Thanks for doing this Mailbag, Bread. I really feel like I learn a lot. When game-planning at the top level, what determines whether a fighter takes away an opponent’s best weapon or instead tries to outdo them in that area? For instance, against a pressure fighter, what makes you choose to stand your ground or fight on the back foot?
Bread’s response: It depends on how your fighter matches up with him. For example, when Kyrone Davis fought Elijah Garcia we decided to counter-punch him and walk away from him. I didn’t feel we needed to push Garcia back because Kyrone could counter-punch him and take less punishment. Whereas when Julian Williams fought Jarrett Hurd we felt that pushing Hurd back was better because Hurd was more of a momentum fighter and if you let him get a head of steam a snowball effect starts to take place. So although Hurd and Garcia are both big pressure guys, I decided to fight them differently because Julian Williams and Kyrone Davis are not only different, they faced different types of pressure.
It’s why sparring is so important in the gym. You get to observe what your fighter can truly do, no matter what the media labels him. There is more than one way to skin a cat. And a common solution to a style may not be the solution you pick for your fighter…
Hey Bread,
Just got done watching the Barrios-Garcia fight. I was pleasantly surprised by Ryan. I saw this fight as a Ferrari versus a Jeep, but I wasn’t sure how much mud there'd be on the course, i.e. inside fighting in trenches, etc. There was no mud on the course and Ryan fought a smart fight, utilizing his speed and picking up on Barrios’ timing from the get-go. I figure if it was a gut-check Ryan would get tested, but just using that speed and jab is perfect for someone like Ryan. What surprised me when I was just thinking about his options is how he suddenly has the best menu in boxing. Just like that, he already has two story-book unification fights with either “Rolly” Romero to unify and revenge, or the same thing with Devin Haney. Both are big money, good fights with real intrigue and a storyline. But just now, looking at the WBC rankings, he has even bigger fights with Conor Benn at number one. That’s a huge fight, especially in Vegas, Riyadh or London. Then Pacquiao is sitting at third in the WBC. That’s an enormous fight and Vegas or Saudi Arabia would eat it up, although Pac may be going after Floyd around that time. Still, huge. And on top of that, you have the possibility of Shakur moving up, and Teo just moved up as well. Wow! Very rare when someone scores an inspiring victory and gets that many super fights that can be made. He beat a shop-worn Barrios and his options are like he just KO’d Ali. When was the last time you seen a fighter off of a single victory get soo many possible super fights as a result? What do you think?
Bread’s response: Ryan Garcia is a star but up until last Saturday he never won a world title. Ryan needed a real world title to legitimize himself. And he just did that. Now the flood gates are open. When real superstars win their first world title, the options open up.
Mario Barrios is interesting to place. He has Mexican heritage so I think he’s expected to be like, say, Ruben Olivares. But when you watch him close, he’s more of a calculated technician. I don’t know if he can muddy the waters versus a fighter of Ryan’s caliber. I don’t know if it’s in his temperament to do that. I feel like Mario is caught up in some decision anxiety. Mario’s nature seems to be of a reserved technician. But he’s expected to be more dynamic and put on more pressure than he seems to be comfortable doing.
In his two best career performances he boxed. Watch the first seven rounds of his fight with Tank. And watch how well he boxed versus Ugas. I’m not saying he’s an elite boxer. I’m not saying he doesn’t have to muddy the waters against Ryan. But the way he’s expected to go about it by the fans and media may not be realistic for him. I think Mario is more Alexis Arguello than he is Antonio Margarito.
Good day and Yahweh bless you. Short and sweet question for you. Why do judges seem allergic to a good old fashioned 10/10 round?
James, from California
Bread’s response: I’m not big on 10-10 rounds personally. A good judge should be able to make an accurate determination by the slimmest of margins. That’s what they’re paid to do. However, when not much happens in abbreviated rounds or in the first feel-out round, I think 10-10 rounds can be appropriate…
Hey Bread,
Why don’t boxers fight a home/away type schedule like the NBA, NFL, MLS, etc? There have been so many fights where I scratch my head and wonder why a fight is taking place in a random city that has no connection to the fighters. Is finding a venue to host fights difficult? I’m not super familiar with the ins and outs of locking down the facility where a fight takes place. Do fighters have any say as to where the fight will take place? I would think fighting in your hometown, or close to it, would bring more hype and sell more tickets. Thank you, sir.
Mark Stoy, Columbus, Ohio
Bread’s response: Only elite world championship-level fighters or huge ticket sellers have a choice on where they fight. When you see fights at a random place with no connection to the fighters, you best believe there is a connection to the promoter. Oftentimes the arena will pay a site fee to host certain events, which makes it easier on the promoter because he gets money up front to put on his show. This also happens at Casino Resorts. The Casino will also pay a site fee up front to host the show. Because they know the boxing event will attract people and whatever money they put up, they feel comfortable they will get it back in gambling, food, novelty attractions, etc. So whenever you see a fight and you think it’s at a random location… the location may be random to you, but it’s not random to the promoter.
What do you think of Atif Oberlton from Philly? He reminds me of Michael Nunn.
Bread’s response: Atif has a tremendous upside. He’s very talented. He has very good amateur pedigree. He has all of the physical attributes to win a world title. But the thing that impresses me the most is his conditioning. He has a very good gas tank. I’ve seen him work for hours in the gym at top speed. He’s the definition of all gas, no brakes. When I see an elite talent push themselves like I’ve seen Atif push himself, I know it increases their chances of success at the top level.
I can see the Michael Nunn comparison. Good call. When I see fighters, I always think of a hybrid comparison. Usually they’re a mix of two fighters. I thought Atif reminded me of Michael Nunn but they aren’t exactly dead ringers. Nunn was a little more bouncy and he sort of floated more as he moved. So I think Atif is a mix of Michael Nunn and a young Roger Mayweather. I’m looking forward to seeing Atif’s progress; I believe he can be a world champion.
Hello Mr Bread,
What’s going on with boxing? I just was reading with disbelief that IBF and WBO middleweight champ Janibek was suspended for by the WBO for one year for a positive drugs test (backdated to 2/12/25) but allowed to keep his title (the IBF is still to make a ruling). This guy allegedly has taken meldonium, a metabolic modulated drug, that can increase oxygen uptake, enhance exercise endurance, and aid recovery, etc. But yet the WBO impose a sweetheart suspension deal for JA , and in the meantime order a interim title fight between the top contenders to fight over? Which is just BS. To rub salt in he also has a guaranteed payday on his return, according to the WBO ruling that he defends against the interim title holder. Janibek should have been at the very least stripped of his title and given a much longer suspension. If I had my way it would be life but, unfortunately, with so many governing bodies and commissions overseeing licensing, rules, regulations, etc, punishment for these can vary and most often it’s usually just a slap on the wrist. What’s your thoughts on this situation? I believe you have one of the best boxing minds on the planet and are very outspoken when it comes to PED cheats in boxing. Why have the WBO got this ruling so wrong? And what do you honestly think JA’s punishment should have been?
Best regards, Brendan
Bread’s response: I think Janibek should have been stripped of his world titles, fined a hefty sum, and suspended for two years. I also believe he should be made to enroll in full Vada testing, 365/24/7. But in boxing loopholes are created so the unjust can still prosper. No one really cares about PEDS and it’s evident each time a fighter gets caught. In fact the punishments are so light for a reason…
What’s up Bread?
Hope all is well. Two quick things – I feel like everyone’s name is being mentioned in the mix with all of the great lightweights, junior welterweights, and welterweights, except no one is mentioning Abdullah Mason. I feel like he is being avoided? Your thoughts? Also, I really enjoy Max Kellerman’s new show. I like all the guys on the panel, but I would’ve liked to see you get a look for that spot. I think you and Max would really work perfectly together.
Thank you, Howie.
Bread’s response: I like the RING boxing podcast. Max, Shady, Malik and Coppinger work well together. But no one has asked me to come on their show. I don’t go where I’m not invited.
I like Abdullah Mason. That kid can fight. But I think it’s a little early to say he’s being avoided. Let some time pass and let’s see if he gets certain fights. Time tells all and he’s a little early in his career for the “everybody is ducking him” talk just yet.
Hi Breadman,
I was a big fan of Mark “Too Sharp” Johnson. I don’t know whether Jesse Rodriguez will surpass his status in my personal estimation – perhaps you think he already has – but time is definitely on his side. How would you see a straight head to head going between them, at both fly and super fly? Johnson’s career in the ring, and life outside it, drew some parallels with Aaron Pryor’s – massive peak value cut short by drugs and personal issues. If only Too Sharp had attained that super fight with Johnny Tapia the way Pryor did with Arguello. Who would you have picked? I must have watched and scored De La Hoya-Quartey half a dozen times over the years and every time I see Ike deserving a tight nod. I know I’m not alone in that assessment with opinion seemingly split, as per the officials on the night. How do you think each fighters’ careers and reputation would have progressed from that point had Oscar lost his unbeaten record that night? Quartey v Trinidad would have been a scintillating prospect and, although Ike was vulnerable to left hooks, I think he could have consistently split Tito’s guard with that deadly jab. I also thought Ike beat Vernon Forrest and deserved more than a draw v Jose Luis Lopez, who was the strongest and most durable welterweight I’ve ever seen. What a great era for 147lb warriors.Mark, UK
Bread’s response: Mark Too Sharp Johnson was the truth. He can hold his own with anyone in history between 112-115. I was a big Johnny Tapia fan but he didn’t want any part of Too Sharp. I think it was a 50-50 fight but I suspect Too Sharp would’ve edged. What a fight.
Too Sharp versus Bam is a tough fight to call. Bam is on that tier. Right now it’s hard for me to say because I haven’t seen Bam with someone of Too Sharp’s stature in terms of his quick twitch, length and talent. It would’ve been interesting but I don’t have an answer just yet.
De La Hoya versus Quartey was very tough to score. I have never actually scored it but I do remember watching it not being sure who won. Oscar had some big explosive moments but there were some non-eventful rounds where Quartey carried the action with his jab. Those rounds count and they get scored. I am not mad at anyone who scored the fight for Ike. If Ike would’ve won the De La Hoya fight he would’ve probably been made to fight Oscar again. Then Tito. He wouldn’t have swept that three-fight ordeal without a loss. I don’t think Quartey beat Vernon Forest, I know he did. That fight was easier to score than the De La Hoya fight and Quartey beat Forest. Quartey also beat Lopez. Lopez had a big closing round but Quartey was killing him with the jab all night. Quartey was on the short end of the stick on some close decisions. He would be a sure shot HOF if he got the wins over Oscar, Lopez and Forest. But history has it officially 0-2-1 in those fights. Tough luck.
Hey Bread,
Now that we have received official word that the Monster Inoue-Nakatani super-fight is set for May 2 in Japan, I would love your initial thoughts. I think most people will favor Inoue, especially after Nakatani's tough UD over Sebastian Hernandez. But I believe that experience will help Nakatani, who has some real physical advantages over Inoue. He is taller, longer, and a southpaw who can really crack. Plus, Inoue has shown some defensive holes, especially when he is on the attack – there are openings there for Nakatani to take advantage of. I actually expect Inoue to take the same approach he did versus MJ – box smart, use his legs to get in and out, and avoid that left hand. I am not making an official prediction quite yet, but think this is a closer fight than most will. What are your early thoughts?
Reid, Atlanta, GA
Bread’s response: I think this is a close fight. I think Nakatani will be better than he was for his last fight. I also think that Inoue has slipped slightly. Not so much past his prime but past his apex. He’s sort of like where Roy Jones was in 2001 when he was fighting Julio Gonzalez on PPV. I watched Roy Jones closely for his entire career. And that’s the night I knew he wasn’t at his peak anymore. Inoue may still be in prime but he’s not at his peak anymore. That being said, I expect Inoue to win a decision. I wouldn’t be shocked if he lost. I wouldn’t be shocked if he was knocked down. But my eyes and guts tell me Inoue is a little too talented, a little too creative, and he processes a little too fast for Nakatani.
This fight reminds me of Roy Jones-Antonio Tarver with Inoue being Jones and Nakatani being Tarver. But I think Tarver has better defense and patience than Nakatani. But let’s see if Nakatani has Inoue’s number the way Tarver had Jones’s.
What did you think of this past weekend’s fights? Andy Hiraoka gave Gary Russell hell. Ryan looked like a pound-for-pound talent and Richardson Hitchins needs to be made to give Oscar Duarte a rematch. Pulling out of a fight a few hours before is bullshit.
Bread’s response: I thought Gary Antuanne Russell and Andy Hiraoka gave a great effort. They went to war. I have no issue with Russell getting the decision but Hiraoka is a man that will have to be dealt with.
I thought Ryan Garcia looked good but I wouldn’t say P4P level good. Let’s see him perform like he did against Barrios, against the likes of Devin Haney or Shakur Stevenson, and pass the drugs test. I don’t mean that as a criticism, but getting pound-for-pound status for a win over Mario Barrios coming off of a draw with Manny Pacquiao is an overstatement. But congrats to Ryan – he earned his world title and belts are still important, regardless of what anyone says.
Richardson Hitchins does not owe Oscar Duarte a rematch. They never fought once. But he does owe him a fight. Pulling out so close to a fight causes a financial burden on everyone involved and it’s a business. I won’t call what Hitchins did BS. He may have been sick. But I will say that it’s very unfortunate. I was looking forward to that fight.
You didn’t ask me but don’t forget about the Frank Martin-Nahir Albright fight. That was a good fight. Both guys put it on the line. A draw was a fair verdict. A rematch should be in place.
Hello Mr Edwards,
I hope all is well. I really think you should look into getting a TV gig, perhaps joining with someone like Antonio Tarver, as you are two guys that really know the sport and are willing to tell it like it is. Maybe even Teddy Atlas – he isn’t getting any younger and he’s got to pass the torch to someone... My question is about trainers and fighters – giving them their just due and taking accountability. I’m going to start off with Mike Tyson and Kevin Rooney. Mike Tyson left Kevin Rooney for Aaron Snowell after the biggest fight in the world. I can’t think of any fighter who ever did that who would ever do that outside of an extenuating circumstance. Tyson evades that question but once when asked he said something to the effect that trainers are not that important, they only think they are. I beg to differ and so would a lot of fighters – just ask Lennox Lewis. I think something must have happened behind the scenes for Tyson to throw Kevin Rooney under the bus like that. Or Don King isolated him from all the people who knew and cared about him before the money and fame. Who in their right mind would break up a team with that level of spectacular success at that time to basically go to an amateur trainer? I personally think Tyson is embarrassed about it. I know GGG left Abel Sanchez over money but how common is it for fighters to leave their trainers when they are winning and then forget about them or throw them under the bus? I can understand after a bad loss or a losing streak, but to cut out your trainer when you are winning, and looking unbeatable. just doesn’t make sense to me. As usual, thanks for the knowledge, and I really think you should contact someone about a regular TV gig.
Don, from Dubrovnik
Bread’s response: I’ve never heard Mike Tyson say that trainers were NOT that important. I’m not questioning your integrity but I wanted to preface my comment with that…
It was odd for Tyson to leave Kevin Rooney right after the Michael Spinks fight. But maybe there was something going on behind the scenes. Oftentimes people will turn you against the person they want out of your circle. Rooney was a disciple of Cus D’Amato and maybe they didn’t want any Cus-like influence around Tyson. I don’t know, but your point is well taken. Fighters don’t usually leave their trainers after career-best performances.
GGG did leave Abel Sanchez and, you know something, GGG never quite got back to old ways once he did. Sanchez got GGG at an early enough stage where he deserved the big money once GGG got to the big money. But it’s common among fighters to do that. When I say do that. I mean, get with a trainer, negotiate a percentage which is usually 10 per cent. Then as soon as they hit the big time where they’re making, let’s say, $5m or more, they don’t want to pay the trainer the same percentage they paid them before they got to the hypothetical $5m mark. It’s very strange to say the least. I also believe it’s mean spirited. Here is why.
One of the reasons for paying a trainer a percentage is because when the fighter gets a raise, the trainer does. But if the fighter gets a raise and the trainer’s percentage gets cut, then he may not be taking a decrease in actual money but he is taking a decrease in his actual percentage. I believe this is an abusive predatory practice if the trainer was with you before you got to the big money. Any time an employee is working off of a percentage, it’s basically a commission-based job.
Imagine being a real estate agent, and you sell dozens of houses in the 100k range at 3 pre cent commission. Then you finally get the big one and you sell a house for $2m. As the agent you think you’re going to get $60k, which is 3 per cent of $2m. You’re excited and you especially feel good but he weathered the early pay outs of 3 per cent of $100k, which is $3k. And now you feel like you finally get some breathing room. And the company you work for tells you to take a $20k flat rate pay out on the house you just sold for $2m. And they use the logic $20k is more than you ever made for any of the other houses you sold. So while you’re not getting the same percentage, you make more money. That real estate agent is going to feel slighted and abused. They won’t be able to rationalize why the 3 per cent was ok for $100k houses but it’s not ok for $2m houses. That’s how a trainer feels when he was with a fighter from the early stages taking a percentage, and then once the fighter makes it big he cuts the percentage down.
The only logical logic behind it is the fighter doesn’t want the trainer to make too much money. He want the trainer to sort of stay in his place financially. I can’t think of another reason.
What’s good, Breadman?
Ryan Garcia did a 180 against Barrios. Everything was on point. But what impressed me the most was his crazy improvement in fundamentals – especially in footwork, movement and cardio. The man moved and boxed beautifully for 12 rounds. He evaded defensively and avoided doing that ugly back-turning shell up. I imagine that’s what he looked like more in the amateurs with his dad before he found the power in his left hook and had fame and mental-health stuff, but that’s just a guess… What did you think? Sidenote – footwork seems to be a broad term in boxing. Like I would say Loma, Bam, Shakur, Bivol (and even Madrimov) all have phenomenal footwork but it plays into their styles completely differently (pivots; angles; in and out). How do you define “great footwork”? Maybe I’m missing some other terms and “footwork” is too broad. I just felt like Ryan’s footwork and movement seemed completely different in this fight. Feel free to comment on footwork and movement. Lastly, how do you imagine Ryan boxing just like that plays out against Haney? Do you think it would play out differently than last time and plays more into Haney’s strengths as a technical boxer? Or do you see that style of sticking and moving with twitchy power being too much for Haney? You the man – thanks.
Alex S
Bread’s response: I thought Ryan looked very good. He certainly looked better than he did versus Rolly Romero.
Footwork is how a fighter applies the movement of his feet in a boxing ring. Some fighters won’t have fancy feet but they will have efficient feet. For example, GGG has good footwork. But Lomachenko has fancy and good footwork. So Loma’s footwork is more talked about and pronounced. But both have good feet for their styles.
I make my personal determination of footwork on how it applies to a fighter’s specific style than I apply that to how effective it is. Julio Cesar Chavez has some of the best feet you will ever see but he doesn’t get credit for them because he came forward and forward footwork is not as appreciated as the fighter who applies his footwork like a matador.
Fighters who I feel have great footwork – Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Muhammad Ali, Julio Cesar Chavez, Vasyl Lomachenko, Pernell Whitaker, Willie Pep, Floyd Mayweather, Bam Rodriguez, Orlando Canizales, Oleksandr Usyk, Ricardo Lopez and Terence Crawford. I know I forgot some but those guys stood out off the top of my head.
I suspect Ryan may always give Haney trouble, especially since they split six amateur fights. Ryan will also have a mental advantage because of their first encounter professionally. But it’s hard for me to say how another fight will play out between them because Ryan came in several pounds overweight and he tested positive for PEDS. There are too many variables to just consider one.
Wassup, Bread?
I got two questions. I would love to hear your thoughts on punching power and physical strength – there are fighters who are physically strong but for whatever reason lack punching power. Two fighters who come to mind are Winky Wright and Tim Bradley. I remember seeing Winky physically bully Shane Mosley for two fights but never hurt him, and Tim Bradley was also physically very strong but lacked punching power. Your thoughts on this? Second question, who would you put as top give quadruple A fighters – meaning fighters who were good but just couldn’t get over the hump better than contenders, just not champions? Mine are Oba Carr, Yory Boy Campas, Sam Peter, Andy Lee, and David Tua.
Bread’s response: Yes, punching power and physical strength are not exclusive. Power is the ability to produce force. Strength is the ability to move or stabilize. So, how high you can jump is a display of power. How much you can bench press is a display of strength. This gets confused often. But those who know, know.
There are several reasons on why some very strong fighters don’t score a lot of KOs. One is they may be strong but they may not be explosive. It can also be a thing of they may not have the ability to hit their opponents with shots they don’t see. For example, Winky Wright had a great jab and great defense. But if you watch him close, he wasn’t really a counter puncher. So yes, he could box. But he wasn’t hitting his opponents with shots while they were in a vulnerable position. Terence Crawford on the other hand is also very strong. But Crawford also hits his opponents with shots they can’t brace for, whereas Winky sort of waits for his opponents to finish punching, then he attacks.
Then you have cases where fighters are strong but they don’t create leverage at the moment of impact. They either slap with the shot, which is bad technique, or they don’t snap the punch upon impact, which is poor punch delivery.
The last thing I will bring up is poor IQ or calculation. Some fighters just don’t understand their power zone. They don’t understand the position or angle they need to be at to deliver their best shots. That’s an IQ issue. Great question.
Excellent fighters who couldn’t get over the hump – I won’t name Charley Burley or Sam Langford who are most likely the best two fighters who never won world titles because they weren’t given shots at world titles. I’m going to name fighters who got their shots and came up slightly short. David Tua, Rocky Juarez, Oba Carr, Bennie Brisco and Andre Dirrell.
Send concise questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
