Good afternoon. After Alvarez getting taken to kindergarten and spanked by a teacher (one that I thought was going to get broken in half), is it clear that he avoided Benavidez for a reason? Or at least is it ok for boxing columnists to say it out loud? My brown people are quiet now. I'm happy Alvarez got humbled in the fashion he did. It was 12-0. He made his name on old champs and questionable decisions. He fought good fighters but GGG2 in the same year he wouldn’t have won.
Bread’s response: Oh man, now you guys are turning on Canelo because he lost. Canelo is a first ballot HOF, an all-time great and one of the top 10 Mexican fighters ever. That being said, sometimes a fighter’s popularity amongst his fans and media, can cause him to be slightly overrated in terms of his ability. Canelo is a great fighter and a bigger draw than Terence Crawford. But he’s not a better fighter than Terence Crawford. You guys just wanted him to be and that is where the disappointment is.
I can say that Canelo ducked Benavidez. It’s obvious he ducked him. But Canelo is still a great fighter. The Benavidez duck is just a small part of his legacy. He’s done some great things. Benavidez was just the one guy he wouldn’t fight. It’s ok to say he ducked Benavidez. It’s not ok to disrespect a great fighter like Canelo. You’re being disrespectful right now.
So the fight went how I expected. If Canelo couldn’t clip him then he would have trouble winning on points, but those commentators glazed Crawford saying Canelo was wobbled and he won 2 rounds was crazy. Canelo won 4-5 of the first 5 rounds clean. I will say the championship rounds Crawford won. I had it a draw, but I didn’t have a problem with Crawford winning 7-5. Andre Ward, who is usually an excellent commentator, glazed Crawford and so did Max Kellerman. Throw in Teddy Atlas and you would have thought that he swept every round. He didn’t stand in the pocket and trade until 10/11/12 and they were talking about how he’s getting his respect and he’s wobbled. So what, Bud beat a guy who was in twilight of his career and he did what he had to. But the man ran for 7-9 rounds and the commentators acted like he stood toe to toe with Canelo for 12 rounds and put on a boxing clinic. His best rounds to me were the last two because Canelo was tired and he teased him. Please don’t tell me he didn’t hit and get out, and I am alright with that, but this notion that he boxed laps around Canelo and he stood toe to toe all 12 rounds is disingenuous and like I said I respect your opinion and I think you are the best boxing guy in the business. At no time was Canelo in danger of getting stopped or hurt. Anyway, you were right. Like I said, I’m alright with 7-5, but in no way shape or form did he win 10 rounds. I thought Canelo won the first half and Crawford won the second half. Predictions on Haney vs Norman, Benn vs Eubanks 2, Cruz vs Roach?
Bread’s response: If you thought Crawford vs Canelo was a draw you should stop watching boxing. You don’t know what you’re looking at or talking about. You’re just ignorant to scoring boxing. Conversation over.
I think Jaron Ennis is an incredible talent. That being said, there’s a big red flag. Ennis is 28 years old, he’s been boxing for 9 years, he’s had 35 fights, he’s held a world title… YET he’s never fought a single fighter with name recognition. Almost every American boxer in recent years has built up a pretty record against losers and then disappeared after finally stepping up and being exposed. I think highly of Ennis. But I thought just as highly of Demetrius Andrade, the Charlo brothers, Marcus Browne and others. Why is Ennis any different than those guys? He’s getting the same type of hype and he’s fighting guys that can’t beat him, just like they did. So why is he going to be different?
Bread’s response: Name opponents don’t like to be embarrassed because of their public stature. So it’s easier to get solid unknown fighters in the ring than it is getting big name fighters. That’s why talented fighters have to keep building their following, so the risk can be worth the reward. At this point, I don’t want to convince anyone of anything. I’m not a campaign manager to a politician. Let’s just wait and see what Jaron Ennis is and turns out to be.
Whatup Bread. Seems so many people are picking their Mt Rushmore with Floyd, Manny (understandable) and then either Usyk, Canelo and Bud (also understandable) but leaving B-HOP off is something serious. Man beat DLH, undisputed at 160 after Tito, lost to Taylor twice in close fights then wins undisputed at 175 over Tarver, then extends the oldest fighter to win and defend a title. Or am I tripping? Mike S,. San Antonio
Bread’s response: I’m not really a fan of Mt. Rushmore lists. Because they don’t get put in context. Sometimes the Mt. Rushmore can be impactful fighters. Sometimes it can be for a timespan. Sometimes for a weight division. There are all types of categories. Bernard Hopkins can be on several Mt. Rushmore lists. He’s the truth and one of the greatest fighters ever. It just depends on the category. If you do a Mt. Rushmore of great middleweights, Philadelphia fighters, older fighters or fighters who performed as the underdog, he would make the list….
Boxing encyclopedia Bread, correct me if I'm wrong, but you said you went to Sonny Liston’s book signing… but he died before you were born.
Bread’s response: So you think you caught me in a lie….You didn’t. I never said I MET Sonny Liston…..About 12 or 13 years ago Paul Gallender wrote a book about Sonny Liston. He had an event at the African American Museum in Philadelphia and he was signing copies of the book. Gallender was doing some promo at Russell Peltz’s office for this book. I happened to be in the office on some business. Gallender told me about the event, so I attended. Liston has roots in Philadelphia. Liston had a son named Bill Wingate who was born in the early 1960s. Wingate was the result of an extra marital relationship by Liston. He had an uncanny resemblance to Liston and he attended the event helping to promote his father’s legacy. Now do some research and fact check everything I just stated and write back and tell me if I’m still lying.
First off, I liked your comments honoring Marvin Hagler. I've read that he and the Petrollinis were like family. And I can't help but ask: Where did he spend the rest of his life when his career was over and the Petrollinis were no longer alive? In Italy. My question is: We hear a lot about defence and punch resistance, but not so much about the next layer after the first two fail: recuperative ability. I've never seen anything like Tyson Fury being knocked out cold by Deontay Wilder and then getting up and finishing the fight as though nothing had happened. It was so off the charts as to be almost comical. And it was pretty impressive how he came out completely normal for the 10th round against Usyk after being knocked silly in the 9th. Who else now, or historically, has high-level recuperative ability? DG, Baltimore.
Bread’s response: Hagler was as honorable as a fighter who has ever lived when it comes to taking care of his team.
Great recuperative abilities are a little different than an actual iron chin. Fighters like Hagler and GGG don’t get mentioned as having great recuperative abilities because we don’t really know. They don’t get visually hurt because they have iron chins. That’s the context. Fighters who have great recuperative abilities are vulnerable to an extent. The best recuperative fighters I’ve seen are Muhammad Ali, Tyson Fury, Evander Holyfield, Arturo Gatti, Juan Manuel Marquez, Diego Corrales, Tito Trinidad and Aaron Pryor.
Hey Breadman! I've been watching a few of B-Hop's fights lately which got me thinking about “Bad” Chad Dawson and looking up his record. My original recollection of his career was one big win against B-Hop, but delving a bit deeper, I was surprised to see the wins he had: two wins over Glen Johnson (before he went into elite journeyman mode), two world title wins over Tarver, beating an undefeated Adamek, Eric Harding, the aforementioned win against B-Hop (before he came back to beat Cloud and Shumenov to cement himself as the oldest ever world champ). All together he had seven world title wins and against some decent opposition, one of whom is an all-time great and another considered by some (although not me!) as worthy of the HOF (Tarver). Then the wheels came off with his loss to Ward and he was more or less done. I wonder whether getting down to super middleweight to fight Ward and (from memory) being dominated took his confidence and stripped something from his body (ala Roy Jones Jnr). Thoughts on his career? To me, he's a top 10 light-heavy from the noughties/early 2010 era...Thanks, James.
Bread’s response: Chad Dawson deserves to be on the HOF ballot without a doubt. There are several fighters who don’t have the wins he has that are getting into the HOF and he can’t even get on the ballot. It’s ridiculous. He has wins over Antonio Tarver 2x, Glen Johnson 2x, Bernard Hopkins, Tomas Adamek and Eric Harding. That’s a serious resume for any light-heavyweight in any era.
I think Dawson had an excellent career with the usual late career slip-ups that most have. Dawson is a top 10 light-heavyweight of this century if you really think about it. Since 2000 let’s say Roy Jones, Dmitri Bivol, Athur Beterbiev, Andre Ward, Sergey Kovalev, Bernard Hopkins, Adonis Stevenson and, say, Joe Calzaghe’s brief run. That’s 8 fighters. If you start naming guys like Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson you have to acknowledge Dawson beat them. In fact, I think you can exclude Calzaghe because he only fought at the weight twice and one of his wins was against a well past it Roy Jones. It’s literally no way Dawson is not a top 10 light-heavyweight of the 2000s. And if you believe that, then you believe he should be under Hall of Fame consideration. I’m not even saying he’s a HOF. I think he’s borderline at best. But he’s so underrated and underappreciated that it’s insulting.
Wsup Bread. I saw your post about Ortiz-Ennis and I had already thought the same thing before. He's too sharp and twitchy for Ortiz. Historically those stalking/plodding Mexican fighters struggle with athletic black fighters. I definitely believe it'll be close, but Boots will do the cleaner, more effective work. It's an 8-4ish type of a fight. I always said Murtazilev is the tougher fight; as Eastern Europeans & black fighters always make for competitive fights. I'd lean 55-45 Boots. If I had one criticism, I wish he got some more rounds in and boxed him for a little bit before taking him out in round 3 or 4. Such a bummer about Thurman-Fundora. This definitely hurts Keith more than Fundora with his age/inactivity. I saw a video of Keith on YouTube talking about the postponement and he looked pretty roughed up from sparring, so maybe it will benefit him. Lastly, how does a fighter adjust when a fight gets postponed? For example, say a fighter was on the card for October 25th and now the fight is rescheduled for the first week of January… what would their training look like? Anyway, appreciate you and God bless. P.S. how's your kids doing in sports?
Bread’s response: I don’t want to get into the race stuff because it comes off as offensive to some. But I will say specifically that Boots is all wrong for Ortiz. I think the reason is the same reason why Antonio Margarito was pummeled by Shane Mosley. When your game is walking your opponent down, and your opponent is faster than you, stronger than you and has the stamina to not fade it makes your job that much more difficult.
The speed is the least of the worries. Because if you don’t have physical strength or stamina then after 3 or 4 rounds, the walk-down fighter will catch the rhythm. But if the walk-down fighter can’t fatigue his opponent and he gives up the speed, then that means he gets outpointed early. But if the speed is sustained with strength and stamina it’s just a bad match up for the walk-down fighter. I feel like Boots is faster, a bigger puncher, is stronger or at least equally as strong and has superior stamina. This is a very hard match up for Vergil Ortiz. But again, let’s see if Ortiz can beat Lubin and so forth.
Thurman had to pull out of his fight with Tim Tszyu. This is part of boxing. Fighters get injured and fights get postponed.
When fights get postponed you just adjust your camp to the next date. Personally, I believe in maintaining conditioning; sort of stacking it. I wouldn’t let my fighter just sit around after being in camp that long. So I would keep a steady pace of about 75% of where we left off in camp and maintain that level of conditioning until about 6 weeks out then start to turn it up again. I would also give the fighter days off randomly. Camp can be a little boring and staying in camp mode too long can be monotonous. Postponements are actually good if you manage them correctly. The best camp I ever had with Caleb Plant was when his fight with Trevor McCumby was postponed for a month. We calculated Caleb’s training perfectly and his conditioning was top tier for THAT fight.
Hi Bread. I don’t like Ortiz vs Boots for now. Too early. They need not only to be champs in their divisions but also bigger stars. It will be violent and better than Tito-Vargas. I think Ortiz stops Lubin after getting hit hard. He will be more prepared than Boots but he is one or two levels below, so I still see Boots under 6 if/when they fight. Which sucks because I think he can dominate 154 and 160 - in the absence of Boots. How does Madrimov match up vs Boots? It was close with Soro, Crawford and Ortiz. Ortiz did arguably better than Crawford. But styles makes fights. Think Boots stops him? Who can challenge Boots between 147 and 160? Fundora the weird or Adames the violent? Hard to pick against Crawford. But Boots might be all wrong for him if they fight next year. I know fans will harass you if you say that. But I think you know… Are you slightly higher on Benn now? Two years of fighting the PED accusations - to a level most fighters don’t go to. Showed tons of heart vs Eubank for this modern era. 147 has rarely been so weak. I think he beats Haney, Romero, Garcia… Too much pressure and a dog. Tougher vs Norman Jr. Beats Barrios. Could be a champ at 147 and maybe even unify two belts. 147 aint 154. I think Whitaker trained by Lee and pushed by Matchroom will go far. Cheers, Diego.
Bread’s response: I think Boots vs Ortiz should be for a title. But I’m glad they’re fighting next. This era moves too slowly for me. Both are closer to 30 than 20. Both are still undefeated and in their primes. How many fights have we wanted to marinate that didn’t happen at all? Too many. So let’s just be happy they’re fighting and not criticize them for fighting too soon.
Madrimov vs Boots is intriguing because Karen and Madrimov have a similar style and Boots went 24 rounds with Karen. So that’s a good match up, although I favor Boots.
I think Boots will get challenged. All he has to do is consistently fight the best available fighters in their primes and he will get challenged. Every single fighter in history who has done that for a sustained amount of time has been challenged.
I don’t know how to reconcile Conor Benn’s ability because of the PED use. I honestly don’t know what to say besides he has some serious heart and he’s very intense when he fights. Other than that, I don’t know what’s what and I honestly I don’t care to do the mental gymnastics regarding Benn.
Hi Breadman. This question is probably more of a hypothetical one, but could Boots fight Keith Thurman on Oct 25th? I appreciate that you need to peak at the right time and bring him down for fight night (I won’t offend you by even pretending I know the particulars!), but bear with me… Boots just barely broke sweat in knocking out a clearly overmatched guy in under a round. Suddenly there is a very creditable opponent on the near horizon. Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that he could step back into the ring on two weeks’ notice? Guys come out of the cold at shorter notice. Surely it’s better to be coming in off the back of a camp. If Boots came to you and said he wanted the fight, would you stand in his way? How would you approach it? For me, it looks like a very winnable fight; good pay; a bit more credit in the bank as far as the resume goes. Could be a win/win. Obviously, this hasn’t been mooted as a possibility, so I am not beating Boots over the head with it or anything. I very much doubt Keith would take that fight anyway. But say everyone wanted it, it would still be winnable for Boots, right? If both guys had a full camp, then the chances of Boots beating Keith are 90/10 (just my take). What would that slide to? Or would it inconvenience Keith more? The likelihood is Keith gets an awful replacement, or the fight gets cancelled (waste of a camp) and TBH the Boots blowout looks like a waste of a camp too. On a side note, I loved hearing about Boots vs Ortiz next. But I do worry Lubin isn’t playing ball. He is super skilled and powerful, and he knows what he is up to in there. His biggest issue is getting dragged into fighting in ways that doesn’t suit him. But on a perfect night, which I think he has in him, he takes a scalp like Ortiz. Thanks Andrew, Durham UK.
Bread’s response: Conceivably Boots could fight Thurman but it won’t happen. The thing is, although Boots didn’t take any punishment he still went through the process of training camp, cutting weight, then rehydrating. He still had the emotional high going into the fight and emotional drainage afterwards. It wouldn't be easy to get back UP for Thurman in 2 weeks.
Lubin is going to be a tough fight for Ortiz. I’m really looking forward to it.
Bread. The caveat of RJJ's greatness always irks me. As you stated he was basically untouchable for the whole of the 90s. He made his debut in 89 and didn't lose until 14 years later, barring a Montell Griffin DQ, which he immediately avenged by a first-round KO. That run included a prime Hopkins, a prime James Toney (lineal super middleweight champ, and up a weight), Vinnie Paz, Mike McCallum, and Tarver. Jones Jr. isn't close to being my favorite fighter. Sugar Ray Leonard, followed by Hagler and Frazier are for various reasons that. What upsets me is that since the Four Kings era, he has quite clearly been the greatest boxer we have seen and I think by a long way. So that's 40 years of no one reaching that level. He made ATG Toney look like he should maybe consider taking up another sport, and I mean no disrespect by saying that, only that's how ridiculous that performance was. Why is it then okay for people to erase Jordan being on the Wizards and still call him the GOAT, which he obviously is for anyone who watched his career, but denigrating the greatness of someone like Jones? Bear in mind, this isn't a "his run at the top was too short to be considered one of the best ever" arguments, this is a "we have to punish him for not retiring earlier". By that token Ray Robinson would be a lesser fighter than Calzaghe, Ward, or Mayweather because he carried on longer than he should have, which is ridiculous. Do you think, given a significant enough run of something special, there shouldn't be a reduction in how someone is viewed in terms of historical standing? Many thanks for the Mailbag. Omar from London.
Bread’s response: I am a big defender of Roy Jones’s legacy. But I think the reason why his late career losses are held against him so much is because he still looked to be in good form right before the losses came. He beat John Ruiz in a great performance, went back down in weight and actually beat Tarver in their first fight. So no one expected him to be knocked out in the rematch given that he had more time to prepare. So it hurts Roy to be KO’d in back-to-back fights as the P4P #1 fighter in the world. I’m assuming the logic is if he was close enough in his prime to be P4P #1, then he’s close enough to his prime for the knockouts to be held against him. Michael Jordan and Sugar Ray Robinson had shown signs of slippage before they fell off the cliff. Roy didn’t really show any. And specifically to boxing, Robinson started losing some decisions after he got older but he wasn’t getting knocked out. Some may say a loss is a loss. But a loss is not a loss. There is a difference between losing competitive decisions and being counted out.
I think context needs to be taken into consideration with every career.
Breadman. Give some details. What makes GGG a hall-of-famer? Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I don’t see it. There’s something “special” missing from his career; nothing that makes you look back 10 years later and say, “Damn!” Throw in the resume, which a lot of people defend, but, you’re the historian, Antwun Echols would have been favored or even money against everyone on GGG’s list. I’d bet he would have done better against Canelo in three tries and nobody is saying he’s a hall of famer. Send some knowledge my way. Emory.
Bread’s response: I don’t really want to convince anyone GGG is a HOF. You watch boxing like I do. If you don’t believe so, I disagree but that’s your subjective opinion.
Antwun Echols would not have been favored or even money with everyone GGG faced. Canelo Alvarez, Danny Jacobs, Martin Murray and Sergey Devrenchenko would all be favored over Echols. Echols was a very tough and capable fighter. And he fought spirited vs Bernard Hopkins. But you’re overrating Echols in order to underrate GGG.
GGG has two destructive performances vs Antwan Echols-level fighters and punchers. David Lemieux and Curtis Stevens. Echols, Lemieux and Stevens are the same level of fighter and puncher give or take.
GGG is a Hall of Famer and he gets in easy. Anyone that doesn’t think so, they can just watch him go in and not agree. But right now it’s all subjective. Let’s wait and see what the voters have to say. But I think you’re being overly critical because you don’t like GGG.
I was reading your recent Mailbag in which you put Ali/ Robinson in their own league. No argument here, but would you not place Henry Armstrong among them? Best, Eric.
Bread’s response: Respectfully I put Robinson and Ali at their special table because I feel they are the only two fighters who deserve to be there. I would put Armstrong in the same room with them but not at their exact table. Armstrong would sit with all of the other special guys who are in THEIR room but not at their table. Armstrong would be in good company being next to Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep, Joe Louis, Roy Jones etc.
Send CONCISE questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
