What do you think of Claressa Shields’s comments on Shadasia Green after Green was injured with a brain bleed in her fight? Do you think it’s all fair and love and war or were they over the top? At their best, who do you think wins their match up?
Bread’s response: I’m not sure what comments you’re referring to. But I only read that Claressa basically said she was better than Shadasia Green and Alycia Baumgardner. If she said something else, please be specific. I don’t believe Claressa was being insensitive to Shadasia. I don’t think she knew Shadasia was seriously injured. Shadasia and Claressa have been talking trash to each other for years. Shadasia fought one of Claressa’s past opponents. Claressa gets criticism for her opponents at the heavier weights. So one of the girls that Claressa beat stopped Shadasia. You have to expect some trash talk. If Shadasia would’ve beaten her worse than Claressa did, then there would be trash talk the other way. I don’t think Claressa meant anything malicious by her comments.
At their best I’ve always believed Claressa had an edge over Shadasia. I think Claressa should’ve taken the fight against Shadasia last year and I think Claressa would’ve won. I believe Claressa is the most conditioned women’s boxer in the world. Her gift is her conditioning. Claressa is always the stronger and more conditioned fighter down the stretch in fights no matter the weight. She never gets complimented on her conditioning because people are too busy nitpicking her lack of KOs. But she has an elite gas tank. Claressa’s gas tank is where, in my opinion, she would have beaten Shadasia. But in all fairness to Shadasia, that fight is not on the ledger at this moment. Brain bleeds are serious and I know Shadasia wants to come back but it may be a long process. Hopefully Shadasia gets healthy. Life is bigger than boxing and I would just like to see her healthy before we talk about the boxing stuff anymore.
I follow you on twitter and facebook and I want to give you some props. Most times people ride with their own and I thought you were like that until I followed you on social media. The other day, you checked some fool about all of the concessions Hagler supposedly made against Leonard and once you debunked them he could never come back with anything specific. I never knew Hagler made more money than Leonard for their fight, and that Hagler fought Mugabi in 10 ounce gloves in a 12 round fight. For all of these years people made it seem like Hagler was fighting 15 round fights in 8 ounce gloves, then Leonard came along and made him concede to these demands when in fact Hagler was already fighting in 10 oz gloves and fighting 12 round fights. But what got me was when you said Jerry West was the third best shooting guard ever behind Jordan and Kobe. I’ve always believed he was and I thought you would pick Iverson or Harden. So for you to pick West lets me know you’re a fair dude. As you may suspect, I’m a white guy from the Boston area. So I’m curious where and how you rank Rocky Marciano all time.
Bread’s response: You were buttering me up but it’s all good. I rank Marciano high in terms of greatness. I rank him high as far as head to head match ups with fighters who hovered around 190lbs. I don’t know how to rank him against heavyweights after 1990 because I believe in context and the heavyweights in the 90s were starting to get big. If he fought in the 90s I assume he would’ve been a cruiserweight or he would’ve looked like David Tua and put on mass with modern science. I don’t know how to quantify that so I sort of stay away from it. But let me tell you something. Rocky Marciano was a monster. He was a flat out great fighter. He was savvy with his pressure. He had a jab. His feet weren’t fast but they were purposeful. He kept his body low and corked to fire. He slammed his right hand into his opponent’s flanks or he surprised them with hooks while leaning on the opposite side. Marciano was clever. He was a true attrition puncher. He had an iron chin in an era when they wore small horse gloves. He had iron fists and an iron will. No man in history who fought comfortably circa 190lbs would have an easy time with Marciano. He was that good.
I believe if Tyson Fury was actually dedicated to road work and willing to get in shape, he would be the best heavyweight in the world. I believe the narrative about his body is promotional nonsense to hide the fact that he isn’t in good shape.I rewatched his fight against Wladimir Klitschko. Fury was 245 pounds and actually looked fit. That was his best performance by far. His draw and two losses all came down to his gas tank. Wilder caught up to him at the very end of their first fight. Usyk pulled away both times because he was fresh late and Fury wasn’t. Do you agree with me that Fury needs to rededicate himself to being fit? Or do you think he’s reached his fullest potential with that spare tire around his stomach?
Bread’s response: I disagree with you. I think Fury has good conditioning. He’s not a huge puncher. His fights usually go rounds and he usually handles the rounds. Just because Usyk was fresher down the stretch doesn’t mean Fury has poor conditioning. Maybe Usyk just has better conditioning.
I think a six pack can be genetic. Fury will never be body beautiful. Genetically that may not be possible for him. But he moves well and he can go 12 rounds. I’m not making excuses for Fury. But he was 247 vs Klitshcko over a decade ago. Heavyweights usually come in a little heavier as they get older. It’s very common. I also believe that Fury thought he fought the wrong fight in his first fight with Wilder. So he decided to be more aggressive and back Wilder up. I think that’s the reason for his recent weight gains. He was over 270lb in the Wilder rematch and he stopped Wilder, so… Fighters are sort of superstitious. They continue successful trends.
Bread, Long time reader, rarely miss a blog and when I do I always read back. Your insight is fantastic for boxing casuals like myself. We know psychology plays a massive role in boxing, we see it in staredowns, weigh ins, ring walks etc. but then when it comes to colour, and specifically colour in gloves we ignore it. The colour of gloves play a massive role in: 1. How the judges perceive speed 2. How the judges perceive size 3. How the opponent perceives speed (for their reaction time). I know there is a marketing side (matching gloves to shorts and shoes), but winning is more important. White and yellow – these are terrible colours. White gloves look large like pillows. Light colour in general appear larger and slower. Blue and green – cool colours that recede, these are good choices as judges can see you score with them. Gold – looks flashy but easily visible for the opponent. You can see it coming and it also looks larger. Red – now this is a tricky one. Red looks fast, but it’s also very visible. The eye is attracted to red so the opponent is likely to see the punch coming as its an advancing colour. The best colour is black or dark gloves like navy or charcoal – black gloves look smaller, look faster, and are harder for the opponent to judge speed. AlI I know is you’ll never see a black or dark coloured baseball. While darker gloves are boring, they’re much more effective. Thanks Bread..GK
Bread’s response: I actually love this comment. I agree with you and so does Sergio Mora about white gloves. I can’t stand white gloves. They look big. They don’t appear as fast. And yes they’re easier to pick up on.
However, I disagree about red gloves. I like red gloves because they stimulate the judge’s eyes. As for the other colors. Let me tell you something. I believe the gloves should match the fighter’s trunks unless of course they’re white. It’s something about a uniform look that translates. I will go deeper. I don’t have a big preference on trunk color. But I don’t like all black shoes. They make fighters look slower. White shoes make fighters look faster in my opinion. I know it sounds weird but check it out for me and tell me your thoughts.
What’s good Bread, I’ve heard in the past that the toughest style to beat is a counter puncher that comes forward. Curious if you’d agree, and if not what style or styles do you consider the hardest to beat?
Bread’s response: I disagree because it depends on the fighter. James Toney was a counter puncher that came forward. Toney gave lots of fighters fits. But Roy Jones had no issue with his style. Styles are like rock, paper, scissors. What causes trouble is relative to the specific fighter. For example you would think Tommy Hearns would do better with fighters who came right to him because they walked into his power. But in actuality, Hearns liked to fight boxers who moved away from him. He picked boxers apart because they allowed him to dictate behind his whipping jab. But fighters who attacked him and crowded him gave him trouble because he liked extension on his shots. Whereas George Foreman wants you to attack him. He bludgeons attackers to death. But if you boxed Foreman you had a better chance. He could still stop boxers but his preference was attackers. Foreman and Hearns are both power punchers but they’re different types of power punchers.
To answer you directly, counter punchers who come forward have hard times with fighters who are faster than them because it’s hard to counter punch what you can’t calculate. It’s why Mike McCallum has a hard time with James Toney and it’s why James Toney has a hard time with Roy Jones.
Hey Bread 1. I was rewatching Leonard v Duran 1 and noticed something I hadn’t before, when Leonard was holding the ref would just tap his gloves to indicate “stop holding” at which point Leonard would stop and the fight would continue. There was no break in the action, no real advantage gained for the holder. Why do you think this refereeing strategy isn’t standard operating procedure today? To me it’s just all upside. 2. Mike Tyson talked about all the tape Cus used to show him of the old fights. Got me thinking that somewhere someone or some people have more Sugar Ray Robinson footage that isn’t widely available. Harry Greb footage has always interested me too but that’s a lot further back so I figured I’d just ask about Robinson. How much footage have you seen of him from his prime, before he had to come back after all his money was stolen from him? And what can you tell me about your analysis of the great man? What startled me was seeing those sledgehammer whipping hooks to the body. Never seen anything like it, probably never will again. 3. Say Tyson Fury didn’t have any outside issues with drugs and booze and he was in the best shape possible, just blessed with the gifts we have seen of him, how good could he have been, and how would he have stood up to the big dudes of the 90s, as well as the smaller killers of the 60s like Lyle, Foreman, Frazier, or a prime Ali? Many thanks for your mailbag. Omar, London
Bread’s response: Duran vs Leonard was some fight. One of the reasons why was the clinching didn’t halt the action. But I’m going to tell you something, Leonard should’ve clinched more securely in order to be more productive. He was too eager to fight instead of calming the action down. I agree with you on the referee doing a good job, but Leonard was almost too compliant with the instructions. In the rematch he wasn’t as compliant at the initial command to break. So I think more referees could follow suit. But the “boxer” in the fight who is clinching, would have to be as compliant as Leonard.
The experts say Robinson was on the other side of his prime by 1950. I’ve seen about four or five videos of him from the 1940s. He’s the best fighter ever. Period. There is video of him fighting Sammy Angott the HOF lightweight champion and a fighter who’s last name was Riccio. There is also footage in 1950 of him fighting a fighter named Jean Stock. Check them out.
I am perplexed that there is no footage of Greb. Some say Greb is the best fighter to ever live. He fought in the Golden Era of sports in general in the 1920s. He has over 300 fights and there is allegedly no film available. I don’t question so much that there is no film available. My question is how is this possible. There is film of all of the best fighters of the same era as Greb. Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker and Benny Leonard the other greats of the era all have filmed fights. Harry Greb allegedly has none. I don’t know how to reconcile that in my mind.
What do you think of Richardson Hitchins and Edgar Berlanga signing with Zuffa? Do you think they both can win world titles? How do you see Hitchins stacking up at welterweight? And what would you do with Berlanga if you trained him? He seems to be at a crossroads.
Bread’s response: I’m going to assume Keith Connolly got both of his fighters great deals with Zuffa. So the signings make sense. Berlanga and Hitchins are big in NY and they will co-headline cards together. I think Hitchins can win a world title at welterweight. But I’m not sure how that works with Zuffa. But as a fighter Hitchins is really good. I don’t know how good yet because I haven’t seen him against enough elite fighters, but the eye test tells me his talent is on the level.
Berlanga has already fought a few elite fighters and it didn’t end so well for him. But I think his trainer Marc Farrait is doing a great job. Especially getting Berlanga to go the distance with Canelo. That was a big accomplishment. Canelo is much more developed than Berlanga at this stage of their careers.
I don’t like to say what I would be doing if I trained a specific fighter. Because that can come off as an insult to their trainer. But I can tell you what I observed that may be an issue for Berlanga. Berlanga had several first round KOs in a row. Once he started to step up, he had several decisions in a row and he started to get knocked down and hurt. During this time I saw a switch in Berlanga’s personality. He talked about IQ and boxing more than he did destroying. I’m not criticizing his mindset switch, this is just my observation.
I feel like Berlanga is searching for an identity. And finding an identity in a boxing ring is not an easy task if the identity you’re looking for is not natural or instinctive. Berlanga was a KO puncher and violent dude coming up. Now he wants to box more and that’s not an easy transition. But it might be necessary because Berlanga has been hurt repeatedly being an attacker. But his issue that he has to overcome is adapting the mindset of a boxer.
For example Roberto Duran is one of the best defensive fighters I’ve ever seen. And he can box his butt off. But by nature Duran is a killer and an attacker. Whereas Floyd Mayweather can attack. Mayweather has a huge heart and he doesn’t mind being in the trenches. But by nature he’s a defensive fighter and a boxer. So Duran and Mayweather both have elite IQs because despite being able to do multiple things, their natural instincts take over in the ring. With Berlanga slowly evolving in front of our eyes with his style his natural instincts will be in question. Will he box at the right time? Will he attack at the right time? That’s a big issue for a young fighter, who was built one way and now has to change to another approach before he ever won a world title. Hopefully they figure it out, I really like Berlanga’s trainer. I think he’s the goods.
I need your picks on the big upcoming fights in May and June. Inoue vs Nakatani, Benavidez vs Ramirez and Boots vs Zayas.
Bread’s response: I like Inoue by decision. In a highly competitive fight but one where Inoue is a step too quick.
I like Benavidez by decision over Ramirez. I feel like Benavidez just gets off too good for Ramirez. But I am curious to see how Benavidez carries the extra 25lbs.
I like Boots by late stoppage over Zayas. I think Boots is just too mean, too talented, too good of a counter puncher and he has too good of a jab to break Zayas’s rhythm. I think this fight looks like Floyd vs Cotto with Boots being Floyd and Xander being Cotto. But I think Boots gets the stoppage.
Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
