In this week’s mailbag, Stephen “Breadman” Edwards argues that Mike Tyson’s reign was just as impressive as Larry Holmes, looks into Manny Pacquiao’s chances against Mario Barrios and reflects on recent victories for Hamzah Sheeraz and Katie Taylor.
Hi Breadman, I pray God is blessing and continues to bless you, your family and the fans of your mailbag and their families. I finally got to see Floyd Schofield Jnr and Richardson Hitchins and found both to be quite impressive. I loved Floyd’s performance against Tevin Farmer, and he is definitely now for me must-see TV. I love knockout fighters. There just like home run hitters in baseball. Hitchins really looked good against Kambosos Jnr but the only problem is Loma looked like he was in his prime against Kambosos. So, we will see in the future. If it was about Hitchins being that good, or Kambosos being that bad. The way Kambosos has been looking lately really makes Teo Lopez look really bad. Kambosos beat the breaks off Teo and hasn’t done anything significant since. Lopez won against Loma but his performance against Josh Taylor isn’t looking so good now based on Taylor’s recent form and he got a gift versus Sandor Marin. It is time for Teo to step up and fight a formidable and credible opponent soon or he is going to be known as more of a social media champ instead of a real champion. That Loma fight seems like ancient history now. God bless and take care, BG from Philly
Bread’s response: I was also impressed with Hitchins and Schofield. Hitchins has arguably the best balance and jab in the game. We just need to see more of his body of work because Kambosos has seen better days. I look for Hitchins to try to unify next year. I was even more impressed by Schofield because Tevin Farmer is better than George Kambosos. I look for Schofield to try to challenge for a title this year or early next year. As far as match ups. I think Hitchins has a good shot to beat Teo because of the contrast of styles. And I feel like Schofield would beat Raymond Murattalla if he could get the fight. Let’s see what happens.
Tough break for Berlanga, I think he put himself in a bad spot because Top Rank dropped him and then he kind of ticked off Hearn and Oscar, but he could get another solid fight. I also noticed that he fights real square and that concerned me. I think 168 is red hot minus Canelo's dominance. I could see Adames and Janibek moving up as well. I still hope to see some combination of Plant/Charlo/Berlanga/Munguia get it on. Still big fights and money to be made. Middleweight may be the worst division in boxing – it’s been really weak since the Gennady Golovkin days. I know we lament that these guys protect their 0 in this era, but I will say that I've noticed once guys lose, they take more big risk fights. Haney and Plant are great examples of this. Teofimo put himself in a bad spot not fighting Haney. There are no easy outs or big money fights at 140 currently. Shakur had a great performance; my only concern is how high can he go up in weight with brittle hands/ok power - 140 may be the limit for him. All the greats touched 130/135-154. As always be safe, Brother Bread 🙏🏽
Bread’s response: I think Shakur is just fine. He’s already moved up from 126 to 130 and now 135. He’s in a great spot at 135.
I’m not sure where Berlanga goes from here, but I suspect he moves up in weight and makes some more big money. Believe it or not, I can see him fighting Jake Paul at cruiserweight. Berlanga has made eight figures in his career and he’s never won a world title or beaten anyone in the top 10 Ring rankings. He suffered a tough loss to Sheeraz but overall, he was very fortunate in boxing. Very few non-champions in boxing history have made the money he has.
Fighters do take more risk after a loss. But it’s for several reasons. One of the main reasons is it’s easier to control a fighter coming off a loss, than it is a fighter coming off a win.
Crawford is a great fighter, but how, after the performance against Madrimov can you say he may finish Canelo? He lost 4-to-6 rounds and ate some big shots. Canelo has been in with killers and hasn’t been really hurt or wobbled. His last couple of fights haven’t been his best but he has clearly won each fight. I think he hasn’t been hungry and has known he was going to win his recent fights. I believe that he knows Bud is a great fighter and will be more motivated for this fight just because that is human nature. Also, I hope he KOs Bud and then once Benavidez has been through some wars, and takes some damage, knocks him out too. I’m predicting Canelo KO rounds 4-6. Mad respect for you and love your boxing IQ.
Bread’s response: I’m saying Crawford may beat Canelo because that’s how I feel. It doesn’t mean I’m right. Just like it doesn’t mean you’re right. A prediction is just a subjective opinion on a future event. We will know after the fight who was right. Madrimov did land some nice shots vs Crawford. Specifically, a right hand. And Canelo has a nice right hand. I get that and I know that. But just like you had an excuse for Canelo’s recent performances, I have an excuse for Crawford’s performance vs Madrimov. I simply feel Madrimov is better than given credit for. And he has faster feet than Canelo. So, while Madrimov may not be an overall better fighter than Canelo, Madrimov’s rhythm, fast feet and youth can make him more difficult in specific spots. Let’s see what happens, I’m not going to argue over a fight that will happen in two months.
Good day Bread, I was never the biggest B-Hop fan (his style/personality annoyed me), but I respected him. Lately I've been rewatching his biggest wins and losses. Could you give me a brief summary of what he did to beat Tarver, Pavlik, Trinidad, Winky, and what did the other guys do well who beat him (Calzaghe, Dawson, Taylor). I don't count Kovalev as he was old, but I think he struggles with him at any point. Also, how do you see B-Hop-Toney playing out around 1993-95 or how about prime for prime at their best? Seen the Floyd-RJJ stuff which isn't that deep to me, but I will say Floyd gets a lot of flack for his "misses" however Roy rarely gets heat for his. He should've fought Darius Michaelczweski, Steve Collins and some other guys. How good was Montell Griffin? He gave prime RJJ a good fight and beat James Toney which I never knew until a few days ago. Besides Berlanga and Broner-Maidana what are your top 5-10 most humbling losses? Where guys talked mad shit beforehand, but took a beating? Thanks for always taking your time to answer questions, blessings to you and your family.
Bread’s response: Bernard Hopkins is a master fighter. If Bernard can fight at the pace he wants, he’s almost unbeatable. In the fights where he put on a master class, he dictated the terms. In the fights that he lost he didn’t. It’s very simple.
I don’t think Roy Jones deserved the Reluctant Roy moniker. No pound for pound number one American fighter, was ever expected to go abroad and fight a top contender before or after Roy. So, I don’t give Roy any flack for not fighting Darius Michaelczweski. HBO backed Roy and if Michaelczweski wanted it, he should’ve come to get it. However, I do think Roy should’ve fought Steve Collins who wanted it and Michael Nunn who was his mandatory. Those were makeable fights. Other than that Roy lined them up and took on tough hardcore fighter after fighter, in Bernard Hopkins, Thomas Tate, James Toney, Bryant Brannon, Vinny Pazienza, Mike McCallum, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson, Eric Harding, Lou DeValle, Antonio Tarver and John Ruiz. Roy has five HOFs on his resume and a host of Ring-rated fighters.
Montell Griffin was what you call an excellent fighter. He may not be a great fighter, but he’s an excellent fighter and he can give great fighters hell on any given night. His first fight with Roy Jones was very competitive as was his two fights with James Toney, no matter who you thought won.
If Manny Pacquiao defeats Mario Barrios this weekend, should he be re-installed on everyone’s pound-for-pound lists? I would say yes. Pacquiao would be a 5-foot-5 welterweight champion. Rewarding that type of fighter is the entire point of these lists.
Bread’s response: If Manny were to beat Barrios it would be a great win, but it wouldn’t put him in the P4P top ten. Barrios is not in the P4P top ten and he’s not the top welterweight. Since Jaron Ennis left the divisions, Brian Norman Jnr is the top fighter at the weight. More importantly let’s just see what happens first before we start hypothetically ranking Manny.
Hi Breadman,Long time reader, first time writer. I appreciate your insight and perspective on boxing and have learned a lot from your mailbag. I've been coaching youth boxers as a volunteer for a couple years now and have cited you many times when I go over key concepts with my boxers. So, first and foremost, thank you for sharing your knowledge.
With Taylor-Serrano 3 out of the way, would you be willing to share the strategy you believe Serrano needed to implement in order to win? You've mentioned many times that you had a strategy for Serrano, but never said precisely what it was. I know that "the game is to be sold, not told" and hindsight is 20/20, but I'd really like to know what you were thinking. Thanks for your time.Benjamin
Bread’s response: Serrano’s game plan for this fight literally shocked me. I thought she would be aggressive like she was in the first two fights. She hurt Taylor, cornered her often and had Taylor fighting for her life in their first two encounters. But in the third fight, Serrano decided to lay back and box. Serrano was throwing a one-two combination and it was consistently coming up short. I won’t criticize Serrano’s corner because she may not have had it in her to attack like she did in the previous two fights. But nevertheless, I thought Taylor won more clearly this time around.
The adjustment that I thought Serrano needed to win was to stop coming in so high once she cornered Taylor. Serrano’s legs were sort of stiff and straight. The same left hand that was going past Taylor, would have gone INTO Taylor had Serrano simply bent her knees more. Taylor looks to counter Serrano’s left hand with either a left hook or a quick right hand. I was also waiting for Serrano to feint and probe towards Taylor to make her commit to a defensive move before she let the big shot go. Doing that consistently would have stressed Taylor out and fatigued her more. But Serrano never really did it. Again, in no way am I criticizing the great Amanda Serrano. It’s just, know what I saw.
During the first two fights, I kept saying to myself that Serrano was going stop Taylor. Because it looked like she was on the verge of doing so. But she never got the money shot home. Despite Taylor being bigger. Serrano hits harder and is more durable. So a war of attrition always favors Serrano. But Taylor has Olympic pedigree and she’s faster, more reactive, and twitchier. So, a ‘boxing’ match always favors Taylor. Taylor got what she wanted in the third fight.
Greetings Breadman, Thanks for doing the column every Saturday. This is probably the last "no spin zone" in the game. Katie Taylor beat Amanda Serrano three times and Usyk-Fury seem to be on a course to fight for the third time. Are there any other trilogies that have been won by the same fighter all three times? I think it says a lot about boxing being mostly PPV these days. We keep going back to the same well. There was a reason for Taylor-Serrano 3 but Usyk beat Fury more definitively than the last time. How do you time a training camp to get a fighter in peak form for fight night? What do you look for the make sure a fighter is ready for peak performance? You can laugh, but I'm studying for my CPA license and view my studying like a training camp leading up to test day and I think I can draw some parallels and get help from your answer. For example, the study period shouldn't be more than 8-10 weeks or material is forgotten, you have to know the material from school already (kind of like fighters that show up like it's fat camp to make weight), and if you lose/fail, you're guaranteed to make less money like a fighter coming off a loss. If you get the letters, you make more like a having a belt. And failing one of these exams is very embarrassing. Thanks,Nick
Bread’s response: I look for a fighter to meet or exceed all his measurables. If sparring twelve rounds with two different sparring partners is the goal, then I look for him to do it strongly and get the better of the majority of the rounds. If running a six-minute mile is the goal, I look for him to do that. These are examples by the way… But the number one thing I look for is, for him to do things we are working on on the bags and pads, in sparring withOUT me having to ask him to do it. Once the things we practice become muscle memory, I know we are ready to fight!
Hi Mr Edwards. Congratulations on a very successful career training fighters and also being one of the very most knowledgeable voices in boxing. I look forward to each one of your mailbags. I feel compelled to comment about Taylor-Serrano 3. Let me start by saying that I think these two fighters could fight a dozen times and there would be very little to separate them. I thought the first and third fights were pretty much dead even and I thought that Serrano won a clear but close decision in the second bout. That being said, the scoring of the third fight left me a little bit befuddled. Perhaps Serrano‘s best two rounds of the whole fight were the sixth and the eighth rounds yet two of the three judges gave those rounds to Taylor. Also, Taylor managed to land only one punch in the first round compared to Serrano’s two. That seems to be as clear a case as one could make for a 10–10 round, yet all three of the judges scored that round for Taylor. How does a fighter sweep all three scorecards when she only lands one punch, which from re-watching the fight appeared to be a grazing blow to the shoulder? I just don’t see how the judges saw those three rounds in Taylor’s favor. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Second point: I am very happy that fighters, at least for the moment, are being paid commensurate with the risks that they take entering the ring, at least the upper echelon. But at the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that boxing is in the midst of a takeover. The plan of Turki and the Saudis seems pretty evident: Overpay to seize the market and then use your massive power to take near complete control of the sport. Indeed, that plan has already been sketched out with this new fight league, hasn’t it? It also just rubs me the wrong way that someone who had no involvement in boxing whatsoever now calls all of the shots just because of his government-backed pocketbook. I know that money makes the world go round, but it still seems so wrong to me. I am worried that 10 or 15 years hence that boxing will be the Saudi’s plaything and that fighters will have to change their styles of fighting and accept whatever purses are set with little resistance power. Perhaps I’m missing something.
Take care. Sincerely, Kevin G. Little
Bread’s response: I thought the Taylor vs Serrano I and II were actually judged correctly. I wouldn’t have been mad at a draw or Serrano win because they were that close. I thought the third fight was easier to score for Taylor.
I don’t have opinion of Turki just yet because I have never met him or worked with him. So, I would be really judging him by word of mouth, and I don’t like to do that. Let’s see where things go. Hopefully the sport we love keeps thriving.
Hey Bread, I know we are all Sunday morning quarterbacks here, but what was Serrano's corner doing tell her that if she kept throwing 1-2s that Taylor was going to walk into something? Brutal advice. I laughed when I heard that. Katie Taylor was managing the range very well and clearly showed zero signs of walking into a big shot. After a few rounds I felt the plan to box from a distance with her flat feet should have been thrown in the dumpster. It looked like she was shadow boxing the air. Serrano's jab was almost pantomime! Even her double jab and 1-2 were falling short of Taylor's gloves by a mile. It was really bizarre... Regardless, I was very happy to place some money on Taylor at plus odds even with it being an MVP pro Serrano broadcast... Also - are you finally willing to tell us what adjustment you thought Serrano could have made to beat/stop Taylor? Or do we have to wait for that little gem to come out at a later date? Cheers,Brent from Canada
Bread’s response: You know something, will, power and determination are not infinite. Maybe Serrano just didn’t have it in her to make it a war and maybe her corner coached her in relation to what she had left. I don’t know. But I don’t like criticizing a trainer because I don’t know what they saw in the camp leading up to the fight. But I will say, that Serrano has a better chance of out fighting Taylor than she does outboxing Taylor.
Good afternoon Bread, Now that the Taylor-Serrano trilogy is over and Amanda is 0-3, what adjustments do you think Serrano should've made to clearly beat and possibly KO Taylor? Matias-Puello: What did you think of the fight? I agree with the result. Props to Puello for weathering the storm and closing hard but I think he gave away too many of the early rounds were Subriel is historically cold. Berlanga-Sheeraz. Not much to say. It was pretty much as you predicted. Not many in PR are sad. Most of us didn't like his disrespectful clownish act before the fight. He's gonna be in a tough spot from now on. Due to work a visit Philly quite often. Would like a chance to visit your gym and shake your hand. Take care.
Bread’s response: I spoke on it in an earlier question. But, basically, Serrano comes in too high, once she traps Taylor in the corner or ropes, instead of punching into Taylor, her punches go passed Taylor and Taylor escapes the corner. I don’t think Serrano realized how close she was to stopping Taylor in both of the first two fights.
I think Puello is one of those well-rounded boxers, who isn’t super dynamic so he doesn’t blow out anyone but he’s so well-rounded that no one can blow him out. However, I thought Matias pulled it out. Excellent fight.
I thought Sheeraz would stop Berlanga but I didn’t think it would be so early. From what I saw, Sheeraz is the much superior fighter. He’s the better pitcher, catcher, and he’s meaner. He also fights better at all three levels. What he did to Berlanga was brutal.
Dear Stephen, It seems obvious that most of your readers appreciate and value your mailbag due to your impressive knowledge of boxing, but I also personally quite like your sound logic and your way of thinking, and recently I have used two things that I had read in your various mailbags to debate with some friend of mine. Indeed, many people I know were saying that Lomachenko’s professional career was overvalued due to his relatively small number of fights, and while disagreeing, I often struggled to counter that argument, but when I read in one of your mailbags that Lomachenko had more world championship fights than Marvin Hagler, and I wondered how I had not used that argument before. Another thing that I hear a lot is that Salvador Sanchez would have been one of the greatest ever if he had not died so young, and while there is no doubt that he had the talent to be that great, I was always thinking that you never know what could have been. Then one of your mailbags about that issue, you were stating, What if Foreman had died just before his fight with Ali? What if Tyson had died just after his fight against Spinks? And this was, for me, the perfect argument to go back to my friends and make my point that many fighters could have been deemed almost invincible if they had died young at their absolute peak. I would like otherwise to have your views on the 3 following points: 1. Lomachenko. He is one of my favourite fighters of all time. This said, there is one point on which I would kindly slightly disagree with you when you said that if Lomachenko had beaten Haney he could have been considered as an all-time great overall, and you implied that he cannot because he lost. However, when assessing the career of a fighter, if you think that he has been robbed by the judges for an important fight, then surely you should consider whether the result was fair? 2. Mike Tyson. Sometime ago I wrote to you that I did not think that Mike Tyson should be considered an all-time great, because his peak was very short and he never won a fight when he was in trouble (except for Frans Botha), he never avenged one of his defeats, and he looked morally fragile at the highest level when facing adversity. As usual your reply was very clear and thorough, however, probably because my question was not clear enough, you replied to me that Mike Tyson for you was clearly an all-time great heavyweight. I do agree with that, but is there a different between an all-time great heavyweight and an all-time great fighter? 3- There was a recent article on BoxingScene about article about Mosley vs De La Hoya from Eric Raskin. While the article is quite good, I was somewhat disappointed to note that there was never any mention that Mosley admitted to having used PEDs when preparing for the second De La Hoya fight. Should not all boxing writers when writing about past careers of retired fighters, always mention when a fighter has used PEDs? How can we fight against PEDs if retired fighter who used them is celebrated in the same way as those that didn’t? All the best, Chris from France
Bread’s response: My mom still tells me to this day, I should’ve been a lawyer. I’m pretty good at making factual points. Lomachenko has as many title wins as some all-time great fighters whose legacies are built on their title wins. His high number of title fights, supersede the fact that he’s only 18-3 as a pro because he’s 14-3 in title fights through three divisions. Loma has more title wins than great fighters who have triple the number of fights as him. The one thing I have learned is to identify the context that a person overlooks to make their case. Once you do that you can easily tell what their motives are and what narratives they’re trying to push. Loma was special.
However, I want to correct you. I’m on the fence that Loma is an ATG. I’m closer to saying he is an ATG than not saying it. But a Haney or Lopez win would make it a slam dunk case. I think Loma has a case for winning against Haney, but I don’t believe it was a robbery. In a case like Haney vs Loma specifically you have to respect the official result because both have cases for winning. I honestly couldn’t tell who won, at the conclusion of the fight.
There is ATG within divisions and ATG overall. I have no issue in Mike Tyson being in both categories although he’s firmly an ATG heavyweight. By rule of thumb ATG heavyweights are usually ATG fighters. You have to realize something Tyson has double digit title defenses. And he unified twice and became undisputed once. When he became undisputed, he won all three belts individually then he won the lineal and Ring titles in a super fight vs a hall of famer in Michael Spinks. I know it’s the cool thing to do now is attack Tyson’s legacy but he checks the boxes as an ATG fighter. Maybe not a Mt. Rushmore type of great fighter like Ali or Louis but Tyson’s legacy is secure. Let’s just look at the great champion that preceded Tyson in Larry Holmes.
No one questions Holmes’s ATG status but if you look at Holmes’s title reign and best wins compared to Tyson’s, I’m telling you it’s very close. Holmes never unified the titles. He was awarded the IBF title, he didn’t win it in the ring. His best wins are Ken Norton, Gerry Cooney and Tim Witherspoon. Norton and Withersppon were razor close controversial wins. Holmes had 20 title defenses but he never regained the title after he lost it.
Tyson’s best wins are Spinks who beat Holmes, Tony Tucker, and Holmes himself or Pinklon Thomas. I don’t see a big difference. Spinks beat Holmes. Tucker was undefeated and very good, he actually has a stoppage win over Buster Douglas. Thomas beat Witherspoon. And Holmes three years later beat Ray Mercer.
Because Holmes never unified, Tyson’s legacy gets enhanced because he had to go get every belt piece by piece - something Holmes never did. I’m not saying Tyson is a better fighter than Holmes. But if you put their reigns side by side, it’s not a big difference. Holmes had more title defenses and reigned longer. But Tyson unified and was more dominant. Tyson also outperformed Holmes vs common opponents. He also stopped Holmes head to head. I know Holmes was old but if we give Holmes credit for Norton, we have to give Tyson credit for Holmes.
We also can’t make it seem like Tyson's win over Michael Spinks doesn’t count when Spinks was the fighter who ended Holmes’s reign and took his 48-0 perfect record. It can’t work like that. If Spinks was great enough to beat Holmes, then we have to view Tyson as great enough to beat Spinks.
I know what you’re getting at about Mosley. But a writer does NOT have to bring up PEDS whenever he mentions Mosley. There were no PED accusations in Mosley vs De La Hoya I and the writer has a right to not want to discredit Mosley’s best win. The article was excellent and well-written. How one views an athlete is subjective….
Hi Breadman, I pray God is blessing and continues to bless you and your family and the fans of your mailbag and their families. I haven’t heard a single person bring up the fact that Pac Man is fighting Saturday. He looked so terrible against the kickboxer in the exhibition he had that I feel no one is giving him a chance including me. Barrios is tough but limited and should have more than enough to defeat and probably stop this version of Manny. The mighty surely have fallen in this instance. Fighters more than any other group I have ever seen can’t face the reality of the fact that it is over. It is sad and beyond pathetic. God bless and take care. BG from Philly Peter Allen
Bread’s response: Older great fighters have a way of making the public believe they can somehow pull off a miracle when common sense says they can’t. Mike Tyson has done it several times. He just did it vs Jake Paul. Ali fooled the public vs Holmes. Leonard vs Camacho. I can go on and on about this. I have even fell for it several times myself. When this fight was first announced I thought Pacquiao would get seriously hurt and KO’d. I know that Manny doesn’t see left hooks well and Barrios has a good counter hook. I suspect Mario will be too strong and big.
But now as the fight has gotten closer, I am starting to believe Manny can win. I know Barrios struggles with speed and I suspect Manny took this fight more serious than he did his last exhibition. I also remember how much Barios struggled in his last fight vs Abel Ramos. I will admit this fight got closer in my opinion… I’m probably a fool but I’m going to at least watch it. I am NO longer counting Manny Pacquiao out.
Send Questions & Comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
