In this week’s mailbag, Stephen Edwards pits some of the best fighters today against those from the 1990s, discusses what might happen if Saul “Canelo” Alvarez fights Terence Crawford, looks at the legend of Harry Greb and examines why promoters often get their props but trainers sometimes don’t.

Sup Bread, As a trainer can you speak to the most common things that are negotiated during the course of setting up a fight once the money is set? For example, do you always seek a certain ring size, gloves, refs, who walks in first etc. Is that always part of the negotiation or are those usually just reserved for the big fights? Also, going into a fight are most boxers injured on some level due to sparring? Would you postpone a fight unless your fighter is 100%? If you could only choose only one for every boxer you train, would you take (1) elite conditioning and recovery (2) Elite power (3) Or elite mental processing, Take Care, Aaron from Cleveland

Bread’s Response: If I only had one to choose from, I would pick elite mental processing. It’s the thing I would want the most out of anything in a fighter.

I have a secret for you. Boxing negotiations are overstated. Unless a fighter is headlining a PPV event and back-end money, foreign money, gate money, and PPV money is being negotiated then the negotiations are simple. You negotiate money. Which is not hard.

Any respectable manager/advisor/trainer knows the market value for a specific fight. And if you’re connected you know what the bout will cost. Then, if you’re a clean team, you negotiate drug testing. And that’s not a big negotiation. First off, it’s yes or no. Then you decide when it starts and how many times you get tested. Again it’s not difficult. It’s only made out to be difficult when certain fighters don’t want to fight.

Ring-size, gloves, refs, who walks first are things that come up but not often. Only a main event fighter can negotiate ring size or who walks first. Gloves are something that rarely comes up. Because if a glove company is approved by a commission then there isn’t much room to negotiate unless the A-side fighter wants to pay you not to wear a certain type of glove.

Referees and judges can also be negotiated but you have to have proof that they made rulings that were questionable. It can’t just be a thing where you have a gut feeling. It has to be substantial.

Breadman, What a fantastic year of fights. Speaking of this year, we have a handful of fighters that would measure up great against fighters from the 90s. We would appreciate your insight to how each fight would unfold and who you think would come out the victor. I didn’t include every weight class, just some of the fights that I can see being absolutely fantastic. 115 - Mark Johnson vs Bam Rodriguez; 118 - Johnny Tapia vs Junto Nakatani; 122 - Erik Morales vs Naoya Inoue; 130 - Floyd Mayweather vs Vasily Lomachenko; 135 - Pernell Whitaker vs Tank Davis; 140 - Meldrick Taylor vs Teofimo Lopez; 147 - De La Hoya vs Boots Ennis; 154 - Felix Trinidad vs Bud Crawford; 160 - Terry Norris vs Canelo; 175 - RJJ vs Beterbiev; Heavyweight - Holyfield vs Usyk. Cheers to another great year of weekly mailbags, a growing boxing stable, your family doing well and you getting your just due. Richard K. Oregon

Bread’s Response: Too Sharp vs Bam. Flip a coin. What a fight! High contact, high skill, lots of talent on display.

Tapia vs Junto, another tough call. I don’t know enough about Junto yet though..

Morales vs Inoue. I can see a scenario where Morales outboxes him but I’m taking Inoue. I think he’s a little too quick in the exchanges. And the exchanges would be violent. So let’s say Inoue by decision in a barnburner.

Mayweather vs Lomachenko. I think Floyd has too much length for Loma at 130. Floyd has arm length the size of welterweights. It would take Loma too long to break the range and Floyd would not fold down the stretch. Floyd by clear but competitive decision.

Whitaker vs Tank. I would take Whitaker by decision in a tactical fight. The difference in my opinion would be Whitaker’s elite all-time jab. I think he would break Tank’s rhythm just enough to win a decision.

Meldrick vs Teofimo, I would take Meldrick by decision. Meldrick has too much pedigree and he would score enough points to take a hotly-contested decision. Meldrick was a gold medalist and that point scoring pedigree counts in these close match ups.

De La Hoya vs Boots. I suspect that Boots could do some things to throw Oscar off. But out of respect for Oscar and his greatness. I need to see Boots do those things vs elite competition before I say he can beat an ATG like Oscar. Oscar is no joke.

Tito vs Bud. I love Bud but I can’t pick him to beat Tito at 154. When Tito hit 154, he went on a run that I haven’t seen since. Tito was lights out at 154 vs Waters, Reid, Thiam and Vargas. In fact, Tito’s run at 154 was the best since he did it. We haven’t seen a junior middleweight as good as Tito since 2000. I would pick Tito to win. I don’t know how but I like Tito in a thriller. Bud would be right with him throughout but again I like Tito.

Norris vs Canelo at 160. Why 160 when both were great at 154 and Norris didn’t do much at 160? It’s your question so I will respect it. I can see Norris outboxing Canelo. And I can see Canelo KOing Norris. I would say they would have to fight more than once and both would win one of the bouts.

RJJ vs Beterbiev. I like RJ to win, but I don’t love him to win this one. It’s a fight that Beterbiev can win, but I would pick Roy by decision. Beterbiev does have at least one weakness and that he hits his reset button too often. He’s too easy to reset and Roy is so quick, with such an elite IQ, I think he would pick up on that and take a decision, but I would be holding my breath throughout because Beterbiev has a chance to KO Roy.

Holyfield vs Usyk. I can really see both winning. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to fight 3 times. Holyfield could be thrown off by boxers. Michael Moorer threw him off somewhat. And I know Larry Holmes is not a southpaw but he also threw Holyfield off. But Usyk can be thrown off by attackers. Watch his fight with Maris Breidis and Derek Chisora. Watch his amateur fights vs Shawn Porter and Beterbiev. Both have real chances to win. But best night for best night. I’m more comfortable picking Holyfield to dirty box Usyk, take him on the inside and rough him up with headbutts, low blows and elite punch variety and counter punching.

Hey Bread, Happy New Year. I've had this burning opinion regarding Canelo haters that I wanted to share. I can't quite express it succinctly, so bear with me. If you are one of those Canelo haters who repeats the notion that David Benavidez is the only acceptable fight and he is a bum or a duck otherwise, you actually hold Canelo in very high regard and don't even know it. Think about it....this guy is so damn good that amongst the best boxers in the world, haters can only conjure up a singular fighter (who is currently out of the weight class) to provide a stiff challenge for the man. That is mind boggling. One singular opponent. If he announced a fight tomorrow with anyone in the top 10 at 160 or 168 we already know what the comments and headlines would say....Heck, they might even say the same thing about some of the guys in the top 10 at 175 if he were to fight them! Can you think of any examples similar to this in the past? Especially to this magnitude? Cheers, Brent from Canada

Bread’s Response: I have heard duck myths in the past. Ray Leonard ducking Aaron Pryor and Ray Robinson ducking Charley Burley are two ridiculous myths that I have debunked several times. No need to rehash those. But the Canelo not fighting Benavidez is no myth. He didn’t fight him. They were in the same division for four or five years. Benavidez was his No. 1 contender for many of those. And Canelo didn’t fight him.

I still think Canelo is a great fighter and Hall of Famer. But for an elite fighter, this is one of the more clear avoidances in history. And when you make that type of decision, you will get some criticism. I personally have never disrespected Canelo for not fighting Benavidez. Canelo is special and he’s accomplished more in boxing than any fighter I have ever trained. So I don’t get into disrespecting him or overly criticizing him for not fighting Benavidez. But fans are different. They don’t care. And the fact is, the criticism comes with the decision he made. He has to live with it.

Hi Bread, A fighter who has really disappointed me with their career trajectory is Gervonta Davis. While he’s clearly talented, the lack of activity, and the apparent focus on money over legacy seem to have hurt both his career and the sport. I think this problem is emblematic of PBC as a whole, Charlos are another major example as well. The question isn't to single these guys or PBC out. I’ve also noticed similar concerns in the NBA, where it seems like a lot of athletes are prioritizing personal brands or money over sporting achievement and legacy. I think it's a global sports problem worsened by social media and other factors. Do you agree there is a trend and is it more pronounced in the US? US boxing is in a bad place in my opinion, and by god no boxing fan wants that.

Bread’s Response: Interesting. I think you have some points. I think Tank is a tremendous talent also. But his resume could have more substance. But here is the thing that I have learned to accept. Different strokes for different folks. It’s an old-time saying that my mom used to use.

Everyone does not care about legacy. Some care more about financial security. And I will never tell someone what to prioritize. Now the Catch 22 of this is, I have seen fighters who fight for money, get mad when they aren’t as historically valued as fighters who fight for money and legacy.

If you fight for money, I have no issue with that. But don’t get mad when you aren’t ranked as high as fighters who fight for more.

I think you’re onto something about the USA. I think American athletes simply can’t handle the social media backlash of failing. It’s brutal by the way. I also think the new culture promotes embarrassing people. No human likes to be embarrassed. So the recourse to fight that, is to talk about what type of money they made. I don’t believe this is a Tank thing. It’s the era and the culture unfortunately. Whereas foreign fighters don’t come up around this, so they don’t care as much about social media. And they’re willing to take more risk.

Breadman, I just saw the Mill City video where you are asked about being Errol Spence's new coach. I'm going to tell you two truths and one secret, I'll let you decide which you think is which. 1. I have never bet against one of your fighters, even before I ever wrote to you in your mailbag. It's clear from the way that you speak that you are a highly intelligent man, but also clear from your interviews that you are also diligent and highly responsible - and I mean that in the technical sense that a psychologist would use. If there is a way for your fighter to win you will have figured out the gameplan for it and be prepared accordingly. To speak to this, Kyrone said in a different Mill City video that you treat him and train him like he's a $10 million purse fighter. People can check your record, you have won as the underdog, whatever it takes, and I can't ever remember one of your guys getting blown out. 2. Errol is very laid-back and much like yourself is a very authentic person. I can't think of many boxers who have a more fitting nickname than his. Personality wise you two would look to be a perfect fit on paper and I hope that he does decide to go with you who I know wants the challenge and to win more than just wants the bag. I really like how you stated that you pushed him and he never gave in. This is deep and will go over most people's heads particularly if they have never been in a boxing gym but it is always a great sign when a fighter wants to prove something to their coach... it's a title-winning combination. There is more I would say but the appointment isn't confirmed so I will leave it there. 3. Moses Itauma is also a super-talent who is laid-back, authentic and strong-minded. If you were coaching him, I think he retires undefeated. That's The Truth(s)!

Bread’s Response: 1. I definitely treat Kyrone like he makes $10 million a fight. Fighters need to know they mean something to you in order to get the best out of them. You know I like it when my fighters are the underdogs. It’s the best feeling in the world to shut everyone up. The more naysayers the better for me.

2. Errol is a dog in the gym. We get along great, with or without me training him. But boxing is more than just chemistry. The business side has to be lined up so he can get going. When that’s all ironed out, I expect him to make a decision.

3. I just saw Moses Itauma for the first time. I liked him a lot. But he has a trainer in Ben Davison and he’s doing great so …

Mr. Edwards, Happy Holidays to you and your family. Thanks for the weekly perspective and education. There’s small buzz about Crawford and Canelo as soon as May. I still don’t see Canelo taking a ‘no win’ fight this late into his career, even though I personally think he gains from fighting someone that has been competing with him for P4P the last decade. That all said, I couldn’t help but wonder: if Bud were to pull off the win, where would you place him among the all-time greats? Where do you put him on your Tops list, meaning Top 50, Top 25 etc. ever? Thanks.I think Bud is all sorts of wrong for Canelo and would win by UD. Bud might be the highest in-fight IQ and instinctual finisher he’s ever fought. Canelo also struggles with versatile fighters (Floyd, Lara, & Bivol). He has never fought a guy that dynamically evolves within the fight like Bud other than Floyd. Switching stances, timed counter punching, and late game combos are the opposite to what Canelo wants to walk down. Ken, New Jersey

Bread’s Response: I like Bud to defeat Canelo also. People call me crazy but I see what I see. I like him by decision also just like you. As of right now, I think Bud is a Hall of Famer. And one of the best fighters of this century. I can’t say where he would be if he beat Canelo because I have to see how the fight goes. I have to see how he looks. It’s too much to ponder. Let’s see them make the fight and how they both perform then we can revisit it. All I can say is it would be a huge win. Bud would be the first fighter in history to win a lightweight world title and a super middleweight world title.

Greetings Breadman, Happy Holidays and I wish you and your family a Happy New Year in 2025 filled with personal and professional joy! I believe a month ago in the mailbag you shared your past experience with the late Emanuel Steward in April of 2012. That was a great insightful story and I’m glad you shared it with all of us. I will keep it short, I have three questions for you. 1. I know you have trained fighters who have become champions and are finally beginning to get the credit you deserve. A sport you have given so much to. However, I would like to ask what short term goals and/or long-term goals would you like to accomplish in the next few years? Any thoughts that come to your mind that would surprise us? 2.If you were buying stocks on two – three upcoming superstar fighters, who would they be? 3. Who wins, Prime Holyfield vs Prime Usyk. I believe Holyfield has a top 15 resume of all time. As always, thank you for the weekly mailbags, it provides us as boxing fans a different and unique perspective on a sport we love. Kind regards, Eman from Los Angeles

Bread’s Response: I don’t like to state my long term goals publicly because people will use them against me. I also believe if you talk about your plans too much, it throws off the energy of them. But my short term goals are simple. For me and my fighters to get 1 per cent better everyday in the gym.

If I were buying stock in upcoming superstar fighters, who would they be? … So you didn’t say prospects. I’m going to assume you mean fighters who are established but still ascending. I’m going to pick three fighters under 30: Bam Rodriguez, Boots Ennis and David Benavidez.

I’ve answered Holyfield vs Usyk several times. It’s a very close fight. They may have to fight three times to decide the winner.

Throughout the history of boxing, there has always been at least one superstar boxer from the United States. I’m not talking about someone the boxing public fawns over, I’m talking about someone who is a crossover media superstar the entire world knows. The last boxer from the United States who fits this description is Floyd Mayweather. He retired in 2017. Terence Crawford might fit this description if he fights and beats Canelo Alvarez. Gervonta Davis is close to fitting this description, but I think everyone is waiting for him to have a real test and pass it before he gets that treatment. Even if Crawford and Davis finally take the torch from Mayweather, essentially a decade after he retired, it still feels like the United States is producing less boxing superstars than ever before. Is this the new norm for United States boxing? Are we just going to see less crossover stars than we ever had before? Or do you think there are just peaks and valleys throughout time and we will again see multiple American superstars in this sport?Happy New Year!

Bread’s Response: I have an interesting theory on this. I think while a superstar fighter brings in big money, they are also harder to control. A fighter who is coming off a win is harder to control than a fighter who is coming off of a loss. So you can have but only so many superstars. Imagine it sort of like this. Imagine a football team and every player had the mentality of the star wide receiver. That wouldn't be a good locker-room to be in.

I also think American fighters as a whole don’t fight enough, they don’t take enough tough fights that will make them superstars and they simply care more about money than legacy. Most won’t fight a 50/50 fight for $5 million if they can take a 80/20 fight for $3 million. No win is guaranteed, but obviously some fights are perceived to be harder than others. The logistics of the sport are thrown off. If the purses were lower for easier fights, it would make the 50/50 fights more appealing. But they aren’t and now we have what we have.

I see people coming around on your Crawford over Canelo pick. It’s funny how now a few are repeating exactly what you said. I am not a believer yet but I respect your view on the fight. If they fight and Crawford wins, I will give you your flowers as the first respected person in boxing to pick Crawford. My question is why do you think it’s a race thing? The few who are picking Crawford are black. While the Mexican fans seem so aggravated by the thought of the fight. They know that if Canelo loses, his legacy gets damaged. He can’t lose to an ex lightweight at super middleweight.

Bread’s Response: I’m picking Crawford because of his attributes not his race. I think he’s too well conditioned, has too high of an IQ, too mean, too clutch and adjusts too well for Canelo. If Crawford were fighting Bivol, Beterbiev or Benavidez I would not be picking him. I can say that openly, it’s not a race thing for me. But for most, they stick with their race or nationality and there’s nothing wrong with that. It only becomes a problem when the supporters start insulting. It’s also no good when the boxing media of those races and nationalities can’t be objective and they side with their race/nationality regardless. 

As for me, I’m standing on my pick. I’m not going to change it because Crawford is black and people try to shame me for picking a black fighter that I truly believe will win. Crawford wins by decision is my prediction. He can fight on the move. He can punch on the move. He can process on the move. Canelo is going to have to clip him with a punch he can’t recover from in order to beat him. It’s just a bad style of Canelo at this point in his career. 

Canelo would need a balls-to-the-wall, Aaron Pryor-type approach to beat Crawford in my opinion and that’s just not him. He’s methodical and he gives opponents time to think. And Crawford’s adjustments will come into play.

What’s weird is, I think Canelo is the better puncher and better defensive fighter. I think he has the better chin also. I also think he’s stronger. So on the surface, I get why everyone is picking Canelo. But Crawford’s mind can’t be measured with tangibles. He has the ability and conditioning to fight the fight that he needs to fight to win. Crawford is a MASTER ADJUSTOR.

I know it will be tough. Madrimov landed some stuff that I wouldn’t want Canelo to land. But I think Madrimov’s rhythm is different from Canelo’s. Madrimov has a bounce and probe to his game. His legs are fresher. So while it’s relevant, it’s a different fight. I'm taking the kid from Omaha to pull this out.

I saw your comment on (X) the other day about Harry Greb. I not only agree with you but I will add something you probably can’t say publicly. White fighters generally don’t get underrated. Yes I said it. Most great white fighters get overrated more than they get underrated. Ray Mancini, Vinny Pazienza and Ingemar Johannson are all in the Hall of Fame. For Black fighters, the standard has to be higher or else Meldrick Taylor, Marlon Starling and Tim Witherspoon would be in. I get that fighter’s legacies become enhanced after their careers. But this Greb fascination has taken a life of it’s own and it seems agenda driven. No fighter’s legacy has been more enhanced posthumously than Greb’s. What’s the difference in him and Sam Langford? I don’t see much separation in their resumes and we can at least see footage of Langford. In the 1920's boxing under the modern rules had only been around about 30+ years. So if Greb were the GOAT, they had less to measure him against during those times. While being highly regarded, most as you said put Benny Leonard ahead of him. So after his career, when they had a chance to properly analyze him, I didn’t read any mentions of him being the GOAT from the 1940-2000. Now recently I hear a strong claim that he’s the best fighter ever, by people who have never seen him. You asked a great question. How is it that the people who saw him, didn’t say he was the GOAT, yet the people who didn’t see him say he was? By the time the 1940s came around, Henry Armstrong was thought of as the GOAT. By the time the 1960s came around Sugar Ray Robinson had taken the mantle. And so on. They were highly praised by the people in their day who actually saw them. And they were black. Now they expect us to believe that the mostly white media, over praised Robinson and Armstrong but under praised Greb. All the while the same press overrated Jack Dempsey. I’m sorry, I can’t believe that. And I don’t want to put words in your mouth but I feel like sometimes your hands are tied behind your back.

Bread’s Response: Your words are your words. And mine or mine. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it 100 per cent.

OK … I want to be fair to Harry Greb about race. Because he didn’t draw the color line. He fought Tiger Flowers three times, if my count is correct. And not only was Flowers a talented foe, he was a southpaw, which was tough to deal with in the 1920s because there weren’t many around. So Greb gets full props from me for that.

He also gets full props from me for his resume. I didn’t see him fight but I saw Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney fight. And the fact that he beat them says a lot. Greb is certainly an ATG fighter and one of the best middleweights and light heavyweights ever. Yes, light heavyweight. His résumé at light heavyweight is absolutely insane also.

But I still don’t get the crusade to make him the GOAT by modern historians who haven’t seen him. Although I have seen cases where a fighter’s legacy grew, and to be fair, the fighter was a black fighter: Ezzard Charles’ legacy grew over the past 20 years. As a kid, I heard everyone say that Archie Moore was the best light heavyweight ever. But with further research, I saw that Charles was 3-0 vs Moore, including one brutal stoppage over a prime Moore. Charles also outperformed Moore vs common opponents. 

So while Moore had greater longevity, Charles proved to be the better fighter and was recognized as such. So I have seen that movie before where a fighter’s legacy grew long after his career. But with Greb, I feel like this came out of nowhere. And I agree with you, if Greb’s legacy grew, why didn’t Sam Langford’s to the same extent.

Langford beat Stanley Ketchel who was thought to be the GOAT at middleweight in the early part of the century. He also beat a prime Joe Gans who was another fighter many thought to be the GOAT at that point in time and was one of the greatest lightweight champions ever. Langford was very inexperienced when he handled Gans. And he got a draw in his lone shot at a title vs Barbados Joe Walcott. In which all reports read that Langford toyed with him.

But here is the kicker. Langford also KO’d Tiger Flowers in two rounds. The same man who took Greb’s crown and beat him two out of three. This is not including the success he had vs much bigger fighters like Harry Wills and Jack Johnson. So like you, I find it peculiar that Greb’s legacy grew with forensic analytics but Langford’s didn’t to the same extent, and they fought in the same era. I don’t know what to attribute this to, but I will say it’s strange.

I also know the media can be very clever with whatever agenda they are trying to push, and you have to look deeper than the surface level. For example, Joe Louis's reign was called the Bum of the Month tour. Yet there is no specific mention of a duck or miss that he has. Even more, Louis fought 10 Hall of Famers. And he has 49 fights vs opponents who were ranked in the top 10 by Ring magazine at some point in their career – and won 46. I'm sure the media members who called it the Bum of the Month tour knew these things, yet they still insulted the longest reign in heavyweight history.

All in all, I wish I had a chance to see Harry Greb. I can only imagine how good he really was. And this is in no way me trying to discredit his great career. I'm just free thinking as to why this has come about so long after his career and death.

I have watched your career very closely and I feel you are one of the boxing men in the world. Your weekly column is enlightening and consistent. And I had my doubts about you as a trainer but I am a believer at this point. You have never had an A-plus talent yet you produce some very good results. My question is, I have noticed that fighters in general don’t like to give their trainers props. I was wondering if this is something that you have noticed also. I see interviews with active fighters and great fighters from the past and they rarely like to give their trainers credit. With PBC, fighters will thank Al Haymon, who most likely deserves it. But they won’t thank their trainer who was with them everyday throughout camp. Is this something you have noticed also? If so, what are your thoughts on this?

Bread’s Response: This is a deep, deep question. I like good questions like this.

I will say I have noticed it. I have noticed it with some, not all of my fighters. And I have noticed it throughout boxing in general. I can’t say for sure why this happens but I have a few views on this.

One is, a fighter has to be self-assured. And if he gives too much credit to the person training him, then the trainer will be looked at as being responsible for his success. And most fighters would like to think they can be successful regardless of who their trainer is. Most successful people have a degree of selfishness.

I also believe that fighters respect the business side more than they do the labor side. So while the trainer is laboring in the gym day to day, the promoter and the manager are seen as a more high value part of their success. This is evident with trainers’ pay being decreased more than the manager’s and promoter’s. But no successful person is 100 per cent selfless. No successful person is 100 per cent humble. Everyone wants some sort of attribution for their work. No one wants to be overlooked and underappreciated. That’s not having a big ego, that’s having self-respect.

Personally, I have never asked a fighter to say good things about me. I have never asked him to give me my props. But I also don’t want a fighter to slight me or give someone else credit for something I have done. I don’t fight or argue about it. I just take a mental note of it. Again, I have seen it with my own fighters. And I have seen it even more with fighters that I don’t train. I think it’s unfortunate, but I also think it’s how the majority of fighters are wired. Not all, but the majority are just like that.

For example, I was in Vegas in training camp. I ran into an ex-world champion. I told him I really respected his style and that I thought his coach did a great job with him. He shocked me with his response. He said, “That coach is a good coach, but I knew how to fight long before he trained me. He was OK.”

Even if it were true, my statement to him should not have warranted that response. I knew then that he was an ungrateful fighter. I was very disappointed in his character, but I couldn’t say it shocked me.

You have to know fighters and be willing to give them grace and be empathetic towards them in order to train them. It’s almost like being a step-parent. Imagine raising a kid who isn’t yours but you treat them like they are. And when they get married, their biological parent gets more props at the wedding. Or when or if they die, their biological parent gets more props at the funeral, but you did more work while they were alive. It sucks. But as trainers, we know what we signed up for.

I will say one more thing in full transparency. I have also had experiences with some great kids who always give me attribution and respect for the work I have done with them. And those kids have a special place in my heart and they know it.

Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com.