In this week’s Daily Bread Mailbag, Stephen Edwards responds to criticism about his opinion on Terence Crawford, ponders whether Errol Spence will end up in the Hall of Fame, talks about the old PED accusations levelled at Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather and pinpoints fighters in history who saw their form both dip alarmingly and never return.

Terence Crawford shared some interesting opinions recently. I know you have been a big supporter of Crawford’s status as a great fighter and I have a strong opposing opinion. You think Crawford is a Hall of Famer and #1 P4P. Where I think he needs to do more and I rate him in the top 5 because of his weak resume. In an interview Crawford just stated that he doesn’t think Errol Spence is a Hall of Famer. Spence is Crawford’s best win. So if Spence is not a Hall of Famer, it proves my point and makes your point look weak. Thanks Bud for settling our debate. Crawford also said that he thinks Manny Pacquiao was on PEDS, citing that Pacquiao stopped scoring knockouts once Floyd Mayweather asked him to do drug testing. But he forgot to mention that Floyd himself has a shady past and Floyd did USADA not VADA, which allows for fighters to get their test results sealed. A clean fighter would never get their test results sealed. But I get it blacks, stick with blacks. He also forgot to mention that Manny sued Floyd and Floyd settled out of court because his checkered past could’ve been exposed. If Floyd felt so strong about Manny being dirty, why did he settle? I know you’re going to try to clean this up, but it’s really no way to spin it.

Bread’s Response: Ok I see you came with all guns blazing towards me, because of something Terence Crawford said. But I’m not going to shy away from any smoke. 

Crawford’s opinion is Crawford’s opinion. I think Manny is a terrific fighter. One of the best I have ever seen. Possibly my favorite of the last era. But there was a cloud of suspicion over his incredible run. It also didn’t help that Freddie Roach made a public comment that Alex Ariza would give Manny stuff and he didn’t know what it was. So Crawford is not the only person in boxing who suspected Manny of being a PED user. He’s just saying it out loud. 

Personally I am on the fence. The reason being is Manny did sue Floyd. When you sue someone, you can expose yourself because of the full disclosure that’s required in the discovery in litigation. I’ve been sued before…..Manny took a chance because if he was dirty and they went to trial, all types of things could’ve been exposed through old test samples, bank transactions etc. So that turn of events gave me pause in condemning Manny Pacquiao as a dirty fighter.

Ok so now you’re bringing up the brothers thing… I didn’t miss that shot. You guys have a way of doing that and I don’t know what you expect to get out of me. I know the demographics of boxing. I’ve been live at hundreds of fights. I hear the language that’s used. Trust me I know what it is. On to your next point. 

I believe that VADA is superior to USADA because VADA does test for more things and it costs less. There is nothing else to say about that because it's common sense.

As for your allegation about Floyd. Let me say this. I don’t know about a sealed test. So, I consider both Floyd and Manny clean fighters because I have not seen any proof that either failed a test. There may be circumstantial rumors surrounding each but not enough for me to call either a dirty fighter. 

Now let’s talk about Errol Spence. You’re correct, you’re probably one of the guys who gets mad that I have Terence Crawford #1 P4P. So you think that my stance is discredited because Crawford himself says Spence is not a HOF and Spence is Crawford’s best win. You know you have a point. But it’s not as simple as you make it sound. Let me be clear. 

While Crawford is indirectly discrediting his best win, his opinion is not the be all end all. Crawford doesn’t vote for who gets in the Hall of Fame. Crawford may think he’s the best fighter ever, it doesn’t mean it’s true because he thinks it… You guys are funny. If Crawford said he was the best fighter ever, you would call him delusional but since he has an opinion on Spence, that fits the narrative you like, now you want to make it like Crawford’s opinion is worth your while.

So here is where I’m at on Crawford’s resume and Errol Spence’s HOF credentials. I think Crawford has a solid but not great resume. He may not have many P4P or HOF names on his resume, but he has fought several ring rated fighters and ex world champions which is also another way to assess a resume. Crawford has been consistent in his performances for a decade with no controversial results. The Madrimov result was not controversial in my opinion. 

Crawford was also avoided a great deal in his career. So while I don’t give him credit for the fighters he missed. I also don’t hold it against him as hard as I would with a fighter, who ducks an available threat. Crawford doesn’t have any blatant ducks. Some may say he could’ve fought Boots Ennis or Vergil Ortiz, but I don’t think it’s gotten to the point of a duck.

Crawford never fought Manny Pacquiao while they were at Top Rank. Manny was the A-side and I can’t blame Crawford for that. Crawford also never fought Danny Garcia or Keith Thurman who were with PBC. But he did fight Shawn Porter and Errol Spence. I don’t blame him for that either because the PBC welterweights fought each other first, then they allowed Crawford to get into the unofficial tournament. Top Rank did the same thing a few years before when Tim Bradley, Manny Pacquiao, Juan Manuel Marquez, Brandon Rios and Mike Alvarado - mixed and matched a series of fights. So that’s the business of boxing and I can’t blame Crawford for that. But again, I’m also not going to give him credit for fights that he didn’t fight. 

Crawford stopped both Spence and Porter and in my opinion,  Spence established himself as the best welterweight of that specific PBC crop. I believe that Crawford is a legit great fighter and first ballot HOF. Crawford won his super fight. He won titles from 135-154. He unified two divisions and became Ring Champion in three divisions. And he’s undefeated in title fights. I think his HOF claim is clear. At this point we need to see what tier of greatness he’s on. I don’t rate him over guys like Leonard and Mayweather but his career is still going. So let’s see where his next few fights takes us. 

As for Spence, I think he had an excellent career. But the question is, is he a HOF? Well let’s look. Let’s take the top welterweights since 1980 and let’s look who made the HOF, who didn’t, and how they match up with Spence. 

Since 1980 Carlos Palomino, Pipino Cuevas, Roberto Duran, Wilfred Benitez, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Donald Curry, Buddy McGirt, Pernell Whitaker, Felix Trinidad, Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, Tim Bradley, Floyd Mayweather, Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquiao have made the HOF. Marlon Starling, Vernon Forrest, Ike Quartey, Meldrick Taylor, Zab Judah and Simon Brown are the top welterweights who have not made it yet.

Obviously Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Mayweather, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Whitaker and Pacquiao are on a special tier. The next tier is Cotto, Benitez and Mosley. Then you have guys like Curry, Cuevas, Bradley and Palomino. In my humble opinion Spence was better than Cuevas and Palomino. And he’s close to being equal to Curry, Bradley and Mosley. It’s hard to assess Benitez and Cotto because they did more than Errol in other weight divisions. Errol has been a welterweight his entire career. I also believe Errol did more than Vernon Forrest, who has a thin resume outside of Shane Mosley. We also have to remember that Shawn Porter is on the ballot and Errol beat him head to head. As I’m typing I’m trying to assess this forensically and most of all objectively. 

I will say that because Errol was champion for six years. And he ascended to what I believe was #4 P4P. Errol unified three belts while scoring wins over Kell Brook, Shawn Porter, Danny Garcia and Mikey Garcia. I think Errol has a real claim to be a Hall of Famer. He may not be a first ballot HOF. But his claim is reasonable, considering all of the details. 

So, there are a few things working for Errol and a few things working against him. What works for Errol is, he unified three belts. He had a lofty P4P status. He beat Porter, Brook and both Garcias. Shawn Porter’s nomination to be on the ballot also helps because Errol beat Shawn. Tim Bradley’s induction in the HOF helps because Errol is comparable to Bradley in terms of ability and accomplishment. And last but not least, Terence Crawford. If Crawford keeps racking up great wins, and if Spence’s only loss is Terence Crawford, then…

What works against Errol, is how decisive he lost to Crawford. The other issues he has is fighters like Ike Quartey, Marlon Starling and Simon Brown are not in. Some media who vote may believe that Quartey, Brown and Starling are equal to Errol as fighters. And if they aren’t in, then Errol shouldn’t be in either. After analyzing everything, I think Errol has a good chance to be inducted once he’s eligible.

Hey Breadman, Hope you and you're family are well and thanks again for doing this week. My question is about the USA titles. I'm from England, and here the British title is a big deal. There are some wars over that title. There are a lot of fighters who's whole dream is to win that title and they don't think beyond that. Some of those people go on to greater things after getting the title (Leigh Wood, Chris Billam-Smith) and some don't (Nathan Heaney), but they all talk about winning that British title as their first dream and it being one of if not the most meaningful win of their career, and you can see it in how they react when they win that title. I've never seen an American fighter talk about winning a USA title like that. Maybe I'm naive on the topic and don't watch enough interviews of up-and-coming Americans, but I wanted to ask if winning those titles is as big of a deal in America as winning a British one is, and if not, why do you think there's that difference?All the best and thanks again,Dean

Bread’s Response: To answer you directly, no. All fighters love belts for some reason. And they use belts to impress casuals. But US fighters aren’t as obsessed with winning regional titles as they are with winning world titles. I think one of the reasons it’s different in the UK is, the UK overall pays more money to non-world champions. There are several UK fighters who have made millions and they never won a world title. It has happened in the US but not nearly as much.

Hello Bread, How you doing, Man? I am a big fan of yours and I always look forward to reading your mailbag. Have done since 2011 which was before my daughter was born and she's turning 14 this week! I have never missed your mailbag since then. I just have a few questions if you don't mind. Is boxing ability God-given talent that you are born with it or this is something you can develop? For example, Floyd has been in the environment of boxer since he was a kid like Stephen curry in basketball. They are programmed to be great since they were a kid so they become great. I mean, if you will have a son and you train him at the age of 5 until 20, he will become a great fighter. Compare to the people who train later but have the god given athletic and punching power ability.  Please clarify. Who will achieve more if they swap eras? What if you transport  those fighting 3 times a month with 15 rounds era in the 70's and 80's into today's era. Will they struggle because fighters now are talented and have access to modern training and nutritionist? And the same the other way, transport today’s fighters back. Like… Inoue in the Barrera Era or Barrera in the Inoue era2. Crawford in De La Hoya era or De La Hoya in Crawford Era. 3. Usyk in Tyson era, Tyson in Usyk Era.4. Zion Williamson and LeBron in Barkley and Jordan era. Or Barkley and Jordan in today's era. Barkley seems undersized in today's game at 6"5 but will be playable in today's game? Mythical matchup: Tyson vs Usyk in their prime… Thanks, Angelo

Bread’s Response: Talent is god given. Skill is something you can acquire through practice and repetition. But the level of skill you display is based on your talent. So yes boxing ability can be a god given talent. But the ability to box is something that can be enhanced through practice. I think what people miss is, you need both to be special. 

Floyd and Steph have great genetics. But they also have siblings and their siblings are not as good as they are at their chosen sport. So it's not all genetics. There are many factors. The talent, work ethic and genetics all have to match up to make a special athlete.

I don’t like to compare eras. But let me say this. I believe eras from longer ago produced better fighters because they fought more often and they were made to challenge themselves more. Humans have literally overcame everything on earth when made to overcome it. But today fighters have found a way to make millions without ever fighting a 50/50 fight. 

I think today’s fighters have access to better recovery methods, better practices to cut weight, and most importantly they get to look at fighters from the past and copy their moves.

Fighters of yesterday fought more often within shorter periods of time. Boxing is a skill- based sport. And the way you enhance skill is to practice. Repetition basically. There were less belts available and they were made to fight stiffer competition. 

So you have a modern era of bigger men, fighting at the same weight as men were fighting 40 years ago. But instead of welterweights who walked around at 160lbs in 1980. You have welterweights now who walk around at 180lbs. That’s the biggest difference in eras. 

1. Inoue in both

2. Crawford in both

3. Tyson is a bad style for Usyk. He would rush Usyk all night and it's hard to defend your body on a bounce rhythm.

4. Basketball is different because the rules have changed and the concepts have changed. But Jordan would be so dominant in this era he would be outlawed. Barkley would just iso guys and post them up. Barkely could run and jump despite his height and he’s much better than Zion. 

Zion and Lebron would flourish also 40 years ago. I don’t buy for one second they are too soft for the 80s. they would adapt because they’re both special.

Since it's still highly debated to this day, I gotta ask you, Bread, who did you have winning each of the four Pacquiao-Marquez fights in their rivalry? I had Pacman winning the first, second and third fight in close fashion, and obviously Marquez won the fourth and final fight by KO. It's one of the most closely-contested rivalries in boxing history.  James

Bread’s response: I thought Pac won the first fight. A three knockdown round should be scored 10-6 not 10-7. A judge admitted he made a mistake with that one. All Pac had to do was win five rounds in that fight. And I’m confident he won five rounds.

The second fight was actually hard for me to score. But the score I often come up with is 114-113 Pac. Because he scored another clean knockdown in a really tough fight to score. But I felt like both won six rounds but Pac scored the fight's only knockdown. 

In the third fight I initially scored it 115-113 for Pac. But when they decided to do a fourth fight, I went back and rewatched it because I couldn’t understand why Pac would fight him again when he was 2-0-1 against him. What I realized was although Pac had not lost to Marquez he never beat him clean enough without a segment of people thinking Marquez won. There were swing rounds in fights two and three that could’ve gone either way. Marquez had a very strong case for winning that third fight. Marquez’s competitiveness with Pac forced that fourth fight. 

Hey Bread, just got done seeing the highlights of Zepeda vs Farmer. Can you please give a Stand Up to Farmer for the bravery he gave us for our entertainment

Bread’s Response: Stand up Tevin Farmer. Tev has made the city of Philadelphia proud. Excellent fighter. He outkicked his coverage throughout his career and he’s still kicking. Tev is one of my favorite fighters ever from Philadelphia.

Hey Bread, How do you feel about Brian Norman? I think the dude is the goods. I love his relaxed style and footwork, but he has the ability to be explosive at a moment’s notice. Him and Boots is "the" fight. Obviously it could be a big PPV if built right, but it's just one of those legendary die hard at the right moment fights if it happens next barring the Stannoinis outcome. Kinda like Bivol-Beterbiev, Roy vs Bhop/Toney. This era could potentially be like that mid to late 80s right after SRL left where you had guys like Curry McCallum etc at 147 kinda how it's a void now Spence/Crawford is gone.  Did you peep Mayer vs Sandy Ryan? Really enjoyable fight with the coaching drama and issues between the girls. Mikaela just had more dawg in her. What's the best way to control a come forward pressure fighter? Change levels, reset them/jab? Idk if you follow, but I'd love to see Mayer fight Lauren Price. Women's boxing is very enjoyable at the moment. Lastly George Foreman (RIP) came back in 1987 in what i thought was pretty decent shape for being out for 10-plus years. So although he never fought them (Lewis, Tyson, Bowe, Mercer etc.) which version of George had the best chance, the one in ‘88 that beat Dwight Qawi, or that ‘94 Michael Moorer version that was a little bit heavier. Anyways, appreciate you brother for taking time out your busy schedule to answer our questions. It means a lot. My knowledge and love for the sport grew by reading these. 

Bread’s Response: Brian Norman has really improved in my opinion. I agree I think he’s the goods also. He’s strong, fast and accurate. And he’s developing a sense of purpose in the ring. 

I watched Mayer vs Ryan. Mayer is a hair better and she proved it twice. It’s not a big separation between the two but it’s definitely there. Mayer can just execute what she wants a little more than Ryan can execute what she wants. Mayer also processes slightly faster and that matters in evenly matched fights.

Hello Breadman, Quickly on Boots: My wording might have been imprecise last time. It's not so much that I'm only worried he's underestimating how tough Stanionis is and how serious a fight he is, but more that my only question mark over Boots as an outsider is regarding the mental side. I wrote you previously that the first time I watched him was before I'd ever seen you mention him, and I actually didn't like him. The reason was I felt he was trying to be too flashy against an overmatched opponent instead of getting the job done. I now look back and think perhaps he was trying too hard. I am not sure how he handles and is going to handle pressure and the bright lights, it's the only thing I can see that can stop him from eventually becoming p4p #1. You can tell he at least has a solid chin already by the way he reacts to getting hit, at least you can in my opinion if you know what to look for. He lacks for nothing on the physical side but I would prefer him to be a slightly bigger puncher, which may actually come out more when he is less weight-drained. He doesn't seem to be as cold-blooded and able to lock in as Crawford, at least not so far. You could see in my opinion fighting at home in Philly made him more nervous. If I was in his team I wouldn't be telling him to go out there and show the world who he is against Stanionis. I would be telling him to ruthlessly beat his ass, make him miss, make him pay, outclass him and just focus on what he needs to do to win against this specific opponent per the gameplan. Just focus on how to beat this guy. If he comes through it a star should be born but he doesn't need that in his head. Afterwards, the pressure ought to be easier to deal with on the next big one. Hope everythings ok.

Bread’s Response: I respect your opinion on Boots. But obviously I think he’s the goods. But everyone has flaws. And I’m glad you pointed out fighting at home. I do think Boots get distracted with the fans in Philly. I think he wants to impress and please them and most fans are casuals. They become impatient. They want immediate gratification and they don’t get that world class fighters are hard to ko.

The dilemma is, Boots is a big ticket seller. So promoters will fight him close to home. He has to figure out a way to please the fans but not be distracted by them. I think he punches hard enough. But the issue is, when he tries to force kos for the fans, his opponents can see where the punches are coming from. They can brace for the big shots instead of getting hit with shots they don’t see. If Boots can master getting kos at the top level without trying to force them, he will ascend to the next level. This Stanious fight will tell us a lot.

Hey Breadman, Longtime reader, first time writer. Roy Jones related question for you. Can you think of another elite level fighter, that fell off a cliff as fast and as hard and never truly came close to recovering any of his old form again, as Roy Jones Jr? Obviously almost all fighters fall down a few levels as they leave their physical prime, but most of the other historical greats of boxing still maintained at least a good portion of their force in the game even when diminished, compared to Roy where the Tarver 2 and subsequent Glen Johnson fight just left him a completely different fighter and never able to recover at all at the top level. I imagine Oscar De La Hoya likely would have suffered a similar fate had he continued after the Pac fight. And I suppose that also highlights that in the case of Roy, he just fought on for sooo long after he was already washed, it's like he had two full careers. But even still, even considering the ill-fated weight cut after the move to HW, it's such a dramatic example. Are there any other examples similar that you can think of? Thanks for the mailbag! It’s a great read every week. Joel from Montreal

Bread’s Response: Because Roy was so close to GOAT status, his fall off gets talked about the most. But if you look close to the top fighters, most fall off like Roy. Roy’s issue is, he kept fighting so long after he was stopped back to back by Tarver and Johnson. 

But to answer you directly Donald Curry, Matthew Saad Muhammad and Ezzard Charles all fell off of the cliff bad and none of them were able to recover. Look at Curry’s record after the McCallum fight. Look at Saad’s record after the Qawi fights. And look at Charles’ record after the last two Walcott fights. 

Sir ,Thank you for answering my letter last month. My favorite line that I’ve ever read from you is, “Speed is in the body but quickness is in the mind”.  Is that just an innate skill or can it be developed? Thank you. Curt Omaha

Bread’s response: Both speed and quickness can be developed. Speed is simply how fast something moves from one point to the next. Quickness is how fast someone processes something mentally then acts on it. Both can be enhanced through proper training.

Hey Bread, In your opinion, why didn’t Ali rematch Foreman? I know Big George didn’t fight for a year and a half after losing to Ali, but The Greatest fought big punchers in Ron Lyle, Joe Frazier (again), Ken Norton (again), and Earnie Shavers after he beat Foreman. I’ve heard the story that Ali demanded Dick Sadler be back on Foreman’s team, but that doesn’t ring true to me. Sounds more like Ali playing mind games. I’d love to get your thoughts. Thanks, Scott from ABQ

Bread’s Response: Good question most of Ali’s biggest foes he fought twice. With Foreman being the lone exception. I think there are two reasons why… One is George was just not in a good place. He fired his team. And he was just directionless after Ali beat him.

Foreman fought in an event in Canada where he fought five men in one night. But his first official fight after he fought Ali was almost over a year later. So by the time 1976 came around, Ali was winding down although he was still champion. George then lost to Jimmy Young in 1977 and he disappeared for 10 years. Shortly after that Ali retired until he decided to fight Holmes. So I think George was just not there mentally and most importantly the timing was off for a rematch.

Send Questions & Comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com