Is Freddie Roach a one dimensional trainer?

Freddie Roach has won numerous 'trainer of the year' awards, and has a number of champions under his banner, but what do people think about his training methods and strategies?

I get the impression recently that his tactics appear to be somewhat one dimensional, with heavy emphasis being placed on keeping distance, boxing from range, and getting off the ropes.

Largely following on from a number of discussions on here regarding the tactics of Amir Khan for his previous and upcoming bouts with Lamont Peterson, I thought about how Roach never appears to emphasise fighting on the inside, instead almost always breeding 'ambush' type fighters that rely on using quick combinations from multiple angles and then getting on their bike. A few of us discussed whether or not Roach and Khan would work on some of the glaring flaws in Khan's inside game, but it appears that this is not on Freddie's mind:

http://www.boxingscene.com/roach-explains-amir-khans-strategy-defeat-peterson--51325

Equally, Jorge Linares (another gifted, fast, Roach boxer) has placed sole emphasis on outside 'ambushing' and has recently ran into trouble. Even the great Manny Pacquiao relies on in-and-out attacks almost exclusively.

For me, fighters like Khan and Linares have become the embodiment of training methods that teach one single way to win, while leaving gaping defensive holes if the fighter is pressured.

Added to this is the accusation that Roach has actually 'built' very few of his many champions, often inheriting them when they are quite advanced then polishing them up a little.

There's no doubt that Freddie Roach is a good trainer, but do people think, as I do, that he's somewhat one dimensional in his methods?

The thing with Linares is whose idea was it to put him straight in with hard puncher Sergio Thompson (22 wins 20KO's) after a gruelling fight with DeMarco. Linares needs some serious work on his defence as he is far too open. So much for taking a get your confidence back fight eh

Interesting analysis, however don't all boxers trained by Emmanuel Steward rely on staying behind a stiff jab?

not sure about all of his charges, but he did do wonders for khan (albeit he had talent anyway) and alex azina has do a good good too. i would say though that he doesnt seem to instill much out of the ring discipline

another note: the level of quality sparring opponents has to be a huge advantage

One dimensional? No.

Khan when he joined Roach came on leaps and bounds - a much better jab with a high guard that protected him from trouble. Manny matured into a better fighter, with two hands - and two hands that he actually bothered to use.

Their weaknesses differ as well. Khan doesn't have an inside game to speak of. Manny struggles with range finding against people on the back foot.

The similarities consist of top conditioning and resorting to flurries of punches. By that logic, Joe Calzaghe could have been trained by Freddie Roach.

oxring wrote:One dimensional? No.

Khan when he joined Roach came on leaps and bounds - a much better jab with a high guard that protected him from trouble. Manny matured into a better fighter, with two hands - and two hands that he actually bothered to use.

Their weaknesses differ as well. Khan doesn't have an inside game to speak of. Manny struggles with range finding against people on the back foot.

The similarities consist of top conditioning and resorting to flurries of punches. By that logic, Joe Calzaghe could have been trained by Freddie Roach.

Manny struggles with range finding against people on the back foot, but so does Khan. In fact, he runs back in straight lines, or circles the ring, as soon as he finds himself out of his preferred range. But, anyway, it wasn't the attributes/weaknesses of the fighters I was referring to, it was the style of fighting tactics/strategy (although I suppose that with such emphasis being placed on getting in and out of range then it is probably far more likely that you will encourage the production of fighters that are uncomfortable when the distance is closed on them). There are many ways to win a boxing match, but it appears to me that Freddie Roach overwhelmingly opts to focus on ambushing from distance at the expense of any other improvements. I'm not sure that the Calzaghe reference that you make here is particularly useful, because, while he did punch in flurries, he did not jump in and out, or handle forward pressure badly. In fact, Calzaghe often comfortably stood in the pocket and picked opponents off right in front of them - this is something I could never imagine Khan or Manny doing. Yes, you rightfully point out that Roach has fostered improvements in both Manny and Khan, and he should be commended for that, but these improvements are all pretty much within that same type of ambush style.

The point from Boxingfan is a good one. Steward boxers do have the same style, so perhaps it's unfair to expect multiple dimensions of approach from a single trainer. If that's the case, I don't think it would be too terrible an idea for Khan to thank Freddie for all he's done for him and move on to another top trainer with a different training emphasis, because the way he's going now, he'll always be vulnerable to pressure fighters (or to any fighter that's adaptable enough to switch their game plan).

The point about the quality of sparring is also a good one. There can't be many places with as high quality sparring as the Wildcard.

The Calzaghe point was slightly facetious - but my overall point remains - just because there are obvious similarities between Roach trained fighters doesn't mean there aren't obvious differences as well. Manny has turned in some flat performances of late - including being outboxed by Marquez. However - Manny's tactics vs Marquez differed greatly from his tactics against Hatton - where Roach had seen the opening for the left hook and coached Manny for 4 months to land that one punch. As a boxer, Manny uses fast flurries of combinations - and always has, even before Roach and Wildcard. Its not necessarily Freddie's fault that he still does. However - what was the gameplan against Marquez? Roach and Manny have had 3 goes at it - and still hasn't found the "key"

There is a valid issue and criticism with Roach - which is the degree that he hasn't been able to pick a plan B. Peterson was dominated early by Khan - but Peterson switched tactics - and Amir tried more of the same. I haven't seen evidence that Roach's fighters are particularly adaptable.

We shouldn't always make the mistake of assuming that the fighters are following the gameplan either. Against Cotto, Roach was screaming at Manny to get off the ropes - but Manny felt a need to show off some cajones.

So - in summary:
Yes - Roach fighters often ambush at a distance - but it is too simplistic to say that's all they do. Roach and Moorer used to spend an awful lot of time going over tape, formulating punch-perfect plans for each opponent - I'm not involved with the camp, so I don't know if they still do.

Its too simplistic to just pick on the "ambush style" - because to be fair - what else would Manny or Khan do? Can you actually see Manny boxing behind a Tommy-Hearns-esque jab? Or fighting, hands down and relying on reflexes like a Martinez or RJJ? Both Manny and Khan have very, very fast hands - and that hasn't been taught by Roach - that's just their natural gifts. Roach deserves praise for working with those gifts.

Is it not as much the case that both Manny & Khan are one dimensional fighters who do the one thing very well & that Roach looks to maximise this? As has been mentioned he doesn't just train this kind of fighter, Toney, Moorer & Tyson are all different from each other & the aforementioned. We also hear about Roach's game plan, based I imagine, on studying opponents & looking to exploit & capitalise on their weaknesses & flaws. Still its down to the fighter to follow the game plan.

I think that all trainers have a favorite style of fighter that they feel they can mould into the best out there & that Roach saw in Khan something similar to Manny that he could work with/on. I think along with the quality of sparring at the Wild Card Khan gets a real confidence boost with the team he has behind him, Ariza gets a lot of props for his nutritional & conditioning programs that have helped Khan & Manny.

oxring wrote:There is a valid issue and criticism with Roach - which is the degree that he hasn't been able to pick a plan B. Peterson was dominated early by Khan - but Peterson switched tactics - and Amir tried more of the same. I haven't seen evidence that Roach's fighters are particularly adaptable.

I suppose this is the main point of discussion for me. Yes, Roach has done an undeniably good job with his fighters, and he deserves to be amongst the top trainers....but, as you say, there often seems to be focus on only one type of game plan. When I read his statement that Khan should 'just keep off the ropes' in order to win his next fight with Peterson, I wasn't particularly surprised, but I did kind of feel that a multiple 'trainer of the year' should perhaps show a little more tactical variety rather than returning to approach that had Khan in so much trouble before. Of course, perhaps what Freddie is saying and what he's doing are 2 different things. And, of course, there may be no changing Amir Khan to ever become a fighter that can handle inside pressure (in which case he's always going to be vulnerable with a certain type of fighter at World level).

To be honest, you seem to be taking some of my comments as if they are said in a 'set in stone' fashion i.e. 'all Roach fighters have the same strengths and weaknesses'.....and then arguing against them. That's not really what I was saying at all. But, given that Freddie Roach seems to be so automatically revered as a trainer (understandable given his achievements), I thought it was worth discussing what seem to be some weaknesses in his training approach.

Boxtthis wrote:

oxring wrote:There is a valid issue and criticism with Roach - which is the degree that he hasn't been able to pick a plan B. Peterson was dominated early by Khan - but Peterson switched tactics - and Amir tried more of the same. I haven't seen evidence that Roach's fighters are particularly adaptable.

I suppose this is the main point of discussion for me. Yes, Roach has done an undeniably good job with his fighters, and he deserves to be amongst the top trainers....but, as you say, there often seems to be focus on only one type of game plan. When I read his statement that Khan should 'just keep off the ropes' in order to win his next fight with Peterson, I wasn't particularly surprised, but I did kind of feel that a multiple 'trainer of the year' should perhaps show a little more tactical variety rather than returning to approach that had Khan in so much trouble before. Of course, perhaps what Freddie is saying and what he's doing are 2 different things. And, of course, there may be no changing Amir Khan to ever become a fighter that can handle inside pressure (in which case he's always going to be vulnerable with a certain type of fighter at World level).

To be honest, you seem to be taking some of my comments as if they are said in a 'set in stone' fashion i.e. 'all Roach fighters have the same strengths and weaknesses'.....and then arguing against them. That's not really what I was saying at all. But, given that Freddie Roach seems to be so automatically revered as a trainer (understandable given his achievements), I thought it was worth discussing what seem to be some weaknesses in his training approach.

Some light and shade needed in areas of this debate. Firstly when it comes to B plans, yes some of the onus is on the trainer but let us also remember that it takes boxers with high boxing IQ's to implement B plans. The Ali's, Haglers, Ray Leonards, Mayweathers , Nelsons and Whittakers of this world had such IQ's. Most of these boxers didnt even have to be the told when to switch things, they felt it instinctively in the ring. Manny and Amir for me have very poor boxing IQ's. This is not to denegrate them, many of the greatest ever had poor boxing IQ's. They are what i call sytem fighters, extremly well drilled, great athletes, with awesome capabilities in certain regards. However they box by numbers and dont think their way through the fight. Roach is only partly to blame. The thing for me is that forone who sat at the feet of the great Eddie Futch Roachhas a very poor routine of training when it comes to understanding range and defense. even with a poorer fodder of fighter a trainer like Buddy McGirt shows the tell tale signs of his boxing education ( thats why he could take a crude bulldozer like Gatti and add great finese that would conquer a certain class of boxer). these kind of trainers understand range, understand the destabilising tricks of what some call the dark arts of boxing; put the great Nacho Beristan in this category. Roach might be more articulate but trainers like Roger Mayweather and Mayweather senior have an extra layer of depth in their understanding of certain fundamentals of the sport. In my eyes this makes them more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement!

azumah HOF wrote:Manny and Amir for me have very poor boxing IQ's. This is not to denegrate them, many of the greatest ever had poor boxing IQ's. They are what i call sytem fighters, extremly well drilled, great athletes, with awesome capabilities in certain regards. However they box by numbers and dont think their way through the fight

I agree with this. Freddie Roach seems to have got them to box very well within that system, getting the maximum out of what are already high level athletic talents, but there appears to be difficulties when someone challenges that system e.g. Marquez countering, or Peterson pressuring/closing space. The difference here from me seems to be between great athletes that have learned to box (e.g. Manny or Khan), and great boxers (e.g. Mayweather)

azumah HOF wrote: Roach has a very poor routine of training when it comes to understanding range and defense. even with a poorer fodder of fighter a trainer like Buddy McGirt shows the tell tale signs of his boxing education ( thats why he could take a crude bulldozer like Gatti and add great finese that would conquer a certain class of boxer). these kind of trainers understand range, understand the destabilising tricks of what some call the dark arts of boxing; put the great Nacho Beristan in this category. Roach might be more articulate but trainers like Roger Mayweather and Mayweather senior have an extra layer of depth in their understanding of certain fundamentals of the sport. In my eyes this makes them more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement!

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with this. I don't see Roach adding many 'old school' boxing techniques to his fighters' arsenals. Of course, he's had fighters that are comfortable in any range because they have a deep 'bag of tricks' e.g. Toney, but they often came to him that way. For me, this lack of focus on (or ability to teach?) the 'dark arts' of boxing is what I was referring to when using the term 'one dimensional'. He's done well and he should rightfully be commended, but it seems to me that there are a number of trainers out there with a better understanding of boxing nuances.

azumah HOF wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

oxring wrote:There is a valid issue and criticism with Roach - which is the degree that he hasn't been able to pick a plan B. Peterson was dominated early by Khan - but Peterson switched tactics - and Amir tried more of the same. I haven't seen evidence that Roach's fighters are particularly adaptable.

I suppose this is the main point of discussion for me. Yes, Roach has done an undeniably good job with his fighters, and he deserves to be amongst the top trainers....but, as you say, there often seems to be focus on only one type of game plan. When I read his statement that Khan should 'just keep off the ropes' in order to win his next fight with Peterson, I wasn't particularly surprised, but I did kind of feel that a multiple 'trainer of the year' should perhaps show a little more tactical variety rather than returning to approach that had Khan in so much trouble before. Of course, perhaps what Freddie is saying and what he's doing are 2 different things. And, of course, there may be no changing Amir Khan to ever become a fighter that can handle inside pressure (in which case he's always going to be vulnerable with a certain type of fighter at World level).

To be honest, you seem to be taking some of my comments as if they are said in a 'set in stone' fashion i.e. 'all Roach fighters have the same strengths and weaknesses'.....and then arguing against them. That's not really what I was saying at all. But, given that Freddie Roach seems to be so automatically revered as a trainer (understandable given his achievements), I thought it was worth discussing what seem to be some weaknesses in his training approach.

Some light and shade needed in areas of this debate. Firstly when it comes to B plans, yes some of the onus is on the trainer but let us also remember that it takes boxers with high boxing IQ's to implement B plans. The Ali's, Haglers, Ray Leonards, Mayweathers , Nelsons and Whittakers of this world had such IQ's. Most of these boxers didnt even have to be the told when to switch things, they felt it instinctively in the ring. Manny and Amir for me have very poor boxing IQ's. This is not to denegrate them, many of the greatest ever had poor boxing IQ's. They are what i call sytem fighters, extremly well drilled, great athletes, with awesome capabilities in certain regards. However they box by numbers and dont think their way through the fight. Roach is only partly to blame. The thing for me is that forone who sat at the feet of the great Eddie Futch Roachhas a very poor routine of training when it comes to understanding range and defense. even with a poorer fodder of fighter a trainer like Buddy McGirt shows the tell tale signs of his boxing education ( thats why he could take a crude bulldozer like Gatti and add great finese that would conquer a certain class of boxer). these kind of trainers understand range, understand the destabilising tricks of what some call the dark arts of boxing; put the great Nacho Beristan in this category. Roach might be more articulate but trainers like Roger Mayweather and Mayweather senior have an extra layer of depth in their understanding of certain fundamentals of the sport. In my eyes this makes them more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement!

You make some very good points here & I think you've hit the nail on the head. Tyson, Manny & Khan are 3 very good on top fighters, when its all going there way/to plan they look unbeatable. But when that's not the case they appear to have no back up plan & begin to look more vulnerable & ordinary. I agree Roach can share the blame a bit here but maybe he hasn't got as much to work with as we think/he'd like to have.

With regards to Tyson, Cus d'Amato was waiting for a Tyson type of guy to put his blue print to & I think Roach does have a slightly favored style as well. We often find ourselves back to the question of does the trainer make the fighter or vice versa?

I like the more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement bit, Floyd snr did very little for Hatton, in fact was in charge of Hatton for his worst ever performance/result. Admittedly was always gonna be a long shot to change habits of a lifetime but nobody expected that.

Actually in training he looked exceptional but whatever happebned prefight to upset led him to charge head first into a hook. No one can be blamed except Hatton for that Mayweather sr did his best for trining, and that looked to be good. His man management however can nd should be called into question.

sohotnot wrote:

azumah HOF wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

oxring wrote:There is a valid issue and criticism with Roach - which is the degree that he hasn't been able to pick a plan B. Peterson was dominated early by Khan - but Peterson switched tactics - and Amir tried more of the same. I haven't seen evidence that Roach's fighters are particularly adaptable.

I suppose this is the main point of discussion for me. Yes, Roach has done an undeniably good job with his fighters, and he deserves to be amongst the top trainers....but, as you say, there often seems to be focus on only one type of game plan. When I read his statement that Khan should 'just keep off the ropes' in order to win his next fight with Peterson, I wasn't particularly surprised, but I did kind of feel that a multiple 'trainer of the year' should perhaps show a little more tactical variety rather than returning to approach that had Khan in so much trouble before. Of course, perhaps what Freddie is saying and what he's doing are 2 different things. And, of course, there may be no changing Amir Khan to ever become a fighter that can handle inside pressure (in which case he's always going to be vulnerable with a certain type of fighter at World level).

To be honest, you seem to be taking some of my comments as if they are said in a 'set in stone' fashion i.e. 'all Roach fighters have the same strengths and weaknesses'.....and then arguing against them. That's not really what I was saying at all. But, given that Freddie Roach seems to be so automatically revered as a trainer (understandable given his achievements), I thought it was worth discussing what seem to be some weaknesses in his training approach.

Some light and shade needed in areas of this debate. Firstly when it comes to B plans, yes some of the onus is on the trainer but let us also remember that it takes boxers with high boxing IQ's to implement B plans. The Ali's, Haglers, Ray Leonards, Mayweathers , Nelsons and Whittakers of this world had such IQ's. Most of these boxers didnt even have to be the told when to switch things, they felt it instinctively in the ring. Manny and Amir for me have very poor boxing IQ's. This is not to denegrate them, many of the greatest ever had poor boxing IQ's. They are what i call sytem fighters, extremly well drilled, great athletes, with awesome capabilities in certain regards. However they box by numbers and dont think their way through the fight. Roach is only partly to blame. The thing for me is that forone who sat at the feet of the great Eddie Futch Roachhas a very poor routine of training when it comes to understanding range and defense. even with a poorer fodder of fighter a trainer like Buddy McGirt shows the tell tale signs of his boxing education ( thats why he could take a crude bulldozer like Gatti and add great finese that would conquer a certain class of boxer). these kind of trainers understand range, understand the destabilising tricks of what some call the dark arts of boxing; put the great Nacho Beristan in this category. Roach might be more articulate but trainers like Roger Mayweather and Mayweather senior have an extra layer of depth in their understanding of certain fundamentals of the sport. In my eyes this makes them more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement!

You make some very good points here & I think you've hit the nail on the head. Tyson, Manny & Khan are 3 very good on top fighters, when its all going there way/to plan they look unbeatable. But when that's not the case they appear to have no back up plan & begin to look more vulnerable & ordinary. I agree Roach can share the blame a bit here but maybe he hasn't got as much to work with as we think/he'd like to have.

With regards to Tyson, Cus d'Amato was waiting for a Tyson type of guy to put his blue print to & I think Roach does have a slightly favored style as well. We often find ourselves back to the question of does the trainer make the fighter or vice versa?

I like the more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement bit, Floyd snr did very little for Hatton, in fact was in charge of Hatton for his worst ever performance/result. Admittedly was always gonna be a long shot to change habits of a lifetime but nobody expected that.

sohot i am with you all the way... until you mention Mike loool! An old chestnut for me this one and many a heated argument over a few on this one!! For me Mike had agreat boxing brain, great boxing IQ. But let me put this in context by saying the disciplined focused Mike had this. Now Mike a small heavy fighting bigger guys always needed his physical advantages, i.e foot and hand speed and utilisation of thesee in angles, to be in great working order.However with all these working perfectly at his prime he also had a great boxing IQ and my primary evidence for this is the Tucker fight. Tucker being the wily fox he was boxed in survival mode essentially with one hand, but Tucker was a great spolier (once again from grand rapids Michigan) who knew those spoling defensive tactics. Mike gradually realised he wasnt going to win this in his usual manner and although at the time some saw it as a chink in his armoury, i think what we saw wasgreat pragmatism in the decision to move to the use of his jab, and it was a great sight to see the smaller man frequently win on the jab due to greater timing and foot speed!

azumah HOF wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

azumah HOF wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

oxring wrote:There is a valid issue and criticism with Roach - which is the degree that he hasn't been able to pick a plan B. Peterson was dominated early by Khan - but Peterson switched tactics - and Amir tried more of the same. I haven't seen evidence that Roach's fighters are particularly adaptable.

I suppose this is the main point of discussion for me. Yes, Roach has done an undeniably good job with his fighters, and he deserves to be amongst the top trainers....but, as you say, there often seems to be focus on only one type of game plan. When I read his statement that Khan should 'just keep off the ropes' in order to win his next fight with Peterson, I wasn't particularly surprised, but I did kind of feel that a multiple 'trainer of the year' should perhaps show a little more tactical variety rather than returning to approach that had Khan in so much trouble before. Of course, perhaps what Freddie is saying and what he's doing are 2 different things. And, of course, there may be no changing Amir Khan to ever become a fighter that can handle inside pressure (in which case he's always going to be vulnerable with a certain type of fighter at World level).

To be honest, you seem to be taking some of my comments as if they are said in a 'set in stone' fashion i.e. 'all Roach fighters have the same strengths and weaknesses'.....and then arguing against them. That's not really what I was saying at all. But, given that Freddie Roach seems to be so automatically revered as a trainer (understandable given his achievements), I thought it was worth discussing what seem to be some weaknesses in his training approach.

Some light and shade needed in areas of this debate. Firstly when it comes to B plans, yes some of the onus is on the trainer but let us also remember that it takes boxers with high boxing IQ's to implement B plans. The Ali's, Haglers, Ray Leonards, Mayweathers , Nelsons and Whittakers of this world had such IQ's. Most of these boxers didnt even have to be the told when to switch things, they felt it instinctively in the ring. Manny and Amir for me have very poor boxing IQ's. This is not to denegrate them, many of the greatest ever had poor boxing IQ's. They are what i call sytem fighters, extremly well drilled, great athletes, with awesome capabilities in certain regards. However they box by numbers and dont think their way through the fight. Roach is only partly to blame. The thing for me is that forone who sat at the feet of the great Eddie Futch Roachhas a very poor routine of training when it comes to understanding range and defense. even with a poorer fodder of fighter a trainer like Buddy McGirt shows the tell tale signs of his boxing education ( thats why he could take a crude bulldozer like Gatti and add great finese that would conquer a certain class of boxer). these kind of trainers understand range, understand the destabilising tricks of what some call the dark arts of boxing; put the great Nacho Beristan in this category. Roach might be more articulate but trainers like Roger Mayweather and Mayweather senior have an extra layer of depth in their understanding of certain fundamentals of the sport. In my eyes this makes them more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement!

You make some very good points here & I think you've hit the nail on the head. Tyson, Manny & Khan are 3 very good on top fighters, when its all going there way/to plan they look unbeatable. But when that's not the case they appear to have no back up plan & begin to look more vulnerable & ordinary. I agree Roach can share the blame a bit here but maybe he hasn't got as much to work with as we think/he'd like to have.

With regards to Tyson, Cus d'Amato was waiting for a Tyson type of guy to put his blue print to & I think Roach does have a slightly favored style as well. We often find ourselves back to the question of does the trainer make the fighter or vice versa?

I like the more complete trainers, better is a subjective judgement bit, Floyd snr did very little for Hatton, in fact was in charge of Hatton for his worst ever performance/result. Admittedly was always gonna be a long shot to change habits of a lifetime but nobody expected that.

sohot i am with you all the way... until you mention Mike loool! An old chestnut for me this one and many a heated argument over a few on this one!! For me Mike had agreat boxing brain, great boxing IQ. But let me put this in context by saying the disciplined focused Mike had this. Now Mike a small heavy fighting bigger guys always needed his physical advantages, i.e foot and hand speed and utilisation of thesee in angles, to be in great working order.However with all these working perfectly at his prime he also had a great boxing IQ and my primary evidence for this is the Tucker fight. Tucker being the wily fox he was boxed in survival mode essentially with one hand, but Tucker was a great spolier (once again from grand rapids Michigan) who knew those spoling defensive tactics. Mike gradually realised he wasnt going to win this in his usual manner and although at the time some saw it as a chink in his armoury, i think what we saw wasgreat pragmatism in the decision to move to the use of his jab, and it was a great sight to see the smaller man frequently win on the jab due to greater timing and foot speed!

I see what you mean with regards to 'that Tyson'. I was a big Tyson fan back in the day but must admit falling into the group that saw it as a chink in his armory with regards to the Tucker & bonecrusher fights. I was so used to him taking guys out that when he was taken the distance in some not so great to watch fights against guys that only wanted to survive, that he did seem a little one dimensional imo. I also think the first Holyfield fight changed a few opinions, at the time the commentary team were saying he had no plan B when plan A had failed. Sure he was never the same fighter after the Douglas fight & prison, but he certainly sparks a lively debate on hear over his abilities, power & overall standing in a p4p HW atg list.
Again you make some interesting points.

I think he is 1 dimensional. He was a very 1 dimensional fighter how can he understand all aspects of boxing.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I think he is 1 dimensional. He was a very 1 dimensional fighter how can he understand all aspects of boxing.

steady on onetwo! we got to be careful here! i dont think it is fair to say your credentials as a boxer necessarily add any qualities either way to you as a coach! Boxing history certainly does not bear this out to be the case!