Roach says Ray Robinson would F#*CKING destroy Mayweather

Hall of Fame trainer Freddie Roach has lashed out at Floyd Mayweather Jr., for claiming to be the "best fighter of all-time." And Mayweather also stated in multiple interviews that he's even better than "Sugar" Ray Robinson (173-19-6, 108KOs) - who many experts regard as the greatest fighter to ever lace up a pair of gloves. Floyd's uncle/trainer Roger Mayweather also views Robinson as the greatest of all-time.

Roach believes Mayweather is carefully selecting his opponents, because he wants to retain his undefeated record at all costs.

"He wants to stay undefeated, because as long as he's undefeated he can say that he's better than everyone else out there. He says that he's better than Sugar Ray Robinson, because Robinson has lost fights before. Does anyone really think that? Not real fight people, no. I mean Robinson would f***ing destroy him. Let's face it, [Robinson is] a much better fighter, but the thing is he has losses on his record so Mayweather can say that he's better than these guys because he's undefeated. That zero means so much to him that he won't take a chance. He won't fight any fighter who has a pulse," Roach said.

The irony of that coming out of Freddie 'We won't fight Shane Mosley, he's too good' Roach's mouth, all of his fighters have been protected for years.

Roach says a lot, and the more he says the less I care.

I' often think when he talks, @what planet is he on?. As a coach recently what has he done? All his top fighters have come up short several times, I don't put him in the elite bracket.
Granted he has his health problems but every time he opens his mouth its either a direspectful dig an manny's opponent or a shot at mayweather.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The irony of that coming out of Freddie 'We won't fight Shane Mosley, he's too good' Roach's mouth, all of his fighters have been protected for years.

Which of his fighters have been protected? Pacquiao? Khan? Provodnikov?

Roach is correct

Roach also claims Manny knocked Amir Khan out cold four or five times when they sparred. Here's a question, what coach let's his fighter regularly KO his f*cking sparring partners? A-hole!

Pacquiao definitely in recent years, Khan to an extent and well Provodnikov is just garbage.

Roach is old school. He lets his fighters spar full tilt. If Pacquaio and Khan sparred full pelt regular its not surprising at all that Khan was poleaxed.

OK another question, if Khan is getting KO'd regularly, what f*cking use is he?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Pacquiao definitely in recent years, Khan to an extent and well Provodnikov is just garbage.

What utter tripe. Marquez and Bradley (umpteen times) is protected?

Pacquiao and Khan protected. Lol.

DAVE667 wrote:OK another question, if Khan is getting KO'd regularly, what f*cking use is he?

Less useful than Pacquaio I would imagine.

Do you want another pointless argument because somebody doesn't bow to your opinion Haz, when Pacquiao fought Marquez for the third time it was seen as a joke fight but you're right that fighting Rios and Algieri is not being protected. Add in that Mosley was too good to face until he was shot and you're certainly right it doesn't add up to taking the easy option does it.

Let's just agree with them Hammer..... That Mayweather is a cowardly ducker and is total s**te and that beating Maidana on points at 37 shows he can never be Top 10....

In fairness to Roach......Training Manny means he'd never be biased !!

I always wait for Alex Ferguson's views on Manchester City to get an accurate appraisal of where City are now....

Well... Algieri earned his shot. Most people rate that if you're the champ at a "junior" weight, you should be able to get a shot at the champ in the traditional weight. Like it or not, Algieri is the WBO LWW champ. He earned this. Wouldn't be a.sport if he didn't get a shot tbh, more like Ballet or something (which to be honest boxing does tend to descend to).

Ríos, I don't think anyone made any pretensions as to what it was. Just needed a morale boosting punching bag

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Do you want another pointless argument because somebody doesn't bow to your opinion Haz, when Pacquiao fought Marquez for the third time it was seen as a joke fight but you're right that fighting Rios and Algieri is not being protected. Add in that Mosley was too good to face until he was shot and you're certainly right it doesn't add up to taking the easy option does it.

Rarely engage in arguments with you - I generally just end up correcting you.

Pacquiao vs Marquez 3 wasn't viewed as a "joke fight" as you term it. Here's the Wall Street Journal preview:

http://m.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204358004577030202996996924?mg=reno64-wsj

That's a paper that rarely bothers with boxing.

Terming Pacquiao, Cotto, Khan and Provodnikov "protected fighters" is deeply ignorant.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Let's just agree with them Hammer..... That Mayweather is a cowardly ducker and is total s**te and that beating Maidana on points at 37 shows he can never be Top 10....

In fairness to Roach......Training Manny means he'd never be biased !!

I always wait for Alex Ferguson's views on Manchester City to get an accurate appraisal of where City are now....

Here come the Floydettes!!!!!

I don't think Mayweather is as great as Robinson but what difference does it make.

I think he is greater than Manny and will retire Pacquiao this year if they do fight in May.

AdamT wrote:I don't think Mayweather is as great as Robinson but what difference does it make.

I think he is greater than Manny and will retire Pacquiao this year if they do fight in May.

I don't think there's anything between Pacquiao and Mayweather. If anything, Pacquiao rates slightly ahead all time. Better opposition.

You have yet to correct me, you seem to think your opinion is fact but you are aware people don't need articles to remember the build up of a fight that happened three years ago right?

It was at the time seen as Pacquiao taking on a safe easy option fighting a guy years past his best, divisions above his best, it was expected to be a massacre.

Provodnikov is so damn awful that he doesn't factor into it but Cotto has a recent history of taking on shot fighters or those who were never any good.

Mayweather fans will say anything to protect their man. Even when its stating the obvious stuff like Robinson is better.

Haz value your opinions a lot and think you have good knowledge and you keep good temperament during debates, but I disagree with this.

Manny has a slightly better resume at the lower weights but I pick Floyd overall, especially recent years. Can't ignore the fact he has been out boxed a few times and knocked out 3 times.

Floyds greater. Only my opinion of course not everyone will agree.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You have yet to correct me, you seem to think your opinion is fact but you are aware people don't need articles to remember the build up of a fight that happened three years ago right?

It was at the time seen as Pacquiao taking on a safe easy option fighting a guy years past his best, divisions above his best, it was expected to be a massacre.

Provodnikov is so damn awful that he doesn't factor into it but Cotto has a recent history of taking on shot fighters or those who were never any good.

Pacquiao was a big favourite heading in based on his Ariza-assisted reign of terror (you know, the one that scared Floyd away?) yet the fight was hardly viewed as a joke or an easy nights work. Pacquiao was credited for going back in with the one guy who consistently posed him problems.

Provodnikov struggled to land fights after mashing up Bradley! Protected? Another corker.

Who gave Cotto a chance against Martinez? He was a colossal outsider. This is a guy who faced Pacquiao, Mayweather, Mosley and Margarito all at or around their best.

Right on genius....

catchweight wrote:Mayweather fans will say anything to protect their man. Even when its stating the obvious stuff like Robinson is better.

I just don't understand they mentality in the slightest.

You'll no doubt post some meaningless article that states Marquez was a top contender expected to give Pacquiao problems but he really wasn't, many expected a blow out. Roach is clever with his fighters, he knows that the general public love a name so will wait for an opportune moment to put them in with them.

Roach was in Cotto's corner for all those fights was he Haz, wait am I correcting your wrongful representation of what I said?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You'll no doubt post some meaningless article that states Marquez was a top contender expected to give Pacquiao problems but he really wasn't, many expected a blow out. Roach is clever with his fighters, he knows that the general public love a name so will wait for an opportune moment to put them in with them.

Roach was in Cotto's corner for all those fights was he Haz, wait am I correcting your wrongful representation of what I said?

Meaningless article or factual account?

It's quite something when newspaper accounts are rubbished as meaningless.

Boxing Monthly's Graham Houston is as straight a shooter as it gets - he rubbished Roach's claims that Pac would blow Marquez out in six rounds. While he favoured Pacquiao late, there was no sense the bout was a protected fighter taking an easy match (which of course it wasn't).

Pedantry doesn't make you less wrong. Just more annoying.

It's an opinion, there is no right or wrong and being pedantic on a point that's fairly important shows how quick you are to jump in without reading what is written.

You seem to think that whatever is written in a Newspaper or on an internet site makes it a cast iron fact, your reliance on these things makes me wonder if you actually watch or take much notice to the run up of fights.

To be honest. Even though I didn't think Márquez III was a walkover, I thought Roach and Paccy had decided that was as good a time as any for Paccy to seize a definitive victory over Márquez.

The weigh in was a bit of a shocker, seeing a shredded Márquez. Bit like that moment in Rocky where Duke sees Rocky hitting a slab of meat and realising, this might not be a walkover.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's an opinion, there is no right or wrong and being pedantic on a point that's fairly important shows how quick you are to jump in without reading what is written.

You seem to think that whatever is written in a Newspaper or on an internet site makes it a cast iron fact, your reliance on these things makes me wonder if you actually watch or take much notice to the run up of fights.

So if I produced a number of accounts written at the time from boxing's more creditable sources you have the audacity to claim that's "just opinion" and no more relevant than your singular opinion (as a forum pedant with only a rudimentary grasp of the sport) that has probably been concocted as a t it-for-tat retort to the OP?

I believe it wasn't viewed as a joke fight because I was there. While I could merely post "I don't agree" that would be as constructive as entering into a p issing contest with a guy who regularly wets his pants.

Here's the Guardian preview:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/nov/11/manny-pacquiao-juan-manuel-marquez-trilogy

You two should just get a room. The sexual tension is unbearable.

Is there perhaps a middle ground here? Manny Marquez 3, was I believe seen as by his team as a chance for manny to get that elusive decisive win over a Marquez that they felt had seen better days. I think that was the perception, jmm was considered to have been showing signs of wear and tear while manny had been ripping up trees... I think manny went in as a strong betting favourite which considering the nature of the first two fights would support that view.

However that doesn't make it a joke fight. It was still an anticipated match up. I went with the flow and thought manny would have too much at that stage of their careers, and like most, I was wrong.

So, hardly a cherry pick, but I do think its fair to say that it wasn't seen as a fight where manny was taking a big risk.

milkyboy wrote: You two should just get a room. The sexual tension is unbearable.

Is there perhaps a middle ground here? Manny Marquez 3, was I believe seen as by his team as a chance for manny to get that elusive decisive win over a Marquez that they felt had seen better days. I think that was the perception, jmm was considered to have been showing signs of wear and tear while manny had been ripping up trees... I think manny went in as a strong betting favourite which considering the nature of the first two fights would support that view.

However that doesn't make it a joke fight. It was still an anticipated match up. I went with the flow and thought manny would have too much at that stage of their careers, and like most, I was wrong.

So, hardly a cherry pick, but I do think its fair to say that it wasn't seen as a fight where manny was taking a big risk.

It's like flirting for him.

That's my view - Pacquiao was a big favourite going in and favoured to stop JMM but no-one really knew how Marquez would handle the weight (especially after he'd hooked up with Heredia).

Highly anticipated and very definitely not a viewed as a joke fight.

Floyd is a cretin end of.

Why anybody bothers to take any heed of the garbage that comes out of his mouth I'll never know.

SRR punches the head of Mayweather obviously.

Not to mention after a tough third fight with Marquez and escaping by a hair he takes him on for a fourth time. 4 of Pacquias last 5 fights have been against top welterweights. Protected my ass.

The greatest of all time would destroy Floyd. Probably yes - not exactly exceptional insight or a grave insult?

ShahenshahG wrote:The greatest of all time would destroy Floyd. Probably yes - not exactly exceptional insight or a grave insult?

Groundbreaking on here though it seems.

SRR would beat Floyd if he was around today and so would Leonard.

Though imo nobody has an easy time with him. Guys you might think he is a Moran and u might think he is a bit careful when match making, that is ur opinion and you are entitled to it. But please don't play down the mans achievements and talent. He will beat Manny easily. He would of beat him 4 years ago in a tough fight but I have no doubt he boxes his head off now. Hopefully they fight to prove this.

Yep when Pacquaio is past it enough the fight might happen.

Not all Mayweathers fault mate.

Funny how Pac is very vocal about Mayweather since his ko and tax problems. Speak to my promoter was his favorite line. Maybe if Manny goes back to what he was doing a few years ago he could get his power and extra speed back.

Then Mayweather would go back to "insert one of 500 excuses here" and rematch Victor Ortiz

Well I still believe both teams are to blame.

Tell me one time Floyd was knocked out or outclassed during a fight. I don't mean a close fight that could of went either way like Castillo, but one time were he was flat on his back or made look an amateur.

The answer is easier if I ask you the same for Manny.

I guess on that basis Kell Brook would rank above Pacquiao too.

If he beat the same opponents as Floyd that would be true nut he hasn't. Look not arguing but logic says Manny is not even better than Marquez.

His record yes but head to head Marquez is a better fighter than Manny. Floyd embarrassed Marquez.

I know you will point to how easy Manny beat Cotto and Hatton but none of these 2 guys outclassed or hammered Floyd.

So what? Because Marquez beat Pacquiao it proves Mayweather does? There was an easy way to prove who was better. Mayweather wasnt interested in doing it the old fashioned way. He prefered leaving it to makey up logic and the Forbes rich list.

No mate it proves Marquez is better than Manny. That's all.

Yeah ok and Sanders is better than Wladimir Klitschko then.

It proves Márquez has Pacquiao's number. That's all. It doesn't prove he's better. That's decided by career achievements. Lest you'd have me believe Castillo is better than Floyd?

Dominance over four fights is a bit different to winning a single fight don't you think and while you like to play the blame firmly at Mayweathers door it's not all his fault, Pacquiao himself wasn't too interested was he.

He waits around for Marquez to get older and then gets lauded for facing him when he should have done four years earlier, you can't argue with logic like that. To suit an argument Marquez goes from being an overweight blown up featherweight to a draw Welterweight in the blink of an eye.

He didn't outbox Wlad 3 fights out of 4 then knock him out on the fourth. Though to answer your question, he was a better fighter that night.

Marquez is better than Pacquiao head to head. He should of won the first fight and was robbed in the 3rd. I would maybe give the 2nd fight to Manny but the rest? No chance.

You said that Floyd had to beat Manny to be better than him. Fair enough are you then telling me that Marquez is better than Manny? Forget records, you said Floyds only chance to prove him self is to beat Pacquiao. By using that logic then JMM is definitely better.

I apologize for keep going over the same ground but Manny fans can't have it both ways. If Floyd isn't better than Manny then that is an opinion but if I state that Marquez is better than Manny then that would be fact.

He was a fat lightweight against Mayweather who had nver grown into the division. Mayweather screwed him on the catchweight then into the bargain.

He was a ripped potien slugging welterweight by the fourth fight with Pacquaio.