In this week’s mailbag, coach Stephen Edwards talks about the next possible steps for Terence Crawford, looks ahead to some of the big fights in the 2025 calendar, reflects on some great “short fights” and gives props to Steve Collins and Felix Trinidad.
Are you and Sean Zittel friends? He seems fond of you but I don’t know the extent of your relationship. I wanted your thoughts on him as a person in the media who can push boxing in a positive direction. I also wanted to know what you thought of his questions towards Dana White concerning the Ali Act. He also made a comment that a black fighter from an urban place in America is usually the best fighter in the world. Where are you on all things related?
Bread’s response: I really like and respect Sean Zittel. I think he’s the best in the game right now as far as boxing social media figures. But I wouldn’t say we are friends. I would say we are colleagues that have mutual respect for each other. He understands boxing. He knows what he’s looking at. And he’s objective without being insulting.
I think he’s going to be doing a telecast ala Max Kellerman in the near future. I thought Sean showed a tremendous amount of courage asking Dana White the questions he did. But Dana didn’t answer them so I don’t want to comment further. I would like to see Dana give Sean an interview so we can see where Sean was going with his initial line of questioning. Other than that I don't have much to say because their interaction was too brief.
Sean was 100% correct about the Black American fighter usually being the best in the world despite a push to elevate others. And I am a person who had or has no issue with non -black fighters being the P4P #1. For example when Chocolatito was named #1 P4P I didn’t protest because Andre Ward was inactive, Floyd Mayweather was semi-retired and Terence Crawford was still a new champion making his mark. But overall I have noticed a push to make other fighters the world’s best when there were viable Black American fighters who had cases.
I have believed for the last four or five years Terence Crawford was the #1 fighter in the world. Before Crawford it was Andre Ward. Before Ward it was Floyd Mayweather. Before Floyd it was Bernard Hopkins. Before Hopkins it was Roy Jones. Before Jones it was Pernell Whitaker. Before Whitaker it was Mike Tyson. Before Mike Tyson it was Marvin Hagler. Before Hagler it was Sugar Ray Leonard. Before Leonard it was Muhammad Ali. Before Ali it was Sugar Ray Robinson. Before Robinson it was Henry Armstrong.
For arguments sake there have been some small windows where I believe fighters like Roberto Duran, Carlos Monzon, Julio Cesar Chavez and Vasyl Lomachenko had legitimate claims as the world’s best. Like today Olelsandr Usyk and ‘Monster’ Inoue have those same solid claims. But for the most part, the Black American fighter is the best in the world, or he has the strongest claim. Yet the Black American fighter does not get promoted like he’s historically the best in the world.
Terence Crawford didn’t get his superfights until most fighters start to slip physically. Crawford was 35 when he fought Spence and 37 when he fought Canelo. Had Crawford got bigger fights earlier in his career that his talents warrant, he would’ve achieved this status long ago. But he literally outfought the system of boxing. I really believe the powers that be in boxing push fighters they want to be great, instead of allowing the fighters to show us who’s great. If they just allowed the fighters to settle it in the ring, boxing would be a better place. I believe that Sean feels the same way and that’s why he made the statement about the Black American fighter.
The United States has won more boxing championships than any other country. The United States has the second most active professional boxers in the world. All of the arguable GOATs are Americans. The few that aren’t had to come to America to prove themselves. So why don’t Americans care? Why is boxing essentially absent from United States television? I think it’s time to admit American boxing promoters have failed their country and their sport. Bob Arum, Oscar De La Hoya, Don King and Al Haymon should be ashamed of themselves. They have done a bad job for decades. We deserve better and the American boxers deserve better. Why are there four titles? American promoters didn’t think two was enough. Why are there seventeen weight classes? Because American promoters didn’t think eight was enough. Why did televised boxing die? Because American promoters took control of it. They didn’t want their cash cows in competitive fights and everyone stopped watching. Why did the world’s best boxer, Terence Crawford, go his entire career without recognition? Because he was labelled as unmarketable by his own promoter and the other American promoters refused to even acknowledge his existence on television. I hear people ask all the time “where are all the American heavyweights?” The two best American heavyweights want to fight each other. Don King, from the shadows of irrelevance, is preventing it from happening with legal action. And since I haven’t mentioned him yet: Oscar De La Hoya spends more time tearing down his own fighters than promoting them. He’s not a promoter, he’s a bored rich guy with nothing else to do. He’s a narcissist who can’t stand when others get more attention than he does. I ask you, distinguished American boxing trainer… am I right? Is American boxing irrelevant because these characters just don’t know what they’re doing? Or is there another reason? Thank You!
Bread’s response: You’re NOT wrong that American boxing has plummeted. But I don’t know if EVERYTHING is on the promoters, although they should share some of the blame. Sometimes things can go wrong without a specific person or entity being the sole blame.
I think promoters saw other promoters have success without sacrificing their big stars. So they said to themselves why should I put my best guy in 50/50 fights, when the other guys don’t. Then somewhere along the way, nationality and race became more important than talent. You’re correct about Terence Crawford. It’s no way he should have had to wait until he was 35 to be a superstar. I personally rate Crawford as ATG because he OUTFOUGHT the system of boxing. Which is harder to beat than a specific opponent. Most fighters just fall off because of natural attrition when they get denied opportunities like Crawford was denied. It’s a testament to his will power and self belief that he stuck with it so long.But back to BOXING in general.
I think the people who run boxing as a whole became misguided and lazy. They put fighters in favorable positions because they were deemed marketable, instead of making sure they could fight. If a fighter who fits this marketable label can fight, I have no issue with them being in the limelight. But don’t put a limited talent in the superstar realm when their talent doesn’t warrant it. Now things have become so bad, most of the promoters are not signing new talent. That’s straight laziness. How can the sport carry on if new talent is not being signed?
Fighters who were superstars in their primes, 20 and 30 years ago, wouldn’t be able to make the kind of money they make today for exhibitions if the boxing world produced mega fights on a consistent basis. But the public is more willing to spend money on fighters they know rather than fighters they don’t know.
In the 1980s boxing was bigger than it ever was. It’s why we still talk about the Four Kings. The 90s piggybacked off of that. But something happened in the 2000s. When the US stopped winning gold medals, boxing’s marketability in the states went down. That’s no coincidence. When things aren’t broken, it’s no need to overhaul the system.
Go back to the old ways of promoting the fighters and put a social media twist on it and let it be. If the promoters don’t start developing new talent, then boxing will be DONE in America. I hope this doesn’t happen, but something will have to change.
I also don’t want to point a finger at who did wrong. It really doesn’t matter who did wrong. Let’s just fix it. Sign new talent. Stop putting lesser talented fighters in the forefront because of their nationality or race and let the best fighters earn their status. Put boxing back on free TV. Make the mandatory fights real fights. Suspend poor judges. Stop the fake war against PEDS and suspend fighters and their teams for infractions. Stop starting the main events after 11pm EST.
Hope all is well sir. I know you were a big Trinidad fan. I would love to hear some insight on his abilities as a fighter. Like maybe some of his offensive/defensive nuances that maybe get overlooked because all people remember was a devastating puncher. I often catch myself finding little things he did when watching his highlights that tell me he was very smart at setting traps with feints and subtle defensive movements. One thing I always noticed is how he would defend a jab or right hand by moving his upper body ever so slightly to the left and in that same movement countering with a left hook. It was just beautiful. Would love to hear it from your perspective. Thanks for the mailbag every week! Angel.
Bread’s response: Tito Trinidad in my opinion is an ATG. He’s one of the best 10 fighters of the 90s. One of the top 2 or 3 fighters from Puerto Rico. He’s one of the best 10-15 welterweights ever. And he’s one of the top 10 junior middleweights ever.
I thought Tito had subtle defensive moves that allowed him to get his more prevalent offense off. He stepped over and stepped around to avoid shots. He kept his hands up at all times. And yes you’re correct, he would tilt back at the waist often to avoid shots. I think Tito was one of those fighters who got everything out of his ability. He was always in position to throw his power shots. He was fast. And he was powerful. He would’ve been a killer in any era. I can watch him fight all day long, he was an offensive machine and he never got gun shy when he was hurt. Stand up Tito!
Bread, I was a big fan of Steve Collins. I'm not sure I can think of another boxer that got more out of his natural ability than he did. A two part question, how do you think he would've done against Joe Calzaghe? Do you think he would've given Roy Jones any trouble? He seemed hell bent on facing him but it never happened.
Bread’s response: Steve Collins finished his career on a great run. He only lost to elite fighters in Mike McCallum, Sambu Kalambay and Reggie Johnson. And only McCallum beat him decisively. He was a physically strong, clever, volume fighter. Some people say he caught Eubank and Benn on the down slide. But Eubank was undefeated when Collins beat him….
Collins doesn’t jump out to my eyes on film. But I acknowledge he may be one of those guys who’s sum total is greater than his parts. With fighters like Collins, they have to get the fights in order to get appreciated. He doesn’t appear to be able to beat Calzaghe or Jones but who knows. I say no he wouldn’t have beat them but again, that’s why they fight, the fights.
For the record, I think Collins should’ve fought Calzaghe who was emerging as a force when Collins retired and if I’m not mistaken, Calzaghe won Collins’ vacant title. And in contrast, I think Roy Jones should’ve fought Collins. I’m a big RJ fan. And I agree with RJ for not traveling to fight Darius Michalczewski. But Collins was willing to travel to the US, like he did vs Reggie Johnson and Mike McCallum. I believe Jones would have beaten him but you can’t get credit for winning a fight you didn’t take. We would know more about Collins had he gotten those fights. I often say that I believe Benn and Eubank are HOF caliber fighters. Steve Collins beat them both 2x apiece…..Collins could really fight.
Hi Bread, Hope all's well. I give Lubin a good chance against Vergil, I'm backing him to win. It wasn't that long ago Lubin was looked at as a top tier prospect. What's your takeaway? Sean
Bread’s response: I’m a big fan of Erickson Lubin. He’s a gun. He’s resilient. And he’s super talented. If he doesn’t win a title, he’s going to go down as one of the best fighters of this era who didn’t win a title. I think he has a chance in this fight but it’s going to be tough. I wonder who will be training Lubin for this fight. I also wonder if he can get a fair decision in Texas, with a fighter from Texas as the B side. I say a decision because I believe Lubin needs to box more and brawl less, like he did vs Jesus Ramos. And if he boxes, the fight will most likely be a decision. If Lubin wins this fight, it’s going to be a HUGE win. I wish it was for a real title because this is a championship level fight.
Bread, If Crawford were to decide to attempt to become undisputed at 160, which current champion (Janibek, Adames, or Lara) has the best chance to knock him off? Why? Jeremy
Bread’s response: Interesting question. First off, I think those guys should be smart and fight each other. Create an undisputed champion by next spring. Then fight Crawford in a HUGE fight. I think Carlos Adames would be the most violent fight for Crawford. Adames is the most violent out of the three champions at 160lbs. He also has the highest workrate.
I think Lara is tricky. He’s older now and he doesn’t have the legs he used to have. But he has that laidback style with that money shot left hand that Crawford would have to be aware of.
Janibek is good but we really don’t know how good. I think he’s more of a patient counter puncher than a destroyer. But I think his counter punching would serve him better than attacking Crawford. If you twisted my arm, I say Janibek’s style would trouble Crawford the most, but Adames is the hardest fight physically in terms of violence.
Bread, You have consistently praised Tank Davis for his ability and you put him in the pound for pound. But I’m curious as to what you have to say about him now. He’s 30 and he avoided the rematch in the only close fight of his career. He won’t fight elite fighters. He won’t take a fight as the underdog. And now he’s fighting Jake Paul in an exhibition in the middle of his prime. Let me see you spin this.
Bread’s response: I don’t do PR for Tank. So it’s no need for me to spin anything. Tank is not in my P4P top 10 anymore. I have no excuse for him to not fight the Lamont Roach rematch. I have no excuse for him not fighting Shakur Stevenson, Devin Haney or Teofimo Lopez although Lopez and Haney moved up.
But I UNDERSTAND Tank taking the Jake Paul fight. No fighter is going to turn down 60Ms to fight an exhibition. You can’t blame Tank for that. Blame the status quo in today’s boxing because Tank has been able to make huge paydays without them being 50/50 fights.
Let me try to give a visual perspective. What if you were a police officer and you had a choice to work in two different cities. In one city you make 80k/year but they shoot at police officers and it’s a really tough place to work. In the other city crime is low and you make 100k/year. Which one would you choose? I think you would choose the one where you make 100k/year with less danger.
I think Tank gets to choose the road of least resistance for higher pay and he takes it. I think the system of boxing is broken and Tank benefits off of the broken system which is not totally Tank's fault.
I also realize that not every fighter wants to be an All Time Great. Not every fighter wants to be the greatest. Everyone has different goals. Maybe Tank just wanted to win a world title and be rich so he can take care of his family. Maybe he doesn’t want to be the best. There is enormous pressure in being GREAT.
I think as a boxing community we may need to acknowledge that Tank may not have a desire to be the best. And if that’s the case, then we have to accept it and assess him for what he is. A talented fighter, that’s going to fight who he wants to fight, when he wants to fight them.
On the flip side of this. When the list comes out as to who’s the best fighters of this era are and Tank is not high on the list, Tank and his fans will have to gracefully accept it.
I also want to leave room for Tank to change the narrative. There are several business models in boxing. Mexican vs Black on PPV. Loud, flamboyant aura. But don’t forget this one. Make as much money as you can fighting 80/20 fights, while the public claims you’re scared of specific killers. Wait it out, drive the demand up, then fight the specific killer. Tank may be waiting it out to take the hard fights. I am willing to leave the door open for that. I have enough life experience to know that just because someone is not doing what people want them to do, it doesn’t mean they won’t do it. They may just be moving at the pace they want to move at, not the pace the world wants them to move at.
Brother Bread, Good to write you again. Hope all's well with you and the fam. Well, this isn't really boxing related, but more Philly related. There's been a huge discourse on Twitter the last week about who the best Philly MC is, with Beanie Siegel and Black Thought being argued back and forth, so I was wondering who you think is the guy between those two and who are the best Philly MCs of all-time from your perspective?
Bread’s response: Both are dope. But I think it’s Beanie Siegel. I like Black Thought but Beanie resonates more with me. I can simply name more Beanie songs than I can Black Thought songs.
Quick story. One of my best highschool friends Kevin Slaughter is from South Philly and grew up with Beanie Siegel. In 1997-98 we go to New York and he sees Beans. He whispers to me that Beans is going to be a superstar one day. He calls him over and asks him to rap right then and there. Beans confidently starts spitting. I was impressed. A few years later my friend was correct. Beans was a superstar and I was able to tell this story.
There have been many fights that are quite short but are spectacular while they do last. I know there's more than one way to define "short", but I tend to think that a fight that doesn't make it to the halfway point is "short". So in the 15-round era, any fight under 8 rounds is short. In the modern 12 round era, any fight under 6 rounds is short. What do you consider a "short fight"? And what are the best short fights in boxing history?
Bread’s response: I will ride with your definition of a short fight. I will give you the best short fights that I have seen. Obviously Hagler vs Hearns is the king of the hill. But after that....
McCallum vs Curry
Charlo vs Williams
McClellan vs Jackson
Hearns vs Roldan
Sanchez vs Gomez
Gomez vs Zarate
McCallum vs Jackson
Brown vs Norris
Trinidad vs Joppy
Trinidad vs Campas
Hamed vs Kelley.
What are your picks on the upcoming fights? Benavidez vs Yarde, Haney vs Norman, Stevenson vs Lopez, Fulton vs Foster, Fundora vs Thurman, Ortiz vs Lubin and any other big fights that I didn’t name?
Bread’s response: I like Benavidez by 7th rd tko. I still don’t have a pick on Haney vs Norman yet. I think Lopez vs Shakur is a drawish type of fight. I like Fulton to outpoint Foster. Fundora tko 9 over Thurman. I would like to see Lubin pull it off. I feel like he’s a hard luck fighter who’s been matched super tough. But I don’t know Lubin is going to get a decision in Texas vs Ortiz and I believe he puts himself in too much danger if he goes for the ko.
Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com