Is Freddie Roach really a great trainer or just a great match-maker?

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RAV3N
    Notorious GGG
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • May 2010
    • 1499
    • 96
    • 59
    • 8,265

    #31
    Originally posted by JK1700
    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.

    Comment

    • solo20
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Jul 2008
      • 3821
      • 190
      • 303
      • 22,297

      #32
      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

      Comment

      • raysan
        SWAGNIFICENT
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Mar 2006
        • 1507
        • 68
        • 0
        • 8,002

        #33
        Originally posted by RAV3N
        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..

        Comment

        • JK1700
          Boxing Virtuoso
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Apr 2010
          • 5040
          • 394
          • 374
          • 17,974

          #34
          Originally posted by RAV3N
          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.

          Comment

          • JK1700
            Boxing Virtuoso
            Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
            • Apr 2010
            • 5040
            • 394
            • 374
            • 17,974

            #35
            Originally posted by RAV3N
            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????????????????????

            Comment

            • leone24
              Contender
              Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
              • Dec 2009
              • 149
              • 8
              • 5
              • 6,236

              #36
              Originally posted by JK1700
              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

              Comment

              • Merashjai07
                Contender
                Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
                • Sep 2009
                • 208
                • 2
                • 0
                • 6,236

                #37
                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.

                Comment

                Working...
                TOP