Freddie Roach on Fury’s Corner

Well, I disagree. I watched Lewis Holyfield and thought there was no possible way Lewis lost. Lewis was winning rounds by miles. I didn't think Tyson was doing anything remotely similar.

 

That style works (and would have worked) if Tyson had avoided being dropped.

 

Listen Davidson HAS to be part of the team, absolute must.
Is he a yes man, absolutely, is he too inexperienced, yes, but most important does he have Tyson’s trust, devotion and loyalty, also yes.
I see pro’s with Roach taking over, BUT if you’re managing Fury do you risk Ben feeling alienated, walking away, and the formula that, however it’s worked, has.
Tyson knows all there is to know about boxing, and so doesn’t so much need a coach, but a trainer, and needs to be happy in camp, and again however Ben has done that, he has.
And if Freddie felt Wilder was there to be taken out, he was both in the corner, so get te instruction across, or 50cm away from Ben so tell him to get it across.
I think Roach’s best role at this point is as the experienced head to assist Ben and Hatton, NOT a replacement.

 

Sound. You made the comparison to Lewis-Holyfield but facts are Fury should have been awarded the victory. You don’t think so despite scoring it to Fury. Just going round in circles.

 

I think you're missing the point here. The thread is about whether Tyson should show more aggression in order to win what can be seen as close rounds more convincingly. I'm not, (and nobody else is) talking about him going out swinging like a madman trying to take people's heads off. But the point remains; if you decide on the tactic of landing seven punches a round, do not expect to get every close round you're involved in.

 

While I understand the point Roach is making, it comes across too much as rationalising a bad decision. Essentially saying that Fury should be aware that judges are complete numpties who can't score rounds properly unless you make it obvious to them, really underlines the point that the judging is the problem.

It seems to happen quite a lot when a fighter is on the wrong end of a bad decision, that they are somehow blamed for not knocking the other guy senseless and making the judges redundant. Lewis-Holyfield I is a good example, where Lewis had a backlash for "playing chess in the ring" (or "outboxing the other guy" as it's usually called).

The problem with guys like Roach who have been around the sport for so long is that they have come to accept crap judges as part of the game, and something to work around. In (most) other walks of life there is accountability if people don't perform; in boxing for whatever reason we accept it as part of the game as if it was a sudden downpour in a cricket match.