In this week’s Daily Bread Mailbag, top coach Stephen Edwards answers your questions about where Mayweather and Pacquiao rate in the pantheon of greats, and against each other, discusses why he is not a fan of mythical matches, looks back on some of the 1980s greats and discusses the matter of doping in boxing.

Greetings Bread, Happy New Year to you and yours!! I really enjoyed your bread basket (as I do every week lol) this week and the multiple lists that have come out since: best of all time, the 80s, new century, last century, etc. etc…..  and I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed yours! At the risk of sounding knit-picky (please do NOT take any offense-I love your column and boxing mind and you in general), but I can’t fathom a universe where Holyfield is better than Duran or Sweet Pea in the 1980s. I know how much you love Evander and we are the same age so you were right there with me watching him move up when the first chatter about he and Tyson started. My God, do I wish those guys got to fight BEFORE Tyson went to prison and ideally before he fired Kevin Rooney. I believe in my heart Tyson wins by stoppage, but we’ll never ever know (I’ll save you the time and effort of pointing out my Tyson bias - it’s real and it can warp my judgement through emotional reasoning.

I’m reminded also of the brilliance of Floyd in waiting an opponent out and knowing history will always have him above whoever he beat head-to-head. To be clear: Holy did NOT wait Tyson out, but the wait benefited Holyfield far more than it did Tyson! Ditto Lewis in 2002. I will go to my grave saying there is no way Holy or Lewis stop the Tyson who defeated Holmes, Spinks, or Biggs but we will never know. Kudos to you for looking past personal preference and putting Tyson above Holyfield in the 80s despite putting Holyfield above Duran and Whitaker in the 80s which I think was a major lapse, with no disrespect intended! These lists are brutal to do! Especially the 80s so it is what it is as they say. 

Bread’s response: Holyfield being one of my favorite fighters has nothing to do with me putting him at #10 on my all decade of the 1980s P4P list. And I have no issue explaining why I ranked him over Whitaker and Duran in the 1980s.

Duran had three of the best wins of the decade vs Ray Leonard, Davey Moore and Iran Barkley. But he also lost SEVEN times in the 1980s to Ray Leonard 2x, Wilfred Benitez, Kirkland Laing, Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns and Robbie Sims. Hagler was a great loss. A lightweight taking a top five ever middleweight the 15-round distance in a close fight is a great loss. But he quit vs Leonard and was shutout vs Leonard. Hearns knocked him out cold. Benitez outboxed him. Laing had no business beating him. And the Robbie Sims fight was razor close, that wasn’t such a bad loss.

My point is we can’t just look at Duran’s great wins of the 1980s. We also have to look at his low points in the same time span to balance things out. I considered him for my list but he had too many bad losses during the decade. Pernell Whitaker won Fighter of the Year in 1989 and he had an excellent decade of the 80s. But Holyfield who was an Olympian the same year as Whitaker and a stablemate, won his first title in 1986, whereas Whitaker won his first title in 1989. Holyfield also unified and established himself as the best fighter in the history of his division (cruiserweight). Holyfield won Fighter of the Year in 1987 and after he moved up to heavyweight he went on a five fight KO streak to end the 80s vs some of the top contenders at heavyweight establishing himself as a true #1 contender to Mike Tyson. Holyfield also posted two wins over a HOF in Dwight Qawi. 

If it were the 1990s I would rank Whitaker over Holyfield. But if we are talking just the 1980s Holyfield had a better decade. I don’t know how you can make an argument for Whitaker over Holyfield if they both stopped boxing on December 31st, 1989. However, there are two fighters who I may have overlooked. 

Mike McCallum and Azumah Nelson have serious cases for that 10th spot. McCallum only took one loss in the 1980s and that was a hotly-contested decision to Sambu Kalambay. He stopped two HOF in Donald Curry and Julian Jackson. He established himself as an ATG 154lber. And he beat the underrated Herol Graham at 160lb for his second division title.

Nelson lost only once in the decade also. And that was a short notice fight against one of the greatest featherweights in history in Salvador Sanchez. If a great loss has a picture next to it, it’s this fight. Nelson gave Sanchez hell before being stopped in the 15th round. Nelson went on to stop an ATG in Wilfredo Gomez in his hometown to win the featherweight title. Defended it six times, moved up to 130lbs, wins that title and defends it four times before the decade ends. Nelson established himself as a great fighter before the decade ended. 

If anyone was slighted it was either Nelson or McCallum. Whitaker hadn’t done enough in the 1980s and Duran’s losses were just too bad although he had some huge wins.

As far as Tyson vs Holyfield. Here is the thing. Mike Tyson is 4 years younger than Evander Holyfield. 4 years! Tyson also ended his fights early, whereas Holyfield while an underrated puncher, had to grind a lot of his wins out. When they fought in 1996, Holyfield had 3 losses, against Riddick Bowe 2x and Michael Moorer. Holyfield had three brutal wars with Riddick Bowe. He had tough fights vs Holmes and Foreman. He struggled vs Ray Mercer in a very close fight. And he looked terrible against Michael Moorer and Bobby Czyz. I can’t hear how the timing of the fight favored Holyfield. Tyson had 4 fights after his layoff. He scored 4 KOs. He was a 6 to 1 favorite going into the first Holyfield fight. 

I’m not saying he was peak Tyson, but he was fresher than Holyfield. Holyfield just proved to be his kryptonite. And for the record I’m a Tyson fan. He just couldn’t deal with Holyfield. If they would’ve fought from 1990-92 before Tyson went to jail, Tyson would’ve been fresher but Holyfield would’ve been fresher too. And one more thing, Holyfield moved up to face Tyson and he was going after him. He wanted Tyson at his best. He went after several of Tyson’s former opponents to prove his worth. He was mandated to face Tyson and Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Holyfield stops Douglas and then agrees to face Tyson again and Tyson got arrested. As a fan of both men, I don’t want to hear anything about how the timing of the fight favored Holyfield, especially if we contextualize the series of events around their fights.

However, I do believe Tyson was shot to pieces in 2002 when he faced Lennox Lewis. But I don’t believe that to be true in 1996 when he fought Evander Holyfield.

 

Hello Bread, I’m interested in how you deal with your fighter in the aftermath of a loss? There's obviously different ways a fighter can lose a boxing match but do you have different methods you apply to your fighters or is it exclusive to each and the result? Cuts and bruises heal but the mind is another beast. All losses hurt but a defeat in the ring is different than losing a basketball ball or football game.

Sam from Australia 

Bread’s response: I try to put each loss in proper context. If I feel as though we lost to a great opponent, I will give the opponent his props. If I feel as though my fighter performed excellently in a loss, I will give him his attribution for performing well. If I feel like my fighter underperformed, I will also tell him that. It’s important to tell him the truth but in a way that will inspire him to be better the next time out. From my experience the most important thing is to make the fighter compartmentalize that the loss was just one night of their lives. It doesn’t define them. Once they realize that, they can move forward.

 

Hey Bread, Given your many years in the boxing game, I was wondering, do you collect boxing memorabilia? Anything stand out above the rest for personal or sentimental reasons? Cheers, Brent from Canada

Bread’s response: I don’t collect memorabilia but I do acquire it if I come across it. My guy Greg Leon is one of the leading memorabilia collectors on the East Coast. Find him on (X) he has some great stuff.

 

Dear Stephen, First of all I wish you and your family a very happy and prosperous year 2026. I would like to start this year 2026 by mentioning the below subjects on which I would be interested to have your opinion.
1. Doping – We already had some exchanges on this subject. Ryan Garcia, Munguia, Joseph Parker, Subriel Matias, Alimkhanuly... I can almost hear Freddy Mercury sing ‘another one bites the dust...’ What have been the consequences? Nobody, of course, pleads guilty, but on the contrary, it is a bit pathetic to see them all claim that they have never taken anything and that their positive tests can only be a mistake...Ryan Garcia has been rewarded with a word title fight (despite losing his last fight and testing positive the fight before...), Munguia has been cleared (I still wonder why), and Subriel Matias is allowed to proceed with the defense of his title in January (again why?). I used to be a fan of Subriel Matias, but am I the only one to remember that he killed a man in the ring ? Why did I not see a single article mentioning that there can now be legitimate suspicions that he killed a man while he was juicing? I do not know of course if this is the case but obviously we must now consider that possibility, no? What is wrong with boxing that they cannot take this issue more seriously. It is getting so bad that nothing anymore could surprise me. I am a big fan of Usyk for example, and I would think that this guy could never be a cheater, but guess what, if tomorrow I learn that he has been caught, I would not even be surprised anymore. I also read the interesting interview of the Dr Goodman in three parts, that BoxingScene has published and the least I can say is that it is not reassuring at all...It is becoming so discouraging that I would believe today that probably most fighters, let say about 80 per cent, are juicing, and that it has always been and will always be the case. Am I overreacting and being too pessimistic? What are your views on this? 

2. Terence Crawford – I have no issues with people considering him an all-time great pound per pound, because I believe that he has the talent for same, and that he could compete with the best in any given era. However, when talking about all-time greats pound per pound, I guess that it is fair to say that a victory against Spence and against a 35 years old Canelo, is a rather thin resumé at this very high level? If we agree that Crawford is an all-time great pound per pound fighter (not talking  about all-time greats for a specific category but overall all-time greats), then do you know other fighters considered all-time greats overall, with such a thin resumé? If yes which ones?

3. Jake Paul vs Joshua – First I will admit that it is easy to talk when the fight is over, but I always considered this fight a nonsense mismatch, and I was even saying to some of my friends that if the fight was lasting more than three rounds at most, this would mean that the fight was fixed. The fight was clearly not fixed, but confirmed in my views, that this was a useless mismatch. So what surprised me is when you wrote in your mailbag 2 weeks ago that (event hough of course you thought that Joshua would win) that Joshua could lose the fight. Jake Paul was a guy with 13 fights, at best a cruiserweight, having never really beaten a decent fighter and having even lost to a very average fighter like Tommy Fury, and he could beat a real heavyweight as good and as powerful as Joshua? You are probably one of the best boxing experts that I know of, and I have learnt a lot of things when reading your always interesting various mailbags, but on that one I have to be honest, I really could not understand how on earth, you could have such an opinion. No big deal, but as I consider your boxing knowledge so highly, and as it is probably the first time that I ever read something from you which I could really not understand, I thought worth mentioning same...all the best, 

Chris from France

Bread’s response: You’re not being pessimistic but you’re missing the reality of cheating in boxing. Cheating is not frowned upon in boxing. Getting caught cheating is. I wish it were different but the proof is in the consequences. Essentially there are NONE. 

I believe Terence Crawford is an all-time great. And while his resume is not exceptional his accomplishments are. If a fighter doesn’t have a resume filled with HOF wins then their resume should be long and consistent with Ring rated top 10 wins and lots of title fights. Crawford has that. Larry Holmes is another fighter who is considered an ATG but if you look at his resume close, he was consistent for seven years and 19 title defenses. But his resume doesn’t have the HOF and ATG on there that one would think. 

Holmes’s best win is probably Ken Norton in 1978. Norton was a great fighter but he was well past his best by 1978. After that Holmes’s best win was either Gerry Cooney or Tim Witherspoon. Holmes struggled mightily with Witherspoon. He also never unified in a two-belt era. He did beat several of the fighters who held the WBA title while he held the WBC title. But overall just stating the case. Holmes is considered one of the five or six best heavyweights ever but his resume is not on par some of the other greats who have several close or prime HOF wins. Holmes only has two. Ken Norton who was past it. And Muhammad Ali who was shot to pieces in 1980 when Holmes fought him. 

 

I believe a Deontay Wilder victory over Oleksandr Usyk would save boxing in the United States. If Usyk wins, the post-Klitschko heavyweight generation is viewed as average, normal and boring. One guy was just better than everyone else. He also wasn’t American and Americans don’t matter in heavyweight boxing anymore. The American public will continue to be bored by this narrative. If Deontay Wilder wins, it would elevate the post-Klitschko generation of heavyweights. It would be one of the most competitive generations ever and in the conversation with the 1990s and 1970s. Wilder would immediately become one of the greatest heavyweights of all-time. His celebrity profile would take off and the American public would be tuned in to boxing again. American children would want to box and grow up to be like Wilder. Do you believe this fight has these implications? Thank you!

Bread’s response: Interesting take. I don’t have a strong opinion either way, I’m just surprised at your take. I feel like you’re putting a lot of pressure on Deontay Wilder to save boxing and he hasn’t looked anywhere near the Wilder of a few years ago. Usyk is one of the best fighters ever. He has a case for being a top ten heavyweight ever. If Wilder beats him, it would be a remarkable accomplishment.

 

Hello Mr. Edwards, What are the biggest differences in fighter training/preparation between now and the 1990s? Is diet the largest change, or are the exercises and workout regimes fundamentally different? Are these changes over the last 30 years the results of experimentation, do they come from other sports, or is it something that each fighter/trainer discover for themselves? Thank you for your consideration. Best, Patrick

Bread’s response: I think fighters back then day ran more miles. Whereas today they sprint more and do more plyometrics. I think fighters today cut more weight. Whereas fighters in the 90’s stayed closer to the weight. The era before the 1990s was a same day weigh in era. I think fighters today concentrate more on strength and conditioning and lifting weights. You see 180lbs men fighting at 147lbs. Whereas in the 90s fighters concentrated more on boxing, running, hitting the bags and skipping rope. So you have 160lbs men fighting at 147lbs. I think the changes come with the advancements of sports science in terms of cutting weight and what type of conditioning you look for. 

 

Hey Mr Edwards, Compliments of the New Year and I hope you and yours are resting and doing well.

I enjoyed the last mailbag, especially how you dealt with two guys, one giving you a murders row of guys he wanted you to assess Bud Crawford against, and the other dealing with Shakur Stevenson's IQ. I thought your answers were brilliant and on point In fact I had been planning to write in about how little people seem to understand about mystical of hypothetical matchups and, especially how some great fighters are simply the worst at talking on such matchups.

Take Floyd Mayweather Jr for example. No doubt he's an ATG but he's said some very crude stuff about guys he has not properly analysed. His childish comments on Muhammad Ali are well known. But this is exactly what you meant by distinguishing boxing IQ from traditional IQ even though you called it historical boxing knowledge. Floyd does not have the intelligence to realize that Ali had two careers, the pre and post exile careers. From the time Ali stopped Sonny Liston to win the heavyweight title in 1964 to when he stopped Zora Folley in his last pre-exile title defence, no heavyweight in history could have beaten Ali. Of course, there's a number of post-exile heavyweights who could have beaten Ali and some, in fact, beat him.

This is because nearly four years of his best fighting years were taken away by an opponent bigger than boxing, not just boxers. If you consider the top 10 at the time Ali was exiled, you begin to understand why Ali has to be the greatest heavyweight in history. No one stood a chance. An untried and untested and inexperienced Joe Frazier was ranked No. 1 and he wouldn’t have had the advantage in 1967-8 he had in 1971 of fighting a 29-year-old Ali who had been inactive and had four year’s ring rust. Yet Ali was life and death with him for 15 rounds even in his decline through inactivity. Ali gave Frazier such a severe beating in 1971 (Frazier was hospitalized for a month, although the narrative is that it was only a kidney problem, so, Ali, not renowned for body punching, could not have inflicted the damage) one can only shudder to think how things would have been in 1967-68. It would have been a slaughter.

The rest of the contenders offered a barren landscape at the time; Thad Spencer, Jimmy Ellis, Ernie Terrell (propping up the top ten) and, in-between, Oscar Bonavena, Karl Mildenberger, Floyd Patterson, and some Italian guy etc. None of these guys stood a chance against Ali in the late 60s. Ali had depleted the division and his troubles with the US government was a blessing to Frazier and the rest. In fact, Floyd has never ever come close to dominating a division in the way Ali dominated the heavyweight division by 1967. Lastly, with hypothetical matchups, what most boxing people miss, firstly, is that you cannot pit a boxer against another boxer if their respective body of work was at weight classes that historically meant they could never ever have been on a collision course at any time in history. The stars simply never aligned for those guys to face each other. The second thing people miss is the situation where a boxer fought in more than one division, because factors which weigh on whether such a boxer could have beaten others who similarly fought at multiple weights at any of those weights, are too imponderable. Having said that, I have to agree with Thomas Hearns, for example, when he says Floyd would have been too small for him. Guys like Bud Crawford (he's my favourite fighter of the post 4 Kings era) who think Floyd could have beaten a guy like Hearns at 147 pounds simply do not understand boxing even if they were great fighters themselves. Floyd had incredible reach at 72 inches for a fighter his size and he used that to his advantage but Hearns had the reach almost of a heavyweight at 78 inches. I don't know how Floyd gets around that. (the height, the speed and the power). These guys lose sight of the fact that, firstly, at 147 pounds, Hearns was beaten only by an ATG in SRL and, secondly, Hearns was sheer murder on guys the size of Floyd. To stand any kind of chance against Hearns, a fighter had to be 5:10 upwards because, on the eye test, Hearns is probably the greatest puncher in boxing history at punching down. And whereas Hearns began his career at 147 pounds and had murderous power and pinpoint accuracy in his freakish nearly 6:2 frame, Floyd began his career at 130 pounds and never really carried his power up to welterweight like Crawford did. If Marcos Maidana, who never began his career at 147 pounds, could knock Floyd's tooth out at that weight, can guys like Bud Crawford imagine what Hearns' power could do to Floyd?

Or SRR's power at that weight? SRL cracked the Philly shell code against Floyd's dad and even though Floyd was far more talented skilled and probably worked harder and was more dedicated than his dad, SRL's boyish features and smile masked a cold-blooded killer such as Floyd never faced in his entire career, let alone at 147 pounds. One other thing that is easily forgotten is that Floyd's title wins were never against ATG level opponents. In fact, Floyd never fought an ATG in his prime. SRL took his title from Wilfred Benitez, the youngest champion in history and an ATG. Hearns took his title off Pipino Cuevas who had 10 defences and had knocked Billy Backus's eye with one punch. For my part, Floyd probably beats everyone in history at junior lightweight although Alexis Arguello would be a big ask and that's about it, except maybe he also beats everyone at lightweight except Duran.

He's not worth comparing to the welterweight greats. I'm sorry for this long email and I will understand if you do not publish it but I just considered it important to shed some light on some boxing narratives that carry no substance at all. Floyd mocked SRL saying his first loss was to a lightweight but I will tell you one thing right now and no one can convince me differently. If it's Floyd against Roberto Duran that night in Montreal instead of SRL, Floyd doesn't make it to the 15th round. SRL is my favourite fighter of all time next to Ali but he also was just blowing smoke when he said he deliberately tried to beat Duran at his own game in that first fight. Duran made him fight the fight he fought and, if he had tried to stick and move, Duran would probably have stopped him. So, SRL fought the fight he had to fight that night because it was the perfect fight for him to pull off the victory and he just fell short at what everyone said was actually the kind of fight Duran wanted. Yes, he wanted it but it did not mean he had it. He still had to make it and make it he did. Floyd simply can’t beat guys like SRR, SRL at 147, Duran even at 135, or Aaron Pryor at 140, where Floyd had a brief sojourn, on skill alone. Those guys were just as skilled as Floyd and they were more dynamically offensive than he was at 147. At 140, only the version of Floyd that beat Arturo Gatti probably beats Pryor but it's not a gimme. Floyd struggled against the pressure of Jose Castillo and Maidana (which was never sustained pressure) and a prime Pryor would probably simply have been too indefatigable for Floyd, whereas at 135 pounds, Floyd would have to catch Duran on a night such as Esteban de Jesus caught him in the first fight to stand a chance. If the timelines I state are off-base, please correct them because I was writing from memory.

MM-Roberto Duran v Ike Williams prime for prime at 135 pounds. Too difficult to call but I think Duran pulls away in the championship rounds and probably stops Williams late.

Katlholo Johannesburg, South Africa.

Bread’s response: I’m not going to correct your opinion. It’s yours. And you make valid points. Personally, the hypothetical match ups are getting toxic to me. When I was a kid, my grandfather used to invite about seven or eight of friends over on weekend afternoons. They would always talk boxing. My grandfather was born in 1931 and he passed in 2000 to give you an insight of what he SAW. His friends were of similar age.

So, they would tell me about fighters and bring books and videos to back up their stories. I, in turn would ask them who would win in such hypothetical match ups. They would answer me but always be respectful. I can’t remember one time a bad argument ever broke out and the crowd was split on Ali vs Louis. My point is today it’s turned toxic, whereas when I was a kid, it was fun. I’ve recently seen Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather have a public beef because of a hypothetical fight between Mayweather and Sugar Ray Leonard.

I never purposely indulge into that type of stuff for several reasons. One is, I’m not going to lie just to not hurt someone’s feelings. Also no one considers context concerning weights, rounds, resources etc. but for some reason I get dragged into it when you guys ask me questions. But I will answer you about Duran vs Williams because Williams has passed away and Duran seems to be a happy go lucky guy that doesn’t take himself too seriously. 

I have certain instinctual cues I have picked up from historical match ups. In match ups of violent punchers and fighters with violent temperaments the fighter with the more clever defense usually wins. Nothing is 100% in terms of outcomes but if you look historically of the type of match up I’m speaking of the more clever defense usually wins. So let’s look. Mike McCallum vs Julian Jackson, Julio Cesar Chavez vs Edwin Rosario, Marvin Hagler vs Tommy Hearns. In each of these cases the fighter with the more clever defense won. One could add that the fighter with the better chin also won and that may be true but their chins weren’t hit as solid because of the defense.  m

Ike Williams was a fighter that my grandfather told me about. He was from Trenton, NJ 45 minutes north of Philadelphia. He was a straight killer. The crowd at my grandparent's house was also split on Williams vs Duran. Some of my pop’s friends thought Williams would win, some thought Duran. Personally I would take Duran in an absolute war. I think he’s just a little more clever with his approach. Duran has the best defense I’ve seen for a fighter as offensively dynamic as him. He has every layer of defense except exceptional length which got him in trouble at the higher weights but not at lightweight. So while I believe this is an even match up and Williams is right with him. In these types of violent affairs the fighter who takes some of the steam off their opponent’s punches a little more usually pulls it out. I doubt if I get hate mail for picking Duran over Williams. But if this were recently retired or active fighters, I would get hate mail for sure.

 

What up Bread, I rewatched Khan-Maidana the other day and after Khan dropped Maidana hard to the body why did he stop going to the body? Bad coaching or just his instincts? Two parter – I see people rating Floyd over Manny in their P4P (understandable due to head to head) but does resume matter in this? I don’t see Floyd having anyone as good as the three amigos (JMM, Barrera, Marquez) in his resume at their prime? Thanks Mike S., San Antonio

Bread’s response: I don’t know why Khan stopped going to the body. But I won’t say it was bad coaching. Khan won the fight against a very, tough durable opponent. Maybe Khan didn’t see more body punching opportunities. Sometimes what we see on the outside, is not what the fighter sees on the inside.

As for Floyd and Manny. I get why some rank Manny over Floyd. They think because Manny started out at Flyweight and Floyd started at Junior Lightweight and their accomplishments are comparable, Manny was competitive in their head-to-head fight and they ended at basically the same weight, that Manny is the greater fighter. Lots of historians also have Greb ranked over Tunney, Langford ranked over Johnson and Duran ranked over Leonard. All scenarios where the smaller fighter got the worst end of the head to head match ups. But overall they feel the smaller fighter was slightly better. I don’t argue hard either way. 

If you tell me Floyd is higher, I don’t argue because Floyd beat Manny head to head. And he went undefeated in the same era Manny took several losses. I won’t say being undefeated doesn’t count because it’s does. It doesn’t mean EVERYTHING but it does mean SOMETHING.

And if you tell me Manny is higher because he’s a lot smaller and he took more chances against in their prime great fighters, I won’t argue either. Rankings are subjective and this one is close enough where it’s debatable.

Send CONCISE questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com