Roach Says He Didn't Give a Round to Paulie Again Cotto and Hatton...

you down for an avatar bet

I got Khan for 1 month?

 

I think he knows deep down that Paulie isn't an easy fight and he's trying to justify it to himself.

You know that when Roach doesn't come out and predict a blowout that it's not going to be an easy fight.

 

Roach already predicted that Khan wins in 3 rounds.

 

So otherwise they key is too cutting off the ring against paulie, what happened to the certain KO for amir, freddy?....He even said win or lose khan might look bad

haha and paulie took 4 rounds off cotto on 2 cards, and 5 on another....amir wouldn't last 8 rounds with the current version of cotto, and the cotto that paulie fought was a animal back then, destroying people....that version puts khan down in 4 or less....

 

I thought Paulie won the first round against Hatton. And when you can outbox Hatton for a whole round...well...I don't know how to end that sentence. I've never started a sentence like that before, to be honest.

 

Didn't give him a round against Cotto? WTF was he watching!? Not giving a round to Paulie during the Hatton fight, ok, but the Cotto fight? ****, that's shitty scoring.

 

Discrediting Paulie against other 140lbers will only devalue Khans win if he does infact beat Paulie....am i missing something here? Whats he thinking?

 

Same here, it's one thing for a fighter to trash talk to sell a fight, it's another for one fighters trainer to come out & completely discredit the opponent

Agree with this as well.

 

I get the feeling that fighters and trainers aren't really thinking about that in the future, they're too busy trying to play mind games and mess with the other guy's confidence/boost their own.

For instance, The Ring asked Petronelli and Steward why their fighters would win in Hagler-Hearns and Petronelli kept saying "Hagler is a real middleweight, Hearns is too small". And Steward was talking about Hagler being on the decline and weak mentally. That doesn't exactly look good after the fact if you just say "Hagler beat a smaller Hearns" or "Hearns beat an old Hagler" but I don't think they're too concerned at that moment with what will be said later on.

What I don't really get is how Roach talks bad about the opponents AFTER the fight, and then wonder why Pacquiao gets criticism. Well I do sort of get it, Roach just has diarrhea of the mouth, but it's kind of silly how he says things like "Oscar couldn't pull the trigger and was weight-drained" and "Hatton wasn't very good for a world champion" AFTER Pacquiao beat them and then later complains "why do people look for reasons to downgrade Manny's wins?"