In this week’s mailbag, trainer Stephen “Breadman” Edwards discusses, among other topics, action fighters, cutting off the ring, the standing of Gervonta Davis, Teofimo Lopez, Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia, Floyd Mayweather Snr, and more
Hey Breadman,
When I first got into boxing it was because of “Pacman” so I guess he’s my first favourite fighter. The next fighter I loved was GGG – my all time fave. And now it’s Inoue. So I guess my fave fighters are always the great action fighters. I think these three took the baton from each other in this area. Can you list what you think is the lineage of greatest action fighters and go as far back in history as you can? Let’s narrow it down to hall-of-fame worthy fighters. Thanks, man!
Filip, from Toronto
Bread’s response: This is a tremendous question. I have to really put my thinking cap on. I’m going to name the most elite-and-dominant action fighter of each connecting era because often times there are more than one in each era. So let’s say Harry Greb; Henry Amrstrong; Joe Louis; Rocky Marciano; Eder Jofre; Roberto Duran; Tommy Hearns; Mike Tyson; Evander Holyfield; Felix Trinidad; Manny Pacquiao; GGG; and “Monster” Inoue.
Gervonta Davis, Ryan Garcia, Devin Haney and Teofimo Lopez have regularly been referred to as the “Four Kings” by various boxing media outlets. For those who don’t know, this nickname was previously bestowed on Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns and Ray Leonard. Davis has a draw against Lamont Roach. Garcia has two embarrassing losses on his resume and has never been a world champion. Haney, while still undefeated, looked shot in his last fight. Teofimo Lopez lost to George Kambosos – a fighter who appears to be very far away from the elite level. Is this a lesson for everyone? Should we take a cautious approach when comparing modern-day fighters to legends? Or do you feel like the “Four Kings” nickname is still fair for this group?
Thank you!
Bread’s response: The new boxing media for the most part are not historians. They’re hustlers who found a lane in sports media through boxing. They couldn’t tell you who Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler and Tommy Hearns beat for their first titles and how. I say this to say you can’t make someone who does not understand or know history respect history.
The new Four Kings were called the Four Kings before they ever did anything king-like. Whereas the original Four Kings were called the Four Kings after they all did all-time great, hall-of-fame worthy stuff – most notably fighting each other nine times over nine years. That’s the big difference.
I don’t want to disrespect Davis, Garcia, Haney or Lopez. It’s not their faults. They didn’t call themselves the Four Kings. They were given the nickname. It’s the boxing media’s fault because they were nicknamed too soon. It’s one of the biggest misappropriations in boxing history as far as nicknames are concerned. And because of this, people will continuously take shots at the new Four Kings, when again – this was not their fault. What a shame.
Hey Bread,
Long-time fan, writing in again with a few quick footwork questions and an observation about Eubank Jnr. One – the term “cutting off the ring” gets thrown around a lot. In your eyes, what does elite ring-cutting actually look like, and how is it different from just following an opponent? Two, why do some pressure fighters (like GGG) rarely smother their own work, while others constantly end up too close or clinching? Is that a footwork-IQ thing, or more about discipline and positioning? Three, the Eubank Jnr–Benn fight was a war between two guys who really wanted it. But what stood out most to me came after the fight – Eubank Jnr’s interview on Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett. It was one of the most wise, reflective, and emotionally-raw interviews I’ve ever seen from a fighter. He could honestly be a professional storyteller if he retired today – he had me tearing up at times, especially when talking about his dad and his brother. If you haven’t seen it, I think you’d really appreciate it. My next question – are there any fighters you’ve worked with or been around who are similarly wise, introspective, and articulate outside the ring? Thanks, as always, for the weekly insight and breakdowns – your mailbag is a must-read.
Tommy, Austria
Bread’s response: Another good question. I have seen fighters that are really good at cutting the ring off. And I have seen fighters who are good at walking fighters down and what they did gets mistaken for cutting the ring off.
When I see a fighter making his opponent constantly have to switch directions, and they’re trapping their opponent in corners, I know they’re cutting the ring off. When I see a fighter backpedaling constantly but going where he wants to go, I know he’s being walked down but not necessarily being cut off.
GGG didn’t smother his work because of three reasons. One is he had good feet and his weight was not too heavy on his front foot. His weight was distributed correctly and fighters who smother their work often do it because they launch their attacks unbalanced and they fall into their opponents.
GGG also understood his power zone. He knew where he got most of his leverage and he liked to throw from that range. Last but not least, he was always probing with his lead hand, which checks distance constantly.
Chris Eubank Jnr speaks uncommonly well for a fighter. But I see where he gets it from. His father may be the most well spoken and articulate fighter in history. I have had a few fighters who speak well and are intelligent outside of the ring. But no one at the level of Eubank. He could be a seven-figure public speaker if he chose.
Breadman,
I’ve been following you for a couple decades now. You have definitely shared a ton of your experiences, wisdom and how-to with us all. I’ve learned a lot from you over the years. When my younger brother got out of prison, during Covid, the plan was to give it a go. It didn’t work out. I’ve been giving it a go with another fighter since November. Now 1-0 and it’s been a pain to help get him a fight that makes sense. I’ll be taking a trip down to Mexico for fight two for him at the end of the month. On a personal level, have you ever felt discouraged by matchmakers, promoters and people who see you as competition and/or a threat? I ask because we definitely have had some people trying to halt our progress. The same people I’ve tried helping with their own gyms and fighters for over 20-plus years. Any words of advice or encouragement you could give would be much appreciated my friend.
Blessings,
Richard K
Bread’s response: My advice is if you feel the fighter is worth it, do NOT give up. This sport is not for the weak. Don’t concentrate so much on the end goal. Concentrate on the small daily-and-weekly milestones. The process is more fulfilling than the end goal. It doesn’t matter what everyone thinks or does. It doesn’t matter what they say. You will get more fulfilment by succeeding without their help.
When I first started training fighters in 2010, most of the trainers in the gym stopped speaking to me. They talked about me. And when matchmakers called the gym to see if the fighter I wanted to get signed was worth it, the trainers in the gym said ‘No’. Well if I would’ve gave up, Julian Williams would not have become a unified world champion. I didn’t think about giving up for one second. Not one second.
Greatly appreciate your work, brother. I read a lot of history books, and my favorite historian is Dr John Henrik Clarke. He was a walking encyclopedia of black history. During his lectures he would often reference other books by other authors that I would read and learn from. Similar to Dr Clarke, when Dr Bread references an old-fight example, I usually go watch it to learn from it. So, thank you. In a super old mailbag, you referenced Linares-Larios for great performances. I remember watching that fight because I’m a huge B-Hop guy, and Linares was indeed on fire that day. Watching that fight again reminded me that Linares was a Venezuelan trained by a Japanese (because he lived there). It made me think not only are boxing fans organized by culture (in general), but so are boxing teams – particularly boxer-coach. When trying to think of the most successful anomalies, I could easily come up with a bunch of black boxer-non-black-coach examples (Ali-Dundee; Tyson-D’Amato; Leonard-Dundee; Hagler-Petronellis, etc). But I had to think a little bit when I tried to come up with combinations where the boxer and coach were from different cultures, and had to think even harder to come up with non-black-boxer-black coach combinations (beside Plant-Bread). What are some of the more successful boxer-coach combos of differing cultural backgrounds? And who were some of the most successful non-black-boxer-black-coach combos? I think they all will be great examples of how we are all better together.
Bread’s response: This is another awesome question. I don’t even really have a complete answer. In our gym in Philly I have heard fighters and trainers say that it’s hard for a white trainer to train a black fighter because of the rhythm aspect. I never agreed because obviously it wouldn’t be easy but I have seen white people with rhythm and black people with no rhythm. I never bought that theory, although I can see where they were coming from.
I also noticed that most of the best trainer-fighter combinations are people who share a region, culture, ethnicity or race – and I get why. But you’re asking me to give you opposite examples of the norm. Hopefully the fans will help me.
Wladimir Klitshcko and Emanuel Steward was a good one. So is Steward and Naseem Hamed. I love Ray Arcel and Duran. As well as Ali/Dundee and Leonard/Dundee. Tyson/Cus D’Amato and Hagler/Petronelli are probably the best cases here in America, because D’Amato and Petronelli had Tyson and Hagler much earlier in their developmental stages.
In modern times I think the best example may be GGG-Abel Sanchez. But Junto Nakatani-Rudy Hernandez is gaining steam. To my knowledge we have yet to have a black trainer stay on the main stage with a Mexican or Mexican-American fighter for a significant amount of time. Emanuel Steward didn’t have Oscar De La Hoya and Julio Cesar Chavez long enough to qualify. I don’t know any Russian, Chinese or Italian examples. But I did just have a Mexican teenage phenom reach out to me and if we get along…
What’s up, Bread?
Appreciate the Mike Rodriguez recommendation. I reached out on social media. I heard Sean Zittel say that Bud and Canelo are doing the sport a disservice by fighting each other instead of the new top dogs of their divisions, which would be “Boots” for “Bud” and Benavidez for “Canelo”. Curious if you agree or disagree with that take, and is that a common theme in boxing history where the older great gives the new potential great a shot at taking the throne? I can’t remember too many storylines like that but I’m still relatively new to the sport. Also wanted to know if you think Andre Ward is an all time great? I’m biased and from Oakland so I rock with ‘Dre but I don’t hear his name mentioned much in those talks even though he retired undefeated and beat some tough guys.
Bread’s response: I would’ve loved to see Boots and Benavidez get the fights with Crawford and Canelo but I wouldn’t call it a disservice that Crawford and Canelo are fighting each other. It’s a historically significant fight. I personally like the fight and I think it does well at the box office.
Andre Ward is an all-time-great in my opinion. He’s a top-five super middleweight ever. He’s one of the best fighters of this century. And he’s the USA’s last Olympic gold medalist in boxing. I think he’s not ranked where other American greats like Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins and James Toney are – they fought at similar weights – because ‘Dre doesn’t have their longevity. And when you don’t have the longevity, you had to have had the big super fights. Dre’s only super fights were Kovalev.
But make no mistake Andre Ward is not only all-time-great. He's one of the top ten or 15 fighters ever with 40 or less career fights.
Hi Breadman,
Just touching on the recent “Boots” performance which clearly demonstrated his elite talent. My question relates to talent against intelligence. There have been many examples of fighters of less talent beat fighters of greater talent, but their intelligence sets them apart. Hearns and Foreman are, in my opinion, clear examples of fighters of equal or greater talent than their opponents that failed to win, because of their opponents’ superior intelligence in Leonard and Ali. You may disagree with this and will no doubt have other examples, given your experience and knowledge. I relate this to Boots. His talent is clearly elite and difficult to decipher; however, from what I have seen, and based on history, someone like Crawford, of potentially a little lesser talent, but all-time-great intelligence, may make it surprisingly easy against him. For the record, the only fighters that have this degree of intelligence right now that I am referring to, in my opinion, are Crawford and Usyk; the last one I can remember before them is Mayweather. I also understand intelligence can be developed, but I suppose this may be more difficult for elite talents such as Boots, given their god-given ability. Roy comes to mind in both a good and bad way...
Bread’s response: Another good question. The thing about the fighter with higher intelligence is their talent usually lies in their adjustments and you don’t even know they can make them until they’re in tough with elite talents. I believe Roy Jones had both. Elite talent and elite intelligence. But he didn’t need to show certain things because it’s hard to be more talented than him. But his adjustments were incredible. Watch how he neutralized James Toney’s counter punching in their fight.
Other examples… Let’s see. Marco Antonio Barrera vs Naseem Hamed. Vernon Forest vs Shane Mosley. Lamont Roach didn’t beat “Tank” but that’s another good example. Carl Froch vs Jermaine Taylor. Juan Manuel Marquez vs Manny Pacquiao.
So the Eubanks-Benn fight was awesome. Had no idea how it would go. How they showed all the good stuff; skills; game plans; in-fight adjustments; endurance; heart. And whatever else they showed us, and gave an amazing fight. Next minute it’s all about a rematch for this war. As a fan, of course, I loved it. The fighters deserve all the praise. It showed the reasons why I’m a fan. It’s why I love sports. But as a trainer you don’t want your fighters to dig down so much, right? I mean it’s great that they both found out they got that. But how often is too much to show a Ward-Gatti-type fight? What does it do to the fighter and their career? I’m guessing it’s all depending on the circumstances, but I’m just curious about those rugged fights. I feel it is worth it ‘cause, again, I was amazed how that single fight went. But you have a different angle to judge. Appreciate the bag.
Kevin from MD
Bread’s response: As a trainer you want your fighter to win whatever way he has to. But I would be a fool to want my fighter to give up a piece of himself to win if he doesn’t have to. It’s complex and the mindset can be contradictory. But my perspective is I don’t want my fighter to give up his health for a win if he can win easier. I’m only okay with him giving up his health if that’s our only alternative.
Sun Tzu once said “What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels at winning with ease”. It’s why I ask “critics” who criticize boxers, who would you want your son to be taught to fight like? Floyd Mayweather or Arturo Gatti? I haven’t heard one yet say Gatti. And for the record, I love Gatti and I think he deserves to be in the hall of fame.
Hey Bread,
Long-time reader, first time writing in with some questions. Appreciate all the knowledge you drop week after week. I’ve got three questions for you – each related to footwork but touching on different aspects. One, Canelo vs Scull – cutting off the ring while watching Canelo-Scull, it was clear Scull wanted no part of exchanging. He stayed squared up, moved laterally the whole night, and barely engaged. I read it was either the lowest or second-lowest punch total in CompuBox history. Given Canelo’s reputation as more flat-footed and methodical, that kind of fight dynamic wasn’t surprising. That said, what should Canelo have done with his footwork to cut off the ring more effectively and force more action? And thinking ahead to the Bud Crawford fight, while Bud won’t avoid engagement like Scull did, I don’t think he’s going to sit and trade all night either. What does Canelo need to do differently with his feet in that kind of match-up? Two, Boots Ennis – great feet, still gets hit. You’ve said before that Boots has some of the best footwork in the sport, and I agree. But he still gets touched a bit more than you’d expect for someone with that level of movement. Is that a footwork issue, or more about his upper-body-head movement? Or is it just the result of him cranking up his offense and staying in the pocket longer than he needs to? Three, Monster Inoue – small steps, big control. When I watch Inoue his footwork is full of short, quick, twitchy movements. I rarely see him take big steps, and almost never see him off-balance, even when throwing big shots. Is that compact footwork part of the reason he rarely gets countered cleanly? Seems like he’s always in range without being vulnerable. Bonus – great Julio Cesar Chavez quote on Meldrick Taylor. There’s been a lot of discussion in the mailbag over the years about Chavez–Taylor, so I thought I’d share this quote from Chavez that always stuck with me: “I would land one shot and I would take four in return. He was quick. More than anything it was the fact he had real quick hands. By the time I landed one real power shot I was taking five, six in return. They weren’t hard shots, they weren’t power shots, but I couldn’t get in my range, I couldn’t get established. I faced everybody. If you look at my record – all the fights I had – I had 37 world championship fights and I didn’t handpick any opponents. But if I was to look at the best overall fighter, it would have to be Meldrick Taylor.”
Thanks again for all you do, Bread. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Tommy, a boxing fanatic living in Europe
Bread’s response: Canelo wasn’t taking the correct angle. He was letting Scull get to the “other side” of the ring. When you have a fighter who moves like Scull, the goal is to keep him on the “same side” of the ring. I don’t blame the energy of the fight on Canelo, but if I’m being honest he was a little frustrated and lazy. He should watch Beterbiev and how he cuts down the ring.
Boots is an offensive fighter first. He gets hit because of his mentality, not his lack of defense. Boots is more like Sugar Ray Robinson than Floyd Mayweather.
Monster Inoue gets countered; he was dropped again. But he may have the best feet around. He keeps his feet under him. He’s always in position to punch. And his stance is never lazy or counter-productive. Some fighters break their base with their stance and they put themselves in counter-productive situations. Whereas Inoue rarely does. Inoue has great footwork and he has the type of footwork that can and should be taught to young fighters.
You could see on Chavez’s face how exhausted and relieved he was that his first fight with Meldrick Taylor was over. There is this line of thinking that Taylor was only winning on points but not doing damage and Chavez was doing all of the damage because he was more bruised. Well, Chavez doesn’t really bruise. He cut once in while but he was never a big bruiser or swell guy. Even in his losses later on. I stand by the point of view that Chavez and Taylor took a piece of each other that night and neither was quite the same afterwards. They fought in 1990. Look at Chavez in 1991 and 1992 and you can see he slipped also. Taylor just slipped more.
I have a few questions, Breadman.
What do you make of Oscar De La Hoya saying that Mayweather Snr is the best trainer he ever had? Considering he had Emanuel Steward, Freddie Roach and Nacho Beristain, do you think that makes Mayweather the best trainer ever? I also wanted to know who do you blame the Ennis vs Norman fight not being made on? According to you, the responsibility is on the A side and Ennis is the A side in this fight.
Bread’s response: Oscar has a very valid opinion because he’s a great fighter and he trained under Mayweather Snr. But just because Oscar said he’s his best trainer, it doesn’t make Mayweather Snr the best trainer ever. The best anything ever is always subjective. But it’s usually a strong majority opinion among knowledgeable people. I would have to see a dozen other fighters who trained with Beristain, Roach, Steward and Mayweather Snr all say Mayweather Snr, is the best before I come to the conclusion that Mayweather Snr is the best trainer ever.
One fighter is not enough in my opinion, because that could simply be Oscar’s subjective preference. For the record I think Mayweather Snr is a terrific trainer. But you’re asking me is he the best ever because Oscar said he was the best – I don’t know if one person’s opinion can make someone the best ever. I also want to say one more thing. Oscar “looked” the best under Jesus Rivera. Circa 1996 was Oscar’s best career run as far as his in the ring form.
I have said that the onus falls on the A side to make fights. But each case is different and as you can see, Boots’ team has made several offers to face Norman, trying to make the fight. And these are no small offers. They may not be what Brian Norman wants but they aren’t low.
I don’t like to say what a fighter should and should not get. Norman’s team has a right to want whatever numbers they want. But offers were made. Boots also made an offer to Stanionis and the fight was made. So going by law-enforcement terms, the devil is in the detail. The details show that Boots stayed at 147 to unify and he just unified. He also made two champions offers in Norman and Stanionis. Mario Barrios is tied up with a big fight vs Manny Pacquiao. Brian Norman Jnr is also very young. His team is not stupid. They know time is on their side so they don’t seem to be in a rush to let Boots’ team dictate anything to them.
So in this case, it’s not about fault. I think we have one supremely talented fighter who wants to unify before he moves up. I think we have another champion in Brian Norman who is four years younger, and if he’s going to take that fight right now he’s going to need life changing money. It’s all about perspective.
Send questions & comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com