What is your opinion on them, and how do they compare to their mexican/american etc counterparts? One thing i have noticed is that many British fighters seem to have a lot of very clear flaws in their game which are rarely if ever corrected when trained by a british trainer. If we look at Carl Froch, it has been clear from the Taylor fight that he is sorely lacking a defence, however that has never been improved. David Haye has always had brutal power and great speed, however he has also ALWAYS lacked an inside game, and no effort to correct this was ever made. you could go on, but it seems whenever a fighter gets to world level or the highest level the glaringly apparent flaws that we all saw miles off that were never worked on are exploited by the more rounded opponent. The worst culprit lately imo is James Degale, one of the most naturally gifted fighters we have had for some time (imo) if he were out across the atlantic getting great training he'd be coming along nicely, instead hes stagnated and his again GLARING flaws seemingly are not being improved. It seems with british fighters they either have the talent, but not the training (Degale, Haye) or the training but not the talent, (khan, yes i know he has speed, but his all round talent isnt great imo and he doesnt understand the sport.)
Yes UK trainers have always been inferior (Eubank Sr doesn't rate them). McCracken, for instance, pumped into Froch his advantage of 'range' and said that Ward could only do two things; 'either step past Froch's jab and onto his right hand or leap onto him and hold'. That's shallow thinking. It's not rocket science that Ward only had to take half a step back or lean for Froch's sloppy jab to fall short and allow Carl's clumsiness to leave him open to be countered. It's not rocket science either that Ward could've had (and did have) the ability to actually punch on his way inside, punch as he moves (in) and the speed to beat Froch to the punch. Just a recent example of shallow thinking of a UK trainer, in terms of tactics and technique.
It always gets me how all of us on here who are just fans will often get tactics bang on for fighters and yet these trainers who get paid **** loads often miss the most obvious pitfalls
Yeah, either we could all be world level trainers or we all talk a load of ****. I wonder which it is?
Its fine to be defensive or whatever, pretend Jim McDonell is up there with the likes of Emmanuel Steward or whoever. The fact remains, these sort of guys are more often than not sorely lacking in comparrison to their american counterparts, and it is the failure of the ESTABLISHMENT and deeply ingrained factors which is why there has never been a Brit unquestionably in the top 50 P4P fighters of the last 50 years lets give you a good example of how we are with this sort of thing. Adam Booth comes up with a plan to beat the Mcdonell trained Degale Suddenly he's the "dark lord" and a great trainer (im not saying he's a "bad" trainer, he is and has always been "alright") How'd his tactics go down against Emmanuel Stewards trained Wladamir Klitschko?
Its often nowhere near as simple as just picking a set of tactics in hindsight. Amusingly we had someone point out to Kenny on Facebook that groves was likely to go to the body. We were shocked. A fighter might be told the right things to do but not perform them for whatever reason or the opponent may do something surprising. Tell me how do you plan out the training camp for a 12 rounder? What do the eat? How do u manage low points in camp, injuries, problems with motivation? How do u make someone who is no different to me or you believe that they can compete with the best boxers in the world? How much sparring is too much, how much is too little? What about pads? What type of running should they do? How many circuits? What weights? How many rest days!? Should training be periodised? How should training be periodised? What works best for what fighter? It's not as simple as saying 'froch needed to get closer' what I posted is the tip of the iceberg, and if it's so easy I suggest at berry and earl h go and get training some world class fighters because the money is pretty good at that level.
Not saying its easy not saying they dont do a good job asking why NONE of our british trainers are as good as the american ones etc
i think the brit trainers are good uns,its just that the talent pool in mexico/america is considerably bigger. you get say(im just putting numbers up,they aint accurate:hey)2million boxers in america and 100000 in britain,law of averages is there are going to be more world class fighters in the good old usa,you need a world class boxer to make a world class trainer. all of roachs boxers aint world champs you know,same as stewards:think
