Joe Gallagher + the perfect 'plod forward no head movement'!

[palooka]

It's easy to be wise after the event. Gallaghers team have had a tough run of results recently but had a fantastic run before that (was it 48 bouts unbeaten through the camp?) The boxers always seem happy enough with his methods and the team spirit through the camp. He was flavour of the month a while ago, it'd be fickle to say he's no good now. The bad results have come against a higher level of opposition, his fighters are boxing title class, there are some tough and skilled men at that level and they really want to win.

[palooka]

I can appreciate that you're not saying 'told you so'.

I thought that Murray would get found out. I won £60 on the Mitchell stoppage, just knew that Kevin would do another Carl Johansson job on him.

Smith was very fortunate to get the nod over Simpson twice, for me John deserved both bouts. I'd not seen Selby box before and he seemed to come from no where. Like last nights fight, Selby just hit too hard for Smith and I imagine that if theres a return then the result will be similar.

I had been very impressed with the angles and clever punch picking from Crolla in previous bouts, he looked like he really belonged at lightweight. Matthews is a big lightweight and hits his weight. No matter how many slick moves a boxer has, at the end of it boxing is a contact sport.

I don't think there are flaws in Gallagers tactics or aproach to preparation, I think it's a case of his boxers getting hit hard by very good boxers.

[idle talk]

I agree too

[palooka]

Thank you!

[Glass Joe]

John Murray was ruined by his defend with his head tactic in his two loses. Crolla would of easily of won last night night if he had a better defense, maybe he will learn his lessons in a rematch.

[smoggy7188]

I am starting to think that he is taking on too much, he must have atleast 14fighters that he is currently training. I think im right in saying when he went on that long run he had nowhere near as many fighters as he does now. If you think about it since that run he has taken on numerous new fighters such as quigg, jennings, smith.

[TheCobra]

Yeh I was thinking this myself last night, Gallagher is starting to look a bit like he has shot his bolt a little. His tactics and style are very similar, seems like he doesn't know how to teach his boxers a defence.

[jBacca]

Personally not a big fan of Joe G because I don't like the way Ste Smith is fighting/has fought. He's completely neglected the boxing ability that he has in abundance and seems to have adopted the 'Gallagher' style.

See it with all off Joe's camp, so I don't think the Selby fight for Smith was just an anomaly. The style might work for some, but not for others.

[greenyox3]

You just need to look at the noticeably different styles Macklin has used in his last two fights. Against Sturm he was hands high, close-range, hooks and more hooks. Then against Martinez, under McGurt, he used a lot more movement and a lot more jabs.

When you look at John Murray for example, the 1st style is very familiar to that gym. So does Gallagher train them all to fight in HIS style..?

[ed robinson]

I know that it's natural to question a trainer when he's on a bad run but no one should overlook the fact that Derry Mathews boxed out of his skin on Saturday night.

The worry with a high, tight guard is always that it can restrict your visibility to shots through the middle - particularly the second punch hidden behind a lead. It's the argument for an orthodox boxer employing a low left hand - which Froch uses and then gets criticised for when he gets hit with the straight right. A fighter who relies on head movement is sometimes vulnerable to someone who is good at feinting - forcing them to react and slip and then drilling them.

Nobody's perfect - except maybe Mayweather or Whittaker! Although the fact they are / were so defence minded is often seen to detract from their offence.

[DavidPayne]

I know that it's natural to question a trainer when he's on a bad run but no one should overlook the fact that Derry Mathews boxed out of his skin on Saturday night.

The worry with a high, tight guard is always that it can restrict your visibility to shots through the middle - particularly the second punch hidden behind a lead. It's the argument for an orthodox boxer employing a low left hand - which Froch uses and then gets criticised for when he gets hit with the straight right. A fighter who relies on head movement is sometimes vulnerable to someone who is good at feinting - forcing them to react and slip and then drilling them.

Nobody's perfect - except maybe Mayweather or Whittaker! Although the fact they are / were so defence minded is often seen to detract from their offence.

You need more air time Ed.

Johnny and Bazzer can keep their touch screen. Give me 1 minute of analysis like this everytime.

[xrgcx]

The level of opposition that his boxers have lost too are extremly high. Paul Smith lost to George Groves (unbeaten British and Commenwealth title holder) no shame in that. Stephen Smith lost to Lee Selby (British and Commenwealth title holder) who's been the only boxer to stop John Simpso. John Murrray lost to Brandon Rios (World Champion) again no shame in that. Matt Macklin went over to Germany and in most peoples eyes beat a solid champ in Felix Sturm. Sturm is a good Champion and no1 really gave Matt a real chance. And Crolla getting beat up by Derry. Derry is a very good fighter, been there done it bought the T-shirt. Crolla didn't close the space enuff which let to Derry whipping the uppercuts in everytime Crolla did try and close the gap. I agree with a previous poster, I don't think its the same tactis I just feel they were 2nd best on the night and beat by bigger punchers.

[Autobarn]

It's easy to be wise after the event. Gallaghers team have had a tough run of results recently but had a fantastic run before that (was it 48 bouts unbeaten through the camp?) The boxers always seem happy enough with his methods and the team spirit through the camp. He was flavour of the month a while ago, it'd be fickle to say he's no good now. The bad results have come against a higher level of opposition, his fighters are boxing title class, there are some tough and skilled men at that level and they really want to win.

I've tried not to say 'i told you so' because thats not what i'm trying to do.....it just seems that when his fighters get to a certain level, the tactic he employs will get found out. Its a basic tactic.

Murray, Smith and Crolla were all odds on and expected to win their fights by the way (Smith and Crolla both around 1/6 with the bookies) so something is obviously not going right.

murray and crolla both were against old pros on their final chance (vs mitchell and mathews), losing gruelling, fight of the year type of wars. 2 very motivated and experienced opponents.

crolla had been destroying guys, taking guys apart. he then had two strange fights with very little high contact action, the mexican & limond, which can't have been great preparation for the type of challenge put up by mathews.

[danfoster]

I think this is moving into a really interesting discussion. Criticism of Joe G seems fair game to me at the moment for the following reasons:

1) Joe does seem to train his fighters in a similar, distinct and recognisable style
2) This style is succeeding to a degree at a certain level but a number of his top guys are getting found out in the big fights when facing good opposition
3) I haven't seen one of his lads show the ability to adapt and meet challenges as bouts develop
4) Certain defeats have been very obvious in advance - such as the inevitablility of John Murray getting smashed sooner or later - yet Joe's fighters don't seem to be progressing or correcting obvious flaws
5) Joe and the team were loving promoting themselves when they were winning so they need to be able to take the lows with the highs

I'm not saying that the above criticisms make Joe G a poor trainer - in many ways, he's still a young trainer and his ability to analyse why his kids are losing big bouts and remedy that for the future will be the determining issue on whether he can be a truly top boxing trainer. He's obviously very motivated and good at getting his lads fit but he still needs to prove that he can arm his kids with the skills to survive at the higher levels.

The high-energy, orthodox pressure fighter style worked very well for another Mancunian, Ricky Hatton. But Hatton also had a lot more to his game - good footwork, speed and great skills at getting inside. He could box as well as all the other stuff. The only guys that beat him were P4P guys. What worries me about that orthodox 'Manchester' style is that as soon as you meet an opponent who is AS FIT as you are and AS STRONG it immediately becomes a 50-50 bout. The same principle applies when you go in with a guy who is even stronger and fitter - how do you win that one with no other skills to utilise and no Plan B?

This is the conundrum that Joe has to process and find the answer, in my opinion. Until he does he can't be considered a truly top trainer, although clearly his track record deserves respect and the potential is there for him to do great things.

PS the alternate view is of course that Crolla is actually a mediocre super-featherweight and Joe has worked wonder to ever get him the British Lightweight title in the first place!

[danfoster]

I think this is moving into a really interesting discussion. Criticism of Joe G seems fair game to me at the moment for the following reasons:

1) Joe does seem to train his fighters in a similar, distinct and recognisable style
2) This style is succeeding to a degree at a certain level but a number of his top guys are getting found out in the big fights when facing good opposition
3) I haven't seen one of his lads show the ability to adapt and meet challenges as bouts develop
4) Certain defeats have been very obvious in advance - such as the inevitablility of John Murray getting smashed sooner or later - yet Joe's fighters don't seem to be progressing or correcting obvious flaws
5) Joe and the team were loving promoting themselves when they were winning so they need to be able to take the lows with the highs

I'm not saying that the above criticisms make Joe G a poor trainer - in many ways, he's still a young trainer and his ability to analyse why his kids are losing big bouts and remedy that for the future will be the determining issue on whether he can be a truly top boxing trainer. He's obviously very motivated and good at getting his lads fit but he still needs to prove that he can arm his kids with the skills to survive at the higher levels.

The high-energy, orthodox pressure fighter style worked very well for another Mancunian, Ricky Hatton. But Hatton also had a lot more to his game - good footwork, speed and great skills at getting inside. He could box as well as all the other stuff. The only guys that beat him were P4P guys. What worries me about that orthodox 'Manchester' style is that as soon as you meet an opponent who is AS FIT as you are and AS STRONG it immediately becomes a 50-50 bout. The same principle applies when you go in with a guy who is even stronger and fitter - how do you win that one with no other skills to utilise and no Plan B?

This is the conundrum that Joe has to process and find the answer, in my opinion. Until he does he can't be considered a truly top trainer, although clearly his track record deserves respect and the potential is there for him to do great things.

PS the alternate view is of course that Crolla is actually a mediocre super-featherweight and Joe has worked wonder to ever get him the British Lightweight title in the first place! Expanding on that, perhaps Joe is actually doing a great job in maximising the performance of a serious of essentially very limited boxers?

[fizzjambo]

Part of the problem may be that Crolla under-estimated Mathews. There has been a lot of talk on both Sky, allegedly and the boxing media as Crolla being the potential 'sleeper' in the British and European lighweight divisions but although he has been on a good run and beaten some good quality men I wouldn't say he has been quite the shining star some have made him out to be or suggested he may be.

Andy Morris was competitive against him in what was a good win for Crolla but Morris was the smaller man and had come unstuck before. Watson was a superb performance but who has John Watson beaten as a pro? He's a nice boxer, and boxed well in spells against Rees, but Gavin's conditioning didn't seem 100% and in the end he broke Watson down emphatically. Limond was over the hill and well past his best.

I thought Crolla would bust Derry up and stop him late on to be honest but Mathews is a bit of a wildcard - vulnerable to the body, recent serious nose problems, not the tightest of guards and can get drawn into a tear up. However he has a good selection of shots, is well schooled, a spiteful puncher, esp to the body and with uppercuts, and has a long, loose style with whippy shots. It's a mix which makes him well capable of causing, and suffering from, upsets.

Gallacher has done well with Crolla, I tend to feel that Crolla lost due to a combination of being possibly a touch over-rated and underestimating Mathews. Swifty also lost to Simpson twice in my estimation and then Selby. Who has Smith really beaten either?

I'm not saying Gallacher is not to blame, but it's possible a few guys in his stable carry greater reputations than they currently justify

[palooka]

It may be that the camp is too friendly; they may try to beat each other on run times and exercse counts but when it comes to sparring do they get right into it? A great training camp and team atmosphere must be lovely but boxing is an individual contact sport and you have to be pretty mean and single minded to get to the top. Most of the top level boxers are pretty ruthless characters.

[winkveron]

I think, if when all is said and done, this is the highest heights that the Gallacher camp reaches it is still impressive. To have a large stable of lads who are pretty much all British/European level, getting the odd world title shot, is no mean feat.

Although, to echo what someone else said earlier, for some reason I did find it a perturbing that there were so many of his stable mates in the ring on the night. It's great to support your mates but it should be stripped down in my opinion.

[Glyn Leach]

I know that it's natural to question a trainer when he's on a bad run but no one should overlook the fact that Derry Mathews boxed out of his skin on Saturday night.

The worry with a high, tight guard is always that it can restrict your visibility to shots through the middle - particularly the second punch hidden behind a lead. It's the argument for an orthodox boxer employing a low left hand - which Froch uses and then gets criticised for when he gets hit with the straight right. A fighter who relies on head movement is sometimes vulnerable to someone who is good at feinting - forcing them to react and slip and then drilling them.

Nobody's perfect - except maybe Mayweather or Whittaker! Although the fact they are / were so defence minded is often seen to detract from their offence.

You need more air time Ed.

Johnny and Bazzer can keep their touch screen. Give me 1 minute of analysis like this everytime.

100% agree

[Autobarn]

I've tried not to say 'i told you so' because thats not what i'm trying to do.....it just seems that when his fighters get to a certain level, the tactic he employs will get found out. Its a basic tactic.

Murray, Smith and Crolla were all odds on and expected to win their fights by the way (Smith and Crolla both around 1/6 with the bookies) so something is obviously not going right.

murray and crolla both were against old pros on their final chance (vs mitchell and mathews), losing gruelling, fight of the year type of wars. 2 very motivated and experienced opponents.

crolla had been destroying guys, taking guys apart. he then had two strange fights with very little high contact action, the mexican & limond, which can't have been great preparation for the type of challenge put up by mathews.

Plenty of times this happens though and if the fighter is good enough, he'll blow away the old pro!

Quigg stopping Arthur (an ironic compasison i know) and Kid Galahad beating Jason Booth recently spring to mind.

Both 'old pros' in last chance saloon and both lost.

The vast majority of fight fans both had Crolla and Murray to win their fights and if they'd have maybe changed tactics after a few rounds, perhaps they would've and i guess thats my point.

Joe G's style gets found out during fights and once its being countered, theres never a Plan B to fall back on.

& plenty of examples the other way, notably michael gomez v alex arthur. the most spirited fights - incl mathews-crolla & mitchell-murray - fall into this category.

fight fans don't decide fights. desperation & experience can certainly have a bearing. great win for mathews. crolla's come back from defeats before- getting spoiled by al hamidi, getting pushed back by sykes - and i believe he can come back well from getting stopped by derry.

crolla's ,last 2 fights were not intense whatsoever. he's not been the offensive machine hooking off the jab, killing the opponent's body, swelling up their faces and taking them out with one shot. that rhythm he had has been interrupted and that loss of momentum surely has hurt him.

[orbtastic]

Did anyone else think Derry looked a little gassed just before the stoppage?

[fizzjambo]

Did anyone else think Derry looked a little gassed just before the stoppage?

Yup, I actually think if Crolla could have got through round 7 and mentally held it together (both big asks) he'd have stopped Derry. Derry is dangerous but vulnerable, never out a fight till stopped, but always capable of being taken out. Makes him great Tv really.....