Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post Reply
Final round
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4911
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02

Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Final round »

Nathan has sparred a few rounds against Kayode at the wildcard.

“You want guys like that at your gym,” Roach said about Cleverly.

“I wouldn’t hesitate to take him on, he’s definitely talented.

“We haven’t discussed him coming here yet but he’s here, and maybe there’s a reason why he is here.

“I think he is at the right stage where a unification fight would be good for him and he has the potential to beat any of the world champions.

“It is a very competitive division right now – there are some good fights out there for him.

“He’s a great boxer but his punching power is not the best in the world.

“He still has a little bit of an immature style of scoring points and getting out of the way, but sometimes you have to take more chances.

“The passive defence gives you a good defence but you can’t slip in a counter punch, that is the best way to knock out guys as you can take advantage of your opponent’s mistakes.”

Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sports/box ... z2BeTe1qTT
TopGun
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 1532
Joined: 24 Jun 2012, 05:27

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by TopGun »

I'd like to see Cleverly move trainers. No disrespect to his Dad but I think he could do with going to a world renowned trainer. No necessarily Roach but someone who can develop him further.
stevieb_8006
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by stevieb_8006 »

can any1 with a better knowledge on the technical side of the sport explain to me what the "passive defence" is? What does roach mean by that? I always thought nathans weakness was a bit of a shoddy defence myself, I thought he did actually take quite a few risks going to war when he doesnt need to.
Final round
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4911
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Final round »

stevieb_8006 wrote:can any1 with a better knowledge on the technical side of the sport explain to me what the "passive defence" is? What does roach mean by that? I always thought nathans weakness was a bit of a shoddy defence myself, I thought he did actually take quite a few risks going to war when he doesnt need to.
I'd imagine he means that he doesn't defend himself in a way that he can counter correctly.
Accepting attack without proper resistance.
Deserter
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6441
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 10:01

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Deserter »

Final round wrote:
stevieb_8006 wrote:can any1 with a better knowledge on the technical side of the sport explain to me what the "passive defence" is? What does roach mean by that? I always thought nathans weakness was a bit of a shoddy defence myself, I thought he did actually take quite a few risks going to war when he doesnt need to.
I'd imagine he means that he doesn't defend himself in a way that he can counter correctly.
Accepting attack without proper resistance.
This. Best example is experienced journeymen who will always last the distance against a prospect because they are happy to focus purely on defence at the expense of any offensive output.
Duran's an example of the opposite - under-rated defence, but he was actually incredibly adept at slipping punches on the way in while constantly looking to unload.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27514
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by stujones »

Yes, inaffected cross armed defence ala Nobby Nobbs is a passive defence.

Arthur Abraham is a classic example of a passive defence at world level.
Final round
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4911
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Final round »

Deserter wrote:
Final round wrote:
stevieb_8006 wrote:can any1 with a better knowledge on the technical side of the sport explain to me what the "passive defence" is? What does roach mean by that? I always thought nathans weakness was a bit of a shoddy defence myself, I thought he did actually take quite a few risks going to war when he doesnt need to.
I'd imagine he means that he doesn't defend himself in a way that he can counter correctly.
Accepting attack without proper resistance.
This. Best example is experienced journeymen who will always last the distance against a prospect because they are happy to focus purely on defence at the expense of any offensive output.
Duran's an example of the opposite - under-rated defence, but he was actually incredibly adept at slipping punches on the way in while constantly looking to unload.
Yeah Duran was a master
Arniesgym
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 68
Joined: 18 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Arniesgym »

Abraham is the right guy to look at if wanting to no what that means
stevieb_8006
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by stevieb_8006 »

Cheers fellas, so a negative attitude rather than making them miss and then making them pay. Like blocking shots rather than parrying/evading and then returning fire.
Old bones Ian
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11808
Joined: 13 Jul 2004, 07:33

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Old bones Ian »

Watch Marlon Starling fights to see how to do that type of defense correctly.
Deserter
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6441
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 10:01

Re: Freddie Roach's verdict on Nathan Cleverley

Post by Deserter »

stevieb_8006 wrote:Cheers fellas, so a negative attitude rather than making them miss and then making them pay. Like blocking shots rather than parrying/evading and then returning fire.
Exactly mate :TU:
Post Reply