Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
One thing I don't like about Roach's coaching technique
I think he does a great job in one sense with the fighters he trains, but I've noticed that his main goal is utilitize his fighters' strengths, and minimize their opponents opportunities to exploit his fighters' weaknesses. This sounds like sound coaching, but the thing I don't like is that he doesn't seem to work to improve his fighters in every facet. I think he has made Pacquiao more well rounded, and more balanced in terms of him being able to utilizie a larger arsenal of weapons offensively, and he is a little smarter with his in and out movement. But Manny is still terrible on the inside, all he knows how to do is cover up ala rope-a-dope. I don't understand why he would have been taught how to maintain that rhyhm on the inside. Same with Khan and almost everyone else he coaches. I just don't get how training a guy like Toney didn't impress the effectiveness of good inside fighting, and how teaching guys how to be more relaxed in there.
It's just frustrating because I think his two biggest stars Pacquiao, and Khan. Given their impressive boxing abilities(at what they do) and their elite athleticism will likely get badly exposed by Floyd Mayweather and/or Timothy Bradley. I really want MAyweather-pacquiao to be a good, competitive fight, but what is Pacquiao going to do when his range is taken away? Cotto backed off on the inside, what happens when MAyweather calmly blocked most of what Pacquiao is throwing and gets inside and starts throwing sharp, accurate punches and using his body in close to not allow Manny to get off? I see one guy in Mayweather is who is a master at all ranges and always in balance to either strike or evade incoming punches, and a guy in Pacquiao who is much improved in a sense, but still bounces which creates opportunies, and he still is wide open at the end of combinations, and has never shown the ability to effectively cut off the ring against movement nor has he shown the ability IMO to deal with a more technical figher either than to just fight them, and Mayweather is a totally different animal than JMM or Barrera or MOrales. Khan I see huge problems everywhere except on the outside, which his speed and skills makes it very hard for most guys to overcome, but a real natural athlete with great upper body movement like Bradley will get in on him, and I see no substance on the inside, similar to Pacquiao. I think you just need to watch Ward-Green as a classic example of how to negate a dangerous guy on the outside.
I just can't see how he is compared to the men that sculpted truly all round talents such as Hopkins and Mayweather. That being said I was really surprised that Nazim Richardson had no real influence on Mosley against Mayweather. It seemed like Mosley was lost on the inside. They were so focused just like it sounds Manny is, to be faster than Floyd and to overwhelm him, that they had no clue what do due when Floyd fought from a range they weren't truly expecting. I know people on here think I am crazy, but watch Floyd and Hopkins, and Prime Roy Jones. They have this magical ability to always be ready to strike when any holes make themselves known, and they do it from anywhere and they do it so fluidly. I think even a guy like Calzaghe who wasn't quite as technical still had that overwhelmingly complete style that nobody he fought could deal with the fact he could fight any way he needed to win he outsped and overwhelmed Lacy, he outworked the more polished Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins(who I still felt beat him), he beat Eubanks and Kessler at every range once he adjusted. He outroughed numerous opponents. These are the guys who are worth admiring, and I hate Roach for taken a proffesional spin on what has filtered into amateur boxing. He isn't making fighters better as much as he is making them better against only the opponent in front of them right then.
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Pacstraightleft
Bookmarks