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