In this week’s mailbag, Stephen “Breadman” Edwards discusses the greatness of the lack Ricky Hatton, the greatness of Roy Jones Jnr, and answers whether Oleksandr Usyk is overrated
Hi Bread,
I was a little sad to see no questions about Ricky Hatton in this week’s mailbag considering he sadly passed the day after Canelo-Crawford. Would you give us a career breakdown and a breakdown of where he fits among the British greats and light-welterweight greats? There really was only one Ricky Hatton and he will be missed dearly in this country.
Kind regards
Peter, Sussex, UK
Bread’s response: Ricky Hatton in my opinion is a contemporary great. Which is not an all-time great but a great within his division within his era. Hatton was a top five junior welterweight of the 2000s. He’s one of the best UK fighters of the past 40 years. He gave it 100 per cent every time out. He won his title from an all-time great fighter in Kostya Tszyu and he held it for four years. Ricky Hatton is a legit hall of fame, with his best wins coming against Kostya Tszyu, Jose Luis Castillo, Paulie Malignaggi and Luis Collazo. Salute to Ricky Hatton. Rest in peace.
Bread,
I came up with this in response to the increasing amount of articles I am seeing that are picking Oleksandr Usyk as the best heavyweight in the last 30 years, and are clickbaiting how he would fare versus Mike Tyson of the 80s. I wondered how you see it? It is not that he is not very good. But I don’t think he has a strong resume at heavyweight and benefits from an extremely popular and lucrative British boxing market. I think he would have absolute hell with the mid-to-top 10 guys from the 90s, like Ray Mercer; he gets knocked out cold for 20 seconds by David Tua; he gets clipped by Corrie Sanders,he goes life and death and gets off the floor with Bert Cooper and wins a close one. He gets stopped late by the up-and-coming “Razor” Ruddock. A young Shannon Briggs has a shot to beat him based on volume and power and heart. Daniel Dubois and AJ had the power, but not the heart. Look at the heart Briggs had against Lennox Lewis; look at the punch count he threw against George Foreman. He is not gonna quit from being hit by a jab like Dubois. Look at his fights with Mairis Breidis, and Derek Chisora. Look at the work they did. That is the real Usyk. His best wins are against flawed and, yes, chinny fighters in AJ and Dubois. And a talented-but-half-shot Tyson Fury. If his win over Fury is the stuff of legend then we need to start looking at Francis Ngannou as an all-time great boxer too, because Francis busted up Fury and dropped him. He outlanded him in power shots; rattled him to the point that he had to throw an illegal intentional elbow out of desperation. Francis killed whatever credibility the great unification heavyweight title fight for the ages should have had. Fury used up the last of his prime in the three Deontay Wilder fights – that was Fury’s short era. Usyk has had everything lined up for him well and he did the best he could with what he had to work with – he really did. I like him, but I don’t overrate him for the sake of a recency bias. Guys like Ike Ibeabuchi, Evander Holyfield, Lewis of the 90s and Riddick Bowe of 1994 would absolutely destroy him. Usyk wins a belt against John Ruiz and Michael Moorer. His most exciting title win would be surviving a shootout with Tommy Morrison. We don’t have to go back to the 80s and the 70s. People that think Usyk beats the 1988 Tyson. I also think the Floyd Mayweather of 2009 beats the Sugar Ray Leonard of 1982.
Nick, Bakersfield,
Bread’s response: As you know, I think very highly of Usyk. I think he’s an ATG. But I also think some recency bias is taking place with him. I think Usyk is one of those fighters who has an easier time with bigger men than he does with smaller men. Chisora did give him a very tough fight; Chisora works at a high rate. I also thought Breidis and Michael Hunter gave him strong tussles. I believe that smaller, agile fighters with good stamina give Usyk more trouble than bigger fighters.
Mike Tyson doesn’t have A-plus stamina, but I have seen him go 12 strong rounds. I think Tyson is all wrong for Usyk. For as great as Usyk is, he fights off the bounce with his hands up and in as opponents attack. He has a good jab but not a particularly commanding jab. His southpaw stance doesn’t matter to a fighter like Tyson. I won’t disrespect Usyk and say all the fighters you named could beat him. He’s special. But the prime version of Mike Tyson is a 50-50 with Usyk and I would most likely pick Tyson.
Tyson is actually faster than Usyk. And he would attack his body with murderous hooks, and Usyk can be hit with uppercuts, which is Tyson’s best punch. Usyk would have a chance in the second half of the fight, but he would suffer some serious damage in the first half. If Chisora could go the distance with him, so could a prime Mike Tyson. Usyk is certainly special, but the style match-up favors Tyson. It’s very hard to beat Tyson without a commanding jab or the ability to tie him up. Usyk doesn’t clinch much and he doesn’t have a commanding jab. He also doesn’t defend his body as well as he would need to versus Tyson. I know people won’t like this, but this is a very, very tough fight for Usyk.
Hello Breadman,
You’ve rightly been praised for being the first one to plant your flag in the ground and pick Terence Crawford over Canelo. I don't know about you, but I have a similar feeling about the underdog in the proposed Naoya Inoue-Junto Nakatani fight. Right now I would pick Nakatani because I don't like what I perceive to be the bad habits Inoue has gotten himself into if you study him. For example, he is crossing his legs at times, as when he was knocked down by Ramon Cardenas. He doesn’t seem to have stayed as on point as Crawford and Usyk have – a little bit like he isn’t challenged enough by the guys he’s been fighting. He’s lost "the eye of the tiger” a bit, if you will. I say this as someone who had Inoue as the pound-for-pound number one longer than either Crawford or Usyk. It may sound wild but I’m now considering whether to drop him to four below “Bam”. Nakatani is hungry for it and I just have the feeling he will take it in a fight where both guys get hit a lot. Do you have any insights you’ve picked up on, or keys to victory with Inoue-Nakatani?
Much respect
Bread’s response: I think very highly of Inoue. He does get a little sloppy at times. But at his best he’s a mix of Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones. I’m not saying he’s better than them, but that’s what he reminds me of. He also boxed smartly his last fight and pitched a shutout vs Murodjon Akhmadaliev.
I am going to have to study Junto Nakatani a little more before I make a pick in this fight. I’ve seen him but I haven’t studied him and there is a big difference. So let me do some studying of Nakatani’s last few opponents, then I make a better assessment of his chances versus Inoue.
God bless Breadman,
Hope you and the family are all well. Want to give you your flowers for sticking to your prediction of a Terence Crawford victory, which you called over a year ago, while being ridiculed for your pick. Well done, brother. Two questions – does this victory, in your opinion, put Terence in the top 10 list of the greatest fighters of all time? And does this loss hurts Canelo’s legacy as the all-time greatest Mexican boxer? Keep up the great work.
Blessings, brother.
Bread’s response: It’s very difficult to be in the top 10 fighters ever. I don’t know if Crawford is there just yet. I’m not saying he’s not but I would like to sit down and do some research before I make a statement like that either way. Unfortunately for Canelo Alvarez I think this loss does hurt his legacy a little bit. Canelo has lost to the three best fighters he’s ever faced in Mayweather, Bivol and Crawford. Some say GGG beat him, so that could be four.
Crawford is 37 years old and he jumped two weight divisions to fight Canelo. No one wants to be on the other side of that, and Canelo is on the other side of that. When this fight was made I understood the pressure that was on Canelo to not lose to the smaller, more inactive, older man. With Canelo’s other losses he could say Mayweather beat him when he was too young and they fought at a catchweight. Bivol is a light heavyweight. But there is literally not one excuse he can make versus Crawford, except for acknowledging that Crawford is the better man.
The loss doesn’t kill Canelo’s legacy. In my opinion he’s still an all-time great and a top-10 ever Mexican fighter. But it does hurt him somewhat. Canelo knew the pressure was on him. You could see the frustration and stress on his face as the fight went on. He wasn’t having fun in there.
I’m sure you’re still getting a lot of questions about “Bud” and his status and what comes next for him, so I thought I’d break that up and offer a fun exercise for you to think over. I was recently rewatching the Rocky movies and I found myself asking a funny question: if Rocky Balboa were a real life boxer, do you think he’d be a hall of famer? Silly? Sure, but why not? I think he would. In the movie Rocky Balboa, they state his pro record is 57-23-1. He’s got a record of 44-20 or so at the start of the first movie; he becomes the first man to take the reigning, undefeated champ Apollo Creed the distance. Then in the rematch he takes his title and his "0". He defends the title 10 times before losing it to the dangerous Clubber Lang, but he then wins the title back in their rematch (becoming a two-time champion and taking Lang’s "0"). He may or may not have defended it against Drago (I’m still not sure if that counted as a title defense), but he also took the Russian’s "0". The only thing I wonder about would be the quality of opposition in those 10 title defenses, because it isn’t really clear just how good they were (the closest indication we get is Mickey’s line, “They was good fighters, but they wasn’t killers”). So, if Rocky were real and could accomplish all these things, would that be enough to make it into the hall of fame? Are there any actual boxers with records or accomplishments close to Rocky that might make for a good litmus test? This is a silly exercise but maybe it’ll be a fun one and a shake-up from more serious questions.
Greg K
Bread’s response: Hypothetically I would say: yes. Rocky is a hall of famer going by his accomplishments in the movie. I have no issue with Sylvester Stallone being in the hall of fame in the non participant-observer category. His contributions to boxing through the Rocky and Creed series are immense. He’s literally the creator of the biggest and best boxing movies of all time. People act as if he was voted in as a fighter. Stallone earned it. If you’re from Philly and Rocky comes on, you stop and you watch it, no matter how many times you have seen it. We have a tourist attraction called Penn’s Landing in Philly. About seven years ago they had an outdoor movie night and they showed the first Creed. There was approximately 1,000 people out there to watch it. Stand up, Rocky.
Sebastian Fundora is nearly a 5-1 favorite to defeat Keith Thurman. I expected Fundora to be the favorite, but not like this. I thought Thurman had a real chance to outbox Fundora. Now, I’m second guessing that. Do the odds surprise you?
Bread’s response: I favor Fundora to win and I figured the odds would be about 3-1. But maybe those little old men in Las Vegas know something. Maybe they are trying get people to take Thurman because of the high payout and they feel like Fundora handles him. I’m just guessing. Nevertheless, I think Fundora wins this fight. I just think he’s riding high. He’s hit his peak, and his pressure and jab will fatigue Thurman. But let’s see what happens. I respect Thurman for taking this fight. He’s taking on the best and most difficult title holder at 154lbs.
Hey Bread,
I just want to touch on Roy Jones Jnr. I never see you mention him in all-time-great lists. To me, there’s not a fighter that could have beaten him from middleweight to light heavyweight (Ray Robinson was a little before my time, admittedly) – or do you take into consideration his post-heavyweight run, which is understandable. But a prime Jones Jnr, I don’t see him as beatable. I don’t think there’s been a more unbeatable fighter ever. Can you elaborate on who you think would have beaten him and where you actually rank him in all-time greats – what category maybe?
Thank you
Bread’s response: I talk about the great Roy Jones Jnr. All the time. I defend his legacy all the time. You must have missed it. But, ok, here we go.
Roy Jones is one of the best middleweights, super middleweights and light heavyweights ever. No one in history ranks that high in those three divisions. I have him as a top 10-15 middleweight. His pre-title run was better than people realize. He beat Jorge Castro and Jorge Vaca as a prospect. Then he beat the great Bernard Hopkins for his title, and he iced the durable Thomas Tate in his only title defense. I know the resume is a little thin at middleweight. But tell me, giving him the eyeball test, has there been a middleweight that you would pick to beat him since he left the division 30 years ago?
He’s the best super middleweight ever. I know some have more title defenses. I wish he would’ve unified. But no one has ever showed up on film at 168lbs better than the mid-90s version of Jones.
At light heavyweight, he established his most distinguished reign. He was champion for over six years. He unified. He has 12 title defenses. Roy is a top-10 light heavyweight in my opinion.
People attack Roy’s resume but Roy was a killer. He fought over 20 Ring-rated top 10 fighters. He beat six hall of famers – Hopkins, James Toney, Mike McCallum, Virgil Hill, Vinny Paziena and “Tito” Trinidad. He was the best fighter of the 1990s. He’s really a gold Medalist if you saw the worst decision in boxing history in the 1988 Olympics.
Roy was 48-1, with the one defeat avenged with a first-round KO for the first 15 years of his career. In my lifetime I have said that “Sugar” Ray Leonard is the best fighter I’ve seen. I still say that. But the truth is the only thing that separates Leonard and Jones is Leonard’s scalps of Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Tommy Hearns and Marvin Hagler. Leonard has the best collection of scalps I’ve seen in my lifetime. But Roy Jones is every bit as good. He’s Leonard’s equal as a fighter. As for where I rank him – he’s right with Leonard as the best fighters I’ve seen in my life. I’m almost 50.
I rank Roy Jones within the top 20 fighters ever. Most likely top 10, but I want to be fair and not overstate anything. If Roy retired after the Ruiz win, he would be a 1B to Ray Robinson’s 1A as the best fighter ever. No one has ever come so close to Robinson since.
I don’t know if any man ever who competed at 168lbs or below could beat Jones. I haven’t seen enough of Sam Langford. I’ve never seen Harry Greb. I believe Ray Leonard is too small. I believe “Sugar” Ray Robinson would have a chance but he’s a lot smaller than Jones. Robinson, Carlos Monzon and Hearns would have the best chances to beat Jones out of the fighters at 160lbs and under. I don’t know if I would pick any of them to actually do it.
Michael Spinks and Ezzard Charles are the only light heavyweights I would favor to beat Jones. I consider Jones versus Gene Tunney a 50-50 fight. I think Jones beats Bob Foster. I believe Jones beats Billy Conn. I believe Floyd Patterson and Jones is 50-50. I believe Jones is a bad style for Archie Moore. This is how good Jones is.
Jones is the best fighter, in my opinion, since 1990. And if I’m betting with my loyalty to my money, I would bet Jones can beat more men in a tournament of elite fighters from 168lbs and below than anyone else. He is that guy.
Jones is so prolific his flaws get overstated and his strengths get overlooked. Roy’s IQ is off the charts. People attack his lack of fundamentals; he didn’t lack fundamentals, he was just unconventional. There is a difference. He did lack refined defense and that hurt him late in his career, but that didn’t show up until he was 35 yrs old. They say his prime was too short but he was basically undefeated from 1988-2004. That’s a long prime in any sport. In boxing, that’s an enternity.
Roy had arguably the best left hook ever. Only Robinson, Joe Frazier, Joe Louis, Trinidad and Nonito Donaire can even argue with him. Roy’s left hook to the body gets overlooked but it was actually his best punch. I don’t know if I’ve seen a better liver hook. But the crazy part is Roy’s best body punch KO was against Virgil Hill and it was a right hand. Roy is one of the greatest body punchers of all time and no one puts him in that category. Roy is, overall, one of the best punchers I’ve ever seen. His KO of Art Serwano is the scariest KO I have ever seen. His KO of Tate is one of the smoothest KOs I have ever seen. His KO of Thulani Malinga is breathtaking. So Roy is an all-time great puncher. He’s an all-time great body puncher. He has all-time great speed. And he has all-time great conditioning. I don’t know if anyone ever checks those boxes as high as Roy, with the exception of Robinson. Roy Jones Jnr is that dude. And anyone who says otherwise must’ve forgot.
I was interested to read that you consider Canelo an all-time great. It made me question whether the disappointment of his late career have overshadowed his many achievements? Narratively, every fighter’s career can be divided into chapters, and what happens in one chapter impacts how people view the story as a whole. It’s obviously subjective, but I think Canelo’s career loosely fits into four distinct chapters, described below. From his debut to Austin Trout (2005-2013) – for brevity, I’m making this one chapter, although he has enough fights for an entire career. He wins world titles and The Ring belt but he’s not yet Canelo the global superstar; he’s a boxer more than a brand. Record in this chapter: 42–0–1. From Mayweather to Golovkin I (2013-2017) – establishes himself as the biggest star in the sport, fighting marquee names such as Mayweather, Miguel Cotto and Golovkin. However, he gets a debated win over Erislandy Lara and an extremely controversial draw with GGG. Even worse, he blatantly delays the Golovkin fight versus an older opponent and fails a drugs test in the aftermath. A huge star, but a divisive one. Record in this chapter: 7–1–1. From Golovkin II to Caleb Plant (2018-2021) – his peak. Beats GGG in a classic that elevates both men, wins a legitimate light-heavyweight title and goes undisputed at super middleweight in less than a year. He carries boxing through the Covid era. There’s a genuine aura around him, and if he retired after beating Plant his legacy would be greater than it is today. Record in this chapter: 8-0. From Bivol to Crawford (2022-2025) – doubles his career losses, and records a string of underwhelming decisions over overmatched opponents. The biggest mark against his name is the fight that doesn’t happen against David Benavidez – a blatant duck. Correctly or not, everyone now believes he would have lost to Benavidez, which further hurts his legacy. This chapter is unfinished but it’s surely his final one. Record in this chapter: 6-2. I’d be fascinated to get your thoughts on this assessment and whether it’s a fair one. It’s less about fights themselves; more the narrative of a career and how it can shift through actions both inside and outside the ring. When Canelo finally retires, it will be interesting to see whether the disappointment of the final chapter fades or if it tarnishes the whole story.
Max Williams
Bread’s response: Your assessment of his career is pretty accurate. But the totality of his career makes him an all-time great, in my opinion. Canelo is a top-10 Mexican fighter ever. He’s one of the three fighters in history to win titles from 154lbs to 175lbs. He was the biggest star in boxing after Floyd Mayweather retired. When you break things down to a minutia, sometimes even the best have glaring flaws. But the totality of his career gives him an all-time great status. Canelo’s career is on par with Oscar De La Hoya’s, Tito Trinidad’s and Shane Mosley’s. All are considered all-time greats.
You were right all along about Canelo vs Crawford. I hope those that gave shit about your prediction have the same energy. That’s it.
Deon
Bread’s response: Ha – thanks. You know what’s crazy? People said some really harsh things to me. Accusing me of being racist. But they forgot when I picked Canelo over guys like James Kirkland, Lara and Trout. They accused me pandering to Team Crawford. But they don’t know I’ve only met Crawford a few times in passing. They considered every motive except the true one, which was I thought Crawford would win. Oh well. You will never make fans happy. And you have to be man enough to stand on your stance, right or wrong.
Sup, Breadman?
Canelo’s post-fight comments have sparked the conversation. I know you’ve been asked this before but who wins in a fight at 147 – Floyd or Bud? Would this fight play out differently at another weight? If there were ever a mythical match-up I could see it would be this one – such a high-level chess match. Can you give some examples of fights in the past where two high IQ technical and/or instinctual fighters matched up?
Bread’s response: I don’t know who wins – 147lbs is a nice, hypothetical place for them to meet. But I just don’t know. Floyd is a little faster and better defensively. Bud seems a little stronger and he’s better offensively. Floyd was the better amateur, which does have some relevance. Bud is meaner and better in exchanges, which matters in a close fights. Physically they both are two of the best conditioned fighters ever. I honestly can see both guys winning. They may have to fight three times to decide it. I know you guys are looking for an absolute answer favoring one over the other. But I don’t have one. It’s a closely-contested fight.
Hey Breadman,
Crawford won pretty clean. I thought the scorecards were a tad too close. I think Canelo should retire – he has nothing left at the top level. I honestly wouldn’t be upset if both Crawford and Canelo retired. They both have given enough and have hall-of-fame careers. And while Crawford versus Canelo was good, Christian Mbilli and Lester Martinez stole the show. Their bout was the best of the night. What did you think of Mbilli-Martinez? Do you think there will be a rematch and, if so, who would win? I’ve been big on Mbilli for a while. He leaves himself a little too open for my liking, but he has quite a chin and he’s very physical. I don’t know how long he’s going to last, but he’s fun to watch. He’s the best we’ve seen from Canada for quite some time.
Bread’s response: Mbilli-Martinez was an excellent fight. I hate draws but I respect that decision. I thought Mbilli did some great work. But I’m going to be honest – I think Martinez left some food on the table. If his punch selection was better he could’ve separated himself from Mbilli. Martinez did not mix in enough body punching. Mbilli is open for body shots at the end of the combination because his defense is to cover up, sort of like Ike Quartey. But Martinez didn’t open him up enough for body shots. In the instances that he did I thought he was effective. Both guys put on a great show and I’m looking forward to the rematch. One more thing – for the record, I think their fight should have been a 12-rounder. Hopefully it will be next time.
Yo – what’s good, Bread?
Shakur Stevenson said in a recent interview that he thinks Bud can beat Benavidez at 168, pointing out that Caleb was outboxing Benavidez early but gassed, and Bud wouldn’t. Considering Caleb’s early success, Bud’s performance versus Canelo, and his incredible conditioning, who do you think wins?
Bread’s response: Shakur is right. Caleb was outboxing Benavidez early. But in the spirit of objectivity, it was a 12-round fight, not a six-round fight. Getting Caleb through rounds seven-to-12 might be the most difficult thing I have ever had to do in my career as a coach. Benavidez is better than he looks. His defense is better than it looks. His timing is better than it looks. His adjustments are better than they look. Crawford is so good he has a chance against anybody. But I don’t know if he could beat Benavidez.
Can Benavidez make 168lbs safely? I know people will say he can, but doing it is something different. He’s been at 175lbs for his last few fights and going back to 168lbs will not be easy for a fighter of his size. So before I can answer this question, let’s see if they will fight and at what weight. All things being equal, and if Benavidez is at full strength, I think this is a very difficult fight for Bud. Benavidez is not the type of fighter you want to move up against, because of his length, height, speed and work-rate. It’s a different fight than moving up to fight the shorter, slower Canelo Alvarez. Bud is able to hit Canelo at a length that Canelo can’t hit him. Therefore Bud can fight at a pace he’s comfortable with and be very efficient with his output. With Benavidez he won’t have that luxury.
But I want to add something – I don’t think it’s fair to ask Bud to fight Benavidez. He just jumped two weight classes and took on the top guy. Now he’s being asked about Benavidez, who is a huge 175lber. That’s all I have for now until a fight gets made.
Breadman,
Just a follow up to my question and (way off) prediction. I’m just enjoying another slice of this tasty humble pie. Anyway, I’d just like to give you props for your analysis, calling it first and so accurately. I’ve been reading the mailbag for as long as I can remember; I’d even say I’ve grown old with the mailbag – I’m 54 – but it’s more than a mailbag to me, it’s a look at how I’d like to present myself and a reminder of how to treat people. In particular, I love the way you show respect for your peers, offer a different perspective in scenarios where fighters are being disrespected, and generally promote good ethics and morals while offering insight on being a better person. I’m pretty certain you’d have emerged as a leader whatever your chosen profession (you’d have surely made a brilliant diplomat) and there’s actually only one living man I admire more than yourself – my son, Luke, a sports journalist who’s an amazing human being, so obviously I’d consider that great company! You’re a wise man Mr Edwards – keep up the great work. Wishing good health and fulfilment to you and your family.
Best regards,
Craig
Bread’s response: As I’ve gained life experience I’ve learned you can make a point without being disrespectful. I’ve learned if you start out on 100 you have no place to go but down with your reactions. I had a great childhood neighborhood. I didn’t know it at the time but it was a very bad place and I wouldn't want my kids raised there.
I noticed how people would lose their lives and freedom over pride. The reason being is because of disrespect. I have been in violent confrontations. The core reason has always disrespect. Even if there are other things on the surface, disrespect took place and pride festered.
I have taken a reserved approach over to boxing. People are too comfortable disrespecting others in boxing without getting punched in the mouth. Because of the social media outreach, disrespect happens often with immunity. I’m not a fan of it. So I just conduct myself the same way, no matter who I deal with, and it works for me.
Tell your son, stay on the good road and always listen to his Pops. No man will ever want more for him than you.
Send CONCISE questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com