The one and only Stephen "Breadman" Edwards is back with your favorite mailbag and this week he discusses: The greatest welterweights in history; Tyson Fury's gloves; the best traing camp practices; the Usyk-Joshua relationship...

Good afternoon, Breadman, hope all is well with you and your family. I read in the mailbag that Sugar Ray Leonard is your favorite fighter of all time. He is mine, also. Your explanation of the Hagler victory was spot on; eliminating all the excuses I’ve heard over the years. Ray won. It started me thinking of the all-time welterweight list. When I see such lists they criminally rate Thomas Hearns way too low. He was never outboxed in his career and only lost in wars, giving his all. He would give any welterweight great in history the fight of their life and could beat any on a given night. Sugar Ray Leonard, luckily, they rate fairly. I respect your rating of history very much because you are unbiased and watch all the greats. Please let me know your all-time welterweight list, say top 15, as the division is the deepest in boxing history. Active or just retired fighters like Crawford and Manny too please, not just old or long-retired fighters. Thanks again, as always. Your mailbag is much appreciated. Angelo, Bronx

Bread’s response: Thank you bro. I get so tired of the Hagler got robbed BS. Hagler missed all night and got outlanded by the guy who supposedly only fought for 30 seconds of the rounds. People wanted Hagler to win so they moved the goal post to justify the robbery. They say, you can’t take the title moving away. ‘Ray only fought 30 seconds of the rounds, etc, etc.’ It’s all BS. Hagler was great, but he made a mistake. He wanted to outbox Leonard instead of just winning the fight. And by time he realized he couldn’t outbox Leonard, it was too late because Leonard was too confident and too engaged to fold down the stretch.

Hearns is a terrific welterweight. But he rates higher in a head-to-head sense than he does in a legacy sense at welterweight because he only had three title defenses and he lost the Superbowl to Ray Leonard. But he does have the Leonard performance under his belt and a two-round decapitation to win the title versus HOF Pipino Cuevas. Head-to-head Hearns is so good at 147lbs I believe he beats everyone in at least one out of three fights. OK, here goes off the top of my head, the top 15 for the best division in history.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Henry Armstrong

3. Sugar Ray Leonard

4. Mickey Walker

5. Joe Walcott

6. Kid Gavilan

7. Jose Napoles

8. Emile Griffith

9. Thomas Hearns

10. Felix Trinidad

11. Terence Crawford

12. Floyd Mayweather

13. Barney Ross

14. Manny Pacquiao

15. Roberto Duran

I didn’t have time to have a reason for each entry but I’m really comfortable that my list is solid.

Good evening, Mr Edwards, I read your weekly mail and really appreciate your knowledge. My question is about fighter preparation: the road work; gym work; diet; mental ability and sparring. Regarding sparring, often we hear about a fighter taking a beating in the gym or knocked down – these things can happen. Is sparring really hard? Is it more of a rehearsal of the fight? I also think the body clock must be aligned with the task ahead: 10-round fight; bell rings for the start; three-minute rounds; a minute break. This should be introduced in the training for at least half the camp, were you run at good pace for three minutes, walk for one. And sparring, perhaps the final week try do the sparring at the same time of day as the fight will be. I'm from South Africa, we had a great fighter here, Brian Mitchell, nicknamed the “Road Warrior” as he always fought out of the country due to our political situation at the time. What did you think of his two fights with Tony Lopez?

Andre, South Africa

Bread’s response: Brian Mitchell was the truth. A top fighter ever at 130lbs. He’s very underrated. You definitely have knowledge on how to run a camp. With sparring partners, I usually hire guys who are built like and fight like the opponent. I don’t really tell them much besides throw a specific punch once in a while because usually they already fight like the opponent. I personally like to go three-minute rounds with 30-second rest. I want the rest to be less in the fight so when the real fight comes it’s an easier rest break. As the fight gets closer, I may go up to one-minute breaks in between rounds.

On the bags we do the same thing. Three minutes with a 30 second break or straight through for a set time. I don’t do three-minute runs with a one-minute break. There are more efficient runs than that. I also change the gym time the last week of camp to the time we fight, so the fighter’s biorhythms can be in tune. It really works.

Hey Bread, someone wrote in last week to comment on Wilder's accusations of Fury cheating. I know this topic has been beaten to death for years at this point, but I made an observation years ago that I have never heard anyone mention, so here I go. In their first fight, Tyson Fury's left-hand wrap visibly sticks out his glove cuff the entire fight. It even appears to get worse as the fight progresses. More than an inch is showing! The right glove only a small portion is showing. Before the fight, neither hand wrap is really showing. I cannot recall another fight where I was EVER able to see a fighter’s hand wraps so clearly visible beyond the glove. Have you? It's lived rent free in my head for years to the point where I look for it while watching fights and have never seen it since. Based on this observation, I don't think his lead hand was fully in the glove the entire fight. If I were inclined to put my tinfoil hat on, my best guess is Tyson Fury wanted a few inches of reach in his pawing lead hand to keep Wilder a bit further away and obstruct his vision. I might not be convinced myself that this would be an advantage or was particularly useful or necessary, but the observation still stands. His hand wrap was clearly visible well beyond the glove cuff and it was not in their future fights. I find that weird. Thoughts?

Brent, Canada.

Bread’s response: I was live in attendance for Fury vs Wilder I and III. I saw exactly what you’re talking about. And I think your reasoning is reasonable. The only advantage a fighter can get from his glove not being fully on is, it lengthens his reach and or it allows him to poke with his fingers through the glove. But we have to leave room for Fury having an equipment malfunction. Sometimes trunks, gloves, shoes etc don’t function properly. I’m also going to say this. If you saw it and I saw it, why didn’t the officials correct it and why didn’t anyone from Team Wilder object to it?

Bread, I have a few questions about two fighters with notorious backgrounds who ended up sparring behind bars at the Rahway Penitentiary.  My first question is about light heavyweight James Scott. He defeated more legitimate top 10 contenders in his brief run than many beltholders have today. Do you think he would've beaten Mike Rossman or Victor Galendez if he had the opportunity? My second question is about Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. It seems today he's viewed as being overrated. I disagree with that, he had some quality wins. The question is do you think he'd have won a middleweight title within the last few decades if he was in his prime then?  The level of violence in bouts between Carter and the likes of Barkley, Benn, and Lemiuex would've been off the charts.

Thanks, Art.

Bread’s response: The thing about hard luck fighters is myths grow about them that often aren’t true. I don’t believe Hurrican Carter was overrated. He was what he was. A solid hard-nosed contender and a big puncher. He could’ve possibly won a championship over the last few decades but it would be no guarantee. I don’t know if he beats Benn, Barkley or Lemiuex. I don’t know if he beats Jermain Taylor, Kelly Pavlik or Sergio Martinez. It’s possible but no guarantee. Carter lost some fights he should’ve won and he won some fights he should’ve lost. It’s a tough call when you have that type of fighter who didn’t break through in his own era.

James Scott was really good. I think slightly better than Carter. But, again, it’s no guarantee he beats Rossman or Galindez. If you make me guess, I say he beats Rossman but loses to Galindez.

God bless Breadman, Thurman vs Fundora this weekend should be fun. Do you think Keith has a legitimate shot to beat up this weight and height bully? How do you see this match up ending up?

Bread’s response: I definitely think Thurman has a shot. I think this fight is 60/40 in Fundora’s favor. Fundora has been dropped and hurt by looping punches that Bryan Mendoza and Erickson Lubin landed that Keith Thurman is an expert at landing. Thurman has a shot to KO Fundora. But I’m picking Fundora because I think he’s found his groove in exhausting fighters. I think his jab and sense of distance has improved. Thurman has good legs but I think in this fight he will be forced to move too much. I think he will be carried too fast. I think Fundora will sap his energy late. I think Fundora’s jab and sneaky left hand underneath body shot will win him the fight by late stoppage between eight and 10.

What’s up Bread, hope you’re doing well. In today’s era where film study and data analysis are so advanced, how do you strike the balance between allowing a fighter the freedom to act instinctively and proactively in the moment, while still ensuring they apply the detailed game plan developed to neutralize their opponent? Really appreciate your mailbag!

Bread’s response: It depends on the fighter. Some fighters can overthink if they watch too much film. Some fighters see what they need to see and then they flow. I personally think it’s foolish to not study film. But how the film is studied and how it’s applied depends on the fighter and trainer dynamic.

Personally, I like to study film without the fighter. I see what I need to see. Then I watch it with the fighter and see if we see the same thing. If we do, we go over it in the gym over and over until it becomes muscle memory. I’ve had fighters who are cool with film study. Then I’ve had fighters who overthink it and they seem to want to find this magical flaw in their opponent when the gameplan is simple to execute. At the end of the day, the fighter needs to trust the trainer’s eyes and not make film study into rocket science.

Hi Breadman, I haven't written in in a while, but I do try to stay caught up on this mailbag. I don’t really read anything else on this website. Journalism for boxing doesn't seem to have that incisiveness and artfulness that it did when guys like AJ Liebling were writing back in the Fifties and Sixties. If you've not read ‘Ahab and Nemesis’ it's a great Liebling essay/article in his book The Sweet Science, I highly recommend it. Also, if you haven't read Mark Kram's ‘Lawdy, Lawdy, He's Great’ article, which is about The Thrilla in Manila (top 5 fights in my subjective list) it’s worth reading. Anyway, I had one observation, one piece of trivia, and one question and was curious about your feedback. When I put on old fights, and if they happen to be Mayweather fights, I find myself enjoying his pre-De La Hoya roster more than the other half of his career. Just seemed more high energy. Trivia: Did you know that Harry Greb was blind in his right eye for the last four years, at least, of his career? This is the time when he beat Tunney, Walker, Rosenbloom, Slattery, Loughran and Flowers, Norfolk, and Tommy Gibbons. I mean, yeah, he lost to some of them but they rematched A LOT back then. Half blind...that's crazy. Not too many people with perfect vision could manage that... Question: What do you make of Joshua and Usyk training together? I think it's good. Usyk has that steadfastness that has always been a missing piece of Joshua's overall character. I mean, obviously you gotta have some steadfastness to be a world champion and to unify, but I think that it's a good move for AJ. Unless I'm missing something, I think it shows an insane level of humility. I don't think I could easily go to a former opponent who beat me twice and essentially learn from them. It'd be tough. I might keep that chip on my shoulder and I know that's not a good thing. I guess I'm saying props to AJ. Thanks for your time. Jay

Bread’s response: Joshua and Usyk are closer to 40 than they are 30. They have already fought twice. I don’t have an issue with them training together. I think Usyk has something that Joshua could use. And that’s composure in the second half of fights. Usyk has separated himself in his career with what he does after round six. It’s why he’s a HOF. Joshua realized this and he’s trying to acquire it. Now here is the thing. Being able to execute something and is not the same as being able to teach someone to execute. We know that Usyk is a great fighter. But now we will see if he’s a great teacher.

Hey Bread, my man! Just want to follow up with the response from last week; you absolutely nailed the question of risk adverse fighters not going for it when they are down . I just want to say lay off my Macho Time! He was character you need in boxing, sorta like in all pop cultures. On a serious note, can you shed light on three guys, two I think should be Hall of Famers. Bad Chad Dawson, Jermain Taylor, and Paul Williams. When boxing was fixated on just Manny and Floyd seems those fighters were lost in the sauce. How good did you think those guys were? Peace, and a fan for life, Rev

Bread’s response: I believe if Chad Dawson had a different promoter and PR machine behind him he would be a HOF. Dawson beat Tomas Adamek, Glen Johnson (twice), Antonio Tarver (twice) and Bernard Hopkins. He has a strong case for being a HOF and no one really seems to care because his ending was bad. But we have seen inferior fighters to Dawson make the HOF without half of the resume that Dawson had. We also just saw Antonio Tarver just make the HOF which should strengthen Dawson’s claim because he defeated him twice. Dawson was better than good. I think he was excellent at his best.

Jermain Taylor was very flawed but also very good. He has two wins over Bernard Hopkins, he also beat William Joppy, Raul Marquez, Jeff Lacy, Kasim Ouma and he won the IBF title again in his last fight vs Sam Soliman. I don’t believe Taylor is a HOF. But I believe he’s underrated and gets a bad rap because his losses were just so highlighted by late round KOs. Taylor also has a tough draw vs HOF Winky Wright. Taylor was never dominated at 160lbs. He actually only has one loss at 160 and that’s vs Pavlik in their first fight. Assessing a fighter is all about perspective. Taylor was a real fighter, and he had a real run at 160lbs.

Paul Williams was a GUN. He fought a very tough schedule from very early. I remember when he beat an Olympian from area named Terrance Cauthen. Then he beat Sharmba Mitchell. Then he challenged Antonio Margarito when no one wanted to go near him. He has a hiccup vs Carlos Quintana, but he comes right back and stops him in one. He stopped the super durable Verno Phillips, then he beats Winky Wright and Sergio Martinez back-to-back. He took a bad loss to Martinez in the rematch and he got a gift decision over Erislandy Lara. We don’t know how the rest of his career would’ve went because of his motorcycle accident. I think he peaked out, but I don’t know it.

Williams is a what-if story because he stopped boxing because of an outside of the ring injury. That’s a little different than just his skills eroding. I think Williams on his best night would have been a tough fight for anyone of his era from 147-160. I don’t know if he was a HOF but he was the most feared out of the fighters you gave me. Williams could really fight.

Send CONCISE questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com