Sup Breadman. With modern training techniques and sports science, why do some modern champions still seem to peak for fewer years than legends from the past?
Bread’s response: I think fighters are lasting longer these days. The three best fighters in the world are Crawford, Usyk and Inoue. All are over 30. Crawford and Usyk are closer to 40 than they are 30. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I think the eras before this era were better in terms of peak talent. But even I will acknowledge fighters of the last 20 years have aged better. As with everything there are outliers to the rule. But I disagree with you wholeheartedly….
Hi Breadman. I pray God is blessing and continues to bless you, your family and the fans of your mailbag and their families. Breadman, you made a great point about Bivol not being hated like Haney, but I feel the reason why is because Bivol doesn’t trash talk and Haney does a lot of it. Haney, Shakur, Mayweather, Camacho, Malignaggi and boxers of that ilk talk like gangstas but fight like wangstas. They talk like killers or like they are Mike Tyson, but they bring artistry and not the violence. James Toney talk gangsta talk and fought with skills but also brought a level of violence that those others don’t bring. Most fans tune in to see fights for violent entertainment. The purists appreciate boxing but most of us casuals tune in to boxing matches to see a fight break out. Haney and others don’t give us that which is where the hate comes from. If he was quiet and humble, he wouldn’t get the negative feedback that he gets. It is a catch twenty-two, though. Because of his boring style he has to talk trash so people will come to see him get beat. If Mayweather had been nice and humble and hadn’t created the persona of Money Mayweather, he would have never got paid like he did so you and others might as well get over it. Boxers who aren’t violent and get knockouts are never going to be popular and that is how it has always been. I was overjoyed when Garcia beat the breaks off Haney and I’m a black man. I am into performance and not personalities. If you are aggressive and moving forward throwing punches and going for knockouts I’m going to always cheer for that type of fighter unless it is Frazier against Ali. Most fans are bloodthirsty, and boxing purists like yourself are never going to be able to relate to them. God bless and take care. BG from Germantown.
Bread’s response: I can relate to the bloodthirsty crowd. I love KO artists and “killers”. I have so many different types of favorite fighters. I love Sugar Ray Leonard and I love Evander Holyfield. I love Felix Trinidad and I love Roy Jones. I love Manny Pacquiao and I love Salvador Sanchez. My favorites are a variety of races and styles. My issue with the narratives are I don’t believe they’re authentic. I think they’re agenda driven. It’s ok to have your picks. But at least recognize the excellence of fighters who execute a style you may not be fond of. It’s called being open-minded and professional. Let me show you what I mean.
Hypothetically, if Devin Haney was fighting tonight and Boots Ennis was fighting tonight and they were fighting the same type of opponent and I had to pick one fight to attend, I would pick Ennis because I feel like he’s going to appeal to my wanting to see a KO. I have no issue saying that. But here is what I will never ever do. I won’t crap on Devin Haney because he’s a boxer and he doesn't score KOs at the same rate as Ennis. I won’t call him a Wanksta because he doesn’t punch as hard as Boots. Devin can’t help that Boots hits harder than him. Devin can’t help his mental make up. And I’m open-minded enough to appreciate Devin and not criticize him just because I find Boots more appealing to watch.
This is the same as calling a pretty woman ugly because she’s not your type. Alicia Keys is a very pretty woman but she’s not my type. Keri Hilson is a very pretty woman but she is my type. I wouldn’t crap on Alicia just because Keri is more my type. There is a level of maturity that’s involved in appreciating something that you may not be partial to…
Sir, thanks for the bag. I’m here every week. So I say even if Junior isn’t top of the world I would be so proud if I was his dad. Just a son being world class in something that pop was pretty good at (understatement of course). I don’t know what the public thinks except maybe Jnr wasn’t good or just had a name. He had a decent fight with one of my favorites Danny Jacobs. Not the best but I rooted for Jacobs. But boxing people, what are their thoughts on Jnr? Also, both Shane Mosleys if you’ve got a second. I don’t hear much about Snr these days
Bread’s response: Shane Mosley Sr. was a terrific fighter; Hall of Famer and one of the best fighters of the 90s and early 2000s. Mosley had a great chin, great handspeed, a big punch and loads of heart. He’s one of the best lightweights I have seen in my lifetime and could compete with any lightweight in history.
Shane Mosley Jr. is a solid fighter, with lots of determination and heart. Junior gives A+ effort every time he steps in the ring. It’s not easy following in the footsteps of a HOF father. Both father and son should be proud of their accomplishments individually and collectively.
Hi Bread. With the Janibek situation at middleweight, where do you think Terence Crawford goes from here? Do you think there is a chance he retires? Or should he fight Erislandy Lara to pick up another divisional title? Thank you. Kindest regards, Sam.
Bread’s response: Good question. I thought about it when Janibek tested positive. Crawford is really good at keeping his plans quiet. I suspect he has something cooking right now but he’s not going to reveal his hand. I don’t know his next move but I do believe it will be a blockbuster type of fight. I respect Lara but I don’t know if that’s the type of fight that Crawford wants. Lara is formidable but he only has one belt and he’s not a huge draw at the box office. Crawford is a needle-mover at this point. In order to be paid how he deserves to be paid, his opponent will have to move the needle that Lara doesn’t move with just one belt. There is a certain type of fighter that gets the algorithms moving. Canelo moves the needle. Vergil Ortiz moves the needle. Boots Ennis moves the needle. Hamzah Sheeraz moves the needle. There are a few others but I had a long day today and I can’t think of anyone else right now off the top of the dome….
This is in regards to your answer regarding the WBC and Terence Crawford. My husband is a HUGE fan of yours and respects you immensely. Over the years he has often come to me with your mailbag. He loves how you are able to be fair and answer questions with facts without being harsh. I can honestly agree with him in regards to his opinion of you and I myself admire your intelligence and calm nature. However, I am uneasy about this post this time. My husband and I can't stop talking about it. I don't know much about boxing and or the fees involved. What I do know though is that regardless of my opinion on whether or not my bill is too high I still have to pay for it. If I don't pay my light bill, they get shut off. I watched the interview with Mauricio Sulaiman and from what I understand Terence Crawford just refused to pay so they took the belt back. The fee was 0.06% which makes no difference in my opinion on this because in life you have to pay your bills regardless if you think they're too high. Nothing was heard from the other sanctioning bodies because they were in fact paid. This actually saddens me because Crawford is a legend that other boxers look up to, not to mention children. Legends are held at a very high standard and they should act as such. I understand that you mentioned that you were not saying who was in the wrong here because you did not know all the details and I can appreciate that. Maybe by the time you read this you will have done more research. You said that you RESPECT Crawford for standing up for himself and I wish that I could agree with that statement but I just can't. In my eyes he didn't stand up for himself at all. He simply told the whole world that he isn't paying his due fees that every fighter before him had to pay. He admitted that he didn't care about giving that belt back because he had the RING belt and that's the only one that matters. This is immaturity and negligence at its highest. Eddie Hearn made a great point in saying that Crawford needed the WBC belt in order to be undisputed. Crawford won the fight but didn't pay for the belt. This is no different than going to a high-end restaurant and eating all of the best dishes with wonderful service and not paying your bill. Crawford was well aware of the fees involved. Maybe the fees aren't fair. Maybe fees need to be discussed for future fighters. Again, I don't know much about boxing. But as of right now Terence is past due on his bill and the entire world now knows his true colors. On a lighter note, thank you for all you do, Breadman. We truly love and respect you highly. Have a great night.
Bread’s response: I was very clear that I didn’t know all of the details so I can’t say who’s right or wrong. In life, but especially in boxing, unless you’re directly involved you will never know the full truth. In most cases of conflict, both sides will tell THEIR side. So I’m careful with my words.
If you’re offended that I said I respect Crawford for standing up for himself , that’s your right, but I stand on that. Many times in boxing fighters are afraid to speak up for themselves out loud because they’re in fear of retaliation. They fear everything from bad scoring in their fights, to low offers in pay, to limited opportunities etc. So they take a lot of abuse silently. I assume Crawford has had many things happen to him that he hasn’t spoken on publicly. Now he’s 38, he’s a millionaire many times over and he will probably fight two or three more times max. So he’s at a point where he can speak his mind in public about his experiences in boxing. So I respect that. It doesn’t mean I’m saying he’s right or wrong. I’m saying I respect it. There is a huge difference. And at the same time I have no idea if he’s right or wrong because I don’t know what was negotiated.
You make a good point about the high light bill. But the difference is sanctioning fees can be negotiated. Light bills can’t. We don’t know what was negotiated. And we also don’t know how much the other sanctioning bodies were paid. Until I see something that shows me what was negotiated, and what the other sanctioning bodies accepted, I will reserve my judgment on who’s right or wrong.
I do agree that Crawford needed the WBC belt to be undisputed. One of the things that makes Crawford a legend is he was undisputed in three different divisions, so it’s fair to say that belts did matter in his career. But there is still no proof that he screwed the WBC. Therefore I will leave it at this: the sanctioning fees should have been agreed to, long before Crawford and Canelo ever got in the ring. Other than that I still don’t have an opinion on who’s right or wrong.
I saw you on Pro Box TV doing the Roach vs Pitbull and Foster vs Fulton fights. Bro, you need a job. You called both fights exactly how the judges did. You had the right score both times. And you called a draw in Roach vs Pitbull at like the halfway point. I found it interesting that you weren’t card counting. You just said your score and went onto the next round. The Foster vs Fulton fight was easy to score. But Roach vs Pitbull was tight and you didn’t actually know who had won until the producer told you that you scored the fight a draw. You’re one of the best people in all of boxing. Salute Breadman.
Bread’s response: Thank you, I really appreciate that. Sometimes I score fights on my own so I can get a better feel of what the judges are looking for. And after fights I ask for the official scorecards so I can be better as a trainer. I have a relationship with Stephen Fulton and his team. And I’ve met Lamont Roach and his team. I put that all to the side and just called the action how I saw the action. I was surprised that Foster dominated Fulton like he did. I still don’t know what happened, but I know what I saw and I scored it accordingly.
As for the Roach vs Pitbull fight. Get this: I thought I scored the fight for Roach. I honestly did. That’s why I kept asking what was my final scorecard on the broadcast. I really didn’t know. But if you made me guess I would’ve said Roach by a slight edge. I was shocked to see that I scored it a draw. But judging a fight is no easy task. You have to score a round. Turn the score in. And clear your mind and score the next round and so on. No carry over effect. No card counting. Just objective scoring of Clean Punching, Effective Aggressiveness, Defense and Ring Generalship. Or simply, who would you rather be in that three-minute session. I tried my best and did my best. Thanks again. It was a great experience for me.
You were right after all about GGG. I remember fans arguing with you about GGG being a first-ballot Hall of Famer. You stood on your ground and now he’s a first-ballot Hall of Famer. You also kept saying that Nigel Benn should be in over many others who were getting in and he got in this year. How were you so confident in both? You seem to have some influence on this indirectly. Are there any other fighters who should be in that aren’t?
Bread’s response: I wasn’t that confident that Nigel Benn would get in to be honest. His career has been over for over 20 years and he wasn’t in yet. So I felt like he was being overlooked. But I couldn’t understand for the life of me how Vinny Pazienza got in the Hall of Fame and Nigel Benn didn't.
This was no disrespect to Pazienza but under no metric was he better than Benn. Benn did more as a fighter. He was a better fighter. And I respect fighters who were BIG stars. Fighters who moved the needle. But Benn was a huge draw in the UK. He was just as a big of a star in the UK as Pazienza was here in the US. They fought basically during the same timeframe. I never said that Pazienza shouldn’t be in. I don’t disrespect a fighter’s accomplishment like that. But I did say that if Pazienza is in, Benn should be also. Hopefully someone read it and voted Benn in. I’m not sure if that happened and I certainly don’t want to take credit for Benn getting in but it’s cool that he did.
No person with high accomplishments wants to be overlooked and underappreciated. GGG getting in was a no-brainer. Especially this year when there weren’t any recent ATG locks. I don’t even want credit for calling GGG a 1st ballot HOF. Anyone who thought otherwise either doesn’t understand the metrics or doesn’t like GGG. The only question about GGG is whether he’s an ATG or not. His HOF status was a lock long ago.
Other fighters who should be in… I won’t say who should be in or not. But I like to phrase it as, who deserves strong consideration? Dariusz Michalczewski deserves very strong consideration. If you watch him at his peak you know you’re looking at a HOF-level fighter. Then if you check his numbers you know he has the numbers. His career was very similar to GGG’s. His drawback is he didn’t fight here in America. But he still deserves very strong consideration.
Chad Dawson is a fighter I find interesting. I don’t know if he’s a HOF. I’m not lobbying for him to get in. I think he’s a borderline case. But interestingly enough Antonio Tarver was just inducted. Congrats to Tarver by the way. In no way am I suggesting Tarver shouldn’t be in. But Dawson beat Tarver twice head to head. He beat Glen Johnson twice, who went 1-1 against Tarver. He beat Bernard Hopkins who beat Tarver. And he beat an undefeated Tomasz Adamek. I know Dawson had a very bad slide after he lost to Andre Ward. But if you look at his peak value and his resume, he at least deserves strong consideration. There are others but those two names popped in my head today.
What is the likelihood that we get Ennis vs Ortiz next? I know you favor Boots but if you were laying the betting lines what would they be? Are there any advantages that you see that Ortiz has that can make the fight more competitive? You have stated several advantages that Boots has but I haven’t heard you speak on Ortiz’s advantages.
Bread’s response: I’m going to guess that Ennis vs Ortiz has a 70% chance of happening next. That’s just a guess, by the way. If I were making the betting lines I would make Ennis a -200 favorite with Ortiz being +225 as an underdog.
Ortiz advantages… umm, let’s see. Ok, technically Ortiz’s punches are a little shorter on the inside. Boots has long arms and sometimes he whips his shots and they come off a little wide. Ortiz also solved the Madrimov puzzle without getting bored or frustrated. I think Boots got a little bored then frustrated when he faced Karen. Karen and Madrimov have similar styles…
Hey Breadman, love your Twitter (X), by the way. My question is about Erron Peterson. He’s 13-0 with 12 KOs and he hasn’t been signed yet. Do you think it’s his age or is it the current state of boxing? I’ve seen him fight. I’ve seen his interviews. He’s must-see TV. He’s a puncher. He’s from Philly. I can’t help but to think it’s his age because I can’t think of anything else.
Bread’s response: Erron Peterson is my next fighter on the rise. Great kid. I can’t tell you why he’s not signed yet because I’m not a promoter. He’s 29 but as you stated he’s 13-0. It's not like he’s making his pro debut at 29. I really don’t worry about him getting signed right now. I just concern myself with how well he’s progressing. Several promoters have reached out to me. But no one has pulled the trigger. I believe he will get signed when the time is right. These things are very tedious. And you never want to rush them for several reasons. I actually love the position Erron is in right now. Because the more his record and profile is built up before he gets signed, the easier the contract will be to work out when he does get signed. Because the further along he is, the less the promoter has to invest and it benefits the promoter to get a faster return on their investment.
I have two questions. What belt is held higher in esteem out of the sanctioning bodies, and what belt do you hold in higher esteem? Next, I’ve heard you speak on Crawford before. But tell me where he ranks compared to other greats at welterweight which seems to be his best division.
Bread’s response: I view the WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF as all equals in terms of accomplishment and status.
Welterweight, in my opinion, is the best division in the history of boxing. When I say best, I feel collectively that welterweight has had the best and biggest fights, while displaying the highest degree of talent. The telling factor is, the best welterweight in the world is usually a great fighter. The best welterweight in the world is usually a HOF. The best welterweight in the world is usually on the P4P list. The best welterweight in the world is usually one of the biggest stars in the world. Overall I believe Terence Crawford is one of the 10-15 best welterweights ever. I don’t know exactly where I put him because I’ve never sat down and forensically researched it. But off the top of my head he’s with the top 15 ever. But there is a metric I have off the top of my head that I would like to state:
In my lifetime Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns have been the best welterweights. Whenever a new era is ushered in, I always say to myself, ‘Can he hang with the Sugarman or the Hitman?’ Ok so let’s go through the years and I will give you my takes.
Immediately after Leonard and Hearns left the division, Donald Curry emerged. I looked at Curry and I thought with his precision straight punching and pedigree that he had a chance vs Leonard and Hearns. But post 1986, I thought to myself Curry didn’t respond to adversity good enough to beat them.
After Curry’s era, Simon Brown and Marlon Starling were the best welterweights. Although I think both Brown and Starling are underrated and deserve HOF consideration, there was never a day I thought either could beat Leonard or Hearns. Leonard and Hearns are A+ fighters and Brown and Starling are B+ fighters on most days with the capabilities of being A- fighters on their great days.
After that Buddy McGirt, Meldrick Taylor and Pernell Whitaker emerged. I never thought McGirt could beat Leonard and Hearns. I thought Taylor was just too small. Whitaker in a P4P sense is good enough but I didn’t think he had the physicality to beat either.
Next up was the Oscar De La Hoya, Felix Trinidad and Ike Quartey era. This was a very tough era. Even the contenders like Yory Boy Campas, Oba Carr and Jose Luis Lopez were extremely tough outs. I thought Oscar was an A-fighter but I thought he was a level below Leonard and Hearns. I feel the same way about Quartey. Felix Trinidad is interesting. I believe Leonard’s feet and hands would have been too fast for Tito. But I do see a world where Tito could beat Hearns. I wouldn’t favor Tito to beat Hearns. I think if they fought three times, I would be comfortable predicting Hearns would win twice. But Hearns could be drawn into trading hooks. Hearns didn’t have a great hook to the head. He had a great hook to the body. When he was forced to trade hooks to the head, he got in trouble. Tito had one of the best hooks I have ever seen. I favor Hearns to beat Tito but there is a real scenario where Tito could win that fight.
The next era was Mosley and Forest. I was comfortable picking Leonard and Hearns to beat both.
Next was Spinks and Judah. Again I favored Leonard and Hearns.
Floyd Mayweather now enters the division. I believe, in a P4P sense, Floyd is Leonard and Hearns’ peer. But beating them head to head is different. So while I give Tito a better chance to beat Hearns than Leonard, with Floyd I give him a better chance to beat Leonard than I do Hearns. I think Hearns is just all wrong for Floyd. I have never seen Hearns outboxed. And I just don’t know if Floyd could be rough enough to force Hearns into a slugging match and if so would that even benefit Floyd. Whereas with Leonard, I don’t favor Floyd to beat Leonard, but I do see Floyd’s jab and IQ giving Leonard trouble. Floyd and Leonard are similar in stature and I don’t have nostalgic bias. I favor Leonard to win but I know this could be a tough fight for him.
Manny Pacquiao emerged after Floyd. For as great as Manny is, I just feel he’s too small for Hearns. And I feel Leonard would catch him and clip him.
Tim Bradley, Shawn Porter, Errol Spence ushered in the next era. Bradley is tough enough but I just don’t think he has enough. Porter the same. Spence has the size but I would pick Leonard and Hearns to defeat him.
Now we have Terence Crawford. Terence Crawford is the FIRST welterweight in 45 years that I give the eyeball test and I say to myself, ‘He has a 40%-45% chance to beat BOTH Leonard and Hearns.’ Crawford’s adjustable approach, physical strength, long reach, chin and conditioning makes me say to myself, ‘Leonard and Hearns would have all they could handle with him.’ These are close fights. I would make Hearns vs Crawford 55/45 in Hearns’ favor. Hearns would have issues with Crawford in the 2nd half of the fight. I would make Leonard vs Crawford 60/40 Leonard. Leonard’s speed and gold medal pedigree would be an issue for Crawford. But Crawford’s 75 inch reach, southpaw stance and conditioning would be an issue for Leonard.
Crawford is the closest welterweight to Leonard and Hearns in terms of if everybody would were made to fight each other in a big tournament, I believe Crawford would be the #3 seed since 1980. Before anyone writes in to argue, I’m not talking about resumes. I’m not talking who’s greater or had the greatest careers. I’m talking strictly who would win if everyone had to fight on their best DAY at WELTERWEIGHT, like you asked me.
Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
