In this week’s Daily Bread Mailbag, top trainer Stephen “Breadman” Edwards evaluates the future of upcoming heavyweight Richard Torrez and the returning Keith Thurman, he looks at the best assets possessed by the current top fighters, and also reveals some of the best pure boxing performances he can recall. 


Hey Bread, I may be in the minority, but I really think Richard Torrez can make some noise in the heavyweight division. He checks a lot of boxes for me; Olympian, southpaw, great hand speed, power and has that smaller heavyweight build (a la Oleksandr Usyk) that tells me he will have a pretty good motor. I can see him giving those large heavyweights real problems once he gets a little more experience. Granted, we haven't seen him really step up yet, but curious how you handicap Torrez? Do you see what I see? Thank you, Reid – Atlanta, GA

Bread’s Response: You know what, I like Richard Torrez. I don’t project him to be an ATG level fighter. But I do think he can get into the Ring top 10 rankings and stay there for a few years. I believe he can be a real contender and on the right night I believe he can be a world champion. 

The issue that Torrez has in my opinion, is the game doesn’t come easy enough for him. He has to really expend himself to get the job done at his current level and it will only get harder as he ascends. So Torrez’s matchmaking and management will have to be A+. 

Torrez is a guy that can’t go off script. He has to face specific opponents at specific times. What’s interesting is he seems intelligent and humble enough to stay on the script and do what he’s asked to do, without complaining too much about the speed of his progress. When fighters complain about their matchmaking, when the promoter is “taking care” of them, they usually get a rude awakening.

New write-in here Bread,

Lately I’ve been obsessed with guys who fell just under the big stars in the 80s/early 90s in terms of notoriety and popularity, but were very skilled and formidable, such as Nunn, Curry, McCallum, Toney, Norris etc. Can you go through each generation, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s-20s and name some guys who were just underneath the top guys of their era in terms of stardom and notoriety, but were close in talent and skill. Example, Linares under Loma or maybe a more recent example Roach and Davis. Also, I barely recall anyone writing in about Keith Thurman’s victory. A very frustrating fighter because there was potential for more. What is the next best route for him? I still want to see him vs Crawford and Spence, just to put a bow on that era. 

Bread’s response: I think Thurman’s next best move will be fighting Tim Tszyu. It’s a winnable fight and I believe it’s a huge payday for him. If he beats Tszyu, he’s playing with house money after that. 

I love talking about fighters who were elite and possibly great but were just under the superstar status. Ok I will start in the 70s and go up to the current day.

In the 70s Tyrone Everrett, Bennie Briscoe, Marvin Johnson and Rodrigo Valdes were those guys.

In the 80s Rocky Lockridge, Marlon Starling, Eusabio Pedraza, Sambu Kalambay, Simon Brown, Miguel “Happy” Lora , Antonio Esparragoza and Tim Witherspoon come to mind. 

In the 90s Orlando Canizales, Ricardo Lopez, Ike Quartey, Jose Luis Lopez, David Tua, Stevie Johnston.

In the 2000s Paulie Ayala, Rafael Marquez, Mikkel Kessler, Jose Luis Castillo and Cory Spinks.

In the 2010s Juan Estrada, Erickson Lubin, Julian Williams, Erislandy Lara, Steve Cunningham and Tony Harrison.

Happy Birthday. Breadman! Your mailbags are a constant presence in my life for the past 20 years or so. Thank you! All the best to you and to your family !Last week there was no mailbag on boxingscene.com. Has your mailbag found a new home? Please post an update on X if that's the case.Thank you,Tigran

Bread’s response: Thank you. My mailbag is still on boxingscene. It’s usually posted approximately 10:30am est. But last Saturday it was posted a little bit late.

Happy Birthday, Breadman, I love the mailbag and never miss an opportunity to read it. Quick question… Can or do trainers give young boxers ideas, techniques or tactics often used by savvy veterans? I always think of Lomachenko being taught the tricks of the trade during his first pro defeat. Are those “tricks” ignored by trainers with young boxers and learned through actual match experience against veterans? Does it make sense to teach veteran tactics to give the younger boxer an edge over the fighters they tend to face in their formative years? ‘til next time, BW

Bread’s Response: Heck yeah. I’ve taught several moves that I’ve seen past fighters do to young fighters. It’s how the game evolves. That’s why it’s hard to compare eras, because the fighter that comes along later gets to experiment with moves he’s seen great fighters from the past use.

Hey Breadman, This news is a couple of months old, and I cannot remember if you had a submission on this topic or not so I figure I’d submit this email anyways. I know that there’s been recent talks of a possible Klitschko comeback. He’s in his late 40s. If he wins a belt, he’d break George Foreman’s heavyweight record. What kind of shot does he have? As a coach and trainer, how is training an older boxer different from that of a younger? I know that there’s different peaks for boxers and they age differently. Biology. Genes. Wear and tear. Diet. Your lifestyle outside of the ring. It all plays a part. What do you look for that lets you know, “they’re past their best,” and how do you go about training them when they’re past it? Have you ever trained anyone professionally who was clearly past their best, possibly coming back from retirement?  And if not, would you ever consider doing it? I would think it would be very challenging. I know that it can be done. Pacquiao beating Thurman at 40 years old, considering the wars he was in, was astonishing. Big George’s comeback is possibly GOAT as far as comebacks are concerned. Hopkins’ run at light heavyweight and how he tamed younger boxers… What other examples of older boxers having success are there? Thanks.

Bread’s Response: I didn’t hear that Wladimir was coming back. I would guess he’s close to 50. He looked a little worn when he was getting stopped by Anthony Joshua eight years ago… But I would assume he still has “know how”. I think he could beat certain guys but I wouldn’t put him anywhere near a puncher. Wladimir had issues with aggressive punchers in his prime and when a fighter gets past his prime, his flaws become accentuated.

Just because a fighter gets older it doesn’t mean he’s past his prime. We all have to be careful with that. For example if a fighter has a bad day at 25, it’s just a bad day. But if he has a bad day at 35, the whispers of being past their prime starts.

To answer you directly, I think it takes longer to get them in shape once they approach 30. They also need more recovery and body maintenance. I also never say power is the last thing that goes in a fighter. Because power is connected to reaction time. If a fighter can’t react and take the open shots, it doesn’t matter how hard they punch because the punch won’t land. Reaction time also affects defense. So the thing I look for is how is their reaction time. I observe to see if they’re landing their money shots and money counters. When a fighter consistently misses opportunities that he used to be able to capitalize on, it’s usually a sign of slippage. But it’s important we don’t go crazy with over analyzing. We have to be patient with our observations. An off day, week or fight doesn’t always mean slippage. But if it’s a continuous thing, then slippage is most likely the issue. If a fighter is in a slump for a couple of years, it’s no longer a slump; it’s decline. In layman’s terms, “they can't pull the trigger anymore”.

When I first started out in boxing, I was young and my fighters were young. Now 15 years later, we are all 15 years older. As a trainer, that’s a good thing for me to gain 15 years of knowledge. But for most fighters after 15 years, slippage starts to creep in. It’s natural if they’re clean.

I would definitely train a fighter who is past their best, as long as they can compensate in other areas. But I won’t train a fighter who I feel is completely shot, there is a big difference. If a fighter has instincts, IQ and an elite processing mind, he can fight well past his physical prime because his mind makes up for it. 

We are in an era where the top handful of fighters in the world are over 30 and most are closer to 40 than 30. I say that to say,  guys like Usyk, Bud, Inoue, Bivol and Beterbiev may all be past the physical peak. But it’s hard for us to notice because their minds and instincts are so elite that a little physical slippage has not affected them one bit. But be mindful, because the guys I named are special and most won’t age that well.

There are too many fighters to name that have had success 35 and up. Floyd Mayweather beat Canelo at 36. Sugar Ray Robinson won the middleweight title five times and he was past his best day each time. Archie Moore didn’t become champion until he was 39. I could go on and on. But the fighters who stand out the most to me as far accomplishments and form at an advancing age are George Foreman, Archie Moore and Bernard Hopkins. 

Yo what’s good Bread. Got introduced to you when you and Caleb started working together and have been a fan ever since. In my opinion you are the top boxing mind in the sport today. I’ve got plenty of questions but I'll just leave it at two for now. I saw last week you mentioned Loma vs Linares as one of your favorite high skill fights and I am curious to know what are your top 10 favorite “boxing at its best” fights of all time? And lastly I recently moved to LA and looking for a new gym and not trying to fall off too much in the meantime. Any tips on staying sharp outside the gym? I’ve got access to a heavy bag, been shadow boxing, and running/lifting weights. Thanks for the time! Best, Yared

Bread’s Response: I’m more familiar with the gyms in Vegas than I am the gyms in LA. But if you get a chance, look up my cutman Mike Rodriguez. He started out as a trainer and he knows what he’s doing.

10 fights that display boxing at its best... Let’s see. 

Leonard vs Hearns 1. 

Leonard vs Benitez. 

Toney vs McCallum 1. 

Rigondeaux vs Donaire. 

Lomachenko vs Linares. 

Sanchez vs Nelson. 

Chocolatito vs Estrada 1 and 2. 

Curry vs Starling 2. 

Hagler vs Duran.

Whitaker vs McGirt 1.

Hi Breadman, thanks for the mailbag. Can GGG be considered a pressure fighter, and how good was he in his career? Thanks, Teixeira

Bread’s Response: Yes! GGG was surely a pressure fighter. He may get confused as a boxer-puncher because he had a great jab and he could box. If you look at his fights with David Lemiuex and Curtis Stevens he boxed them, softened them up, then stopped them. But GGG’s pro game evolved into a heavy-handed pressure technician style.

I have heard many opinions on unified middleweight champion Janibek Alimkhanuly. These opinions seem to be all over the map. I have heard speculation he is not special at all, I have heard he is the next king of boxing and everything in between. What do you think of Alimkhanuly? Thank you!

Bread’s response: I think Janibek is a very good fighter. He scares fighters in this era because he seems willing to fight anyone and fighters in this era are more businessman than fighting man. Janibek is a well rounded boxer puncher, with decent pop. But he’s not a terminator and the GGG comparisons are off. He fights more like Dmitri Pirog.

He’s not the puncher that GGG or Beterbiev were. He’s not as talented as Loma. And he’s not the pure boxer that Bivol is. But he’s well-rounded and well-rounded fighters get their stripes two ways. One is they beat a great or highly-acclaimed fighter. Or two, they remain consistent year after year until you look up and they’re on top of their division for several years.

Bernard Hopkins was a fighter that didn’t jump off the screen at the critics. So he beat a great fighter in Felix Trinidad and he reigned at middleweight for ten years. Marvin Hagler had to go through the same thing. He didn’t get his super props until he beat Tommy Hearns. I feel like Janibek is more well-rounded than he is dynamic. So it will take him some time to catch on unless he gets a great opponent in the ring and he shines.

Hey, what’s up Bread? Hope all is well with you and your family. There are two things I want to ask you about. One is with the news about the partnership with Dana White and Turki. Do you think that will be good for us fans, and also the fighters? On one hand I can see how it could be great for fans, since I think that the UFC does a better job at matching fighters, since there seems to be a lot more 50/50 fights on a more regular basis, and ducking seems to be non-existent, at least from my casual perspective. But, on the other hand, the UFC is notorious for underpaying their elite fighters compared to elite boxers. So, while this partnership has the potential to be good all around, I have become cynical and jaded towards the sport over the last few years, so I’m in a wait and see mindset at the moment. How do you feel about it?

And, my next question is about two of my favorite fighters. Manny Pacquiao is my all time favorite fighter, and Terence Crawford has been my favorite since I saw him beat Gamboa. And, though I get it why people have been skeptical about Pacquiao juicing, I have a similar opinion about it as you do, which is essentially without proof, it’s not worth debating. And, I’m definitely a little bummed that Bud has his opinion on Pacquiao not being an ATG, because of the suspicion of Manny juicing, which seems to be a 180 from Bud, since he has previously praised Pac. But, whatever. Anyway, my question is who do you think would win in a mythical match up between Bud and Pacquiao in their prime, at lightweight, junior welterweight, and welterweight? I look forward to your response. Take care. Mike, from Salt Lake City

Bread’s response: I have no idea how Dana White’s partnership will go with Turki Alalshikh. Let’s just wait and see. 

Terence Crawford has a right to his opinion just like all of us. I don’t think he disrespected Pacquiao. He’s just skeptical about Pacquiao’s performances. Head to head Manny Pacquiao doesn’t match up well with the bigger welterweights in history in my opinion. He may be a better P4P but a head to head fight is not a P4P analysis. I have a hard time seeing Pacquiao beat guys like Felix Trinidad, Donald Curry, Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard etc. Fighters who were great at welterweight and were big enough to win titles at 154 and/or 160. I know Pac beat Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, De La Hoya and Mosley. But I still see him struggling with those level guys on their best day. He’s small compared to them and I don’t think Pac struggled to make 140lbs, I think he moved up because of the money and opportunities. 

I also think there is a reason he didn’t fight Crawford when both were at Top Rank. So at welterweight I would’ve picked Crawford to win. However, at 135 or 140. It’s a coin flip. Manny is just so fast and off beat with his rhythm, I can see him giving Crawford fits. The Gamboa fight is a good example of how Crawford needed time to adjust to Gamboa’s rhythm and speed. Pacquiao is much better than Gamboa. More importantly his defense is better and his IQ is higher than Gamboa’s. So to be exact, I’m very comfortable with Crawford winning if they fought at 147lbs. But 135 and 140, I have no idea. The Pacquiao that fought David Diaz at 135 and the Pacquiao that fought Ricky Hatton at 140 is as good as any fighters I have seen around those weights. Pacman is right there with Pryor, Chavez, Whitaker, Mayweather etc etc at those weights on his best night. Crawford vs Pacquiao at 135 or 140 would’ve been a sensational fight.

Bread, Of all your experiences as a trainer, which would you describe as the most emotionally painful? What made it worse than others? Did you try to forget about it or you really dealt with it? Jeremy

Bread’s response: I don’t want to say which experience was most painful to me, because people are cruel and they will use your experiences against you on social media. But I will say that I can get over just about anything. With a strong mind and strong faith, a person who is a winner, will get over their hardships. I buckled down. I prayed. And I marched on to more success. I also occupied my time with my children and my other hobbies. I’ve been through a lot in my life. More than the average person. So those experiences forged a toughness in me and I’m not going to let the outcome of a boxing match “break” me.

Bread, hope all is well, brother! I wanted to ask two things, first off… last week’s bag, first comment was horrible. I truly believe people are so ignorant these days. Black this, white that, sucks. Colorblind is best! That clown was trying hard to bait you! I love the fact you didn’t waste a paragraph in response to his comment about race! Way to go! Thurman won vs Brock Jarvis, who I thought looked like a college linebacker, and I thought One Time looked good. Do you think he has much left? I want to believe with the hiatus of five years from boxing his body is preserved. Then again we all know that nobody has beat Father Time. Bernard came close though! Is Thurman capable of returning to the big stage for a few more fights? Also, I didn’t see Dan Birmingham. Tony Morgan was coaching him. Any idea why or what happened? I appreciate your unbiased and constructive criticism all day! Regards, Jon L. Aka NC Uppercut

Bread’s response: You guys should see some of the comments I have to delete! It’s mind boggling because all these guys who hate me so much have to do is not read the mailbag or follow me on social media. It’s so strange that a person would engage with a person they dislike. I mute or block at least one person every day that I may not like. But, Oh well…

Thurman did look good and whoever picked Jarvis for him did a good job matchmaking. Thurman is interesting because I never agreed with him taking off after big wins. But he rarely shows ring rust. It’s intriguing how he comes back in good form, time and time again. I don’t know if he will win the big fights, but if he wants the big fights, they will be available to him. Thurman is a very talented fighter, but he’s not the type of fighter that others duck. While talented he’s shown enough vulnerability to take a chance with him.

Off the dome… I’ve done a little more study and come to the conclusion Stanionis can’t beat Boots. It’s not happening. He’s overvalued in the public perception. He can’t outpoint Boots and he doesn’t hit hard enough to knock him out. Look at his record and look at the eye test, he’s the classic slower-twitch grinder who is more endurance than power and explosiveness. I liked his DAZN training footage a lot. He’s a real one for sure, but he’s like a less good Tim Bradley mould. My only question is whether Boots can stop him or not. I lean towards Boots on points as of now but I’m not done studying certain things. It’s interesting you mentioned Cotto in the mailbag. I was thinking the other day that the best version of the fight for Boots looks like Pacquiao-Cotto. The best version for Stanionis looks like Canelo-Saunders (but that ain’t happening).

I saw Crawford's comments. Those out of the ordinary type people often have strong opinions that can seem harsh or really out there. Imo Errol is a borderline HOF right now. If he comes back and does something significant he becomes a lock. It’s about that simple. He’s getting shaded a bit on recency bias because not many saw him losing as clearly as he did to Crawford before the fight happened. If I’m right, Errol’s the type of dude that it will motivate him. Personally, I don’t know if I would vote for him, the way my forensic works when I look at these things is he was a big welterweight who a lot of the guys he beat came up from smaller weight divisions. Beating name fighters or former alphabet champions is overrated by most, timing and weight are huge factors. The Manny and Floyd PED questions are a huge rabbit hole – you've reopened a can of worms! 

I’ve wrote to you about soccer referees in England before. Funny enough they've done a similar thing, they are called PGMOL which stands for Professional Game Match Officials Limited, which makes them sound as some sort of proper organisation when they are anything but professional with released audio of their comms showing them calling each other 'mate' and by nicknames and so forth. I don't know if you are right about the reasons for UK and US titles or not. I can say that from an outside perspective the US is way more money focused than seemingly any other country on Earth. I'm not sure it's about money for British titles; there is a lot of history with that belt. It is crazy you know sometimes when I see Americans give opinions about the UK they are almost always off and often way off. You guys look really weird to the rest of the world sometimes. I don't want to spend ages going into it but I'll just say I don't mean it in a derogatory way. In a way it can both be your strength and your weakness if that makes sense. Discipline is a skill that can be developed in my opinion. I agree older eras probably had deeper fields. A lot of defense isn't even taught nowadays. I was lucky to have some good coaches and even a proper old-timer who might have been 90 when I met him. I think I mentioned him before I’d found a fighter I’d never heard of before named Curtis Cokes on YouTube. I was amazed at how good he was and his craft/skillset. For sure he would be a champion today, yet he doesn't even seem that widely known or talked about from back then. I respect your opinions and the way you conduct yourself greatly too. I'm not trying to argue with you or be right or anything. It's just my outside perspective, hopefully it adds some value. Boots looks more like an accumulation type stoppage fighter than a lights out knockout type fighter to me. Yes loading up hurts him.I have a secret trick I've been keeping to myself that I haven't told anyone. You might like to try in film study with your fighters. I don't know if you ever did this but if you watch a fight at 2x speed for a while like at least 15 minutes, then go back to normal speed you see everything happening way slower like a cheat code. You can see everything before it happens. It's really crazy what the human brain can do, try it out if you haven't you'll like it! I use it if I'm going to bet on a fight sometimes. It's easy to do on youtube in the video settings. I had the thought that if I trained fighters I would have them watch tape of their opponents at 2x speed like this so on fight night they'll have an advantage. Don't tell anyone. It was always my understanding that Ali and Foreman were due to rematch, but Foreman lost the fight before that was supposed to set it up.

Bread’s Response: Shorten up your emails. I didn’t open up anything about Manny and Floyd. I just answer the questions that I’m asked. And questions about Manny and Floyd, spike the algorithm. So….

But I’m glad you wrote in about Boots vs Stanionis. I think Boots will win. But the key in my opinion is how well Boots defends after his violent offensive outburst. Stanionis is a dog. He has loads of character and he doesn’t stop trying to win. He has good hands up defense and he executes sneaky attacks off of his defense. Because Karen had some success with Boots, I’m assuming that Team Stanionis will take some pages from that book and attempt to make a better script. So Boots will have to improve from his form in the last Karen fight. 

I like Boots to win but I don’t want to be firm on how, because I suspect he may box more and fight with more finesse instead of fire. But he’s a killer at heart and I know he likes knockouts. I also know Boots doesn’t want to go the distance in two fights in a row. I’m interested to see how he performs and what style he decides to choose.

I also have a couple more keys to the fight. Boots's jab. Staninios keeps his hands up and in. So I can see Boots slamming a jab through his guard early. Also Staninios, while very tough, has brittle skin. I'm curious to see if his face holds up to those eight ounce gloves that Boots will be wearing.

Hello Breadman, First of all thank you again for doing the mailbags. We appreciate you. I have a follow-up from my recent mail about best punches of fighters. You see, I've thought for years now that Floyd Mayweather Jr's single best talent isn't his defense, nor his handspeed as most people would probably say. It's in his mentality and his ability to be the calmest person in the building even though he's in the middle of a fight - his composure. Go look at when it kicked off in the ring in the Zab Judah fight, and Floyd was the only one completely still focused and locked in... Literally the calmest person in the whole building despite the chaos and despite needing to fight in the process... So I thought it would be fun and interesting to ask you what you'd say is the single best attribute of the fighters on your recent p4p list? And if there are any standout, unusual or non-obvious ones that come to mind about past greats please share those too! Much Respect

Bread’s response: I love this question.
Crawford’s ability to thread the needle is insane. In the middle of an exchange Crawford has the ability to concentrate and land clean punches to the head and body. Crawford in my opinion is a hard puncher but I don’t view him to have Tito Trinidad or Tommy Hearns level power. But he’s a KO artist because he knows how to hit opponents in their most vulnerable moment, and that moment is when they’re throwing a punch. Crawford is the best counter body puncher since Mike McCallum.

Usyk’s ability to stay within himself is his best attribute. He literally fights the whole fight with his hands up, and he’s always probing with his hands and feet. Usyk is not as dynamic offensively as Bud or Inoue but his ability to stay within himself makes him arguably the best of this era.

Inoue is the best at mixing his skill with his athleticism while staying fundamentally sound. Oftentimes we see fighters who are skillful but not athletic. Then we see fighters who are athletic but they lack skill. Inoue mixes both as good as I have seen.

Bivol’s humility is his best attribute. He knows what he is in the ring and he sticks to it. He doesn’t take unnecessary chances or do stupid things to give his opponent success. Some call it boring, but I call it winning.

Beterbiev’s ability to literally put his hands on you is his gift. He knows he punches hard. But if you look at him he never, ever loads up on shots. He just wants to make contact and he snaps the punch right at the end. So he’s one of those power punchers who lands his good shots because he doesn’t load up.

Canelo Alvarez’s anticipation reflexes are just sick. Canelo is so calm because he knows you can’t hit him clean in combination. If you look at him he blocks or defuses just about every punch. Because of this defensive confidence, he compensates what he may lack in other areas. He never gets rattled because he knows, he most likely won’t get stopped. James Toney was the same way.

Bam Rodriguez’s timing is elite. He doesn’t look ultra fast. But he’s always fast enough.

David Benavidez’s fighting spirit seems to be on the level of guys like Evander Holyfield. Benavidez does not allow his opponents to gain any momentum because he challenges their spirit to fight through pain, fatigue, fear of getting KOd and everything else that goes through a fighter’s mind in the ring. Anyone can lose but the fighter who beats Benavidez, will have to be special on that night, because he’s not going to give them anything. Benavidez was hurt vs Morrell. But while he was hurt and/or shortly afterwards, he was the one attacking.

Junto Nakatani is elite but I have to study him more. I don’t want to make up something for the sake of it. I want to be accurate, so get back to me on him.

Boots Ennis has a very creative offensive imagination. He’s willing to try distinct punch variations and attacks in real fights that most guys would not chance. It’s worked for him so far but I’m curious to see if he will tone down his attack as he rises in level of competition.


Send Questions & Comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com