By Stephen "Breadman" Edwards
The Daily Bread Mailbag is back, as Stephen 'Breadman' Edwards tackles a variety of topics including more debates on Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao, Carl Froch vs. Gennady Golovkin, and more.
Do you feel as though the Mayweather vs Pacquiao was promoted as a Good vs Evil clash? I actually don’t like either of them. My favorite fighter is Juan Manuel Marquez. But I love boxing and these two dominate the headlines. I think the media makes Mayweather out to be a woman beater and an arrogant prick. But they don’t indulge too much into Manny cheating on his wife and drinking. Do you think this is proper for the media to go into personal matters? Also what do you make of Thomas Hauser’s articles. He seems to be going in on Floyd.
Bread’s Response: I never viewed Floyd vs Manny as Good vs Evil. I viewed it as 1 vs 2. Righty vs Lefty. The best boxer of this era vs the best attacker of this era. The battle for the best fighter of this era. Haymon vs Arum. Mayweather Sr. vs Roach. But never Good vs Evil.
I never really get into the negative stuff bro. I don’t get into the gossip unless it’s about training camp or something relative. I guess you can call me a #boxingnerd or #boxinghead or whatever other kind of #hashtag they have now.
I just love boxing. I don’t listen to Manny’s singing. I don’t pay attention to Floyd buying cars and clothes. I filter things. It’s just a mechanism I’ve always had to filter and keep the important stuff and sort of blind myself to things I feel are asinine. So when people get into personal things I’m sort of numb towards them.
I really believe the public as a whole take Floyd and Manny too personal. It’s worse than a political campaign. Some of the comments below the articles written about Floyd and Manny have gone way too far.
If you are asking me is it right for the media to delve into personal matters, I assume it is if you are selling your lifestyle to the public through reality TV and marketing. The media does not have to embrace all of the good things and throw out the things that may be embarrassing. So from that standpoint I believe media has a right to look into personal things. But for me personally I’m not an investigative journalist. I don’t even consider myself a writer. I’m just a boxing guy with a platform to do a Q&A with my mailbag. So that limits me and I like that.
I’m not dismissing certain personal discretions that Manny and Floyd may have. Because some are serious, it’s just something I don’t get into unless it’s directly boxing related. I have spoken out against promoters cutting certain prospects after taking tough fights but those same promoters feed other prospects, safe fights for years and years and never force them to step up. I didn’t like it when Joshua Clottey seemed to be indirectly blackballed for having an poor showing vs Manny Pacquiao. But fighters like Victor Ortiz have quit on TV multiple times and they still get dates. I spoke out when Sergio Martinez was stripped of his title. And Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. got to fight Sebastian Zbik for Martinez’s title. The same Sebastian Zbik who wasn’t approved for Sergio Martinez in the first place. In turn Martinez had to come in on the B side and fight Chavez for his title that he never loss. But the Good vs Evil thing in relation to Floyd vs Manny is just nonsense to me and I don’t even consider it.
Thomas Hauser… I am familiar with his work because of the documentary on Muhammad Ali. He seems to be the most respected boxing writer in the world. His pieces are rarely refuted. As for his pieces about Floyd and Manny....they seem pretty deep……..
What's good Bread. I have a question for you related to the business side of boxing. I been managing a fighter for about 2 yrs. He is in his mid 20s and he doesn't seem to want it. He is currently an amateur fighter. But he has pulled out of every fight for the last 6 months for 1 reason or another. we decided to turn pro, I got him 2 bouts on major tv cards for decent money and he decides that he wants to stay amateur and try to make the Olympics. I am at my wits end with this kid. He has all the talent in the world but doesn't seem to want it. What do you think i should do ?. Mail bag or not I need an answer..thanks
Bread’s Response: It seems to me you invested money into an amateur fighter which can put you in a pickle. Getting an “active” amateur fighter to sign a pro management contract can be counterproductive because most states won’t recognize it. At the same time if you operate as a manager and you fund his needs without a contract you are taking the risk of losing money.
I would suggest let him try out for the Olympics and see if he can make the team. But that’s not as simple as it sounds. There are many qualifiers that are required to make the team. It’s just not as simple as winning a national title. So let him try to qualify and by doing that you give him what he wants.
Most likely he won’t qualify if he’s been inactive for 6 months. After this you will have more leverage to do things your way. I assume you have made a financial investment, I can tell by the frustration in your writings. If the kid still does not listen after you give him what he wants, cut your losses. It’s better to walk away early. Time is priceless.
I have seen a lot of comments across many boards that simply state Floyd was better than Pac. I agree Floyd won the fight, but is he a better entertainer? Nope! Boxing is entertainment. In today's world, losing is punished, not used as a learning tool to get better. It's sad to me, given the amount of money I've paid since 2000 on PPV. There have been many fights where I didn't care who won, just wanted to see a good fight only to be disappointed. This type of thought process has made boxing notches below what I missed through 1960 to 1985. The quality of fights has suffered also because promoters want to cash in as much as possible on their fighters. Look at Dana white, that guy doesn't protect anyone. Shut up or put up is how he runs his business. I wish we could go back to times when losing wasn't bad. We need more Arturo Gattis who was beloved even when he lost. He entertained first and was worth far more money than Floyd in my opinion. Guys are afraid to be great. They want paid the most money for the least amount of risk. As an employer I can assure you this is the mentality of employees under the age of 35.
Thanks
DJ
Bread’s Response: Interesting point. I think entertainment is subjective. A win or a loss is a fact. I enjoyed the fight because of the high stakes. Legacy! I also like all styles with violent boxer punchers like Tommy Hearns and Ray Robinson being my favorite style to watch. But I get what you are saying, most feel it was boring and they don’t like Mayweather’s style. We have been through it before. I get it and I personally don’t mind it. As long the user of the style is not excessively holding or running. I thought Floyd fought a smart fight.
But the intriguing thing to me and what makes Floyd an enigma and so special is, the general public and 50% of the hardcore fans don’t enjoy how he fights but yet he is the most successful fighter as far as earnings, ever. I still can’t explain the dynamic with Floyd. I have been live to his fights vs Marquez, Canelo and Maidana 2. In each fight Floyd is the by far the A side but most of the crowd is by far against him. I never witnessed that with any other fighter. I was not live at Mayweather vs Pacquiao but I was told just about everybody there was for Manny. Even most of the stars who try to be politically correct were secretly rooting for Manny.
I’m saying this to say, Floyd is an entertainer. He’s just not exciting to everyone. There has to be something special about him to make so many people want to watch him over and over that don’t actually enjoy how he fights. Think about that.
Go to the 1:07.22 portion of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCTWc3xFiw . You will clearly hear Mayweather say he hurt his shoulder specifically his rotator cuff in camp. I don’t get how you guys give him a pass for his excuse in his first fight with Castillo after he tries to act like Manny is a poor sport for making the same exact excuse. He’s a hypocrite, that’s what he is. You need to put these fighters on blast for making excuses and list their names the way you did when you named the fighters who fought in catchweight fights. This slandering of Pacquiao is getting outrageous. Also since you believe Manny was too far past his prime to beat Floyd, do you still think he’s the best fighter of this era. After prime losses should not count as much. Is this a case where the fighter who relies on his athletics like Roy Jones can beat the fighter who relies on his mind like Bernard Hopkins in their primes. But once they get older they can’t anymore.
Bread’s Response: I don’t have to go to that section of the video. I remember the interview well. The reason why I was intrigued in Mayweather vs Castillo 2, was because of what happened in 1.
But you have to realize I can only answer what someone writes in. And you need to stop being the moral guardian of my mailbag… I will do what I please, it’s my mailbag. I’m not going to put any fighters on blast for making excuses after a loss or so so performance because I have I said before just about all of them make some sort of excuses.
The trendy line is I didn’t want to say anything before the fight but……..What people don’t realize is that fighters have a unique, and prideful mindset. There are certain things they can’t concede mentally. If they do their ability will be compromised. Rarely will you hear a fighter say, he’s better than me, there is nothing I can do to beat him. Even on my best night I could not defeat him.
So when I hear an excuse or a reason or whatever anyone wants to call it, I’m sorry I don’t crazy like everyone else. Weight, hands, corruption and shoulders are the common. Sometimes it has validity sometimes it does not.
Good analogy. I actually thought of this while thinking about the fight. Roy Jones and Manny Pacquiao are more similar than people realize. They are both unconventional boxer punchers. Jones has the mindset of a boxer, while Pacquiao has the mindset of a swarmer or attacker. Both were big punchers in their primes.
Hopkins and Mayweather are both boxers with Mayweather being the pure athletic boxer and Hopkins being the savvy technical one. Both rely on their minds. Both of their primes lasted longer than Pacquiao’s and Jones’s, while Jones and Pacquiao looked more devastating at their peaks.
Here is the thing though, Jones and Hopkins fought when Jones was 24 and Hopkins was 28. So that fight carries more significance than their 2nd fight did when they were 41 and 45. Mayweather and Pacquiao were considered the best two fighters of their era and in their weight class when they fought. They were also among the best fighters in the world with Floyd being the best. Because of the outcome I have to consider Floyd the best fighter of the era.
I know there have been cases where a fighter is still considered the better fighter even though he lost to other fighters. Willie Pep is slightly over Sandy Saddler although Saddler beat him 3 out of 4. Eder Jofre is slightly over Fighting Harada although Harada beat him 2 out 2. But in this case unfortunately for Pacquiao fans it won’t go down like that. Floyd will be considered the best of this era and slightly better than Manny. It’s no shame in it but it’s just how history will record it. Regardless if that was peak Manny or not, he has to find a way to beat Floyd. Like Ali did Foreman when Ali was past his peak and like Holyfield did Tyson when he was past his.
Bread,
I saw your tweet exchange with Tureano Johnson on the "gun in the room theory" concept with GGG in that the best way to fight him would be go at his power. In your last mailbag you mentioned that you aren't convinced that GGG's physical style would translate well above 160. That is why you picked Ward to beat GGG should they to fight. With Ward's fight against Paul Smith at 172 and talk of a future super fight between Ward and Kovalev at 175, he might be leaving the super middleweight division. The next best at 168 is Carl Froch and there have been rumblings of that fight being in the works. How do you see a fight between GGG and Froch playing out?
Lastly, BJ Flores went on record last weekend on twitter saying with respect to Roman "Chololatito" Gonzalez:
@dougiefischer @danrafaelespn I'm sorry but it's hard to get too excited for two fighters that are 5'3 and 112lbs. #naptime
What is your opinion on his comment? Out of line?
I look forward to your mailbags every week. Keep up the good work.
Grant
Bread’s Response: I think GGG vs Froch is a solid match up. At one time Froch didn’t seem as if he wanted any part of GGG but now he may have saw something. I actually view this a tight fight. Froch has an extremely long reach and he’s turned into a more than capable boxer. GGG would be the favorite but in my opinion this is a 50/50 fight, especially if it’s in the UK.
Flores is entitled to his opinion. I wouldn’t say it was out of line but I do think it can be counterproductive to his broadcast career. Roman Gonzales is a special fighter……
Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com