Is Ben Davison "Actually Good"?

He's solid. Probably not the coach you want to have to develop boxing SKILLS but if you already have those skills he's probably one of the better coaches out there.

Did he ever box btw?

 

heard his commentary on a fight recently, didnt know it was him, but i was impressed with his knowledge and eye for how and why things are happening in the ring like they are. im impressed because ive heard other high level trainers talk and thought, you actually train top guys?

 

I would argue that Josh Taylor already was elite before he switched from Mcguigan

 

He has good eyes and seems to develop a good game plan for his fighters. No fluke and of course latest win with Woods who I thought walking in have no chance whatsoever with Xu minus a puncher’s chance.

 

Apart from what's already been said about him he seems to be very articulate, hence why he's been doing commentary work as well, which I think is a helpful skill to have as a trainer. Having the knowledge is one thing being able to pass it on by communicating it well to your boxer is another and in that department I suspect he's above average.

I'd say he's shown enough that you can't right him off as a trainer.

 

Very articulate? You have to be joking. If that's your bar for "very articulate" I'd love to find out what sort of people you generally engage with on a daily basis.

Everything he comes out with is a forced attempt at coming off as knowledgeable.

The best trainers take boxers from nothing and turn them into something. I think I'll be waiting for some time before that happens with Davison.

 

Maybe it's just me then I find when he tries to explain some thing it's very clear and concise and he not only says what to do but why you do it.

I wouldn't agree I don't think it's forced not sure what you even mean about that.

I agree that the best trainers are the ones that can take nothing and turn it into something, it's far easier to tweak a fighter than build one from scratch.

 

extremely important skill. if you can get the fighter to understand the reason for his specific instruction, the fighter sees how it ties in with all the other instructions, and the visualization of the entire fight becomes clear to the fighter. this builds confidence in the fighter and the gameplan, so the execution becomes more a question of will and tenacity.

 

Yeah I've thought this too at times with some trainers. Some just say things in a way to me that seem convoluted or unclear to me and fail to focus on what's important, the lesson is there but half obscured by their inability to communicate it clearly.

 

i see, or rather hear, the differences in trainers between rds. and see that difference in the fighters demeanor in the corner. some just say, remember what we worked on. others start trying to work plans right there, based on what they see going wrong or right at the time. imo, you shouldnt need to be explaining in between rds, what the fighter should have already walked in the ring with. the trainer should already know what the opponent will be coming with, and his fighter should just be reminded of what he already knows.

 

It's clear he is knowledgeable and very good at analysing and there must be a reason why so many talented fighters want to work with him but for me it's now how good he is, but how come the top talent don't stay with him for long?

 

He's very good

But he's worked with boxers who themselves are very good. Boxers who have already a high ring intelligence.

Roach could see that if Fury pressed Wilder he could stop him. Both Ben and Fury knew though that Fury was too fresh into his comeback to pull off that attack plan.

I'd like to see how he reacts to more dog fight scenarios. You can't always have a plan. Sometimes no instruction is the best instruction. You can't always negate what the opponent is doing.

I liked his takam Joyce commentary thought he was bang on.

joyce is more complex and sneaky than meets the eye though, easy to criticize and miss the grand scheme of things picture. He is going to get hit but don't think it's because he's doing something wrong.

Easy to say that Joyce should be tieing up and clinching but that's not how he fights. He is like foreman he keeps pressing looking for holes.

 

Isn't he considered a very defensive minded coach/trainer?

I heard him on commentary duty the other day in the Joyce fight, and he was constantly urging caution, patience, saying Joyce should stay calm and fight with his head not his heart.

I think he could be a great compliment to a more aggressive, attack minded corner man.

 

But then it also takes a very special trainer to take a highly-evolved boxer and refine skills others couldn't. I'm thinking of Manny with Wlad and Lennox as a prime example.

What Booth did for Woodhouse is at the other end of the scale - from a footballer to a British champion.

Two very different kinds of achievement, but both impressive in different ways. A good trainer is versatile.

I agree with what you say about Davison - he's articulate in the language of boxing and gets his points across well. And I 'engage with' some pretty smart people on a daily basis

As I'm sure you do...