Good morning, Breadman,
Hope, as always, all is well with you and your family. You mentioned the life and death war between Wilfredo Gomez and Lupe Pintor. It’s one of the best technical but brutal wars of all time, like the Morales-Barrera fights, and McCallum-Toney fights. What fights do you recommend to casual to watch to fall in love with fighters of old, where the fights were action-packed but technical. Sometimes a Leonard-Benitez fight might not excite a new fan because of the defensive artistry; maybe later on they will appreciate it. Most know the Gatti-Ward trilogy and the spectacular Corrales-Castillo comeback stoppage. What fights do you recommend to new fans to fall in love with boxing, that shows all facets – attack, defence, heart, stamina, ability to adapt, etc.
My fight at 12 years old was Holmes-Norton – an underrated, great fight. I fell in love with boxing after and have never missed a fight since. I greatly appreciate your insight, knowledge and appreciation of older fighters people might not know about. Thank you again for your mailbag. I look forward to every Saturday.
Have a blessed day.
Bread’s response: Thank you, my guy – I appreciate the support. There are so many fights that I love for so many different reasons. I will just give you the fights I like and study and then you can go view them yourself. Whitaker vs Mayweather, Chavez vs Rosario, Arguello vs Mancini, Leonard vs Hearns, Duran vs Thompson, Trinidad vs Vargas, Chacon vs Limon IIII, Quiroga vs Kid Akeem, Carbajal vs Gonzalez, Lopez vs Alvarez II, Chocolatito vs Estrada and Sanchez vs Nelson.
Hello Breadman,
Wow, Sugar Ray Leonard is so much fun to watch – he combined elegance with violence and viciousness, when he saw you hurt he turned into a kind of shark. Easily in my top five of all time. What are you thoughts about this legend?
Bread’s response: Sugar Ray Leonard is my all-time favorite fighter. He’s the best fighter of my lifetime. I have him in my top 10 all-time greats. I also think he’s top three at welterweight and he’s the fighter of the 1980s.
He’s the guy you want in a big fight. He overcame a defensive slip master in Wilfred Benitez. He overcame a skilful pressure technician in Roberto Duran. He overcame a long range one punch KO sniper in Tommy Hearns. And he overcame the most durable hard-nosed all-round southpaw in Marvin Hagler. There isn’t a style we haven’t seen him beat at the top level – add all of that to Olympic gold medal pedigree and you have super fighter. And before anyone says anything stupid about the Hagler fight. Let me say it for you…
If Leonard waited until Hagler got old, was Leonard getting younger sitting out for three years and doing recreational drugs like cocaine? If Leonard didn’t want to fight Hagler in 1982, maybe he wasn’t ready to fight the best middleweight of his era with a recently diagnosed detached retina and never before fighting at 160lbs. If Leonard made Hagler fight a 12-round fight, didn’t Mugabi and Hearns make Hagler fight 12-round fights also? Because the Hearns and Mugabi fights were scheduled for 12 rounds. Hagler also vacated his IBF title. He defended his WBC against Leonard. At that time the WBC was the first sanctioning body to drop down to 12-round fights while the IBF held out the longest on their 15-round fights. Hagler was ok with fighting a 12 rounder. It just never became an issue before because he stopped Hearns and Mugabi.
“Leonard made Hagler fight in big gloves.” No he didn’t. He requested gloves where the thumbs were attached so he didn’t get thumbed. These are same gloves we use today. Leonard got a 20ft ring which is actually standard today. I will admit the ring played a factor but that’s what negotiations are for. Now that that’s out of the way… For the bitter Hagler fans, guess what Hagler got. More money! They simply can’t get over how their guy handled the fight.
Hagler negotiated for money and that’s exactly what he got. Leonard negotiated for the win and that’s what he got. Hagler was arrogant and he thought because Leonard struggled in sparring he would struggle in the fight. Hagler thought he was the better boxer so he tried to outbox Leonard. Instead of just winning. By the time he turned on the gas, he wasn’t fighting Ray Leonard anymore, he was fighting Sugar Ray Leonard. Leonard got his confidence as the fight went on and the rest, as they say, is history. Hagler fans have to live with it.
Leonard vs Hagler was a hotly contested fight but in no way was it unjust or a robbery. I have yet to watch the fight, and scored six rounds to Hagler. Hagler was popular with the media because of his loyalty to the Petronellis and their handshake deal. Leonard did things his way in and out of the ring that irritated some conservative media. So this fight was made out to be some sort of conspiracy to dethrone Hagler. I always say if that was the case, then why did Hagler agree to the terms – he surely wasn’t some new novice that didn’t have experience with the business of boxing? Why did he fight the first two rounds orthodox? If he was so paranoid about being robbed, why didn’t he jump on Leonard like he did Hearns? The conspiracy theorist didn’t come out until after the fight. Before the fight, they all said Leonard would get killed. Then, after he won the fight and basically won the fighter of the decade, that’s when the stories came out.
Think about what Leonard did in today’s time. It would be the equivalent of Floyd Mayweather taking off three years due to an eye injury and, with no tune ups, fighting GGG at 160lbs in 2016 and winning. Think about what would be said about Floyd’s chances before the fight. Then imagine he won and what the aftermath would be. That’s what Leonard did and there is still a certain segment of the boxing community that can’t get over it and they’re willing to lie and/or exaggerate just to make a mute point. Leonard won.
Hey Breadman,
Can you think of any examples of a boxer who was a good boxer in the gym – someone who had a lot of potential, but for whatever reason couldn’t put it all together in the ring when it all counted? I think the term is “gym boxers”. Where they do everything right in the gym. Pass the eye test. Clearly have a lot of talent and might even look lights out in sparring, but their professional careers never took off like they should have. Is this a real thing? And, if so, how common is it and what would you suspect is the reason for it? What makes a good gym culture? Is it just everyone being supportive and respectful of each other? And are there any different behind-the-scene roles in the gym or a training camp that people might not think about or know about? Thanks
Bread’s response: I have seen several fighters who are much better in the gym than they are in real fights. In fact, most fighters are better in the gym than they are real fights. In the gym you have to know how to fight. There is no pressure to win. In real fights you have to know how to win. Being able to fight and being able to win a fight are not exclusive. The reason for it is pressure and mindset. The pressure of winning and doing what it takes to win is not something every athlete can overcome. The mindset you need to be a winner is superior, and harder to develop, than the mindset you need to have enough heart to spar.
A good gym culture, in my opinion, is a gym where the environment is clean and warm. I hate a cold gym. A good gym culture is a gym that you can spar in without people pulling out their phones trying to video. A fighter should be able to have a bad day without everyone gossiping. A good gym culture is one where everyone respects and is mindful of who’s in the gym. It’s not proper etiquette to get in the ring and get in a fighter’s way if he’s doing a serious drill and prepping for a serious fight. Last but not least a good gym culture is one where everyone is working. I hate a gym where the side conversations are loud and distracting. I don’t believe you can tell grown people don’t talk. But it’s not ok to hear side-bar irrelevant conversations when a fighter is trying to lock in and work on his craft. I’m sort of a grumpy old man when it comes to distractions in the gym.
Dear Mr Edwards,
I personally feel the big four sanctioning bodies do more harm than good at the end of the day, but I still don't want to see the Saudi-Zuffa money, and goal of monopolization, take over the sport. The devil you know, and all that jazz. Anyway, if you work for the WBA, WBC, WBO, or IBF, today’s your lucky day. Here’s how you can get your act together and start marshalling your resources against Zuffa.
WBA, WBC, WBO – you’re all based in Latin American territories. You guys are consolidating into one entity and are the boxing world title organization. Figure out a new name or whose name you keep. You’re doing this because you have the most global touch points collectively. IBF – you’re not getting left out and you’re not getting (terribly) shortchanged. You are now the sanctioning body of the (formerly) good ol’ US of A. I respect how you guys stick to your guns, even in the face of a thousand boos. And we could use some moral fiber here these days. You know how the UK progressively builds contenders with their local and regional titles (country level; Commonwealth; European)? Guess what – you’re doing that for America now. Let’s say the hierarchy is state, region, national, North American (we’ll get Canada onboard). Sorry you’re not a “world” title anymore, but the casinos, site fees and dollars in America should make up most of the difference. The new world title organisation will throw you guys a bonus every time an American contender fights for a world title. We’ll also build some synergy with the Euro level organisations to make big match-ups. Thoughts?
Bread’s response: I don’t have many thoughts right now on your comment. But I’m posting it so you can have a platform for your ideas. Let’s see if someone of some importance reads it and puts some of your ideas to use.
Greetings, Mr Edwards!
I hope you’re doing great and your family are too. First I want to ask you why is it that most southpaws are hardly beaten or they’re good, or the best boxers. Some are fighting like orthodox boxers in a southpaw stance – for example, Shakur was born a right-handed fighter, Crawford, Boots. Southpaws that have been hard to beat include Crawford, Shakur, Usyk, Lomachenko, Gervonta Davis, Boots, Billy Joe, Pacquaio, Spence, and Janibek, even though he has since tested positive, Jai Opetaia, Abdullah Mason. How are southpaws conditioned – do they benefit from training with a lot of orthodox fighters? Have there been a lot of southpaws that were not good boxers? On this one can I differ from you for once – in my opinion I don’t see Usyk not fighting Kabayel a duck – ever since Usyk moved up to heavyweight he has never ducked any smoke. Like every other boxer he deserve to have two-to-three fights that aren’t competitive, or where he gets to choose the opponent. Crawford didn’t fight Boots because to him it didn’t make sense and that was fair. Can Usyk also get some rest? I really like Bud, by the way, and Usyk – they are very humble and down-to-earth guys. Usyk deserves this – he earned it the hard way. Let’s have Kabayel fight legit guys like Anthony Joshua, Daniel Dubois or Tyson Fury – then Usyk after any of those guys. He hasn’t been his mandatory for long, like how David Benavidez was to Canelo Alvarez.
Bread’s response: I think we are seeing more southpaws in this era. But I don’t think it’s a thing – southpaws are hardly beaten. Southpaws get beat just like orthodox fighters do. Manny Pacquiao is a southpaw – he has a case for being the best ever at the stance and he’s lost eight times. Lomachenko has lost three times and no one ever lets him forget it. I do think southpaws have an instinctive advantage because they box orthodox fighters more than orthodox fighters fight them, so they know how to calibrate their punches to land at a certain angle. Their brains are programmed more because of the repetition they get against orthodox fighters. Skill is built off of repetition. But I think it seems like more southpaws are unbeaten today because there are more southpaws around. Things will even themselves out, just like any other trend. You will see more southpaws lose their 0s in the years to come. Especially if they fight each other. Someone has to lose if two southpaws fight…
Every champion of Usyk’s status deserves a showcase fight sprinkled in their resume. But if Usyk continues to fight and not fight the clear number-one contender in Agit Kabayel, it’s a duck. Kabayel is his mandatory. Usyk is getting an easy fight in his next fight. Usyk fights on average about once every nine or 10 months. If Usyk fights three more times like he said he would, that would take him almost three years. If that happens, Usyk ducked Kabayel.
I love Usyk as a fighter. He represents boxing with honor. But I’m not going to call the sky purple when it’s blue. A duck is a duck no matter who does it. Kabayel has already beat some very good heavyweights. He’s on a serious run. Three of his last four fights have been against undefeated fighters. The other fight was against Zhang. Kabayel has been a pro for 15 years and he’s 33 years old. How long do you want the guy to wait to get a title shot? Usyk doesn’t have to fight him but if he doesn’t this year, he should be stripped of his titles and allow Kabayel to fight for them…
Good day to you, brother. It’s always a pleasure reading and gaining insight on your thoughts of boxing past, present and future. My question is kind of two-fold. I’ve been watching boxing for quite a while and one of my favorite fighters of yesteryear is Bernard Hopkins, due to his adaptability and his ways to handicap a fighter. My uncle and my brother in law always called him boring; a lot of people didn’t really consider him an action fighter. Checking the landscape of our American fighters, it’s a lot of guys now aren’t considered draws. My question would be when did our style go from action-packed, like Ray Leonard to Zab Judah, to the safe style of a, say, “Winky” Wright . I love the hit-and-not-get hit philosophy but risk-averse fighters are kinda hurting the sport.
My man, as always, Rev
Bread’s response: I really can’t pinpoint what you’re asking me. Because Terence Crawford, Boots Ennis and Tank Davis all go for KOs, and they all fought in this era. Whereas Floyd Mayweather, Shakur Stevenson and Devin Haney are boxers who prefer to just win. I don’t have an issue with anyone’s style. As long as the goal is to win. The only time I will ever criticize a “boxer” is when the “boxer” is losing and he won’t take a chance to attempt to win and he allows himself to be outpointed because he’s not willing to risk being stopped.
Hector Camacho is an excellent boxer, but one I am not as high on as most other people. Because when Camacho felt outgunned he allowed the fight to just play out to a decision loss and he never went for it. See his fights versus De La Hoya, Chavez and Trinidad. Whereas Pernell Whitaker was not having his best night versus Diabolis Hurtado. But Whitaker kept pressing for a KO when he saw that boxing was not working. Ray Leonard was told he was losing to Tommy Hearns. He decided to attack the most feared puncher in the history of their division. It’s why I put Whitaker and Leonard on a different tier than Camacho…
Hi Breadman,
Who do you like in the Adames-Williams fight this weekend? Adames is the big favourite, but he had issues making weight last time. Separately, you mentioned liking Benavidez against Opetaia. Guess this stems from something you saw in Opetaia’s last fight, which I missed – do you want to elaborate?
Thanks
Bread’s response: I like Adames to stop Williams somewhere between the eighth and 10th rounds. Williams is a solid fighter but I just feel that Adames is a level above. The triangle theory doesn’t always work in boxing but Adames got better as the fight went on versus Sheeraz, whereas Williams got worse.
I am high on Jai Opetaia. But it’s not a knock on him that I pick Benavidez to beat him. I’m just higher on Benavidez. I watched Opetaia closely and I feel like if he doesn’t hit Benavidez with a Sunday punch then Benavidez operates at a higher level. When two violent punchers fight, the one who has the most craft behind his violence usually wins. Let’s look at history – when two big-punching violent fighters fight. Hagler beat Mugabi; GGG beat Lemieux; Lewis beat Ruddock; Sanchez beat Gomez; Chavez beat Rosario; McCallum beat Jackson… I can go on about this. Nothing is 100 per cent. But for the most part, the puncher who has better craft wins that particular match up. I would like to see how Benavidez looks versus Zurdo in May. But if he’s in his form, I’m taking David for the win versus Opetaia.
Sup Breadman,
Recently Diego Pacheco made some comments suggesting that Mexican-American fighters may actually be more well-rounded or skilled than Mexican-born fighters. Historically, many Mexican-born fighters built their identities around pressure, durability, and body punching. But when I look at some of the current Mexican-American fighters like Vergil Ortiz Jnr or “Bam” Rodriguez, they seem to have a blend of styles. They have the footwork, jab, and defensive awareness that’s often emphasized in American gyms, but they can still fight on the inside and dig to the body in that classic Mexican way. Obviously there are exceptions among Mexican-born fighters – guys like Canelo, Finito Lopez and Salvador Sanchez were extremely skilled. But broadly speaking, do you think there’s any truth to the idea that Mexican-American fighters today may be developing a slightly more complete style because they’re exposed to both traditions? And if so, are we maybe seeing the emergence of a distinct “Mexican-American” style – something that combines the grit and body punching of Mexican fighters with the jab, movement, and defensive fundamentals traditionally taught in American gyms? Curious to hear your take.
Bread’s response: I heard about Diego Pacheco’s comments but I didn’t hear them. I like Diego but he probably shouldn’t have said that. The comment may cost him some of his fan base. I think the Mexican people love action and when Mexican fighters emerged they fought with a come-forward style. But there have always been good Mexican-born boxers. You mentioned Canelo, Sanchez, and El Finito. But sometimes when we fall into stereotypes we forget. Miguel Canto was a Mexican flyweight great. He came along before everyone you mentioned and he was a boxer. Did you forget the Marquez brothers? Both of them were classic boxing-counter punchers. Did you forget that Marco Antonio Barrera totally changed his style from an aggressive fighter to a boxer-puncher? Erik Morales was exciting, but he often boxed. My point is, I respect Mexican fighters. Some are come-forward sluggers. But like all stereotypes, this one is not entirely true.
Diego Pacheco is 6ft 4ins with a huge reach. So he’s smart not to fight like Ruben Olivares. I don’t think it’s a revelation of any sort. I just think Pacheco is fighting the style that best suits him. I think fighters often follow the best fighter of their culture, genre and era that they relate to the most. Oscar De La Hoya was that guy. And he was a boxer puncher. He was extremely successful. He retired in 2008. So you see fighters who came after him fight more like him than they did traditional Mexicans. It’s just how things go.
Deontay Wilder seems absolutely convinced Tyson Fury cheated in their fights. I am sure he believes it. What do you make of that? It’s usually easy to dismiss accusations. I find it harder when the accuser is so passionate.
Bread’s response: You know something, I don’t know Deontay on a personal level. So it’s hard for me to assess his feelings. But I do have a ton of life experience. And a person with conviction and passion can influence opinions. Deontay is very passionate that Tyson Fury cheated. He hasn’t convinced me that Fury cheated but I also don’t rule it out. I want to see the facts presented… As a person who believes in due process I am waiting to for a few things to happen.
One is I’m waiting on Tyson Fury to sue Wilder. I’m interested in seeing if Fury is willing to sue for allegedly defaming his name. Some people don’t get into lawsuits and whatnot. But if Tyson Fury sued Wilder, then full disclosure would be in place and we could get some clarity on this situation. If you remember Manny Pacquiao sued Floyd Mayweather for the PED accusations. That always stood tall with me because the B samples of both of their past tests would have come out and Pacquiao was still willing to sue…
I’m also waiting to hear Deontay’s proof. There are things that I know that I can’t prove but I will die on the hill of my beliefs. But my gut feelings don’t mean anything to anybody except me. And if this is just a gut feeling by Deontay I won’t dismiss it, but it’s not the same as having actual proof. Deontay has said he has proof. If he does, he needs to show it to the world.
Then I’m waiting for Deontay to sue. If he has proof and he believes that Fury cheated him, then sue him. For people who say that’s snitching, etc, I say boxing is a business. This is not drug dealing or bank robbing. If someone wrongs you in the business world, either you chalk it up and move on, or you sue. Wilder has been talking about this for over five years now so obviously he doesn’t want to move on. So at this point if he has proof, he should put it on public display and let the courts and public consume what he has. Let’s see how it turns out…
Send concise questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
