Has Freddie Roach been exposed for the final time?

I was one of the FEW who didn't seem fooled by this alleged re-vamp of Cotto. You go back and look at fights of younger Cotto and he was the SAME DAMN fighter he was under Roach. I failed to see all these new attributes Roach had brought to the table. Cotto's uncle deserves credit for his career success. Fucka Roach! Cotto coulda beaten a one legged Martinez with Ashton Kutcher in his corner.

How many times must Roach be exposed before people stop looking at him like some savant?

He deserves credit for helping to shape and fine-tune Manny, but then again, Manny's one of the most gifted fighters in history... plenty of guys coulda fine tuned him given the amount of talent Manny had.

And that's not to say he's a BAD trainer. But he's not on some higher level than other top trainers either.

 

Really?
I just see him as a speccy-freak with Parkinson's. ::

 

"Exposed"..............::

Was Fritz Sdunek "exposed" by Corrie Sanders.............evidently not as he trained both Vitali and Wlad for him.

Was "Manny Steward exposed by............Hasim Rahman"............evidently not as he trained both Lewis and Wlad........::

I agree with the sentiment to an extent that Roach has been cast as some sort of a doddery, bespecatacled go-to Wizard who can turn turds into diamonds.........but he's a good coach, not a bad coach.

 

I honestly think that's why he gets so much credit.

I fully believe without the Parkinson's everybody would see he's just another guy.

He's not in the same league as Dundee, Arcel Futch, Steward, ect...

 

You obviously didn't read my last sentence. I said he was a good trainer. But he's no boxing deity as he's hyped to be.

 

Of course not, but its not unique. Buddy McGirt had turned Arturo Gatti into Pea Whittaker, remember ::

 

It's impossible to say how a trainer should be properly rated. Look at all the most decorated coaches in teams sports. They all worked with some of the best players in the world and once they reach a certain level they always will. They also have much more options. They generally have say about draft choices, trades and can affect the game more directly with their lineup choices, making substitutions etc. Boxing trainers have no such luxury and they're dealing with one guy and one opponent. Even the perfect instructions and gameplan aren't going to help much when faced with a much superior fighter and that's if the guy even listens.

Now take over a veteran fighter who has been doing the same thing for ages. You can't reinvent the wheel, only work on improving some small aspects. If Eddie Futch, Emmanuel Steward, or whoever else you want to name trained Cotto do you think the result would have been different?

 

This thread is so silly I don't even know where to begin.

 

I never thought of Roach as being the level of trainer many painted him to be. Sure I thought he was very good.

But when I think of great trainers, guys like Ray Arcel or Eddie Futch are better than Roach.

 

How is Roach exposed? I thought they had the right game plan.

 

it's the same as Manny. As soon as they almost get more famous than their fighters they become unbearable.

 

can you even train or show feints and punching technique like that. I mean it must look as if he feints all the time.

 

exposed? NO!!!...he talk a little TOO Much shit for a TRAINER...but from the list of SHIT TALKING trainers...papa Garcia, papa Mayweather, is guerrero dad his trainer? anyway of that list of SHIT talkers he is the best trainer by FARrrrr...

He took Pacquiao from an aggressive little animal...into a HALL OF FAMER...TOP 30 all time fighter...

 

Yeah...we are going by today's standards....

 

This fight has nothing to do with Roach. Canelo would have beaten Cotto even if Emanuel Stewart was training him.

 

Agreed, he's a good trainer, but at that level they're all good trainers. In some rare cases, there is a special chemistry between fighter and trainer, Roach seemed to have it with Manny (but who knows how Manny would have turned without him, maybe even better), but overall, one top coach (with a similar coaching style) or another doesn't make a difference imo. A lot of the time, these guy's are as good as the boxer's they are training. Look at Manny Steward for example. When he trained Jermaine Taylor, he looked way worse than he was under Pat Burns, a relative nobody.

 

Exactly. Only I think Steward was far more capable of positively shaping a fighter than Roach is.

Without Steward, Lewis never becomes a heavyweight great. And without Steward, Wlad's career ends a decade ago.

Gerald McClellan's career also went down the shitter after he fired Steward, as Manny had G-man fighting as a boxer-puncher. Without Steward, he reverted to simply being a puncher.

Roach isn't Steward's league. Not even close IMO.

The ONLY thing I'll give Roach a pass for is Khan. It's not Freddie's fault that Khan is a fucking brain dead turd who can't learn anything.

 

In the late rounds there was no urgency at all from Roach. In a fight that was close in theory and Roach wasn't telling him to win big. Which was exactly what Canelo's corner told him to do.

 

Please. When did he fire Steward? He had two losses with Steward and one loss to Benn after, right? McClellan looked like an animal in every fight leading up to Benn, and in the Benn fight, so what are you talking about?

 

Agreed, and if anything Cotto already being an established fighter shouldn't be a knock against Freddie. He was hired as a trainer not a teacher, and Cotto is way too long in the tooth to be trying to learn new things. Roach's job is to prep Cotto for his fights, fine tune him, maybe fix some tics he might notice and come up with a game plan. He isn't expected to have Cotto looking like some kind of defensive wiz or change his style. If you want to judge Freddie on how well he teaches a fighter how to box then you would have to judge him on a fighter that he gets relatively young in said fighter's career.

Now if the HBO and Ring mag pundits have been claiming how different of a fighter Cotto looks, that's not a knock on Freddie unless he was the one running around spreading that crap. This thread sounds like hater-aid.

 

Thing is, trainers always get credit when their fighters win (especially Roach). So it is only logical that they share the blame when their fighters lose.

 

That's baloney, I never hear shit about Floyd's trainer or even Pac's trainer whenever someone is talking about their wins or their legacy. A boxer lives and dies on his own skills, his trainer can give him a game plan but it's up to the boxer to go out there and execute. That's the reason Floyd has made hundreds of millions of dollars and his trainers have only made hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

Exactly. This fight doesn't prove anything about Roach. Cotto was in the ring with a younger bigger tougher version of himself. No trainer could have changed that.

 

true

 

A younger and bigger version of himself..I give you that....but tougher? Fuck out of here..NOT mentally tougher cause he stop trying against Floyd after a few rounds...physically tougher? Canelo hasn't been in that type of fight yet....we shall see how physically tough he is when he's in the ring with GGG and "sir cuteness" doesn't take a back step...

 

When I say tougher I simply mean...he has a better chin. Floyd never hurt Canelo but he hurt Cotto and could have stopped him if he tried.

 

You're wrong. But before we go on, I am talking strictly about "perception" here. I happen to agree trainers matter less. But when a fighter does well, his trainer is indeed given credit. In pbf's case, many on this very board seem to think that pbf's entire approach to a fight is dictated by his trainer. It's as if he is just a puppet of theirs according to those who point to Roger to explain why he came out aggressive, or to Sr. if he fights defensive. According to them , it is the trainer who dictates his entire approach to the fight. Stupid. I know.

In roach's case, if he gets no credit, how do you explain his amazing success. Of course he gets credit for pac's performances. To claim otherwise is silly.

 

To Roach's credit, Cotto regained his once signature body attack that he threw away to become a headhunter. Also he made him box more and slug less.

 

I tend not to take it too seriously when people (HBO) make big things out of late career "resurgences" by fighters when they are working with certain trainers.


This isn't Rocky III. There's only so much you can teach veteran world class fighters who have been fighting at the highest level. They've already seen nearly everything.


I'm looking at prior examples of when this has happened and I think it's often just a motivational thing, or trainers just helping their fighters stay confident. I'm guessing Freddie Roach helped James Toney stay somewhat motivated. I doubt there was anything new technically to really teach Toney. Only thing Mayweather Sr. seemed to help Oscar with was becoming a little more consistent with his right hand, so much as he seemed to neglect his left hook at times. The shoulder roll didn't work for Oscar.


Cotto's been fighting for so long, has a lot of wear and tear, and has been in there with the best. Maybe Roach helped him mentally, and reminded him to go with certain strengths, but I saw his resurgence after the Trout loss as a consequence of the right matchmaking, possible weight drainage on the opponent's parts, and just being a very good fighter to begin with. I always felt Martinez was overrated and that Cotto was always better overall/P4P than Sergio. But Sergio's size advantage wasn't larger than his age and health disadvantage.


Basically as a whole, trainers get overrated. Of course they can be very important, and I think Roach did a great job in fine-tuning Manny into an ATG, but more often with trainers it's just a matter of the talent in front of them.