Daily Bread Mailbag: Ranking the best boxers from the 90s; reflections on Anthony Joshua vs. Jake Paul

It's the last mailbag from Stephen 'Breadman' Edwards of 2025 and to close out the year he ranks his top 10 fighters from the 90s, gives both Joshua and Paul their props, discusses the career of Terence Crawford and highlights the importance of universal rules.

Hi Bread, hope you are keeping well. Greetings from Ireland. Just seen that Terence Crawford has retired. WHAT A BOXER. In my opinion his mindset is unmatched, his willingness to fight anyone is unquestionable, his doggedness despite the business of boxing holding him back is there for all to see. In a lot of interviews he said that Ricky Burns was up there as his toughest fight along with Gamboa. Why do you think he names those guys specifically? What problems did they give him that others didn't? Was it that he continued to get better so his problem-solving got better too, therefore making future fights simpler for him. It seems like he took lessons from every fight he was in and never forgot them. Sean.

Bread’s response: After watching Crawford through the years, I think he improved since his lightweight run. There are fighters who went the distance with him at that time, that he would’ve stopped had he faced them later in his career. I think he struggled to make 135lbs and on top of struggling to make the weight, he gained in-ring experience as he moved up in weight, which evolved him into an ATG.

I suspect in the Burns fight, Crawford had to travel to a foreign country. Make weight. Then fight a feisty, proud champion in his first championship fight. Against Gamboa, I believe Gamboa’s extremely fast hands threw Crawford off early. It seemed that it just took him some time to calibrate how fast Gamboa’s punches were coming. Just because Spence and Canelo are Crawford’s best opponents it doesn’t mean they were his hardest in the ring. There is a difference, and the average fans has to acknowledge that.

Respect to Bud Crawford for leaving the sport on his terms. However, I think not fighting Boots Ennis is a mistake in terms of his legacy. If he'd beaten the guy set to dominate the next generation, how much greater would Crawford have looked as the years passed? It's like Mayweather vs Canelo. Every Canelo win over the past decade has made Mayweather's legacy a little brighter – because he was the guy who beat him. I hope Usyk fights Itauma before his retirement as it will either create a new superstar or solidify Usyk as an ATG. Love to know your thoughts. Max Williams

Bread’s response: I don’t believe not fighting Jaron Ennis was a mistake. I don’t believe it hurt Crawford’s legacy. I think Crawford leaving when he did was a boss move. 90 per cent of fighters stay in boxing too long and sometimes those late career struggles come back to bite them. Example: Roy Jones Jnr.

However, I do agree that if Crawford were to fight and defeat Ennis it would have enhanced his legacy. Beating a young, in his prime talent like Ennis who passes everyone’s eye test, would silence Crawford’s resume critics. But Crawford is 38, Boots is 28. No one ever said that Mayweather ducked Crawford, Spence, or Thurman. No one ever said that Hagler ducked Michael Nunn. A fighter has a right to retire when he’s ready. And you can’t fight everyone. It’s simply impossible. The only way I will say it was a mistake to not fight Ennis, is if Crawford comes back and fights a lesser fighter than Ennis and loses. But as of right now, let’s let Bud enjoy his retirement.

Breadman, It's bittersweet to see Bud walk away. He will go down as one of the all-time greats. I've never compiled a list of best top fighters outside the top maybe 10 or 20. I have a hard time ranking the top 20, personally. Given his body of work and the different weight classes I run into the dilemma, does he win against these guys: 135lbs - Sweet Pea, Shane Mosley, Roberto Duran, Julio Cesar Chavez, or Henry Armstrong. 140lbs - Aaron Pryor, Kosta Tszyu, Oscar De La Hoya (1st fight vs Chavez version), Meldrick Taylor (1st fight vs Chavez version), or even 2009-2010 circa version of Pacquiao. 147lbs - Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Wilfredo Benitez, Donald Curry (prime) or even Boots Ennis. 154lbs - Terry Norris, Fernando Vargas (see Bud vs Benavidez), Jermall Charlo (version that beat J-Rock) or Tito Trinidad. 168lbs - Roy Jones Jnr, Andre Ward, Joe Calzaghe, or David Benavidez. I composed this list of fighters because no matter what weight you put Sugar Ray Robinson, he would be no worse than 50/50 against any of the fighters above 147 lbs. Is there a version of Bud that beats every single one of these fighters' peak version vs Bud's peak version? If so, how do you see the fights playing out? I admire what Bud has accomplished with the limited opportunities he was given. He made the most of what came his way and always stood true to his word and people. He never changed for anyone ...stand up Bud! Happy Holidays and many Blessings to you, your family and stable. Richard K.

Bread’s response: You listed too many fighters for me to do hypothetical matchups with vs Crawford. I don’t think he beats everyone you listed and I don’t think everyone beats him. I think he wins more fights than he loses.

For the record, doing hypothetical match ups like this are not fair because no one can fight that many great fighters in their careers. And if anyone tried to, division by division they would lose several times. Individually on his best day he could hang with most of the people you named and beat more of them than would beat him but that’s an insane line up you gave me.

Greetings Breadman! Thank you for the outstanding content and knowledge you share with us fans every single week. I have three unrelated topics for you, curious for your thoughts! And thank you for replying to me in the past, I've written in a couple of times. I was so pleased (and relieved) to see Crawford's retirement announcement. Too often we see boxers continue for too long and end up hurting their legacy or health. What a perfect ending to an outstanding career. Crawford is truly a special fighter and he will be missed. As much as I wanted to see more of him – and part of me thinks we haven't even seen the best of Crawford, given how dominant he has been for so long – I am happy he gets to retire on top. Can you reflect on his career and legacy? I'm curious your thoughts on Hamzah Sheeraz. He somewhat reminds me of Tommy Hearns, with his length and straight, snappy punches. He also seems to have a certain vulnerability around him, which might be unfair to Hearns given the caliber of heavy punchers he has faced, but I felt especially in his last fight with Berlanga that he put himself in harm’s way unnecessarily, when he could have boxed ‘safe’ and controlled Berlanga from range. I thought of you after that fight, because you had mentioned how fighters rarely acknowledge or credit their trainers after fights, and it was nice to see Sheeraz quick to praise Andy Lee in the interview. Lastly, can you think of a moment in your coaching career, where you had to quickly and unexpectedly pivot from the original game plan during the fight? How do you convey critical information to a fighter with only a minute between rounds, without overloading them with information? I'm sure part of it depends on the fighter and ability to process information, but I'm curious if you've been in situations where you felt completely surprised at how the fight turned out. Thank you - and wish you and your family a happy and blessed holiday season. Ziad 

Bread’s response: I like Hamza Sheeraz but he doesn’t remind me of Tommy Hearns. He reminds me more of Diego Corrales with a mix of Carlos Monzon, not so much Hearns. I think Sheeraz will be world champion before 2026 is over.

Yes. I’ve had to change tactics or gameplans twice both times with Julian Williams. The first time he fought an eliminator vs a fighter named Marcello Matano. Matano was not on his level and Julian was killing him with his jab. The jab was working but Matano couldn’t get inside. I felt that the fight would go to a decision shut out win and at that time I wanted to keep our momentum. So, I told Julian to not start out with the jab, allow Matano to get inside, so he can catch and counter him with hook and uppercuts. It worked like a charm and Julian clipped Matano in the 8th round.

The second time I had to change tactics was Julian Williams vs Nathaniel Gallimore. Julian was outboxing him easily in the first three rounds. For some reason he started to slug in the 4th round and the energy of the fight changed. He seemed distressed despite getting off to a good start. In the 4th and 5th rounds I was instructing Julian to box. When I saw that he wasn’t interested in boxing anymore, I changed tactics and told him to stay inside and squeeze Gallimore’s muscles and wear him out. It wasn’t as pretty as I would’ve liked but we got the job done.

Hi Breadman, Another long-time reader here. I wanted to ask you who your top 10 P4P fighters of the 90s are, their place in boxing history, and which ones stayed most memorable to you personally. Still waiting for new mailbags, Yilmaz, Germany

Bread’s response: Top 10 P4P of the 1990s. 

1. Roy Jones

2. Pernell Whitaker

3. Julio Cesar Chavez

4. Evander Holyfield

5. Bernard Hopkins

6. Ricardo Lopez

7. Lennox Lewis

8. James Toney

9. Felix Trinidad

10. Oscar De La Hoya

Shakur Stevenson is currently a -350 favorite to defeat Teofimo Lopez. Those odds shocked me. I was leaning towards picking Stevenson but I didn’t expect him to be that heavily favored. What do you make of these odds? Thank you!

Bread’s response: That’s a little shocking to me. I believe that Shakur should be a favorite but -350 is big. I was thinking more of the -200 range. I don’t know what to make of it. But I suppose the oddsmakers are more impressed with Shakur’s consistency than Teofimo’s potential to get hot.

Long-time reader of the mailbag. I look forward to reading it every Saturday afternoon. Thanks for providing this to us. I wanted to follow up on your take that the welterweight division is the best in boxing history. How would you rank the other seven original weight classes — heavyweight, light heavyweight, middleweight, lightweight, featherweight, bantamweight, and flyweight — right behind welterweight in your all-time list? If you could also drop a quick one- or two-sentence explanation for each, that’d be fun to read.

Bread’s response: When I think of what division is the best in history, I simply think what division has the highest level of ATG overall in history and welterweight boasting great fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Leonard, Floyd Mayweather, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran, Mickey Walker, Terence Crawford, Manny Pacquiao etc, I believe 147lbs has produced the best fighters in history. In order from top to bottom, I would say:

1. Welterweight

2. Middleweight – With fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb Carlos Monzon, Sam Langford and Marvin Hagler. Again, it’s hard to outdo 160lbs in terms of producing ATGs.

3. Heavyweight – It’s very close between heavyweight and middleweight for me. Anyone who says heavyweight should be ranked higher I wouldn’t argue. But heavyweight has produced Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, George Foreman, Larry Holmes etc. And on top of that heavyweight is the most storied division in history.

4. Lightweight has produced Armstrong, Duran, Chavez, Canzoneri, Leonard, Gans, Whitaker, Mayweather etc…The only thing that lightweight is missing is a high number of super fights. Often, great lightweights meet at higher weights in their careers. For example, Mayweather vs Pacquiao and Whitaker vs Chavez happened at 147 not 135.

5. Light heavyweight – for some reason light heavyweight has been historically undervalued. Rarely has the No. 1 fighter in the world been at 175lbs. But the division has produced some special talent. Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Michael Spinks and Gene Tunney to name a few.

6. Featherweight

7. Bantamweight

8. Flyweight

How do you rate the Jake Paul vs Anthony Joshua fight? I thought the fight would be scripted but after the cash cow was knocked out I don’t know what to make of it. Good call on how Joshua needed to fight with spite but do you think he allowed Paul to hang around too long?

Bread’s response: As a boxing purist I always want to believe that sanctioned fights are not scripted. Several people in boxing told me that they believed the fight was scripted. I didn’t argue with anyone, but I counter argued that if the fight was scripted why does Jake Paul invest so much money into his training camps?

As for the fight itself, Paul is who I thought he was. A tough, athletic kid, who is a decent prospect but has an enormous amount of resources. He’s not an elite fighter but he can make fights like this because of his resources. Paul did the best he could. He moved. He showboated. He tried to land big shots. And he got up several times after being dropped. I’m not a huge fan of these types of fights but I respect Paul’s willingness to fight Joshua.

As for Anthony Joshua I thought he did a solid job. Joshua is a stand-up classic boxer who has a hard punch. He’s not Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson. So, Joshua is not going to cut the ring down within two rounds and destroy a fighter who is moving like Paul did. It’s going to take him more time. On top of the stylistic issue, Joshua is coming off a bad ko loss and he’s been inactive. I think the criticism Joshua got for Paul lasting six rounds was a little overboard. It’s very hard to stop a fighter who was in the mode Paul was in.

We have to remember the sentiment going into the fight. Joshua had to score a ko. All Paul had to do was survive a few rounds. So the burden performance value was much higher for Joshua. Personally, I give Joshua 7/10 in terms of his performance. The one thing that stands out to me is Joshua’s punch selection. I feel like he could’ve jabbed to Paul’s chest a bit more and went to Paul’s body a bit more. Once he did those things the fight was essentially over. Other than that, it was a no-win situation for Joshua besides the paycheck. 

Joshua is often compared to Tyson Fury because they’re from the same country and both are elite heavyweights of the era. But Joshua outperformed Fury vs Francis Ngannou by a mile. He also showed up in shape which Fury did not. And obviously against Paul, Joshua scored the ko. I know Joshua was in a tough spot. I also know Paul is not a complete tomato can. I will go on record and say that Paul would give Fury the same issues he gave Joshua and actually has a chance to go the distance with Fury because of the styles. Joshua is a bigger puncher than Fury as far as single shot power. Fury is bigger than Joshua but he’s more of a boxer by nature. We have never seen Fury cut the ring down and score a ko. I believe Fury would beat Paul because his jab is just too educated. But I don’t believe Fury has the style to blow Paul out.

Overall, I think Joshua did what he had to do. For the second time he defended the honor of boxing and scored a big conclusive stoppage. It’s easy for the world to take the result for granted. But we have seen many fighters in Joshua’s position, not come through with the big kos.

Bread your social media is the best follow in all of boxing. I love the idea of a rule where a fighter can’t go over 20 seconds without throwing a punch. If boxing wants more action then start penalizing fighters for not engaging. I feel like Jake Paul was only able to make it as far as he did because he didn’t have to try to land punches. I can only remember Paul landing five or six punches in six rounds. My question is who decides these rules and how often is there rule changes in boxing?

Bread’s response: The issue with rules in boxing is there are so many separate entities. You have the four major sanctioning bodies. Then you have different state rules within the US. Then you have international rules. When I wrap a fighter’s hands, I have to literally remember which state I’m in because each state is different. 

I don’t know how often rules are implemented or changed. But I do know that there is constant criticism of fighters who don’t engage or move more than some subjectively like. But as long as there is no rule in place, it’s impossible to tell a fighter how to fight. But if there is a rule in place, then the fighters have to abide by the rule. It really doesn’t make a difference to me either way. But fans and certain sections of the media are always complaining. If they make it a rule, then all of the trainers and fighters will have to obey the laws of the land.

I don’t mind separate commissions but I do mind different rules for each commission. There should be ONE set of rules in professional boxing. Imagine in the NBA or NFL the rules changed from venue to venue. It sounds ridiculous, right? Well, it is ridiculous and that’s what boxing is dealing with in the present moment.

You always applaud Shakur Stevenson’s boxing IQ. But he says some of the dumbest things. He claims Ali is not the greatest and Tyson Fury is. He called Sugar Ray Robinson trash. And now he comes out and says he didn’t know how good Marvin Hagler is. He’s the most ignorant boxer I’ve ever come across and I’ve been watching boxing for over 50 years. Bread you should be ashamed of yourself for complimenting Shakur’s IQ when he’s as dumb as they come.

Bread’s response: First off, I didn’t see Shakur’s interview about Marvin Hagler. So it’s hard to respond in context when I didn’t see it. I did however see his interviews about Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali. And all I can say is I wish he didn’t say those things. It’s not a good look to say those things about fighters who paved the way for him.

If he said what you said you claimed he said about Marvin Hagler, then that just means Shakur didn’t watch Hagler. It’s very simple. But let me tell you something. You’re framing me in the wrong context. I said that Shakur has boxing IQ. Meaning inside of the boxing ring. I didn’t mean that as far as historical boxing knowledge. Those are different things. A person can know how to do something and not know the history of what they’re doing. 

Shakur was born in the 1990s. Maybe he just doesn’t know the history of boxing or maybe he doesn’t appreciate it. I don’t know and I can’t speak for him. I’m just defending my comments on his IQ. You guys always want something to argue about. Me complimenting Shakur’s IQ has nothing to do with his historical knowledge and I’m sure you knew that.

Who do you think did better against Anthony Joshua, Jake Paul or Francis Ngannou? I think it’s clearly Paul and he deserves props for that. I can see Paul sparking Ngannou out inside of five rounds.

Bread’s response: I really don’t know who wins Paul vs Ngannou but if the betting odds came out today Ngannou would be the favorite. As for who did better, again you have to discuss it in context. 

Ngannou is a destroyer. He comes to hurt. Paul is a disruptor by nature. He comes to entertain and embarrass and if he knocks you out, so be it. Paul lasted longer because he wasn’t engaging. He was also tackling Joshua and falling on the ground to avoid Joshua leaning on him. I will say that Paul did better in terms of extending the fight. But I don’t know if that means he did better. If Paul would’ve lasted the distance fighting in the style he fought and won more rounds I would easily say Paul did better. But from my perspective he did better at surviving the inevitable longer. I don’t know if that means he did better, although it could. I’m just on the fence with that perspective.

Send CONCISE questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com