The one and only Breadman is back with your weekly fix of boxing wisdom and on the menu this week includes: Best fighters of the century so far; Lopez-Stevenson and Murtazaliev-Kelly predictions; fighters with the best footwork; Michael Spinks vs. Bob Foster. Enjoy!
Bread, It seems that we are in a moment in time that is going to be very detrimental to the sport in the U.S. I’m not sure how many people recognize what’s happening. ShoBox, Friday Night Fights, Boxing After Dark, USA Tuesday Night Fights, etc, are all gone. Prospects and fringe contenders are very limited as is their ability to gain national exposure. As a fan of the sport for decades, there has never been a time when i was less familiar with who were the next champions. Unless he's a blue chip prospect, how does the next kid get noticed? Jeremy
Bread’s response: The next kid gets noticed because he has a local promoter who is willing to put him on their shows. The next kid gets noticed because someone, somewhere, with boxing eyes notices him. You know if I weren’t training fighters I would love to be a talent scout for big companies. They often miss the ball. They sign the most marketable fighter, instead of the most talented fighter. They sign the fighter who doesn’t respect their investment instead of the disciplined fighter who shows respect to the investment by making weight and not embarrassing the companies. When boxing gets its priorities straight, then it will prosper again.
One more thing, ProBox is doing a similar show to Friday Night Fights. Stand behind ProBox and watch the evolution of their prospects. Hopefully they pick the right talent. It’s all about the talent. If you see what Top Rank just did with Raymond Muratalla then you know; sign the talent and the marketability will take care of itself.
Hi Bread, So The Ring made a pretty compelling list, ranking the top 10 fighters of the century so far. The list is going to be longer (25 for 25), but the idea got me thinking. So their top 10 goes as follows: 1. Mayweather 2. Pac 3. Bud 4. Usyk 5. Inoue 6. Chocolatito 7. B-Hop 8. Loma 9. Ward 10. Canelo. I assume these are the final results from the individual lists made by writers, trainers and experts. Then I decided to cross-check those results with The Ring yearly ratings. I know they’re not perfect (the situation in December does not always fairly reflect what happened before), but it's a useful tool nevertheless. It's pretty straightforward maths (10 points for the #1 place, 9 for #2, and so on), and the results are: 1. Mayweather (111), 2. Pacquiao (96), 3. Crawford (78), 4. Canelo (70), 5. Inoue (69), 6. Usyk (67), 7. Hopkins (65), 8. Marquez (61), 9. Loma (44), 10. Ward (42).It's almost the same bunch (Chocolatito drops out, in comes Marquez). Top 3 is the same. Canelo is noticeably higher, too. So, these lists got me thinking - are May & Pac really one and two, or is it more "them good old days" bias? How to rate Canelo? How many current fighters deserve to be on the list? I know overthinking is real, but I looked into the numbers... Well, it all comes down to details. The top 5 guys (May, Pac, Bud, Usyk, Inoue) are ahead of the rest, but it's really close between them. When we talk about Floyd, we only consider his work from 2001, starting with the Chico fight. So, most of that "Pretty Boy” Floyd work is not there. Still, he won 20 championship fights in five weight classes. ...But so did Bud Crawford. The championship numbers are virtually the same (and Bud has 15 KOs to Floyd's 6). There are some obvious differences, though. For starters, Bud was undisputed in three weight classes, while Floyd never managed that in one. Floyd picked and chose opponents, weight stipulations, and perfect timing; Bud wanted smoke all day every day. Floyd had some debatable wins (for the record, I think he won against Castillo, De La Hoya and Maidana); Bud never had a close fight. In short: Floyd worked the boxing machine; Bud worked against it. I know Floyd fought better names overall, but he was never an underdog in this century. It's probably already too long at this point (I can go on for ages), so to keep it simple: what's your top 10 p4p list of this century? Could you give your reasoning for the top 5? Don't you think that guys like GGG, Klitschko and Kovalev tend to get overlooked as dominant champions in just one weight class?
Bread’s response: I don’t mind analytics but common sense also has to be part of the formula. I like your list and I like the Ring’s list. Without forensic analytics here is my top 10 of the 21st century.
I don’t know why we are starting at 2001 instead of 2000 but I will go by your criteria.
1. Mayweather
2. Pacquiao
3. Crawford
4. Usyk
5. Inoue
6. Hopkins
7. Chocolatito
8. Canelo
9. Ward
10. Loma
GGG, Kovalev, Wlad, Marquez and Calzaghe all have strong cases to be on the list and probably should, but I didn’t do this forensically with analytics so it’s possible I missed something. My reasoning for my top 5 is simple. These were the 5 best fighters in terms of elite wins, accomplishments, and eyeball test. These were the 5 fighters I feel most comfortable with winning against the field.
Bread, While his retirement is well-earned, I feel like Crawford has created a void in the world of boxing. Canelo was/is the ‘superstar’ of boxing and Crawford became the next one overnight by defeating Canelo. That's how these things work. But then Bud retired. Canelo only has so many years left. The quartet of Fury, Joshua, Wilder, and Usyk are even closer to retirement than Canelo. After that, who are the biggest stars in boxing? Spence? MIA since getting spanked by Crawford. Shakur? Too defensive for the general fan. Teo? Too inconsistent with his career path. Ryan Garcia? A cheating headcase. Devin Haney? Nice resume but can't seem to capture the public's imagination. Tank? Talking about retirement and legal issues. Inoue and Rodriguez? Supremely talented and fun to watch, but you've said yourself that little guys never lead the charge. Perhaps David Benavidez is boxing's best hope for a new superstar if he beats Zurdo and continues his current trajectory. My point is boxing needs a new superstar to stay in the public's consciousness, because with traditional outlets like HBO, Showtime, and ESPN no longer carrying boxing, the sport is becoming more of a niche enjoyment than ever. Thoughts? Doug
Bread’s response: See I see things differently. I think the “next” superstar just earns it. For example, no one anointed Manny Pacquiao. He didn’t have the perfect record. He wasn’t an Olympian. He just got better and better before our eyes and the next thing you know, he was the man who moved the needle. We don’t have to look for the next superstar. He’s going to look us in our eyes when he arrives. It may be someone we know, it may be someone we aren’t familiar with just yet. Let’s let it happen organically instead of looking for him.
If Shakur Stevenson beats Teofimo Lopez, does he have an argument to be the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world? Do you believe a win would put him in that position?
Bread’s response: Let’s see if and how he beats Lopez first. I think we rush to judgment too fast in boxing. Personally, I don’t know if beating Lopez would make Shakur the best fighter in the world. I don’t think that puts him past Inoue or Usyk just yet. But I would need to see the performance to be sure. So, for now, let’s say it moves him up the pound for pound list.
Hey Bread. A lot of people talk about speed, power, blocking shots, head movement, and punch placement. But what about footwork? I was told there aren’t a lot of guys who coach good footwork. Do you think there’s any truth to that and, if so, why? Is good footwork a lost art? I know that Cuban boxers work a lot on footwork. I would make the argument that solid footwork is one of, if not the, most important aspect of boxing. Everything starts with the feet and a solid foundation. If you don’t have good footwork, you’re going to be slow, punches aren’t going to come off good, your defense will suffer, and you will be off balance and trip over yourself. Other than Lomachenko, what other modern boxers do you see who employ really solid footwork? Thanks.
Bread’s response: Loma has special footwork but there are others in modern boxing who also have excellent feet. If we are talking modern boxing we can go back to the 80s. Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran had tremendous feet. As did Wilfredo Benitez and Salvador Sanchez. Orlando Canizales. Pernell Whitaker. Manny Pacquiao. Roy Jones. Floyd Mayweather. Oleksandr Usyk. Bam Rodriguez. Andre Ward. Sambu Kalambay. All of these fighters have tremendous feet. I’m sure I missed a few, so let me throw in Dmitri Bivol and Shakur Stevenson while I’m thinking.
I came across two separate comments this weekend but they were parallel to each other. Ryan Garcia called Joe Goossen a trader for training Mario Barrios. And Keyshawn Davis teased Bozy Ennis about training with Andy Cruz. Do fighters really feel a certain way when trainers they like or were associated with train ex or future opponents?
Bread’s response: Fighters are a little crazy. So, their logic is slightly off. Ryan Garcia allegedly accused Joe Goossen of letting out information from his camp, concerning his fight with Tank Davis. Garcia fired Goossen. Goossen does not owe Garcia anything. Goossen has a right to earn a living. He has a right to train whoever he wants and if the fighter he trains happens to fight Garcia then so be it. It’s ridiculous, in fact, to suggest Goossen owes Garcia anything. If Garcia didn’t want Goossen to train other fighters then he shouldn’t have fired him.
I’m assuming Keyshawn Davis was joking with Bozy Ennis about training Andy Cruz. Because Bozy never trained Keyshawn Davis. So there would be no suggestion of loyalty when they never worked together.
In a general perspective. Fighters leave trainers all the time and trainers have no legal recourse. So when a trainer moves on, the fighter has to know that some of his secrets move on to whoever his potential future opponents are. That’s part of the game and I’m happy for Joe Goossen to land another high-profile job. I’m going to guess Mario Barrios went to Joe Goossen because he knew he could tell him some things about Garcia. That’s smart in my opinion. If it’s good for the gander, it’s good for the goose.
Hey Mr Edwards Hope you good and looking to give your insights on Stevenson-Lopez. This may be too late for publication but it's worth a try. I don't know if you recall that after Lopez beat Vasiliy Lomachenko, I said he milked that victory for all it was worth because he said all the other 135-pounders had to go out there and prove themselves against each other before he could so much as look at them. I had some interest in Lopez up to that point but I was immediately switched off when he placed himself on a pedestal and looked down on guys his own size because, if truth be told, Loma's ceiling weight was 130 and he is among the smallest guys in history to hold a version of the 135-pound title. And to me, there was little to choose between them and the verdict could easily have gone the other way. Lopez didn't exactly dominate the smaller Loma and Loma was really coming on in the late stages. I also don't see what all this talk about Lopez's explosiveness and power is about. To me, Lopez is a B-level puncher whose highlight reel knockouts have come against B-level opponents. He has never blown anyone away who is in the top bracket; no disrespect to Richard Commey but he wasn't no Ike Quartey. I just don't see what the fuss is about regarding a guy who loses to George Kambosos. I'm no great fan of Stevenson because he is too much of a safety-at-all-costs fighter. I mean even Floyd Mayweather Jnr at Stevenson's age was a killer and I just don't know why Stevenson is so gun shy when he's actually never been hurt in the ring. Still, I find he's levels above Lopez and it will show in this fight. Stevenson, even though he's moving up to 135, is not as small of a fighter as Loma was and I can't see Lopez getting away with the mistakes he made against Loma when he comes up against Stevenson. Stevenson will make him pay for all those mistakes and I wouldn't be surprised if, pillow fisted as he is, Stevenson stops Lopez late. I expect Lopez to try to impose himself early, but he won't have much to show for it and in the middle rounds Stevenson is going to start picking him apart. Lopez is then going to try to go for the spectacular to salvage the fight late and I think that's where his amateurish mistakes will show and Stevenson might actually run him into something damaging. And not because he's a big puncher but because he'll use Lopez's momentum against him, hence the surprise late stoppage or a clear-cut dominant decision. What do you think? Finally: Michael Spinks v Bob Foster. I don't think either lost to a 175-pounder but I think people believe, just because Spinks went on to win the heavyweight title, he has the measure of Foster. However, Spinks beat an ageing Larry Holmes and lost to the first genuine great heavyweight in his prime, Mike Tyson. Foster met Joe Frazier who had not yet lost to George Foreman and was a wrecking ball in his prime. Foster also lost to a post-exile Muhammad Ali who was past his peak but still had enough to beat a supposedly invincible Foreman. Spinks was hittable and while he had a great engine and iron jaw, Foster was murderous on 175-pounders once he hit them and he had height and reach on Spinks. Your view? Thank you and keep punching! Katlholo Johannesburg, South Africa
Bread’s response: I feel like Lopez and Stevenson is a complex match up. The fight has many possible scenarios. I feel like if Stevenson was a basketball player he averages 25 points per game. In a 5-game stint, he scores 24, 26,25, 24 and 26. I feel like if Lopez was a basketball player he averages 23 points per game. But he scores 50, 10, 15, 20, 20. Stevenson is the more consistent fighter. Lopez has shown he’s capable of monster nights but he’s also shown he’s capable of very off nights. The question I have is: Why is Lopez so inconsistent?
I feel like it stems from his adaptability to certain styles. I think Lopez is a very good puncher but against good boxers he doesn’t apply his punching power. I think this fight goes the distance regardless of who wins. Stylistically, I feel like Lopez can cause Stevenson issues if he decides to move and box and make Stevenson come get him. I think that’s his best bet to win especially if he has success early and Stevenson becomes frustrated. Frustration causes mistakes and with Stevenson not being a huge puncher, it may cause him some anxiety if he’s down early. But I can’t get Lopez’s struggles out of my mind. I also feel like when Lopez is having one of those off nights, he doesn’t turn it around mid-fight. The performance continues to be uneven throughout. That’s why I’m picking Shakur Stevenson by decision. I expect some controversy in the scoring, but I’m more comfortable picking Stevenson because of consistency, jab, and ability to concentrate throughout.
Bob Foster is one of the greatest light heavyweights ever. But his flaws are too glaring for me to overlook. He didn’t just lose to Ali and Frazier at heavyweight. He also lost to Doug Jones, Zora Folley and Mauro Mina. Foster failed terribly in fights over 175lbs. I feel like Spinks would have beaten everyone who beat Foster besides Ali and Frazier. Doug Jones is an interesting test for Spinks. I also feel like other great light heavyweights like Ezzard Charles, Roy Jones, Billy Conn, Archie Moore, and Gene Tunney acquitted themselves better when they fought over the light heavyweight limit.
Spinks ruled over a considerably harder era than Foster. He had a better reign although he had less title defenses. I believe Spinks is more well-rounded. I believe his IQ is higher. I think his legs are better. I think he’s more durable. I don’t believe Foster would have beaten Holmes and Cooney at heavyweight. His track record shows he would’ve fell apart at some point during those fights. Spinks and Foster are both huge punchers. But the puncher in the fight is the one who takes his opponent’s punches the best. Spinks proved to have a much better chin.
I hold Foster’s failures against him at heavyweight because he was a big light heavyweight. He’s the tallest light heavyweight champion in history and he was a huge puncher. He also had an enormous reach. This was not a case of a 5ft 9ins light heavyweight trying to fight heavyweight giants of today. This was a 6ft 3ins huge punching light heavyweight. His opponents at heavyweight were about 210lbs. Jones and Mina were less than 200lbs. Not only do I rank Spinks above Foster as a fighter, I think he outsmarts him head to head and beats him.
Hi Breadman, I want to ask about Kelly vs Murtazaliev. From my limited knowledge, one of three things will happen. Kelly will outbox him clean and win a world title beautifully. Kelly boxes beautifully for a while, but then gets KO’d brutally or suffocated with pressure. The other is Kelly gets KO’d instantly. Do you have any predictions on this fight? I've asked about this fight as it's clearly considered less significant than the NYC fights. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't given any predictions on the NYC fights, which would be most welcome! Thanks
Bread’s response: Josh Kelly has never knocked my socks off. I feel like he tries too hard to be sharp and it tightens him up. I also feel like he’s taken too long to develop as a fighter. But ever since this fight was announced I had a feeling Kelly would win. Honestly a gut instinct. Something tells me that Bakhram struggles to make weight. Look at his eyes and face leading up to the weigh in. He seems severely depleted. Kelly seems fresher. I also have a feeling that Bakhram is very good but he’s not as good as he looked against Tim Tszyu.
Tszyu fought a very poor fight vs Bakhram. Against the odds, I’m going to say that Kelly fights a flashy fight and the crowd gets on his side. I’m going to say that Kelly runs out of gas late but Bakhram, who has travelled to make weight, is not fresh either going down the stretch and Kelly pulls out a huge upset. I can see the fight being similar to Froch vs Groves I with Bakhram being Froch and Kelly being Groves. Except Kelly doesn't get stopped late. I know I sound crazy based on Bakhram’s performance vs Tszyu and Kelly’s recent form. But my guts are my guts and if I’m wrong, expect Kelly to perform at a higher level than anticipated. This is his first title shot and fighters put EVERYTHING into their first title shots.
Send CONCISE questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
