BoxRec

What popular/accomplished British fighters have always been considered a closely associated twosome or double act. By this I mean cases where the fighter makes the trainer and vice versa. Trainers who are best known for their close association with that one fighter.

And does this result in a fighter having a more one dimensional and less rounded style than those who have learned from multiple trainers, or does the increased confidence/trust in addition to perfecting a single trainers style or method outweigh learning bits from everywhere and trying to put them all together?

A few examples:

Hatton & Graham.
Haye & Booth.
Froch & McCracken.
Calzaghe & Enzo.

In Hatton's case he did drop Graham late in his career whereas the others above have remained loyal throughout. In his case I felt at that stage of his career he tried to implement too many changes from what he was comfortable with and that proved his undoing.

This contrasts with the likes of Benn who was more of a one man show who switched trainers throughout his career.

Is there any way of determining what should be more important to an elite fighter - concentrating on mental stability and perfecting a style that has been effective throughout a career, or concentrating on becoming a more rounded fighter, learning from multiple trainers and trying to put it all together in a way that suits their natural ability and strengths?

And what do people think about family trainers, where the father or uncle takes on responsibilities having had no prior experience? I often wonder with those sort of fighters (Calzaghe, Mosley, Trinidad etc) could they have been even better if they hadn't gone down the family route where the trainer is really only learning on the job?

Good questions, some fighters thrive on their home comforts. I think Joe was one of these, would Joe have been happy in the Kronx gym etc? I certainly think Joe would have been potentially a better fighter had he based himself in the states and got the tough sparring to iron out the defensive issues that he had. I think had he ironed out his punch technique as a youngster he wouldn't have had the hand problems and we may, or may not, have seen this dynamic puncher that he was hyped up to be at world level.

I don't went to go down the debate on how good Joe was and how would he have faired against a prime Hopkins, Jones, Toney etc. However, Joe clearly had god given gifts in terms of stamina, hand speed, chin and heart that you cannot produce... however for me his defensive issues, his punch technique issues, were holes that I believe Hopkins, Jones et al would have exposed in their prime. Would he have had those issues had he worked with Manny or someone at a young age?

In saying this, a fighter needs to be happy... would Joe have been happy based in the states? I don't think so..

Even though they may not admit need, need the old faces to install the discipline.... e.g. Hamed and the Ingles.

johnswan1 wrote:What popular/accomplished British fighters have always been considered a closely associated twosome or double act. By this I mean cases where the fighter makes the trainer and vice versa. Trainers who are best known for their close association with that one fighter.

And does this result in a fighter having a more one dimensional and less rounded style than those who have learned from multiple trainers, or does the increased confidence/trust in addition to perfecting a single trainers style or method outweigh learning bits from everywhere and trying to put them all together?

A few examples:

Hatton & Graham.
Haye & Booth.
Froch & McCracken.
Calzaghe & Enzo.

In Hatton's case he did drop Graham late in his career whereas the others above have remained loyal throughout. In his case I felt at that stage of his career he tried to implement too many changes from what he was comfortable with and that proved his undoing.

This contrasts with the likes of Benn who was more of a one man show who switched trainers throughout his career.

Is there any way of determining what should be more important to an elite fighter - concentrating on mental stability and perfecting a style that has been effective throughout a career, or concentrating on becoming a more rounded fighter, learning from multiple trainers and trying to put it all together in a way that suits their natural ability and strengths?

And what do people think about family trainers, where the father or uncle takes on responsibilities having had no prior experience? I often wonder with those sort of fighters (Calzaghe, Mosley, Trinidad etc) could they have been even better if they hadn't gone down the family route where the trainer is really only learning on the job?

i think too much gets made about "loyalty". What does it mean exactly? It's a fact of life that relationships - whether professional or personal, sometimes breakdown. I never understand all this "not loyal" b*llocks when someone decides they need to move. It often sounds bitter. It's just a fact of life.
I think there's an element of luck involved in who you meet at the start of your journey. It's all about having trust and confidence in each other, and I suppose that includes "trusting" whether that person can still make you a better fighter.

As regards Joe or Mosley or Trinidad - they didn't do bad did they. I think it's fanciful to suggest they might have been even better if they didn't have their Dads training them - personally. They had a lot of natural ability and started early, which helps - just like Muhammad Ali did, who had one trainer who'd never actually boxed I believe, Angelo Dundee.
I also think that Hagler is another such example....didn't he stay with a couple of brothers throughout his whole career? Do you think someone else might have made a "better Marvin Hagler"?