Tweet
He's not and we saw it again last night with Lateef Kayode being completely schooled and embrassed by a guy almost 15 years older than him in Antonio Tarver, only for the judges to rule it a draw in one of the worst decisions of the year so far. Kayode was much younger, had been much more active, was the physically bigger guy and was training with a guy who a lot of people claim is the best trainer in boxing so he should have gone out there and put on a spectacular performance, but instead he got taken to school and was exposed as nothing more than a one-dimensional fighter with no defence or versatility, a very low ring IQ, poor co-ordination and a very sloppy arsenal of punches. What's even more interesting is that every single Freddie Roach trained fighter seems to be exactly like that. Manny Pacquiao, Jorge Linares and Amir Khan also all fight like amatuers and only have one style that they can use, and Freddie, despite all of the credit that he gets, doesn't seem to have any idea how to get them to change up and do something different when it doesn't work. Lateef Kayode won the first 2 rounds and then Tarver adjusted and started to control and dominate the fight, and Kayode never made an adjustment. It was Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson all over again. If your a great trainer, why can't your fighters adapt?
I just don't understand how you can call this guy a great trainer when his fighter's have so many flaws. In my opinion, if your a great trainer then your fighters should at least have good/very good defence, the ability to box on the backfoot and move forward effectively and the ability to throw good, accurate combinations and hardly any of Roach's fighters can do any of those things. Yes Manny Pacquiao can throw accurate combinations against punching bags that don't move like Joshua Clottey and Antonio Margarito but whenever he faces anyone with good defence and/or movement he ends up looking stupid, even if they are 40 years old like Shane Mosley. I understand that the guy has parkinsons syndrome so a lot of people give him credit for doing what he's doing despite that, and he does deserve credit for that, but it shouldn't make people exaggerate his abilities to the criminal extent that they have done and continue to do. I think he's won "trainer of the year" about 5 or 6 times while Roger Mayweather hasn't won it once despite his fighter having dominated 20-25 world class opponents across 5 different weight classes. That doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that Freddie is a terrible trainer, but I really don't see any logical reason behind calling him a great one. If I am missing something and you can give me a logical reason why he is, then I would love to hear it because I just don't see it. I think the guy just gets a lot of credit because he trains Manny Pacquiao but he hasn't really improved Manny at all. Manny has just been looking good because his opposition has been tailor made for him which is something that was exposed in the 3rd fight with Marquez. People say he's improved, but he hasn't.
Poll coming.
I just don't understand how you can call this guy a great trainer when his fighter's have so many flaws. In my opinion, if your a great trainer then your fighters should at least have good/very good defence, the ability to box on the backfoot and move forward effectively and the ability to throw good, accurate combinations and hardly any of Roach's fighters can do any of those things. Yes Manny Pacquiao can throw accurate combinations against punching bags that don't move like Joshua Clottey and Antonio Margarito but whenever he faces anyone with good defence and/or movement he ends up looking stupid, even if they are 40 years old like Shane Mosley. I understand that the guy has parkinsons syndrome so a lot of people give him credit for doing what he's doing despite that, and he does deserve credit for that, but it shouldn't make people exaggerate his abilities to the criminal extent that they have done and continue to do. I think he's won "trainer of the year" about 5 or 6 times while Roger Mayweather hasn't won it once despite his fighter having dominated 20-25 world class opponents across 5 different weight classes. That doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that Freddie is a terrible trainer, but I really don't see any logical reason behind calling him a great one. If I am missing something and you can give me a logical reason why he is, then I would love to hear it because I just don't see it. I think the guy just gets a lot of credit because he trains Manny Pacquiao but he hasn't really improved Manny at all. Manny has just been looking good because his opposition has been tailor made for him which is something that was exposed in the 3rd fight with Marquez. People say he's improved, but he hasn't.
Poll coming.
Comment