If Roach Isn't A Great Trainer, Then Who Is?

[Weebler I]

Freddie Roach is a great adviser/matchmaker/negotiator. People have to understand, that's what makes a great trainer in today's boxing era. Intelligence, no one can deny Freddie is smart with his requests of opponents from the promoters and fighters.

this ^^^ is one of the best and most honest/informed answers on this topic.

Yet it didn't answer the Q.

lol it was just some barely concealed hate. I don't think Roach has much to do with who Pacquiao fights, you hear him talk about one potential opponent and Arum announces they're looking at some other guy for Pac to fight. He's just a boxing coach.

I agree that the father and son relationship matters because that is where you try harder for each other. Floyd Senior didn't respect Hatton and came in late etc... but Roach cares for Pac, even waking him up. After watching his documentary, it was clear he didn't care for say, his PA, but when it came to Pac, he was more sincere. Now, to get that feeling, you need a lot of time together, and that is where it becomes difficult.

But yes, I would like to know who is considered a great trainer, a name, not so hard to give really, if Roach is not considered one.

Sr was just pretty selfish, it was all about him not the fighter. I guess that's why he has issues with his family. Floyd did say everyone he ever trained left him.

[LoadedWraps]

I can't post in that thread because the TS has me on ignore, but I'm wondering what active trainers can be considered great? If we're speaking on terms of trainers that have created a world class fighter and not just trained an ALREADY world class fighter, one who immediate comes to mind is Nacho Beristain. He's created a who stable of World Champions through out his career. But who else?

Roger Mayweather. Cus D'mato. Naseem Richardson. Joel Diaz. Nacho Beristain.

/thread.

[Brother Jay]

I would like to know who he thinks is a great trainer today and why. It is sometimes easier to give a good answer, but not answer the Q. OK so we know what he think Roach is good at, but that is because we know more on him. Nacho also selects opponents for JMM, but he doesn't get as much critique because he is not as well known and for some reason JMM is excused for his tune up's or weaker opponent selection. Remember Nacho is also his manager and is on record for saying Khan is the wrong style match up for JMM.

The best politician's avoid questions and provide lovely answers that sway people with similar techniques.

I am pretty sure a lot of other trainers select opponents. For example Bradley may have chosen Pac, but he avoided Khan doing so because there is a chance of him losing. However I know Bradley also listens to his team, such as Alexander where he waited til Kotelnik happened. He kept saying his team said wait for it to build up, and he even vacated his WBC belt when Alexander was mandatory...

Khan wanted to get Mayweather through Bradley, while Bradley went to Pac by Cassamayor. There are always times when fighters avoid/skip someone for an easier road if it gets them to where they want.



I read into Kev's post, he already has written posts like that in other Pac/Roach threads previosuly, because that is the type of poster he is when it comes to these two or agenda's with other fighters/posters, not that he will admit it.

I agree that the father and son relationship matters because that is where you try harder for each other. Floyd Senior didn't respect Hatton and came in late etc... but Roach cares for Pac, even waking him up. After watching his documentary, it was clear he didn't care for say, his PA, but when it came to Pac, he was more sincere. Now, to get that feeling, you need a lot of time together, and that is where it becomes difficult.

But yes, I would like to know who is considered a great trainer, a name, not so hard to give really, if Roach is not considered one.

I personally believe a great trainer can train more than one fighter, because it is further 'evidence' that it is more the fighter than them that is great. Of course the fighter is always the one that walks in the ring, but as with other sports, winning once is good and can be great, but winning something 5 times makes the argument of you being great stronger.

All I can tell you is after having read Kev's post I walked away understanding that he made a distinction between what trainers USED TO DO and what today's trainers ACTUALLY DO outside the father/son-type relationships.

That said, Kev's contribution changed the conversation.

Roach does not produce talent. He maintains it. There is a HUGE difference.

I've seen Buddy McGirt make better, more obvious changes in already-established fighters than Freddy Roach.

Boxing writers' opinions are no more valid than those of serious fans and students of the game. I said that to say that boxing writer awards mean nothing in terms of greatness. They are simply meant to acknowledge that someone has done something impressive and continues to do so. They clearly appreciated the way Roach is maintaining Pacquiao, because it sure as hell has nothing to do with any changes Roach has made.

[Uns]

All I can tell you is after having read Kev's post I walked away understanding that he made a distinction between what trainers USED TO DO and what today's trainers ACTUALLY DO outside the father/son-type relationships.

That said, Kev's contribution changed the conversation.

Roach does not produce talent. He maintains it. There is a HUGE difference.

I've seen Buddy McGirt make better, more obvious changes in already-established fighters than Freddy Roach.

Boxing writers' opinions are no more valid than those of serious fans and students of the game. I said that to say that boxing writer awards mean nothing in terms of greatness. They are simply meant to acknowledge that someone has done something impressive and continues to do so. They clearly appreciated the way Roach is maintaining Pacquiao, because it sure as hell has nothing to do with any changes Roach has made.

The issue with S and C coaches etc... is that the modern fighter has choice and money to have extra help.

As for not bringing a fighter up, it usually hapens if a trainer doesn't have one main guy.

This is why I ask who is great. We all have opinions.

So do you consider Buddy greater than Freddie?

I myself will say OK Gatti VS May, Tarver had some good and some bad fights. Paulie left him because he didn't want to be stopped. He has a British fighter who got stopped in Paul Smith who was in the contender. Macklin got KTFO by Martinez. IMO I think Mcgirt fighters have had poor defense.

This thread was made because the other TS saw Roach in Kayoed corner.

If Roach isn't great then who is? r is he great.

[2501]

The last time I checked Khan, PAC and linares all looked bad in there last fights. If you want to be technical Roach didn't discover or bring Manny up from the minors. Manny was bought to America and basically handed to roach around about the same time Mayweather was handed to Uncle Roger.Manny has been beaten by Morrales, Marquez IMO and has avoided, Soto, Guzman and a host of tough fights at 140. Has roach made Pacquaio better I say yes from the one handed fighter to a offensive world wind.


My favorite trainers right now are as follows.
ROGER MAYWEATHER
FLOYD MAYWEATHER
NACHO BERSTEIN
EMMANUEL STEWART
BUDDY MCGIRT
FREDDIE ROACH
CUNNINGHAM ONLY PROBLEM IS HE HAS MORE HEART AND FIGHT THAN HIS FIGHTER.

When did I say Roach was a great trainer? In fact, I said he WASN'T. But the dude who is claiming Roach wasnt great went ahead and claimed Roger was. That doesn't make sense. Roger's only great fighter is Floyd.

[Brother Jay]

The issue with S and C coaches etc... is that the modern fighter has choice and money to have extra help.

As for not bringing a fighter up, it usually hapens if a trainer doesn't have one main guy.

This is why I ask who is great. We all have opinions.

So do you consider Buddy greater than Freddie?

I myself will say OK Gatti VS May, Tarver had some good and some bad fights. Paulie left him because he didn't want to be stopped. He has a British fighter who got stopped in Paul Smith who was in the contender. Macklin got KTFO by Martinez. IMO I think Mcgirt fighters have had poor defense.

This thread was made because the other TS saw Roach in Kayoed corner.

If Roach isn't great then who is? r is he great.

The problem with discussions like these is defining the term great in the context of boxing.

Freddie Roach is great at what he does. Kev described that perfectly IMO.

McGirt is great at what he does: Plugging holes in a fighter's games and revamping their approach so that they maximize their tools. I feel that McGirt is greater at that than Roach.

They are both trainers, but what they offer IMO is different because of the emphasis placed on different things.

McGirt didn't raise Gatti or Tarver. He did however improve the things that brought them greater success. He's no miracle worker, and a lot of the improvement or lack thereof falls on the shoulders of his fighters. But when you're under McGirt, he gives a fighter a better chance of winning IMO.

Roach is better at matchmaking .. and because of this his fighters look better than McGirt's because McGirt's fighters are usually seeking the LEGITIMATE champion. While Roach's fighters mostly seek a paper champion or a vacant title to validate their status.

It is what it is.

[2501]

Roger Mayweather. Cus D'mato. Naseem Richardson. Joel Diaz. Nacho Beristain.

/thread.

What exactly makes Roger "great"? Nas? What makes them great? Having one fighter who accomplishes great things doesn't make you a great trainer. One of the reasons I feel Roach isn't a great trainer.

[Brother Jay]

lol it was just some barely concealed hate. I don't think Roach has much to do with who Pacquiao fights, you hear him talk about one potential opponent and Arum announces they're looking at some other guy for Pac to fight. He's just a boxing coach.



Sr was just pretty selfish, it was all about him not the fighter. I guess that's why he has issues with his family. Floyd did say everyone he ever trained left him.

Hahahahaha .. Roach stated that he WOULD NOT LET PACQUIAO FIGHT MOSLEY UNLESS IT WAS AT A CATCHWEIGHT OF 142LBS. That is before Mayweather dominated him. After that all of a sudden the Mosley match was made.

Nonsense. Roach is an expert matchmaker. Arum is an expert carnival barker, shyster and shylock. Together Roach and Arum have created the "Pacquiao phenomenon" .. selling the idea that such a small, meek Asian guy could beat such bigger, stronger guys .. when in fact Pacquiao was larger than most of his opponents on fight night.

Believe what you will though. That how most pacfans get through their day.

[Brother Jay]

What exactly makes Roger "great"? Nas? What makes them great? Having one fighter who accomplishes great things doesn't make you a great trainer. One of the reasons I feel Roach isn't a great trainer.

Uhh .. it absolutely does if you trained that fighter from the beginning.

Roach didn't train Pacquiao from the beginning.

Roger didn't train Floyd from the beginning either. Floyd Sr did. Floyd is an improved carbon copy of his father, learning everything from his dad.

****m admits that he simply maintains what BHOP and Shane have already established.

Having even one fighter that reached the top that you've developed and molded does indeed make you a great trainer.

Just ask Emmanuel Steward. Hearns was his only real claim to fame before Steward got into the giant training business. It was Hearns that garnered Steward all that respect he enjoyed for years before there ever was a boxer Lennox Lewis or Wlad and Vitali Klitschko.

[F l i c k e r]

I've began to think Roach only excels with certain types of fighters.