In his latest mailbag, Stephen Edwards reflects on last weekend’s fight between Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury, looks at what it means for both of their legacies, and fields questions about computer scoring, dream fights involving Canelo and who was the better cruiserweight between Usyk and Holyfield.

Hey Bread, just curious on ur thoughts on the Tyson Fury trained by Sugar Hill vs the Tyson Fury trained by Ben Davison. I know time is undefeated and the Fury trained by Sugar Hill is the Fury with more wear and tear, but age and miles aside, what is your take away on both Furys? In my own ponderance, I was thinking maybe Sugar Hill was needed in the twilight of Fury’s career because it seems as if Sugar Hill has more of an efficient approach, but I can’t help but admire how “free” and improvisational Fury looked with Davison (or was that mostly about age and miles).... curious of your thoughts and I’m not trying to inadvertently ask a “who’s the better trainer” question… I’m more so asking your opinion on the fit and other intangibles. Thanks Coach! Drew from Erie PA

Bread’s Response: Great Question. I think both Sugar Hill and Ben Davison did a great job with Tyson Fury. But I never understood why Fury left Davison in the first place. He had just come back from a layoff and he boxed great vs Wilder in their first fight despite the knockdowns. At that time Fury was more boxer than puncher. So he thought he won the first Wilder fight. He got a draw. And he changed trainers which was odd. I thought he could’ve grown with Davison. I thought he could’ve even expressed with Davison that he wanted to be more aggressive.

Obviously Sugar Hill had the right approach to fighting Wilder, no doubt about that. History has copied his gameplan and now everyone attacks Wilder and doesn’t let him step into his big right hand. But again I think he could’ve expressed that to Davison instead of firing him. Coming off of a layoff and going by his previous style, I think Davison coached a really good fight and I have no issue with the style he fought on that night.

Fury has also had some not so great performances under Sugar Hill. He didn’t look good vs Ngannou for example. So…. My point is everything isn’t the trainer’s fault. And Fury performed better in his first fight vs Wilder under Davison than he did in his fight vs Ngannou under Sugar Hill. But Davison lost his job and Sugar Hill kept his….

My honest answer is they both fit Fury for what he needed at that time they trained him. I think Sugar Hill’s experience and approach gave Fury a little more comfort than Davison’s youthful cerebral approach. My opinion only. I felt like boxing people criticized Davison’s gameplan and that tipped the ship as far as getting rid of Davison. But Davison helped him at a time that he needed him and they did what they did.

Whereas Sugar Hill is a more established presence and Fury’s gameplan vs Wilder in their second fight was his career best performance and that made Fury a believer in Sugar Hill, which holds some credence because it WORKED. I think age and status play a big factor in terms of a trainer. Davison, if I’m not mistaken, is younger than Fury whereas Sugar Hill is older. Again it plays a part in the trainer/fighter dynamic. I believe it’s easier to take instructions from someone older than it is someone younger. You have to be really humble to take advice or instructions from a younger person. But both Sugar Hill and Ben Davison are excellent world class trainers.

Assalaam alaykum Mr Edwards, Oleksandr Usyk is the best boxer alive, the baddest man on the planet, and the greatest fighter of this generation. HIs performance last night in Riyadh was phenomenal, perhaps even better than the undisputed win in May. There were less clear rounds, but also fewer swing rounds than Frank Warren and the rest of the boxing establishment would have us believe. On my initial view, I couldn't find more than four or five rounds to score for Tyson Fury and that was being generous with the swing rounds. The scorecards reflected the fight and the judges obviously avoided any legitimate question of a robbery. Usyk has completely cleared out the heavyweight division. The question is where he goes from here.

When rudely pressed during his post-fight interview, Usyk expressed willingness to give Daniel Dubois a rematch. He has also previously expressed a desire to return to cruiserweight and attempt to unify titles there. I think the greater challenge, and the greater accomplishment, would be a return to cruiserweight. Either way, he has nothing left to prove. Usyk, more than any other fighter alive, should be able to call his shots right now. Frankly, the cruiserweight belt holders should unify before his return so that he doesn't have to fight three of them. Mikaeljan should also be forced to fight his mandatory. Out of the field at both weights, I think Jai Opetaia represents the sternest test left (or Beterbiev if he moves up). I also believe that currently (admittedly with five more years to go), Usyk is head and shoulders above the competition for fighter of the decade. Only Naoya Inoue can catch him on their current pace. The PBC freezing Bud Crawford out for the better half of a decade (2018-2023) has effectively sealed off his chance to compete with Usyk. I look forward to your thoughts, Breadman, and I hope that everything is wonderful for you and yours. Much respect for your work and your words, thank you for everything you do for the sport. Ma salaam, John

Bread’s Response: I think Usyk is an all time great. I think he’s the best heavyweight of his generation. I think he’s the best cruiserweight of his generation. But when you say the best fighter alive…. Do you mean active fighter alive or alive period? Because Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Eder Jofre, Roy Jones, Manny Pacquiao, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield and Floyd Mayweather are all alive among others.

I am glad Usyk won because I have always maintained that Ali, Louis and Holyfield would be fine in this era and many disagreed. Now that a 6’3, 225lb ex-cruiserweight is the best heavyweight of this era, my theory proves correct. But I don’t want to be the prisoner of the moment. Usyk is a legit great fighter who could compete in any era. But I don’t want to get carried away.

He's going to have a strong case for Fighter of the Decade. But we are only in 2024. Inoue and Bam are much younger. And we have to remember that Usyk’s best year as a pro was in 2018 when he won Fighter of the Year. That wasn’t this decade. Right now, I would say he’s a top candidate but we have five more years of the decade. If you asked me who’s leading so far…..I would say Usyk, Bam, Inoue and Crawford. But the heavyweight title is the most prestigious title in boxing so I would give a slight edge to Usyk. Let’s see how the decade plays out. It’s a tight race.

The recent use of an AI judge in the Oleksandr Usyk vs. Tyson Fury rematch, which scored the fight 118-112 in favor of Usyk, has sparked discussions about the potential of AI in boxing officiating. This development prompts consideration of how AI might have adjudicated historically controversial boxing matches. Here are some notable examples; Marvin Hagler vs. Sugar Ray Leonard (1987), Leonard won by split decision, a verdict many disputed, believing Hagler’s aggression should have secured him the win. An AI judge, analyzing punch accuracy and effective aggression, might have provided a different outcome. Pernell Whitaker vs. Julio Cesar Chavez (1993), The bout ended in a controversial draw, with many feeling Whitaker’s defensive mastery and counterpunching outclassed Chavez. AI scoring, focusing on defensive skills and clean punches, could have favored Whitaker. Lennox Lewis vs. Evander Holyfield I (1999): The fight concluded as a draw, though many observers thought Lewis dominated with his jab and ring control. An AI judge, emphasizing statistical dominance, might have awarded the victory to Lewis. Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley (2012), Bradley won by split decision, a result widely criticized as Pacquiao appeared to land more significant punches. AI analysis, assessing punch impact and volume, might have leaned towards Pacquiao.Gennady Golovkin vs. Canelo Alvarez I (2017):The match ended in a split draw, with debates over who was the aggressor and who landed cleaner shots. AI scoring, objectively evaluating punch statistics and ring generalship, could have provided a decisive winner. Implementing AI in boxing judging could enhance objectivity by focusing on quantifiable metrics, potentially reducing controversies stemming from human error or bias. However, it’s essential to consider that AI may not fully capture the nuances of ring generalship, defensive tactics, and other subjective elements that contribute to a boxer’s performance. Could technology change future perspectives of boxing's past decisions?- Derek Brantley

Bread’s Response: I really hope it doesn’t. AI programs are done by humans. Humans have a very hard time scoring fights. So, sometimes too much technology is counter-productive. I don’t like cloning. I don’t like the thought of time travel. And I am not a fan of AI judges. Some things should just be left alone.

Despite weighing over 280 pounds, Tyson Fury did not seem physically stronger than Oleksandr Usyk. Fury didn’t hit harder than Usyk either. Fury just seemed to be fat, slow and in unacceptable shape for a heavyweight championship fight. In my mind, I thought the cards reading 116-112 was generous for Fury. He was never competitive after the first four rounds. I think this was an atrocious performance that should be compared to Andy Ruiz’s rematch with Anthony Joshua and Buster Douglas’ title defense against Evander Holyfield. It seems to me that Tyson Fury ate his way out of contention. Am I being too harsh or should we seriously question Tyson Fury’s physical conditioning?

Bread’s Response: Fury doesn’t seem stronger than Usyk because he isn’t. Weight and functional weight are different. Fury’s is not 280lbs of muscle. Fury also has bent in, skinny legs that don’t look strong. Whereas Usyk is proportioned in his weight distribution. And he has a reactive body. He’s stronger than Fury. But all in all I think you’re being harsh.

Tyson Fury did better in this fight than he did the last. He’s an excellent fighter. He just ran into an all time great who refuses to lose. It happens. I don’t think Fury was out of shape at all. But a 280lb man won’t usually have the endurance of a 225lb man. It’s just that simple.

Fury tried being heavier and it didn’t work. But I don’t believe in excess weight personally. If it’s not for functional use it doesn’t need to be on your body. It’s not like Fury is ripped up at 265lb. So I don’t agree with the 280lb. But I do think Fury was in good shape and he fought a good fight. He just ran into a better fighter.

Hi mate, Hope you are doing great. Just watched the Evander Holyfield v DM Qawi fight for the second time.. just absolutely incredible stuff. Both of them were just indestructible. Dwight’s defensive slips are just unreal I know you’ll have watched it but to anyone reading this that hasn’t then do yourself a massive favour and do so. Question, is Evander the best cruiser in history, or was his run too short? His stamina, toughness and chin were 10/10! Do you consider Dwight an ATG? Would love to hear a positive Bread rant on Evander’s career, you know one of those rants that ends with a ‘Stand up Holyfield’. Along with RJJ, SRL, Oscar and Manny he’s my equal favourite of my lifetime! Cheers, Craig

Bread’s Response: Holyfield was my favorite fighter after Ray Leonard retired. I have probably seen 25 of his fights as they happened. I think he’s a top two cruiserweight ever. Some will say Usyk ruled over a better field. Others will say that Holyfield beating a HOF in Qawi and going 15 rounds at 11-0 is the best win in cruiserweight history. Both can be true.

I don’t mind putting Holyfield and Usyk at 1a and 1b. Holyfield is also a top 10 heavyweight. He ran a little hot and cold at heavyweight but he has wins over 5 HOF at heavyweight in Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, Foreman and Tyson. He also fought Lewis tooth and nail in their rematch. If you throw in Dokes, Thomas, Douglas, Steward, Ruiz and Rahman his resume in a great era is top tier.

Holyfield was also a top 10 fighter of the 90s and he was already a great fighter by the end of the 80s which was a phenomenal decade. Holyfield would have been the best heavyweight of his era if it weren’t for Lennox Lewis and I don’t think Usyk could have beaten Lewis either. Holyfield is one of the best combination punchers I have seen at heavyweight. Maybe second to only Joe Louis. And he may be the best counter punching heavyweight ever. He has every counter in the book.

I know you didn’t ask this but I sense where you’re going. You didn’t write in about Holyfield for no reason. You wrote in because of Usyk’s current status. I think all time they rank close at cruiserweight. But at heavyweight, Holyfield’s competition was considerably better. So I rank Holyfield higher at heavyweight. Holyfield is firmly in my top 10 whereas I don’t know just yet where to put Usyk.

Holyfield vs Usyk is the dream match. In fairness to both, either could win. I could see Holyfield being a little confused by Usyk’s movement and rhythm and losing the first fight. Then coming back in the rematch and beating Usyk. Holyfield didn’t fight with a plan everytime. Case and point watch his first fights with Bowe, Moorer and Lewis. He did considerably better in each rematch because he boxed more in a more cerebral way. But best night for best night. I am more comfortable picking Holyfield to beat Usyk than I am picking Usyk to beat Holyfield.

Usyk, for as great as he is, is a complainer. Every time he’s hit with a body shot, he grabs his trunks and gestures low blow. Every time he’s hit with a shot anywhere near his ears, he acts as if it was behind the head. And he can work on the inside but he’s not an inside fighter. Holyfield fights dirty, he’s brutal to the body with his left hook. And he has a mean uppercut. He can also match Usyk’s feet and rhythm. I like Holyfield more head to head.

Overall when I think of Holyfield. I think of a fighter who is a top 30-50 fighters ever. Special, special fighter.

Hey Bread, First off, respect to you for doing this mailbag and never abandoning it despite the morons that write in. More recently you’re dealing with the fans that are upset that you’re not obliterating Boots for passing on moving up to fight a non champion in Ortiz. Forget the fact that I can’t recall many champions moving up before they wanted to in order to fight a non champion, they want you to bash him. I’m sure that you’re aware but this stance comes primarily from Canelo fans who feel that you are too harsh on him despite the fact that you praise him more than I ever will. In my view, while he’s an excellent fighter, he’s also a proven cheater, has benefited from more questionable scoring in fights than any boxer I can ever think of, has received more entitlement than any boxer I can think of, has stacked the deck in his favor with more catchweight-rehydration clauses than anyone ever, and is currently guilty of the most blatant duck of any current boxer and possible this century when you consider who he is fighting instead of Benavidez. With all of this, his fanbase rides for him with unconditional love but are ironically the ones infuriated that you merely said let’s wait and see what happens with Boots, before jumping to attack. So thanks for pushing past the idiocy and still providing a mailbag for the real boxing fans. With that said, when it comes to hall of fame consideration, do voters consider controversial losses or even competitive losses against great fighters in favor of a fighter that lost in addition to their wins/accomplishments when assessing them? Now that Paz is in, which has lowered the bar in my opinion, I’m thinking, does Castillo get credit for arguably being the only man to beat Floyd? When assessing GGG, should he get credit for likely going 2-0 against Canelo if it weren’t for typical A-side biased scoring? Should Fernando Vargas getting consideration when he beat Campas, Quartey, Winky (controversially) and his loss to a prime Trinidad may be the most courageous loss we’ve seen this century when you factor in who he faced and his age at the time? Listen I’m not saying Mayorga should get on for losing fun fights to great fighters (although I might be able to make a case for him over Paz) but should who you lost to and how also play on your favor at times?

Bread’s Response: I believe that how you perform should be considered just as much as the official scorecard. But I can’t say what the HOF voters consider because I haven’t spoken to any of them about that. However, I believe they should.

Marcos Maidana is not a HOF fighter. But if he lived in the Northeast part of the USA and he wasn’t Nicaraguan I believe he would get more consideration.

Jose Luis Castillo is a borderline case.

Diego Corrales is in and Castillo was at equal to him as a fighter and there is a case that he’s slightly better. A strong case.

Fernando Vargas is also a borderline case. But his wins over Ike Quartey and Winky Wright and his performance vs Felix Trinidad is better than anything that Vinny Pazienza ever did.

I personally feel bad for Pazienza and I don’t want to pile onto him. But it’s just the truth. And his name will be used forever to make cases for better fighters, who had better careers who aren’t in the Hall of Fame or the ballot.

I thought GGG won the first Canelo fight. And unfortunately for him, I think not getting the official victory is held against him historically. GGG’s main criticism is he doesn’t have a win over a great fighter, just very good fighters. Canelo would have been that win. GGG is another fighter I feel for, because I believe he would’ve stopped Sergio Martinez, Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor but he never got a chance to fight that era of middleweights and by the time he got his big shot he was 35 and he got smoked on the scorecards of the first fight with Canelo. Not getting the official win vs Canelo has had a negative effect on GGG’s career.

Peace, blessings and happy holidays. Short and sweet, how are you calling the following for 2024 Fighter, Trainer, Prospect, Best Performance, Knockout, Upset, Comeback fighter?
Thank you for your time, Jack in Minneapolis

Bread’s Response: Fighter of the Year, I’m going with Usyk. He won two fights that make him the best heavyweight of his era vs an undefeated fighter for all of the belts and lineage.

Trainer of the Year, I would say Robert Garcia had an excellent year. He won some big fights with Bam Rodriguez, Raymond Muratalla and Vergil Ortiz.

Prospect of the Year – This is tough. I’m going to go with Moses Itauma.

Best Performance – This is even tougher. But I will say Arthur Beterbiev vs Callum Smith.

Knockout – Lucas Bahdi vs Ashton Sylve. This is one of the best combinations I have ever seen. Three, clean power punches that all landed on the money.

Upset – Kyrone Davis vs Elijah Garcia. Garcia came in the fight 3lbs overweight. The odds were stacked against Davis in every aspect. The betting odds were 10 to 1 in Garcia’s favor. And Davis completely neutralized him and outboxed him. It should’ve been a UD but Davis got the SD and the biggest win of his career vs the WBA’s No. 1 contender at middleweight.

Comeback Fighter – Daniel Dubois was stopped twice a few years back and many thought he would never reach the pinnacle. But in 2024 he stopped Filip Hrgovic and Anthony Joshua to ascend to the top of the division.

Hello Bread, I just want to heap some more praise on Usyk and offer my thoughts which should be universally acknowledged by now. He’s been operating at a master level and has been for awhile but what I love most about him is he simply does not care who he fights, he is fighting in a land of giants giving away huge differences in height and weight and it's just another day in the office for him. He is a throwback but I believe his greatest strength is his mind and demeanour. He doesn’t get flustered nor does he get angry which allows him to compute and enables him to deal with any situation that he is confronted with which boils down to character. His ability to flick the switch and turn a fight when danger presents itself is reminiscent of all the greats in the past and that’s why I believe he could hang with just about anyone ever. I saw an interview with Tony Bellew before they fought and he said that Usyk is impossible to dislike, funny along with being respectful. Goes to show he's from a good family. What are the nuances you see in his game that stands out to you when you watch him? Let's enjoy him while here.

Sam from Australia

Bread’s Response: I agree with you! But let me add, Usyk doesn’t care who he fights. That says a lot about him and his team.

You see 35 year old fighters who won’t fight 25 year old fighters. Usyk fought Dubois.

You see fighters who are kept away from big punchers. Usyk fought Dubois, Joshua and Gassiev.

You see fighters who won’t fight guys with quirky styles. Usyk fought Fury.

He also doesn’t mind fighting on the road, despite being a fighter who goes the distance a fair amount. In the science of matchmaking he applies no science. He just fights. And I think it benefits. His style is versatile but his mentality is simple and one way. His objective is to DEFEAT. To OVERCOME. And because of this mentality, he doesn’t submit to the opponent’s will. He just finds a way.

And by taking the fights, he takes. He knows he needs supreme preparation. He knows that one subpar performance and the judges will most likely go against him. I love the good pressure he puts on himself. I know you asked me about nuances but this is a nuance. His approach to fighting tough opponents or styles. He puts himself in a position where he just has to find a way. And he does. He literally gives himself no choice.

We see fighters pick certain fighters, for certain reasons. Well those guys don’t face their doubts. Mr. Usyk has no picks. He’s Mr. No picks. It’s why he’s so special. We don’t even really know what style gives him trouble or is something he can’t handle because he fights and overcomes them all.

Hey Mr Edwards I don't know if you recall the build-up to Ward-Kovalev II and Kovalev was pointing a finger at Ward and promising all manner of crushing and destruction and Ward merely looked at him and said: “You are selling fear. We ain’t buying.”

Well, we had a repeat of that with Tyson Fury promising all kinds of damage and pain and Oleksandr Usyk just giving him an icy stare. Well, we know what happened to a fear-mongerer like Kovalev and we've just seen what happened to one in Fury. By the way, we will never agree on Canelo Alvarez's place in history. I just don't see how he gets past Andre Ward, James Toney and Roy Jones Jr at 168, just to name a few. And I still say let's look at his resume. I don't for one minute believe I picked his worst nights. Those were the fights he needed to win convincingly to show his HOF credentials excluding Bivol because he is a light-heavyweight. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I underrated Ezzard Charles at 175. What I meant was he hadn't won the title and defended it against all-comers. I did not know he was denied a title shot. That's another great lesson from you. I just thought he was a great heavyweight because he won the title there. If I'm not mistaken, he won it after he had already taken the foot of the pedal because he was badly affected by a ring tragedy. So, there's really no telling how even greater Charles could have become at heavyweight without the tragedy. Back to Fury, I'm still shocked at people thinking Fury is in the Hall of Fame. What did the HOF do to deserve such contempt? I shudder to think what Riddick Bowe would have done to Fury. I'm not even sure they got Bowe in the HOF. When Michael Spinks beat Larry Holmes, Holmes was already an ATG Heavyweight. Usyk is simply an ATG cruiserweight and he has twice beaten a guy who's supposed to be a heavyweight HOF fighter. Fury is not in the HOF or if he is, just throw the door wide open to allow anyone in. He's just another Primo Canera with a little bounce to him. He's so clumsy he can't even throw a decent combination. His size is overrated. If Usyk could reach him, George Foreman could. Foreman would obliterate him. Do you honestly see Fury standing up to Sonny Liston? There's a kid who was out of shape who boxed out of Louisville called Greg Page. I don't see Fury beating the late Page. I don't see him beating Tim Witherspoon. I don't see him beating Tony Tucker. And I don't think any of these guys are near the HOF. So, how does Fury even make it as an usher? I expected the sour grapes. I honestly thought Usyk would stop him. He fought differently this time to avoid being stopped. But he did nothing to come close to winning.

One last question: if guys like Fury are allowed in the HOF, shouldn't the HOF be divided into classes with A being the highest. I can then live with Fury being a Z. To simply say he's in the HOF suggests he's in the company of guys like Louis and Ali. That's an insult.

I recently rewatched Sugar Ray Leonard v Marvin Hagler. I don't know what the late Hagler complained about. I had that fight 116-112 for SRL. Hagler simply aged in that fight. 

Break down prime RJJ v Canelo at 168. I think Canelo doesn't survive beyond eight rounds. He's too leaden-footed to catch up to RJJ. 

Keep punching Mr Edwards. Katlholo, Johannesburg, South Africa

Bread’s Response: Andre Ward, James Toney and Roy Jones along with Joe Calzaghe are the top four super middleweights ever. I agree Canelo would not beat Ward, Toney or Jones. But I think he has a chance to beat all of the other great super middleweights.

Benn, Eubank, Collins, Froch, Kessler, Bute etc. Canelo can beat those guys on his best night. I think Canelo is a top five super middleweight ever.

Tyson Fury deserves HOF consideration. He doesn’t have a great resume but it’s solid. He stopped Klitschko’s reign which should count for something. He also beat Wilder who is one of the best punchers in history and was undefeated.

Often times the second and third best heavyweights of their respective eras go in the HOF. So in Klitschkos era both brothers went in.

In the era before Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield and Moorer went in.

In the era before that, Tyson, Holmes and Spinks went in.

In the era before that Foreman, Ali, Norton and Frazier went in.

In the era before that Liston, Patterson and Johannson went in.

Rarely does one heavyweight from their respective eras just go in. It’s usually two or three. So I think you’re forgetting history and being a little too hard on Fury. He has a chance to go in.

I don’t think they should separate the Hall of Fame. They just need more qualified voters who aren’t biased. That’s it. That’s all.

I don’t get what Hagler or his fans complain about to this day. He lost the fight. Hagler for as great as he was out thought himself that night. Hagler was a very versatile fighter. If you watch him in the 70s he had good feet. He could move. He had a really good jab. And he could fight off the bounce. He thought he could outbox Leonard. And it was a mistake. Just because he could box, it doesn’t mean he could out box Leonard. The way Leonard flurries and moves, it would always be tough for him to outbox Leonard. Hagler seemed obsessed with beating Leonard at his own game. Instead of just beating Leonard. It cost him and neither Hagler nor his fans can live with it.

I think Roy Jones is just too quick and his IQ is too high for Canelo. I think the fight looks like Jones vs Toney. I think Jones wins a wide decision. But I don’t think he stops Canelo. Canelo has an all-time beard. His chin and his eyes won’t let him get stopped. But he would get outpointed.

Hello, Mr. Edwards! Hope you and yours are enjoying the Christmas holidays. If Usyk retires tomorrow, how will you rate him in all time p4p rankings? For me, he is the greatest heavyweight since Lennox Lewis and definitely top 20 all time pound for pound. Would you rate him that high, as well? Wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas!

Bread’s Response: I would guess Usyk is a top 50ish type of fighter all time but I need to sit down and do it forensically to be sure. Top 20 is a little high. I know most of the top 20 off the top of my head and I don’t have him that high.

However, I do agree that he’s the best heavyweight since Lennox Lewis. Although I am not sure he could’ve beaten Vitali Klitschko. Vitali is underrated and is a nightmare head to head.

Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com