The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen “Breadman” Edwards tackling topics such as Tim Tszyu vs. Tony Harrison, Ryan Garcia vs. Gervonta Davis, Josh Taylor vs. Teofimo Lopez, Naoya Inoue vs. Stephen Fulton, and more.
Evening Breadman,
First and foremost gotta say congratulations on everything you’re doing and like everyone else we appreciate the unbiased and educated viewpoints you give on the sport we all love. A few thing pop Up Taylor Vs Lopez!!!! I know a lot of people say this is a wash but I feel like team Lopez see similarities between themselves and Catteral and are more keen as they view themselves as better in all departments to Catteral. Smart gamble on their parts(yeah Jack is a southpaw) actually quite interested in this fight. What’s your take on it? Matias…. He’s a bad dude looks like he’s gotten past the tragedy and he’s going to be a serious problem with the chin he seems to have….Wooh. How do you see him against Prograis, Catteral, Taylor, Lopez or Rolly?I saw some guys talking about Pirog the other day what’s your Take he was fire when it mattered Vs Jacobs and won clearly against guys he probably should have KOd.
Some Mythical Matchups: (I know your rarely answer these but I feel these are worth it) James Toney Vs Usyk at Cruiser, Pavlik Vs Charlo at 160, Zab Judah Vs Crawford at 140, Charlo Vs Winkey at 154.
Thanks
Geno from the Bay
Bread’s Response: You know when I thought about Taylor vs Lopez at first glance I thought to myself that Lopez was in a mental rut and Taylor would be too much for him. But now that I really look at the fight, I actually think that Lopez is SUPER LIVE. A quick fisted fighter with pop and confidence that can keep turning Taylor, can beat him. Lopez is not a southpaw but you stated he’s more talented than Catterral. The question is does he have it mentally to deal with the determined Taylor. I’m intrigued by this fight and my guts tell me Lopez has a shot to win. I think it’s 60/40 in Taylor’s favor but sometimes a fighter is better when they are up against it, than they are when they are EXPECTED to win.
Lopez’s career trajectory is on the line. Taylor is big and tall for the weight and he seems to be struggling to make 140. Taylor has been inactive and he’s lost his momentum from winning the tournament. He also had 2 brutally tough and close fights vs Ramirez and Prograis. Because of the inactivity in this era, fighters fall off more suddenly. Taylor is over 30. I think Taylor is more skilled, but Lopez is faster and or more gifted. We just saw a similar match up in Foster vs Vargas. And Foster won! Taylor has been one of my best projection predictions as far as where career has gone. But objectively speaking, I’m not as confident in picking him as I once was.
Greetings Bread,
I hope all is well with you and yours. Good luck for the Benavidez fight, can’t wait for it. Fulton vs Inoue has been announced. I tried to find some highlights of Fulton but couldn’t. So I saw the Figueroa fight. Here’s what my thoughts are: Fulton is great in the clinch, both when moving out and fighting in the phonebooth. But doesn’t seem to have an elite defense in the mid range and especially against body punches. Figueroa landed a decent number of punches. So I think Fulton’s defense won’t be enough to stop Inoue from landing. He also lacks power as seen from the lack of KOs on his record, so that won’t deter Inoue from forward aggression. Also Inoue’s punches have very less range of motion and the punches will land much quicker than Figueroa. A lot of people including you are favoring Fulton in this, based on what I saw vs Figueroa I think it’s a 50-50 fight. Where do you think I’m wrong in the analysis? Also how much of a factor will body punches be. Maybe punches to the head would be less effective due to the higher weight class but is the same true for body punches? Thank you for the valuable education you provide every week.
Zigishu from India
Bread’s Response: You have a good breakdown of Fulton vs Inoue. Especially the part about Fulton in the clinch and Inoue’s shorter power shots. Maybe Fulton can tangle him up, maybe Inoue can fire in close space. We have to see. I also believe it’s a 50/50 fight…..But you left out something. Fulton’s size and strength. Fulton may not be a BIG puncher but he’s BIG for 122lbs. He’s very physically strong and that’s different from punching power. Fulton can maul, grapple and wear out fighters in close. He’s a master in there. Inoue has a lot to deal with. He’s facing a naturally bigger fighter by a lot, who’s in his prime. This will also be Inoue’s 5 division. He started out at 108. He skilled 112. He did his thing at 115 and 118. Now I will be the first to say it’s not the same as going from 147 to 175. But it’s a real challenge vs an excellent fighter.
Dear bread sorry for the spoiler alert if you haven’t seen creed 3 but after recently watching it I would like to get your opinion on what I believe is quite frankly a impossible task to accomplish regarding the achievement by the villain in the film Dame Anderson portrayed by Jonathan majors, in the movie Dame is a former highly decorated amateur boxer as a youth who goes to jail for 18 years and upon his release is gifted a shot at the world heavyweight title in his very first pro fight and obviously wins the belt setting up a grudge match bout with Adonis creed yes I know this is a Hollywood movie but it seems really far fetched and almost unbelievable that this could possibly ever happen in real life or could it? My question to you is do you think there is any amateur heavyweight in history who could have accomplished this in your opinion ? Win the world heavyweight title in their first pro fight ? I can’t but if I had to pick someone it would have to be a young fearless Mike Tyson but as I said before I still don’t think it’s possible, interested to hear your thoughts on this?
Regards Brendan Sydney Aus
Bread’s Response: Pete Rademacher actually challenged Floyd Patterson in 1957 in his pro debut for the heavyweight title. Rademacher was kod in 6. I think Tyson could’ve possibly done it but it’s hard to gauge. Tyson won the title at the end of 1986. But he had 27 fights in 2 years to develop his skills. It’s such a complex question it’s just too hard to say. It would take a freak talent who peaked early. Like a Tyson, Ali or Patterson. Maybe one of the Cuban greats in Stevenson or Savon. I think it’s possible but it depends on who the champion is. How advanced the young pro debut heavyweight is. And more importantly how they train. They would probably need 6 months to train from 3 round fights to 12 round fights. I actually look forward to someone trying it.
Hello Stephen, I’m from Michigan and it’s my first time writing to you and I was just wondering do you think Marco Antonio Barrera version against Prince Naseem would have beaten Pacquiao? The way he fought Prince was spot on! Also am I the only one that thinks he ranks higher than Juan manual Marquez in legacy? I feel like the KO win over Manny is why a lot of people rank Marquez higher than Barrera and the win over Barrera that a lot of people thought Barrera won.
Bread’s Response: I don’t know if Barrera could have ever beaten Manny. He had 2 shots at it and it seems that Manny has a tough style for him. I think Marquez and Barrera are pretty much even terms of legacy. Marquez went higher in weight and head better success vs Manny. But I also thought Barrera edged him head to head when they fought. And Barrera had an excellent legacy at 122lbs better than Marquez had at any single weight. Barrera had double digit title wins and he won the title multiple times at 122. It’s very, very close.
There are strict regulations in the world of finance. The SEC is charged with enforcement, supported by FINRA as the industry self-regulator and yet the “cheaters” are rarely caught because the money is in the side of the cheater. The inside trade is carefully executed to avoid detection, so if by some chance the SEC is tipped, the cheater has a cover story to explain it all away. The unspoken truth is that these rules only catch the small fish. There is ample evidence that the owner of the New York Mets made his fortune on insider trading…but only those beneath him fell. Boxing is a multibillion dollar industry and the money is on the side of the business not regulators. We’ve now seen meat and eggs used to explain away PED tests failures. The issue is not whether the explanation is true, the issue is that a failure has plausible denial.in other words, all the scientists working on PEDs will only need to figure out the cover story to mask use…which means PED tests will only catch the unsophisticated or poorly funded fighters. So my question is why should I as a fan believe any testing regime or think any fighter is “clean”?
Bread’s Response: I can tell you’re very educated and very informed. PEDs are a huge issue in boxing and the reason why it appears that no one really cares, is because they actually do care if one gets caught more so than who actually uses. I talked last week in my mailbag about the PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. Any smart user will find the drug he wants to use, and then find a food or substance that this same drug is used in and IF he gets caught they will just say he was eating that food or taking that particular substance.
It seems sophisticated but it’s actually common sense. So now if the testing agencies accept these excuses, then basically no one will ever be guilty even if they test positive. Here is the issue. The testing agencies need to have common sense and understand that these built in excuses will be locked and loaded and ready to use as soon as the cheaters get caught. If you can predict the excuse it becomes hollow. Besides the built in excuses, the cheaters also don’t have to OUT their SUPPLIER. I have yet to see a fighter tell who they got the PEDS from. That’s tells me a lot.
Because if I saw a fighter say I trusted my team to give me my supplements and John Doe gave me my stuff. Then John Doe will either take the fall or say wait no way, this guy knows what he was doing and it will open up a can of worms. We have yet to see that to my knowledge. With these food excuses it eliminates that aspect of it. It’s disgusting and disheartening to a clean participant. But I have to optimistic.
As I said last week there is new program on the horizon. Elite fighters are going to enter the 24/7/365 Program and it will force their opponents to enter the program much earlier. When this comes about look for certain fighter’s performances to drop off.
To answer you specifically I can tell you there are some clean fighters. I personally have never gave a fighter PEDS. Worked with a fighter who didn’t request VADA early in camp for their big fights. And I have also never turned a blind eye to PED use. Not many can say that openly without fear of someone calling their bluff but I can say it.
First hope all is well with you and your family. Second, It has always fascinated me that such trainers as D’Amato, Ray Arcel, Eddie Futch could train fighters having never put on a pair of gloves. Yet, somehow they understood the game of boxing to guide their fighters to titles. On the other side of this, there are some fighters who have not as successful (can’t think of any outside of Floyd and Breland at the moment) but were great fighters. One would think, that it would easily translate to training because they were in the gym day and night. They made adjustments during fights, used their ring IQ/Generalship, footwork etc. But it doesn’t work like that all the time. Care to elaborate on this matter? Two, Do you believe Leonard had a leg up on Hagler seeing how he was an HBO commentator and commentated on, analyzed Hagler’s fight’s for six years?
Thanks Again Breadman
Big Moe
Bread’s Response: In order to train a fighter, you have to have understanding of boxing. And you have to be able to articulate what you know in a way where the fighters can understand you and execute. Being a prominent ex fighter allows you to have validation but it doesn’t make you better. I have seen ex fighters who are excellent coaches and I have seen some who are terrible. Awful. Guys who I wouldn’t let train my pets.
For some reason in boxing there is a myth you have to be an ex fighter in order to train a fighter. But it doesn’t take much to be a fighter. You pass a basic physical and go fight. I know ex fighters who have single digit wins and double digit losses. Their careers proved they knew how to lose. It’s very tricky to assess. I look at each situation individually.
I’ve been around some great coaches of all backgrounds. The best coaches understand the game, they’re leaders and they can articulate what they know. Often times they have military, law enforcement or business owner backgrounds. Half don’t have a significant background in boxing.
I’m not so sure that Arcel, Dmato and Futch never put on gloves. That may be a stretch. Not having a significant background in boxing and not having ever put on gloves are two different things. I would have to research that. But the point stands. Great trainers come from all types of backgrounds and at this point a large percentage were not ex fighters.
I think often times ex fighters have a harder transition into coaching because they aren’t patient as a fighter progresses. They remember where they left off and not where they started. They sometimes make it about them and their careers and not the fighters they are training. And they forget that they were blessed with God Given talent as a fighter but not so much as a teacher.
The most prevalent cases of this is Muhammad Ali. Ali was trained by Archie Moore. In the 1960 Moore was a top 10 fighter P4P ever. He had all of the background and accolades one could have in order to train a fighter. But he couldn’t get through to Ali. So Ali hooks up with Angelo Dundee, who didn’t have a background as an ex fighter and they made history together. In fact they beat a Moore trained fighter in George Foreman many years later. The story goes that Moore tried to teach Ali to fight like him, where as Dundee let Ali fight like Ali. Think about that…
Leonard would have been able to analyze Hagler if he was or wasn’t an HBO commentator. I think Leonard’s advantage was Hagler’s arrogance. Hagler believed Leonard was too small and too inactive to beat him. He’s supposed to be confident but I think he underestimated Leonard. Leonard negotiated the fight to WIN it. He negotiated competitive terms. Hagler negotiated financial terms. Hagler’s fans don’t like to admit this but it’s true. Leonard asked for a bigger ring, so he could move if he had too in order to win. Hagler got more money because getting paid more was his priority. And that was that. Hagler got paid more but Leonard got the win.
Bread – Growing up, my favorite fighter was Michael Spinks. Followed him from the 1976 Olympics all the way through the end of his career. You have mentioned in the past that he was very underrated, which I agree with. Think most remember him only for his 1st round KO to Mike Tyson. But, he reigned supreme over a golden era for the Light Heavyweight division and became the first ever 175lb champ to win the heavyweight crown. Check his resume – beat some real killers. How do you rank him in history and how do you think he would have fared against today’s Light Heavyweights (Bivol, Beterbiev and Andre Ward – before he retired)?
Reid – Atlanta, GA
Bread’s Response: I think Michael Spinks is a top 5 fighter of the 1980s. The 80s have a case for being the best decade ever as far as prime ATG talent. I put it 2nd to the 1940s. But the 1980s featured Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Salvador Sanchez, Larry Holmes, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran, Alexis Arguello, Aaron Pryor, Wilfredo Gomez, Wilfred Benitez, Hector Camacho, Julio Cesar Chavez, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker, Jeff Fenech, Eusabio Pedraza, Mike McCallum and Jeff Fenech. The 80s were so stacked that I left out a dozen other HOF who had prime performances in that decade. Spinks had a top 5 decade in terms of accomplishments and significance. I think he’s top 3 ever at lightheavyweight. He’s underrated puncher. He has a great jab. He was a great finisher. He was smart. He was tough. He was clutch. And in terms of fighters with under 40 career fights. He’s top 5 in my opinion. I think All Time he’s within the top 50-75 fighter ever. He would do well head to head with any and everyone in history who’s close to 175lbs. He’s that good.
Hey Breadman! Hope all is well! So here’s the situation: The other night, I stumbled across an article talking about boxers and listing a fun set of mythical matchups (more on those in a minute). Anyway, they got to one that caught my attention because of some of what they said. It was Oscar De La Hoya vs Aaron Pryor @140. They picked Pryor, citing his stamina and relentless ferocity. But at one point, they said something that has stuck in my craw: “Oscar De La Hoya was a great fighter, to be sure, but it feels weird in the mouth to call him an all time great”. That’s BS! That angered not just because I found that ridiculous, but because that’s part of a trend I feel like I’ve been noticing more and more lately: It seems like Oscar isn’t getting respect because of his pretty boy status and out of the ring incidents or whatever.
And while I do think some fighters are faring even worse in the category of “Being Disrespected Because Folks Don’t Know/Forgot How Good They Were” (ie: Cotto, Pryor, Marquez, etc), I still think Oscar deserves better than that article and its snide remarks toward him. What do you think? Do you see Oscar as an ATG? Why do you think he’s being disrespected or forgotten in the years since he retired?
Here are the mythical matchups they listed: Carlos Monzon vs Bernard Hopkins @ 160, Salvador Sanchez vs Azumah Nelson (hypothetical rematch) @ 126, Mikey Garcia vs Kostya Tszyu @ 140, Oscar De La Hoya vs Aaron Pryor @ 140, Bob Foster vs Michael Spinks @ 175, Felix Trinidad vs Errol Spence @ 147
Thoughts?
Bread’s Response: Aaron Pryor is probably the greatest 140lber ever along with Chavez. But head to head. The Oscar of 1996 at 140, I don’t know if Pryor could beat him. I honestly don’t know who wins that fight. Oscar is much taller and longer and Pryor who is special also has a penchant for getting dropped. Oscar was a big puncher at that weight and he was brutally crisp. Some days I pick Oscar. Others I pick Pryor. It’s really a 50/50 fight. Remember Arguello was 31 and fighting at his 4th weight class with over 70 fights. I’m not saying he was shot or anything like that but he was probably at the end of his prime. Oscar was only 23 when he was at 140lbs. It’s a different fight.
Oscar is for sure an ATG. He’s definitely among the top 100 fighters ever. He won world titles in 6 divisions. From 130 to 160. Only Pacquioa has more weight division titles. On his best day from say 1995-03. Tell me what fighters at 130, 135 and 140 would you pick definitively to beat him. I can’t think of more than 5 I would pick with a bullet. Oscar was that dude.
His career seems to get split in half. People say he lost his big fights vs Trinidad, Mosley 2x, Hopkins, Pacman and Floyd. But Oscar is only fighter in history to fight the #1 P4P 5x. He fought Whitaker, Mosley, Bhop, Pac and Floyd all around the time they were #1. Tito was top 3. Oscar’s resume is SICK.
For the record I was a Tito guy but Oscar won that fight. I also believe he beat Mosley in the rematch. But everyone forgets he was already a HOF before he moved to 147. They forget he was destroying guys from 130-140. Look at the Leija, Ruelas, Chavez and Hernandez fights. They weren’t even close. Oscar won fighter of the year in 1995. He was 22. Oscar is an ATG. But I think there are tiers to ATG status. He’s not where Ali, Robinson, Duran and Floyd are. But he’s where guys like Marquez, Barrera and say Aaron Pryor are.
What is your take on the Tim Tszyu-Tony Harrison fight? I think this one is going to be a fight of the year candidate and wanted to hear your thoughts. Thank you!
Bread’s Response: I’m going to pick Tony to pull off the upset but I’m going to openly admit I don’t know who the judges are. And I’m slightly concerned that Tony may have overtrained to compensate for past stamina issues. I saw somewhere that he was 160lbs a few weeks ago. And that’s really light for a 6’1 fighter who fights at 154. But I don’t know Tony’s body so I’m going to assume he knows what he’s doing. I’m pulling for him and I think he can win a close decision with some scares down the stretch. I don’t think it’s going to be Fight of the Year though. If it’s FOY I think Tszyu will win. In order for Tony to win it doesn’t have to be exciting. It should be a technical fight.
Tank vs Ryan’s press conference was today. What was your thoughts? Both seemed to be more mature than before. What’s up with the catchweight and rehydration clause? Who’s your pick?
Bread’s Response: Tank seemed very subdued and you’re correct. He spoke very mature. As did Ryan. I like when Ryan speaks from his heart. He has a future on tv. I think this fight is HUGE. I think it does over 350k PPV buys. I knew the catchweight was 136lbs, I didn’t know that there was a rehydration clause. That tells me Ryan struggles to make weight because Tank doesn’t rehydrate too high. I think Ryan needs to hire a nutritionist to do this correctly or his ability to take a punch can be compromised. But we also have to see what time he has to do the second weigh in. If it’s done in the morning then 10lbs is no big deal.
Joe Goosen is a legend and one of the best in the business. Calvin Ford is the truth. Both fighters have excellent coaches. I think this fight comes down to two things. One is Ryan’s career progression. I don’t understand why Ryan Garcia has NOT fought for a world title yet. He won an eliminator and CHOSE not to fight for a title. That doesn’t sit well with me. All fighters want to hear and the new. It’s a life long dream if you’re elite. Oscar and Bernard have won over dozen titles between the both of them. If Ryan had their matchmaking progression when they were coming up, I think he would be better geared for the moment. It’s not that Tank has fought Murderer’s Row. I don’t count WBA “Regular” titles. But Tank has won a real championship and he knows what it’s like to fight fighters who don’t know how to lose. Winners. That matters.
So in a fight with two big punchers. I’m going to take the fighter who I believe makes less mistakes. Who I have a hunch has a better chin. Who’s more mature in terms of his matchmaking. And that’s Tank Davis. But make no mistake. Ryan can win. But I think he has to go the boring route. Distance and jab and win a decision. But I don’t know if he has the feet for that. He has the hands but I haven’t seen him fight that neutralizing fight with his feet. Ryan views himself as a puncher. It’s how he fights. And Tank is deadly in exchanges. So…
Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com