Without a doubt Roach has an A Class pre-fight prep however ...

[Walterson]

This.

The two examples you gave, his fighters were against 1) Joe Calzaghe 2) Floyd Mayweather. Two great fighters who make great adjustments mid-fight. There isn't a number of magic solutions to solve each opponent. More often than not, gameplan A makes perfect sense, the fighter just isn't executing it as well as desired.

I mean what 'alternative' do you give Oscar midfight against Floyd? He told him several times to use the jab more.

I agree, he did tell him to throw the jab several times. This worked until Mayweather started throwing his own jab. How can you beat a jab, which is more faster and accurate then yours? Freddie had no answer but to keep telling him to do what was ineffective / getting him caught in return ...

[Levcon8686]

Of course it's a tiring thing. But it all harks to your prefight prepation, agree?

It was partly the trainers role in both fights (Hopkins / Hoya) to ensure that they were in the right shape to take on the opponent in front of them (Calzaghe / Mayweather).

So to use your logic, in some way, my 'thread starting statement' is incorrect; Freddie Roach isn't as good as a trainer as he is assumed. The game plans failed in both fights, and because the trainer / boxer relied on that sole A-plan, they didn't have the physical energy to adjust to a B-plan, which was to throw more - Freddie as a trainer should have worked on physically training his boxer too, by your claim, which he failed to do.

Bollocks. The fighters just weren't good enough to pull out the W and lost close decisions. Both were betting underdogs against fighters that had never lost before. What gameplan do you employ to beat Mayweather? Oscar did the best he could with a solid gameplan, he just couldn't get to Floyd. There was no other plan to improve his chances on the night, other than throw more punches and use the jab more, which Roach told him to do several times.

[Walterson]

Bollocks. The fighters just weren't good enough to pull out the W and lost close decisions. Both were betting underdogs against fighters that had never lost before. What gameplan do you employ to beat Mayweather? Oscar did the best he could with a solid gameplan, he just couldn't get to Floyd. There was no other plan to improve his chances on the night, other than throw more punches and use the jab more, which Roach told him to do several times.

Let's have an intelligent debate here.

Your opening line doesn't make sense first of all - A poor game plan (prep, training, etc) equates why both fighters lost.

Secondly, being a betting underdog, doesn't mean that your destined to not win.

Thirdly, no fighter is invincible. For starters, Mayweather lost 6 times as an amateur.

Lastly, why was there no other plan. There should have been? That's the trainers role. There's always a way to win. Winners always find a way. Roach told him to keep throwing the jab but how does that help when you're eating a faster jab - going back to my initial argument, there was no Bplan from the trainer.

[apokalips]

You may be right in part about Roach being overrated, but its a bit unfair to use the examples of his fighters fighting 2 great fighters who simply don't know how to lose.

Although the Vazquez example is a good one.

[General Zod]

This.

The two examples you gave, his fighters were against 1) Joe Calzaghe 2) Floyd Mayweather. Two great fighters who make great adjustments mid-fight. There isn't a number of magic solutions to solve each opponent. More often than not, gameplan A makes perfect sense, the fighter just isn't executing it as well as desired.

I mean what 'alternative' do you give Oscar midfight against Floyd? He told him several times to use the jab more.

I knew Oscar had a problem when he started sparring with Mosley for his fight with Floyd, which made no sense to me whatsoever. He really needed to find sparring partners who could copy Floyds style, which was a puzzle Oscar couldn't solve.

[Walterson]

You may be right in part about Roach being overrated, but its a bit unfair to use the examples of his fighters fighting 2 great fighters who simply don't know how to lose.

Although the Vazquez example is a good one.

Freddie Roach is a great trainer, there's no question about that. And yes, you're right when you say Calzaghe and Mayweather are exceptional fighters who don't know how to lose. What I'm saying is that he struggles to find a B-plan against fighters who are good at adapting, agree?

[BattlingNelson]

I like Pavliks trainer Loew better. When Kelly's jab wasn't working it was: "Double the jab Kelly! Double the fucking jab!"

[Toney616]

I like Pavliks trainer Loew better. When Kelly's jab wasn't working it was: "Double the jab Kelly! Double the fucking jab!"

Nah, it was when he said," throw more punches that how Calzaghe beat him."

[Walterson]

I knew Oscar had a problem when he started sparring with Mosley for his fight with Floyd, which made no sense to me whatsoever. He really needed to find sparring partners who could copy Floyds style, which was a puzzle Oscar couldn't solve.

You know I agree with you with some points there.

I think ****m Richardson (great trainer too) made it quite clear a bit recently in reference to training Mosley for Mayweather. It's all about exploiting your fighters strengths; making them faster, stronger, have more stamina but still capable of doing what they do best. The top fighters of the past decade all did that; Pacquaio - continues to improve his stamina, speed, power, defence. Calzaghe - continually improving his stamina and speed. Hopkins - continually improving his ring generalship. Mayweather - speaks for himself, always training hard.

So, again it's not only about training to fight against your important style. The best fighters train to improve their best skills.

De La Hoya, could have worked on?

- improving his left hook, how could he make it faster?
- his jab, how could he make it faster?
- his stamina, how could he last longer?

These are a few things he could have done to change the outcome of the fight.

[Levcon8686]

Let's have an intelligent debate here.

Your opening line doesn't make sense first of all - A poor game plan (prep, training, etc) equates why both fighters lost.

Secondly, being a betting underdog, doesn't mean that your destined to not win.

Thirdly, no fighter is invincible. For starters, Mayweather lost 6 times as an amateur.

Lastly, why was there no other plan. There should have been? That's the trainers role. There's always a way to win. Winners always find a way. Roach told him to keep throwing the jab but how does that help when you're eating a faster jab - going back to my initial argument, there was no Bplan from the trainer.

My point is that Oscar losing to Floyd was as a result of his limitations as a fighter rather than Roach's lack of a plan B. Plan B would have been asking Oscar to try something he was weak at and not used to. He had to work to his strengths which he tried, but couldn't execute well enough.

Let's remember that this was a split decision (albeit one favourable score to DLH). Harold Lederman had it 5-3 after 8 rounds, Lampley believed it was an even fight. Is Roach going to tell Oscar to try something different all of a sudden before the 9th round begins? Of course not. There was no plan B because Plan B would most likely be less effective than Plan A. Oscar had to play to his strengths or lose by a wide margin. Even if Roach had an elaborate plan B devised, Oscar would most likely be unable to employ it.

This thread insinuates that Roach played a large part in Oscar falling short against Floyd and Hopkins falling short against Calzaghe, which is completely untrue in my opinion.