he's done well for is Amir Khan and Manny Pacquiao and picks fights for both of them. Ive said many times that I don't rate Pacquiao's wins over Morales, Hatton and Cotto because all three opponents were coming off devastating losses. Nobody should use those fights as a measure of Roach's brilliance because they arent.
I think Roach's real skills are as a match-maker. Getting Pacquiao the fight with De La Hoya at a weight he hadnt fought at in 9 years was clearly a brilliant move for his fighter. Along with picking up belts against the damaged Hatton and Cotto who were both coming off KO losses a few fights earlier. And now Margarito. He also managed to get all of them to fight for or defend their belts at catchweights. He's clearly very good at match-making.
I'm sure the Mayweathers, Steward, Roach, and Nazeem are great trainers... and depending how great their fighter's resume makes them even more great. Nazeem Richardson is still a great trainer even though Shane lost against Mayweather. He had the gameplan and everything but Shane was unable to excecute them.
Your comment makes no sense. I never said that. Give any reason you want. Obviously it's your decision whether you think he's a great trainer or not. Nobody has given me an example of a fight that makes him a great trainer.
What I said before was not "making up the rules". That's just the reality. You can't beat a guy who was KO'd 2 fights before and say the trainer deserves loads of credit. The reason I keep having to come back to the KO argument is that Roach hasnt really steered any fighter to a great win. The best wins he's experienced came against damaged opposition.
Barrera was a win I give him and Pacquiao credit for. But Junior Jones also beat Barrera twice before Pacquiao beat him aswell. And he wasnt considered a great fighter with a great trainer.
What fight specifically makes Roach great? I'm yet to hear one.
Come Dec.11th and I will tell you the specific fight
Naazim is a great trainer but according to your rules his fighter Mosely lost his biggest fight against PBF, making Naazim overrated, according to your rules that is.
Once again your trying to put words in my mouth. Naazim failed his biggest challenge but passed his 2nd biggest test with Pavlik.
Roach failed all of his big tests.
1. Mayweather
2. Marquez (twice)
3. Morales (before he was destroyed by Raheem)
Stop trying to spin what im saying and just explain what makes Roach great.
What fight????????????????????
How come you cant use any fights that his fighters win as a good example of him as a traner but then you use the fights that his fighters lost as bad example of him as a trainer?
You are making your own rules to this argument, there is no point discussing this with you.
Your comment makes no sense. I never said that. Give any reason you want. Obviously it's your decision whether you think he's a great trainer or not. Nobody has given me an example of a fight that makes him a great trainer.
What I said before was not "making up the rules". That's just the reality. You can't beat a guy who was KO'd 2 fights before and say the trainer deserves loads of credit. The reason I keep having to come back to the KO argument is that Roach hasnt really steered any fighter to a great win. The best wins he's experienced came against damaged opposition.
Barrera was a win I give him and Pacquiao credit for. But Junior Jones also beat Barrera twice before Pacquiao beat him aswell. And he wasnt considered a great fighter with a great trainer.
What fight specifically makes Roach great? I'm yet to hear one.
Naazim is a great trainer but according to your rules his fighter Mosely lost his biggest fight against PBF, making Naazim overrated, according to your rules that is.
Its a trap haha, hes naming Nacho and Naazim so when you say they lost their fights to Floyd (oscar and shane), he can say see Roger is that much more of a great trainer. all four i believe are great trainers, and just for the record Floyd isnt the only guy Roger trains so this whole argument is pointless..
Freddie Roach is good trainer but a great macthmaker and that is all. if i hand to pick out of who would train me out of Freddie Roach and Nacho Beristain i will pick Nacho Beristain and i would look back and just laugh at Roach
Just tell me. What makes him any better than Naazim Richardson or Nacho Beristain? Both of those trainers came up with great gameplans for fighters when they were up against it. Roach on the other hand failed in his biggest challenges and looks like a better trainer than he really is because of his match making abilities.
Naazim is a great trainer but according to your rules his fighter Mosely lost his biggest fight against PBF, making Naazim overrated, according to your rules that is.
How come you cant use any fights that his fighters win as a good example of him as a traner but then you use the fights that his fighters lost as bad example of him as a trainer?
You are making your own rules to this argument, there is no point discussing this with you.
what evidence youre looking for? lets say someone give you an evidence, in your mind roach is still overrated.
Just tell me. What makes him any better than Naazim Richardson or Nacho Beristain? Both of those trainers came up with great gameplans for fighters when they were up against it. Roach on the other hand failed in his biggest challenges and looks like a better trainer than he really is because of his match making abilities.
Manny has been knocked out and now is looked at as one of the best in the world, so that now makes Freddie a great trainer right?? Marquez is a great fighter himself and makes adjustments in the ring, why are you basing everything off of that fight? Im a Floyd fan, but trying to discredit Roach is ridiculous, and im saying that as a boxing fan.
I'm not discrediting Roach. This has nothing to do with Floyd. It's just my honest opinion. There are lots of good trainers so what makes Roach stand out? Ok Pacquiao got knocked out and came back but does that make Roach great? Like you said about Floyd. I think Pacquiao has been more responsible for that than Roach. Freddie just picks his fights.
Great match-maker? Yes. Great trainer? No. Good but not great.
Just like fighters trainers prove their greatness when they are really up against it. Roach failed at his biggest challenges.
No your missing the point! I was talking about knockout losses. I'm not saying they werent still capable and dangerous opponents. But the reality is that if a fighter has been brutally knocked out then he won't be the same fighter as he was before the knockout. My MAIN POINT is that beating a guy coming off a KO loss doesnt make you a great trainer.
Watch Ricardo Lopez vs Rosendo Alvarez I and then watch the 2nd fight straight afterwards. That is why Nacho Beristain is a great trainer. He took his fighter to the side and told him what he did wrong, what he needed to improve and how to win. And it worked, against a very good, prime, undefeated champion.
Roach TRIED to do this when Pacquiao fought Marquez and failed. There was no improvements from the 1st to 2nd fight. Roach didnt correct Pacquiao's mistakes. Nacho was able to correct Ricardo's mistakes. That's what makes a great trainer. Being able to look back correct your mistakes, improve your fighter and be able to excute in the ring.
Roach is a GOOD trainer but not a GREAT one.
Manny has been knocked out and now is looked at as one of the best in the world, so that now makes Freddie a great trainer right?? Marquez is a great fighter himself and makes adjustments in the ring, why are you basing everything off of that fight? Im a Floyd fan, but trying to discredit Roach is ridiculous, and im saying that as a boxing fan.
Freddie's fighters can fight, so he doesnt suck. But people act like he has this brilliant mind that can solve any fighter/fight. The man has been around for years, and was nothing special before Pac made him look special. He is a good trainer, who is a great matchmaker. But he might as well retire when Pac hangs up the gloves.
Good post!
Youre acting like fighters arent capable of winning after being beat. Veron Forrest whooped Shanes ass, does that mean i shouldnt give Floyd credit for beating Shane? Shane was considered top 3 ww at the time, previous losses didnt matter. just because you lose a fight doesnt mean you cant be great, when Floyd knocksout Manny are you not going to give him credit because Morales already beat him? Look man, if Freddie wasnt a great trainer do you think Mike Tyson, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar Delahoya, all wouldve hired him at some point??
No your missing the point! I was talking about knockout losses. I'm not saying they werent still capable and dangerous opponents. But the reality is that if a fighter has been brutally knocked out then he won't be the same fighter as he was before the knockout. My MAIN POINT is that beating a guy coming off a KO loss doesnt make you a great trainer.
Watch Ricardo Lopez vs Rosendo Alvarez I and then watch the 2nd fight straight afterwards. That is why Nacho Beristain is a great trainer. He took his fighter to the side and told him what he did wrong, what he needed to improve and how to win. And it worked, against a very good, prime, undefeated champion.
Roach TRIED to do this when Pacquiao fought Marquez and failed. There was no improvements from the 1st to 2nd fight. Roach didnt correct Pacquiao's mistakes. Nacho was able to correct Ricardo's mistakes. That's what makes a great trainer. Being able to look back correct your mistakes, improve your fighter and be able to excute in the ring.
I'm not hating on Roach, I think he is a good trainer. As you say that's why big name fighters have hired him but I don't see him as being great.
Freddie's fighters can fight, so he doesnt suck. But people act like he has this brilliant mind that can solve any fighter/fight. The man has been around for years, and was nothing special before Pac made him look special. He is a good trainer, who is a great matchmaker. But he might as well retire when Pac hangs up the gloves.
What exactly makes him great? What fight?
Barrera is the only one you could argue makes him great. But let's not forget that Junior Jones also beat Barrera twice and lost to Morales just like Pacquiao. Does that make his trainer great?
The Morales wins are irrelevant since he was made to come down in weight after losing every round to Zahir Raheem. Raheem was a good fighter but by no means great. Roach didnt have to come up with a gameplan to beat Morales after the way he was dominated by Raheem and then killed his body to make 130. It doesnt take a genius to work out how to beat damaged opponents.
Youre acting like fighters arent capable of winning after being beat. Veron Forrest whooped Shanes ass, does that mean i shouldnt give Floyd credit for beating Shane? Shane was considered top 3 ww at the time, previous losses didnt matter. just because you lose a fight doesnt mean you cant be great, when Floyd knocksout Manny are you not going to give him credit because Morales already beat him? Look man, if Freddie wasnt a great trainer do you think Mike Tyson, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar Delahoya, all wouldve hired him at some point??
damn good trainer
What exactly makes him great? What fight?
Barrera is the only one you could argue makes him great. But let's not forget that Junior Jones also beat Barrera twice and lost to Morales just like Pacquiao. Does that make his trainer great?
The Morales wins are irrelevant since he was made to come down in weight after losing every round to Zahir Raheem. Raheem was a good fighter but by no means great. Roach didnt have to come up with a gameplan to beat Morales after the way he was dominated by Raheem and then killed his body to make 130. It doesnt take a genius to work out how to beat damaged opponents.
I just give Floyd more credit than i give Roger, and I give Freddie more credit than i give Manny. Lets put it this way, youre going into a fight, would you hire Freddie or Roger?? Ive met Roger, hes a boxing historian, cool guy, but i trust Freddie's gameplanning over his. does that mean manny can beat floyd, in my eyes no because Floyd is so talented he figures fighters out HIMSELF, where as i cant see Manny doing that.
I see your point and it's a good one. I don't know who I would ask to train me. Both of them are good trainers. I just think Roach is not as good as he's made out to be. I agree that Floyd could proberbly win without a trainer but at the same time it's terrible that Roger gets no credit. And Freddie gets all of the credit in the world. Anyway, I just don't see what makes Roach a great trainer. He's definetly a better match-maker than trainer.
Him able to know what the other guy is going to do makes him a great trainer in my book. If we're just talking recent, look at the Ricky Hatton fight. Even after the fight, Manny was saying how Freddie and crew knew what Hatton was going to do and they practiced everyday. A trainer can only do so much based on the talent he has in front of him, but if he can tell you exactly what the other guy is going to do, doesnt that make him a great trainer?
But that doesnt make him great because Hatton was coming off a KO loss. I'm not making an excuse this is just a fact. Ricky was brutally knocked out by Mayweather and nearly KO'd by Lazcano in his comeback fight in the U.K.
Beating him doesnt make you great. If two great fighters fight in their prime and have a draw and then one guy comes back and wins the rematch. Then THAT makes you a great trainer. Nacho Beristain did this with Ricardo Lopez after his first fight with Alvarez. Which he could have lost. Nacho took him back, made him see his mistakes and brought out the best in him in the rematch.
That's great because he looked at the other fighter and realised what he needed to improve and do to beat him. Fighting damaged opponents and knocking them out isnt proving anyone's genius. Pacquiao knocking out Cotto isnt anything special because he was knocked out by Margarito a few fights before. That win was NOT because of a great trainer. It was because of a great match-maker who knew Cotto was damaged.
I knew somebody was going to use this excuse. People are always quick to say Manny is better and the biggest test for Floyd. But then you say I can't comapre their fights with Marquez? Why not? There's no reason why not. You will say "Floyd was bigger" but Marquez and Pacquiao are the same size. So Floyd will be "bigger" than Pacquiao if and when they fight.
If Pacquiao beats Mayweather then Roach is the greatest trainer ever. If Mayweather beats Pacquiao then people won't praise Roger. That's just not fair when the opinions on a Mayweather-Pacquiao fight are divided.
I just give Floyd more credit than i give Roger, and I give Freddie more credit than i give Manny. Lets put it this way, youre going into a fight, would you hire Freddie or Roger?? Ive met Roger, hes a boxing historian, cool guy, but i trust Freddie's gameplanning over his. does that mean manny can beat floyd, in my eyes no because Floyd is so talented he figures fighters out HIMSELF, where as i cant see Manny doing that.