Before I get into ranking their list, let me say it’s important to be respectful and remember that lists are subjective. I would say Max’s list was the best and most like mine. I didn’t see one fighter on Max’s list that I thought didn’t belong, Max’s list is not terrible, it’s actually solid. Each fighter he listed has a case for being there. However, I was surprised that Max didn’t have Ezzard Charles, Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Leonard and Roy Jones on his list. 

Charles is the best light heavyweight ever. And his run from 1943-51 is as good as anyone’s run in boxing history. Charles fought in the 1940s and he was overshadowed by Robinson, Pep and Louis. But he was every bit as good and his competition may have been stiffer.

In an era where the greatest fighters had over 100 fights also had dozens of losses, Willie Pep, like Ray Robinson at his peak, had one of the best records in history. Pep was 134-1-1 before the losses started piling up. Pep has a case for being the best pure boxer in history.

Sugar Ray Leonard was the best fighter of possibly the best era (the 1980s) in boxing history. He was a gold medalist in a ridiculously tough Olympics (1976), and he has the best collection of Mt Rushmore scalps in boxing history – Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler. 

Roy Jones Jnr beat seven hall of famers. On top of that he’s the bridge between Pernell Whitaker and Floyd Mayweather. I saw Roy next to both of them in their primes in real time. Roy’s prime coincided with the back end of Whitaker’s prime and the front end of Floyd’s. I thought Roy was slightly over both. I’m not saying Max’s list is wrong but I am saying I’m just surprised that those four fighters were not included on his list.

Coming in next after Max was Shady McCoy’s list. I thought his list was solid and I understand where he was coming from. Shady is not a historian. He’s an athlete turned analyst who’s watching boxing from his personal lens. He doesn’t really rate fighters before the 1970s, which is his choice. If we were doing a list from 1970 on, then I think Shady’s list would be very good. But the list was an all-time list, so Shady missed the point slightly, but Shady did have some similar names to my list. So again, I thought his list was pretty good to only include fighters of the last 50 years. However, I do wish Shady would be more open minded in terms of the old timers and black-and-white video. I wish he listened to Max a little bit more in terms of assessing the fighters who fought before the 1970s in proper context. There should never be a top 10 pound-for-pound list without Sugar Ray Robinson – ever.

Malik Scott is my bro and he’s a person I really have mad respect and love for in boxing. But Malik’s list was the one I had the hardest time understanding. When something is subjective, you can’t say it’s wrong. But Malik’s list was very puzzling to me and it surprised me because I know he’s a student of the game. I know it was an all-time pound-for-pound list but it seemed as though Malik picked fighters he enjoys studying more so than who’s actually the pound-for-pound best.

When you guys ask me to do this it forces me to say something not so positive about great fighters. And while I can’t remember Malik’s list man for man. having Bob Foster in his top five or six over Muhammad Ali completely lost me.

I love Bob Foster as a fighter and he’s a top 10 light heavyweight. But I can’t imagine him being a top five or six fighter ever under any metric. Foster is the tallest light heavyweight champion in history, standing at 6ft 3ins with a 79-inch reach and was a huge puncher. But he still lost too many times above the light-heavyweight limit for my liking when he was not out of depth because of his size and power. He didn’t just lose, either – he was often dominated and stopped. And again he was not a small light heavyweight. The heavyweights of his era were often below 200lbs and roughly 6ft even. 

In context, there have been a few historic fights between light-heavyweight greats challenging great heavyweights. Tunney vs Dempsey; Gene Tunney was not a world champion at light heavyweight but he was clearly the best light heavyweight in the world before he moved up to heavyweight. Tunney did an excellent job against heavyweights, including defeating the great Jack Dempsey twice.

Next up is Louis versus Conn. Oftentimes, to Louis’s discredit, the Conn fight gets brought up. Conn was outboxing Louis. So when some hear the Ali versus Louis comparison they bring up how Conn was outboxing Louis for 12 rounds. But that’s not my point. My point is Billy Conn fought his butt off. He gave a monumental effort versus an all-time great fighter in Joe Louis. A bigger and better effort than Foster ever gave in any of his heavyweight fights.

Next up is Marciano versus Charles/Moore. Both Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore gave Rocky Marciano a hard day at the office. Moore dropped him, and Charles took him the distance once and in the other fight he cut him so badly Marciano needed a KO or else the fight would’ve been stopped in Charles’s favor.

After that we have Spinks versus Holmes. Michael Spinks scored one of the biggest wins in boxing history, defeating the great Larry Holmes to win the title.

Now let’s look at Foster. I forgive him losing to Joe Frazier inside of two rounds. That Frazier would most likely do that to any light heavyweight in history who dared to challenge him. But Foster was also beaten by Doug Jones, who was actually better than him but couldn’t get a title shot at light heavyweight. Zora Folley was a solid heavyweight but not close to being a great fighter. And Ernie Terrell who was a very good champion but not close to being an all-time great.

More telling is Foster faced Muhammad Ali, who was last on Malik’s list, from what I remember. Ali toyed with Foster, dropped him seven times, and knocked him out. For as extensive as Ali’s resume was, his victory over Foster is rarely talked about. The Foster fight is sort of dismissed because Ali dominated Foster so conclusively. We must note Ali dominated Foster in the middle of Foster’s reign as light-heavyweight champion and Ali had just lost to Frazier the year before.

Foster simply fell apart when he faced men who were a little heavier than him. His losses were too bad and I never saw him give the effort the other great light heavyweights did even in their losses. And by reasonable reasoning, I can’t understand how Foster can be higher on any all-time great list than Ali, given all that we know about both. Foster has a case for being top five at light heavyweight but top five ever is tough to rationalize given what I just stated. Again, I can’t remember everyone that was on Malik’s list, but Foster being on there and over Ali stands out to me. 

I would have liked for Max, Shady and Malik to explain each fighter on their list and why. Then I could’ve got a better understanding of their perspectives. 

Here is mine, off the top of my head…

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Roberto Duran
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Roy Jones Jnr
9. Willie Pep
10. Joe Louis

Honorable mention to the greats who could easily be in the top 10 – Floyd Mayweather, Pernell Whitaker, Harry Greb, Manny Pacquiao, Tony Canzoneri and Salvador Sanchez. Greb’s resume may be the best ever. But there is no footage of his fights. I actually have a hard time not having Mayweather and Whitaker outside of my top 10, and if you asked me this on a different day they most likely would’ve been included.

I didn’t mention Terence Crawford because he literally just retired and I’m still trying to quantify where he is exactly. That’s very hard to do when a fighter is still active or recently retired because the assessment is fluid. I need a little more time to place Crawford and I don’t want to misplace him. Respect to Max, Shady and Malik. They got the boxing world buzzing with their list. It makes for interesting banter.

Dear keen observer of the sweet science,

I live here in Las Vegas. I work with a guy very connected to Andy Ruiz. Why on earth is the only Mexican heavyweight being frozen out of fights the last three years? He should be on the cards with Canelo, David Benavidez, Ryan Garcia, for gosh sake He knocked out A.J. Who did he anger in the boxing boardrooms? Everyone and then some are fighting in the heavyweight division. I’ve even suggested that Andy bet on himself and put on his own fights, or at least fight at below market value for a series of fights on Turki’s promotions or MVP’s. He’s wasting away doing nothing. If Chisora, Whyte, Wallin, Franklin, Parker, Zhang, Sanchez, Anderson can get good fights, why not Andy? Is it all self-inflicted or a mixture of both? There are so many heavyweights across the pond in the top 20 he can stay busy with and beat. Please give an explanation.

Chad, in Vegas (minutes away from Mayweather’s Gym)

Bread’s response: I really don’t know what happened with Andy Ruiz. He beat Anthony Joshua. Lost the rematch. And he seemed to lose all of his career momentum. If I knew what happened, I would say it but I have no idea how he hasn’t been in bigger fights since Joshua. Good question. I wish I had an answer but I don’t.

Hi Breadman,

Following on from your last mailbag and the discussions on Sheeraz. You mentioned Sheeraz doesn’t remind you of Hearns, and that you believe he will be a world champion by the end of 2026. I will not dispute either of those opinions. I think Sheeraz is a supreme talent. I do, however, believe his team needs to keep him far away from Mbilli, which appears to have been mandated. Whether or not Sheeraz reminds you of Hearns, this has Hagler-Hearns written all over it in my opinion. The heavy-handed, iron-chinned pressure fighter versus the tall, lanky, one-shot power puncher. This only ends one way, in my opinion – with Mbilli a bigger and better version of Adames, who gave Sheeraz fits. 

Bread’s response: I didn’t mean it as an insult that Sheeraz doesn’t fight like Hearns. Hearns sets up a certain way for a tall fighter. Roger Mayweather, Mark Breland and Bob Foster all set up in a similar way to Hearns. Sheeraz sets up more like Diego Corrales or, better yet, Alexis Arguello. They like the mid range a little more.

I like the way Sheeraz has rebounded after the Adames draw. I think Sheeraz looks good at 168lbs. I can see you’re very high on Mbilli and it’s well deserved. But I’m not so sure that Mbilli beats Sheeraz. Mbilli’s work-rate and chin are real. But there are openings. And every fighter with Mbilli’s style is susceptible to KOs, because they come in a way where when they do get hit, it’s like a head-on collision because they move into the punch. I thought Lester Martinez had a chance to clip Mbilli late but it was only a 10-round fight, which favored Mbilli. I would love to see it but I suspect Sheeraz will go after Diego Pacheco first. Let’s see what happens.

Hi Bread, 

Happy holidays to you and your family. Long-time reader; first time writing in. My main question is who do you think would have won if Kelly Pavlik and Arthur Abraham fought when both were undefeated middleweight champions in the late 2000s? Pavlik was a big, strong, high-volume puncher who was there to be hit. Abraham was more conservative with his output, but I think he was the bigger puncher and had the sturdier chin. Pavlik was more of a come-forward fighter, whereas Arthur was a very good counter-puncher. You’ve said the puncher in a fight is the one who takes the opponent’s shots better, and I think that’s Abraham. I can see Pavlik winning a decision, or an Abraham stoppage. I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Big respect to you, and keep up the fantastic work. 

Rob, Shenzhen, China

Bread’s response: Man, this is a tough one. They were in the same era; I wish they would’ve fought. Both seemed to be murderous at 160lbs but at 168lbs neither had quite the physicality. I’ve actually thought about this match-up before. On some days I say Pavlik’s jab would’ve been too much for Abraham’s hands-up defense. But on other days I think to myself that Abraham may have hit a little too hard for Pavlik, who had a solid chin but was hit very clean. 

I really don’t know who wins this fight. It’s a true pick-‘em fight. I agree with you that Abraham was a little more sturdy and he had better single shot power. But a fight doesn’t have to end in a KO. It could possibly go the distance. Both were very hard to stop and Abraham’s low output would make it hard for him to win a decision over the busy Pavlik, who was always dedicated to his jab.

Hey Breadman, 

I was wondering how annoying is it to be sitting ringside watching a fight and the two guys sitting next to you leaning forward talking through the whole fight? I’m asking because Triple GGG was the guy in the middle and didn’t look to happy. I also noticed that he left in the middle of the “Monster” Inoue fight.

Bread’s response: It’s very annoying. What’s also annoying is people who are privileged to get ringside seats to fights and the whole fight they’re looking at their phone instead of the fight. Why go to the fight if you’re going to be on your phone watching social media? We live in a very strange world these days.

Hello Steven,

Enjoyed your mailbag last weekend, as always. Your top 90s pound-for-pound list was fair, although in my opinion De La Hoya was way too low, but that’s what these types of list are all about. Which brings me to my question. Do you rank Jeff Fenech in the 80s pound-for-pound top 10? If not, where do you place him? Also, what is your top-10 80s pound-for-pound list? 

Steven

Bread’s response: I love Oscar the fighter. And after I did my list I was surprised that Oscar was so low, but that’s how it came out. I love Jeff Fenech. I would rank him a top-10 pressure fighter of the 1980s. I would also rank him a top-10 fighter from 126lbs and below. But not overall. The 1980s is the second-best decade ever in boxing history, and it’s very hard to break through as a top-10 fighter of that decade. Once you see my list you will understand.

1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Michael Spinks
5. Julio Cesar Chavez
6. Mike Tyson
7. Tommy Hearns
8. Aaron Pryor
9. Larry Holmes
10. Evander Holyfield

Just look how stacked the decade is. Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Azumah Nelson, Mike McCallum, Eusebio Pedraza and Wilfredo Gomez are all on the outside looking in. It’s literally no room for Fenech.

Good day,

Up until just a few years ago, the welterweight division was very deep and featured the likes of Crawford, Spence, Thurman, Porter, Ugas, old man Manny, and Danny Garcia, among others.   How well do you rate that particular welterweight era? Especially compared to the other great welterweight eras since the advent of color TV?

Bread’s response: That was a very solid welterweight division. And it rates pretty good relative to other eras. It’s definitely better and deeper than this current welterweight division.

The best welterweight eras I have seen since color TV…

1. Leonard-Hearns-Duran-Cuevas-Benitez-Palomino. That particular era produced six HOFs. That’s unreal for any era.
2. Whitaker-Quartey-De La Hoya-Trinidad-Carr-Campas. This era produced three HOFs and some very serious contenders and champions.
3. Mayweather-Pacquiao-Cotto-Margarito-Mosley. This was a rough era that produced two of the best fighters ever.
4. Crawford-Spence-Thurman-Manny-Garcia-Porter. This era was better than people watching it in real time realized. The only critique is it took Crawford-Spence too long to happen.
5. Curry-Starling-Brown-Breland-Honeyghan. This era didn’t have many HOF besides Curry. But you had to be elite to ascend in it.

Sup Bread,

I like Nakatani, although I never thought if he and Inoue fought at the same weight it would be particularly close. So in walks Hernandez. I’d never heard of the guy. I really only watched the fight to see if I’d missed something everyone else seemed to see in regards to Nakatani’s purported pound-for-pound talent. Let me also say I didn’t score the fight, but it seemed to me that Hernandez walked away with it in the second half. I don't want to be unfair to Nakatani. He got his shots in, too. But the unrelenting-and-suffocating aggression of Hernandez broke the tie for me in any close rounds. Who did you think won the fight? This brings me on to my follow up – bias going in clouding objectivity. For example, when I watched Haney vs Loma, I thought Haney won. When I rewatched it I was fairly convinced he lost. The reason I had it for him the first time is because he did way better than I had expected, and I let that cloud my judgement. Do you think I did the same with Hernandez? What are historical examples where you feel Joe Public fell into this same trap Thanks, as always, for your brilliant mailbag.

Omar, London

Bread’s response: You know something I’ve learned? Scoring a fight is different from observing a fight. Knowledgeable people will observe a fight and score it based on who impressed them the most and not actually score it round by round with a pen and paper. I’ve always been transparent when I didn’t score fights with a pen and paper because I know what happens. In fact, it happened to me a few weeks ago. I score the Roach-Cruz fight for ProBoxTV. I didn’t card count; I didn’t try remember who I scored a round for. I simply watched the round, scored it and moved on to the next round. At the end of the fight, I thought Roach had won. But when they tallied up my scorecard, they told me I scored it a draw. I surprised myself but I know that’s how you’re supposed to score a fight. 

In Nakatani vs Hernandez, I didn’t have a pen and paper. But I did watch it intently. There were about two or three swing rounds that were very hard to score. But from an objective observation I have an easier time giving the fight to Hernandez than I do Nakatani. The fight most likely should’ve been a draw. It was a very tough fight to score but Hernandez had the better, more consistent, moments in my opinion.

I didn’t have expectations because this was my first time seeing Hernandez fight. I always thought Junto was the truth, but times tells all. While he’s very effective with fighters who can’t get inside of his reach and/or can’t take his punch, he just showed serious vulnerability to being crowded and forced to fight inside. Now the question is was Hernandez undervalued, or is a lack of inside fighting an issue for Nakatani? Again, time will tell.

Inoue-Nakatani next is the elephant in the room. I think it’s clear that Inoue is on a higher tier. Matching Nakatani and Hernandez killed some of the lustre off the proposed super fight. The odds will be over 75/25 in Inoue’s favor. But I only have it 60/40 in Inoue’s favor. Inoue fights nothing like Hernandez. And Nakatani is very creative and sudden with his counter punches and attacks. Inoue is very susceptible when he disengages after he attacks, or when he’s not first in an exchange. Nakatani may not be more talented, twitchy or as fast as Inoue. But he has a skill set and punch that can KO Inoue. Stylistically this can be a difficult for Inoue.

Last week you answered several questions about Jake Paul but the mailbag had no mention of Inoue or Nakatani and both are on the pound-for-pound list. I love your mailbag but I don’t get how you prioritize what goes into the bag? Don’t turn casual on us, Bread.

Bread’s response: You’re sounding dumber by the sentence. The reason you didn’t see anything about Nakatani or Inoue in last week’s mailbag is because no one wrote in about them. I can control what gets submitted to the editor but I have no control over what you guys write in to me. 

I got more questions about Jake Paul than I did Monster Inoue. It’s unfortunate but don’t put that on me. If you want to ask a question about an upcoming fight that is important to you, write in. Early in the week I might add.

Greetings, Breadman,

Happy new year to you and your family. I hope 2026 is a great year for big fights and Lopez vs Shakur is a great start! I had two questions that I wanted to get your personal experience and thoughts on. I wanted to ask you something from a trainer’s perspective. You’ve been a lead or co-trainer for a lot of fighters over the years, so I’m curious how you think about team dynamics. Have you ever brought in another trainer for a fight – or would you consider it – if you felt the fighter needed a different voice or perspective at that point in their career? How do you decide when that helps versus when it might cause confusion? I know the “too many chefs in the kitchen” issue is real, but I can also see situations where the right additional voice could be valuable. I’d really appreciate hearing your thoughts on that. 

As someone with a deep understanding of boxing’s history, along with your experience as a trainer and a lifelong fan of the sport, I’m curious about your perspective on longevity in boxing. Have you ever felt burned out or felt the need to step away for a short period of time? With the controversies, judging decisions, and inevitable disappointments that come with the sport, do you ever find it necessary to take a few days or weeks away to reset in a sport and job that is such a big part of your life? Thank you for the weekly mailbags throughout the years.

Kind regards, Eman from Los Angeles

Bread’s response: This is a very good question. Personally I’ve only brought in another trainer once, back in 2014. The reason I did was because of communication. I wanted to bring someone in who I had good communication with. Someone who didn’t clash with me on different perspectives. Even if we didn’t agree on something, we could respectfully overcome it. The trainer also had a very good relationship with the fighter and that was also very important to me. I knew we would work good together before we started training together because I knew the trainer personally. 

Other than that, I have suggested certain strength coaches but I’ve never brought anyone else in as far as in the gym, boxing training. This specific situation I speak of worked very well but it was my call. On the other hand, I’ve had fighters who decided to bring other people in to help train and it didn’t work out as good compared to when I brought someone in. So I’ve learned from those experiences. Basically, I want it to be my call, because as the head trainer I have to have chemistry with the trainer being brought in so we can work together. And trust that I won’t be undermined if I say something he doesn’t agree with. I see dissent among so many teams. And the biggest reason usually is the trainers don't get along.

Send comments and questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com