Naazim Richardson= Overrated trainer. You cant be considered "GREAT" by piggybacking!

[Atreyu Khalil]

Name another GREAT corner man who has consistently found fighters wrapping their hands illegally. Name one...Hell name a Great trainer who has done it as often as Richardson.

2 times is "often"?

The Tito fight incident was only and incident because of where the fight was staged.

[esl_4_u]

Who was Bernard's trainer for Felix Trinidad fight in 2001? Bouie Fisher, but who did all of the work? Naz Richardson. When you have an old trainer there is always a younger guy behind the scenes that gets no credit. Just like Cus DeMato and Mike Tyson, but Kevin Rooney did most of the work under the instruction of Cus. If you've stepped foot in a boxing gym or knew anything about boxing besides watching from your couch, you'd know that there are tons of good trainers that get no credit for their work. This post is the ideal comments of a "couch potato" boxing know-it-all. Traditionally trainers don't get credit until their fighter wins or when the head trainer gets fired or dies then another takes over and the fighter evolves with a new trainer. It's a catch 22, some trainers never get credit while others ONLY have credit because their fighter is winning. It's the knowledge, the skills taught, and the inside and outside of the ring motivation that counts. A couch potato would only say that a trainer is good because the fighter is winning, but real boxers and boxing gym rats (like myself) know that this is not the way to judge a good trainer. There are so many politics that involve the notoriety of trainer; management, promoters, wins vs. losses, etc.

Stay in your lane!!! Judging trainers isn't one of them.

Naazim Richardson gets a lot of praise on this board and I really dont understand why.

His only 2 top fighters he has trained are two fighters that were already certified Hall of Famers when he began training them. Those 2 fighters are Shane Mosley & Bernard Hopkins. Naazim Richardson started being the head trainer for Bernard Hopkins when he was 40 years old at the end of 2005 for the Taylor Rematch. Bernard Hopkins knew all there was to know already at that time of his career.

Everything Hopkins does he has been doing before Naz was the head trainer. Hopkins was beating people down long before Naz was the lead guy. Bouie Fisher taught Hopkins everything and was the lead guy when Naz was just a cornerman...Naz was just the sidekick in the corner until 2005. Hopkins has lost more fights under Naz then he did before Naz was training him. He has lost 3 times under Naazims tutelage. His best wins under Naazim might be vs the Tarver that dropped 30-40lbs after the Rocky Movie that he outclassed or when he fought the Middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik @170lbs....its hard for me to decide.

He started training Shane Mosley in 2009 for the Margarito fight and Mosley was 37 at that time. That was a good win IMO but Mosley on any night beats Margarito. Shane Mosley wouldve beat him the same way even if Jack Mosley trained him that night. Also Antonio Margarito is one of the most over rated fighters in this era, even more so with the unearthing of his cheating.

Shane Mosley has 1 win, 3 losses & 1 draw under the tutelage of Naazim Richardson and has looked absolutely terrible against Mayweather, Mora, Pacquiao and most recently Canelo Alvarez. I dont ever see what Richardson does that is great, I have not seen him improve on either of these 2 fighters as their styles or skills havent changed since he began training them. He seems to provide nothing in the corner other than Sun Tzu: Art of War like quotes and simplistic over the top analogies.

How can you regard a guy as a GREAT trainer when he hasnt made a fighter "GREAT". If you start being a guys head trainer when he has already been in the game 20 years and is a certified all time great then how does that make you a great trainer? I know he is training some up and coming fighters but they arent GREAT yet so he has to prove how "GREAT" of a trainer he is.

[Roman Moreno]

You are making my point for me....boxing genius to be aware of handwrapping details is a good quality to have in someone in your camp, but that doesn't make you a great trainer.

But, there is a huge difference between having someone like Richardson in your team/corner than it is having someone like Ellerbe or Ariza in your corner. Both Ellerbe and Ariza put together don't know enough about the rules or the sport as whole than Richardson does.

[Atreyu Khalil]

Who was Bernard's trainer for Felix Trinidad fight in 2001? Bouie Fisher, but who did all of the work? Naz Richardson. When you have an old trainer there is always a younger guy behind the scenes that gets no credit. Just like Cus DeMato and Mike Tyson, but Kevin Rooney did most of the work under the instruction of Cus. If you've stepped foot in a boxing gym or knew anything about boxing besides watching from your couch, you'd know that there are tons of good trainers that get no credit for their work. This post is the ideal comments of a "couch potato" boxing know-it-all. Traditionally trainers don't get credit until their fighter wins or when the head trainer gets fired or dies then another takes over and the fighter evolves with a new trainer. It's a catch 22, some trainers never get credit while others ONLY have credit because their fighter is winning. It's the knowledge, the skills taught, and the inside and outside of the ring motivation that counts. A couch potato would only say that a trainer is good because the fighter is winning, but real boxers and boxing gym rats (like myself) know that this is not the way to judge a good trainer. There are so many politics that involve the notoriety of trainer; management, promoters, wins vs. losses, etc.

Stay in your lane!!! Judging trainers isn't one of them.

So what fighter has be made great?

[esl_4_u]

So what fighter has be made great?

The fact that you can't answer that is enough alone to not even bother answering the question

[Atreyu Khalil]

The fact that you can't answer that is enough alone to not even bother answering the question

I already said none.....now what's your answer

[Heru]

Judging a trainers' value by noting that he hasn't developed a fighter from amateur to pro? Shallow reasoning...

We (outsiders) aren't even privy to what trainers' main purpose is (strategizing and motivating) until the fight and the ignorant can't see strategy implementation or tactical adjustments either way.

Neither Hopkins nor Mosley need motivation and they (Hopkins especially) are shrewd enough to avoid paying for unnecessary expenses (as an overrated trainer would be) so he's doing something right. Naazim masterminding B-Hop's game plans was part of the reason Hopkins left Bouie Fisher. After Bouie helped build the the technique and fundamentals into B-Hop, there was no need for him. Naazim is part of the reason Bernard is one of the fighters in boxing with the highest ring IQ's.

[Mr. Philadel]

OPINIONS aint FACTS...thats the basics...dudes should learn them and their careers on here will last long lol

MAINSTREAM fans talk about the MAINSTREAM ish and only know of the MAINSTREAM dudes....Naz was considered a top notch trainer BEFORE yall saw him on HBO or whatever yall watch....dude been putting in work for years and years....he's respected and honored by those who have a say that really matter....at the end of the day, thats all that matters!!

[MurkaMan]

Naazim Richardson gets a lot of praise on this board and I really dont understand why.

His only 2 top fighters he has trained are two fighters that were already certified Hall of Famers when he began training them. Those 2 fighters are Shane Mosley & Bernard Hopkins. Naazim Richardson started being the head trainer for Bernard Hopkins when he was 40 years old at the end of 2005 for the Taylor Rematch. Bernard Hopkins knew all there was to know already at that time of his career.

Everything Hopkins does he has been doing before Naz was the head trainer. Hopkins was beating people down long before Naz was the lead guy. Bouie Fisher taught Hopkins everything and was the lead guy when Naz was just a cornerman...Naz was just the sidekick in the corner until 2005. Hopkins has lost more fights under Naz then he did before Naz was training him. He has lost 3 times under Naazims tutelage. His best wins under Naazim might be vs the Tarver that dropped 30-40lbs after the Rocky Movie that he outclassed or when he fought the Middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik @170lbs....its hard for me to decide.

He started training Shane Mosley in 2009 for the Margarito fight and Mosley was 37 at that time. That was a good win IMO but Mosley on any night beats Margarito. Shane Mosley wouldve beat him the same way even if Jack Mosley trained him that night. Also Antonio Margarito is one of the most over rated fighters in this era, even more so with the unearthing of his cheating.

Shane Mosley has 1 win, 3 losses & 1 draw under the tutelage of Naazim Richardson and has looked absolutely terrible against Mayweather, Mora, Pacquiao and most recently Canelo Alvarez. I dont ever see what Richardson does that is great, I have not seen him improve on either of these 2 fighters as their styles or skills havent changed since he began training them. He seems to provide nothing in the corner other than Sun Tzu: Art of War like quotes and simplistic over the top analogies.

How can you regard a guy as a GREAT trainer when he hasnt made a fighter "GREAT". If you start being a guys head trainer when he has already been in the game 20 years and is a certified all time great then how does that make you a great trainer? I know he is training some up and coming fighters but they arent GREAT yet so he has to prove how "GREAT" of a trainer he is.

Sun Tzu: Art of War like quotes and simplistic over the top analogies HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!..U are a damn fool..lol...so true tho

[A-Wolf]

People were only Brother Naazim crazy immediately following the Margarito fight because of the plaster thing with him being at the center of it and Mosley's performance. The polish came right off Richardson when Mosley's blimp crashed.