Hey Bread,
Lets say you were appointed as chair of a recently established boxing commission. What would be your first three action items?Who would you select as your co-chair and your spokesperson?
Edwin, Idaho
Bread’s response: Great question. One, I would make weigh-ins the same time across the board. Meaning if the first bell to the show rings at 6pm on Saturday night, then the weigh-in has to be 6pm the day before. Each weigh-in would be exactly 24 hours before the fight. Currently, each commission and state does it differently and it creates a competitive edge for certain fighters under certain commissions.
Two, I would have a strict ban on PED use. One failed test and the fighter and his team get fined. And the fighter serves a two-year suspension. A second positive test, the fighter gets a lifetime ban. If a trainer or strength coach is found to be behind it, they get a lifetime ban also.
Three, I would be strict on mandatory defenses. If a fighter doesn’t fight his mandatory within a year of the mandatory being named, then the champion gets stripped. We have seen mandatory challengers wait for title shots for three or four years and the champion not be stripped.
Who would I select as my co-chair and my spokesperson? This is even tougher. I would select Virgil Hunter and Greg Leon as my co-chairs, and Sean Zittel as my spokesperson.
Hey Breadman,
Been a minute since I wrote in and I got something on my mind I want your thoughts on. There are some rumors or stories or talking points in boxing that we all hear that might be rooted in truth but get exaggerated over time. The biggest example I can think of is that Aaron Pryor was criminally ducked; Sugar Ray Leonard ducked him. The truth rooted in that is that, sure, people weren’t exactly lining up to face off with “The Hawk”. Having said that, you’ve pointed out in past mailbags that to take that and say he was criminally ducked is inaccurate. But there is a tiny kernel of truth at its center.
What really gets me are these narratives where people are clearly making stuff up. I came across one the other day that I found especially ridiculous – Rocky Marciano retired to duck Sonny Liston. I decided to dig into this, and wanted your thoughts on this particular talking point as well as others that really get on your nerves. For starters, I looked into Liston’s record. At the time Rocky Marciano had fought his last fight in September 1955, Sonny Liston’s pro record was 12-1. By the time “The Rock” announced his retirement in April 1956, his pro record was 14-1. Now, where you know your boxing history, help me out with this – nowadays, 14-1 would be a good record for a young up-and-comer who’s being primed for a title shot, right? But back in the 1950s, when fighters fought much more frequently than they do today, 14-1 is a nobody, right? Or at least, a nobody in the eyes of the champ and the contenders near the top of the mountain, right? This isn’t even like a Ward-Beterbiev situation, where you could make the argument that the stars didn’t quite line up between a contender on the rise and a champ who felt he had nothing left to prove. I do think you could suggest that “Rock” felt he no longer had anything to prove (and had lost the fire to fight), but I don’t believe in the possibility that Sonny Liston or anyone else at that stage in their career would’ve been on Marciano’s radar. Am I right? What do you think? Sorry for being a little long-winded, but this talking point just seemed so made up and so disingenuous. It felt like someone trying to capitalize on Sonny Liston’s reputation of being ducked (which I do believe he was) to take shots at Marciano. What are thoughts on this particular talking point? Am I alone in thinking it’s ridiculous? What are some talking points or narratives that really annoy you?
Greg K
Bread’s response: There is NO truth to Leonard ducking Pryor. The only truth is that Pryor didn’t get a title shot at lighthweight and he took his title shot at junior welterweight. But the narrative doesn’t match up with reality. Aaron Pryor is supposedly the hard-luck kid. But he got a title shot in his hometown versus a legend in Antonio Cervantes within four years of turning pro. That’s a blessing, if you ask me. The weight wasn’t ideal because Duran vacated the titles in 1978 and everyone was scrambling for a shot at lightweight. But Pryor being denied has been drastically overrated. A person really can’t argue a factual time and date. Pryor was also afforded the luxury of multiple title fights in Ohio and he was from Cincinatti. Pryor never got the Four Kings but he was only in one of their divisions for a short timespan and when he first turned pro Duran was the lightweight champion. On top of all of this, Pryor got to fight his super fight against an older and smaller Alexis Arguello, who started out at featherweight. Aaron Pryor was a great fighter but the truth is he was very fortunate to get some of the opportunities he got.
As for Rocky Marciano ducking Sonny Liston, if you research it, you know it’s a lie to smear Marciano’s legacy. Liston was not the number-one contender or even close to it in 1955. He was just an emerging prospect who had already taken a loss. The only way the duck theory could be true is if Liston was in line to fight for Marciano’s title. But the truth is, once Marciano retired, Floyd Patterson and Archie Moore fought for the vacant title. If Liston was being ducked by the champion then why didn’t he get the vacant title shot immediately after the champion retired? In fact, Liston didn’t get a title shot until 1962 and Marciano retired in 1956. Liston was certainly overlooked and ducked but it wasn’t by Marciano. Floyd Patterson and his manager Cus D’Amato are the ones responsible for Liston’s prolonged title shot. Not Rocky Marciano. Liston was just a prospect during Marciano’s reign.
I appreciate your reply to last week’s breakdown of Crawford versus Mayweather and the different angles you covered. I’ve always had a hard time with Mayweather. He often talked about being the best, but in my view he was very strategic in this era and, compared to the true killers of past generations, somewhat selective with his opposition. His villain-style media persona probably also makes it easier for me to question his “TBE” label. He’s unquestionably an all-time great, but I believe that if he had lined up even half of certain opponents when they were at their absolute best, he likely would have taken some losses. I don’t really buy the idea that other fighters simply didn’t want to face him. When a fighter truly wants a fight, history shows the promoter can make it happen. In my opinion, Mayweather shares responsibility for some of the prime match-ups that never materialized. There were simply too many missed opportunities with fighters in their primes. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, fighters rarely “marinated” match-ups. They fought the best to prove they were the best. You could make a similar argument about Crawford, but the difference is that because of the business model and his lower PPV numbers, he couldn’t secure certain fights and was clearly avoided by other prime, unbeaten fighters around him. I don’t see that as his fault. Based on your breakdown, I can’t help but think you genuinely believe Crawford would win in a one-fight scenario. If I were in your position, I’d probably be careful about fully saying that outright, given the politics in the sport. But something tells me you see too much grit and talent in Crawford to think he’d lose to Mayweather in a single fight. That said, I also recognize that I may not fully appreciate all of Mayweather’s talent. He did retire unbeaten, after all. I hope you continue to receive opportunities as a trainer and remain one of the most influential voices in boxing. I’ve noticed other sites even writing articles and arguments based on different aspects of your mailbag.
Bread’s response: Bro, there is a site that actually uses headlines of my quotes and uses them as articles without ever interviewing me. Whoever owns the site is a complete scumbag with no integrity.
Mayweather versus Crawford is tough for me. I suspect they would have to fight three times. I think Crawford would do better versus their bigger hypothetical rivals. For example, I couldn’t see Floyd winning a title at 168lbs. But head to head on their best day at a fair weight between 135-147 is different. Crawford takes time to download data on his opponents and Floyd shows different looks as the fight goes on. Floyd also is a great second-half fighter. Last but not least, Floyd doesn’t make many mistakes. So at the moment in the fight where Crawford usually takes over, Floyd usually takes over. It’s a tough fight to call for me....
How’s it going Bread?
Been reading weekly for years now and really appreciate the effort you take to provide fans with your insights. A handful of semi-related questions for you: how do you see Tim Tszyu performing against Errol Spence? Given its comeback trail versus inactivity of an elite I find it so interesting. More broadly, what do you think of Tszyu’s career matchmaking? I respect he’s tried to fight all who come his way, but maybe his path could have been smarter – of course not without its risks. I get fans sadly complain either way. Lastly, Spence fighting in Australia feels risky. But objectively it should not be. Plenty of good wins for foreign fighters have happened there but also some controversial ones – RJJ-Green, Mosley-Mundine, Pacquiao-Horn… a penny for your thoughts on those three fights? With thanks again.
Bread’s response: I think Tim Tszyu is solid. I think his ability has also been a little miscalculated. He was matched like he was going to be a pound-for-pound level guy but what he’s shown so far is that he’s a solid titleholder. I think Tszyu is a good all-round fighter but his punching power was overvalued. Tim is a good puncher but they act like he’s a murderous puncher. His matchmaking hasn’t been bad. But the decision to fight Fundora when Thurman pulled out is what caused his problems. Everything after that has been like Murphy’s Law. Everything that could’ve gone wrong did go wrong. The cut. The Bakhram fight. Then the Fundora rematch. I also believe that while Tszyu was slightly overvalued, Fundora was slightly undervalued. Most didn’t see Fundora’s ascension.
As for Tszyu’s upcoming performance versus Spence, Tszyu is undefeated in Australia. For whatever that means, that means. I think Tszyu is still trying to find himself. I saw that he switched trainers again and he’s now with Jeff Fenech. I loved Fenech as a fighter. I’m curious about if Fenech can apply the style that will make Tszyu more successful. Tszyu doesn’t fight like Fenech; he fights more like his father. Oftentimes great fighters train fighters to fight like them. I’m not accusing Fenech of that. But I am curious to see how he does with Tszyu.
Most people don’t know that Archie Moore trained Muhammad Ali for a short period before Angelo Dundee came into the picture. Moore is an all-time-great fighter. But he fights nothing like Ali. The story is Moore tried to add certain things to Ali’s style. Whereas Dundee let Ali be Ali. It’s a very fine line but obviously what Dundee did worked. I want to see how Tszyu fights under Fenech.
I think Errol should win the fight. But obviously we have to see how he gets through a camp. We have to see how he responds to the travel to Australia. Then we have to see how he looks in a real fight. There are definitely questions. Let’s see how it plays out.
I watched videos of Errol Spence and, boy, do I appreciate the entertainment I’ve got from that man through the years. People say what they want about his last fight and downgrade his entire career. My buddy picked Spence, so I got Crawford. I had no idea how it would go That was an honor watching Bud do his thing. I’m hoping for a good Spence showing against Tim Tszyu. I want to see Tim at his best too. How do you see the fight going? I hope they can both take some shots and perform well. If you got time, what about winner versus Charlo? Thanks for the bag.
Kevin
Bread’s response: I like Spence to stop Tszyu in a war. I suspect Errol is more durable, meaner, and a better inside fighter. But I don’t think Tszyu will go down without a fight in front of his people. Tszyu is prideful and he does have a warrior spirit. Tszyu also quit versus Fundora and when fighters quit that can go one or two ways. Sometimes it makes it easier to quit again. Other times they become prideful, like Vitali Klitschko, who was willing to risk his eye against Lennox Lewis because he knew he couldn’t quit again after he injured his shoulder versus Chris Byrd.
The winner versus Charlo – I expect to Errol to win versus Tszyu. So Spence versus Charlo is a huge Texas fight. It’s a shame a belt won’t be on the line. But that’s a great fight. Ex-stablemates. One from Dallas. One from Houston. Jermell used to train with Ronnie Shields, then went to Derrick James. Errol used to train with Derrick James and now trains with Ronnie Shields. Jermell is estranged from his twin brother Jermall. And Errol is now stablemates with Jermall and they’re cool. Hopefully the fight is in Texas. I would hate to see a fight like that in Vegas or New York. It’s an awesome fight with a great back story. But I can’t pick a winner right now, until I see how Errol looks against Tszyu.
Hi Bread, In your last mail you promised to rank Nakatani based on the outcome of the Inoue-Nakatani fight. So now where would you place him in all-time best Japanese fighters’ list?
Bread’s response: I would rank Nakatani somewhere in the top 20 of all time in Japanese history. He could be higher but I like to give a broader ranking for still active fighters when asked…
Hello Bread,
Like you and many others I’m a massive fan of Bud Crawford. Now that he’s retired I’ve found myself watching a lot of his clips on YouTube showing how he low-key puts people into place who try and punk him. He’s super quick-witted – the killer demeanour and that dead cold stare is impressive to watch. You can tell how intelligent he is and his ability to remain calm is a huge reason why he turned out the way he did. He’s one of the rare few who would be good at anything he had a go at. The story of him sparring Tim Bradley, when Tim was the champ, on his own in Tim’s gym, wrapping his own hands and them giving him a proper towelling, was ridiculous! Helluva fighter.
Sam, from Australia
Bread’s response: The first time I saw Crawford fight, he was fighting against a Canadian fighter named Andres Gorges, I believe. I knew he was the deal. To see him ascend like he did is truly a privilege. Terence Crawford is an all-time-great fighter who would’ve been great in any era, from 135-154. He’s shown the ability to do literally everything in a boxing ring. You would have to nitpick to criticize his career.
Breadman,
In this week’s mailbag you said this, “Crawford also does not give fighters many counter-punching opportunities, which is something Floyd looks for”. Can you expand on this a bit? What is Crawford doing that makes him hard to counter? Floyd was also hard to counter. I wonder if it would have been a bit of a boring, defensive fight with both guys waiting for counter opportunities.
Tom
Bread’s response: Crawford doesn’t give his opponents counter-punching opportunities for several reasons. He knows when to punch and when not to. He has superior instincts. He also has really long arms and good fundamentals. So he can hit opponents from places they can’t hit him from. He doesn’t load up. He snaps his punches at the end of them to get power and he doesn’t tighten up at the beginning of the shot, which telegraphs. Crawford knows how to deliver power shots without exposing himself to be countered. He keeps his head behind his knee. And he doesn’t draw them back, he shoots them towards the target. And hem last but not least, is such a good counter-puncher. He makes opponents hesitant to counter him because they don’t know if he’s setting a trap.
Hi Breadman,
Following the Inoue-Nakatani fight, my thoughts are this: Inoue started very well, and Nakatani came back brilliantly. The cut of course hindered Nakatani, and Inoue closed it out as necessary. In my opinion this fight clearly demonstrated that Inoue is an all-time great and pound-for-pound fighter – however, there was clearly a path for a Nakatani victory, which a combination of the cut, and lack of time, prevented. However great Inoue is, he clearly relies on his physical gifts, whereas fighters like Usyk and Crawford appear to have another string to their bow, where they don’t allow themselves to lose. In my opinion, Inoue sits in a league with the likes of Loma, GGG and Pacquiao – true undisputed greats that have stood the test of time, but haven’t separated themselves like Usyk and Crawford have. Those two are the fighters of this generation, and guys who can hang with anyone in history.
Bread’s response: I agree with what you said about the Inoue versus Nakatani fight. But I am up in the air about the rest. Inoue looks to be more vulnerable to getting caught with a big shot than Usyk and Crawford. But he’s been around just as long as both. He’s had more title fights than both. And he still hasn’t got caught with a shot to KO him. I don’t want to penalize Inoue for what can possibly happen when it hasn’t happened. I believe Usyk and Crawford make less mistakes and are more neater defensively. But Inoue is more physically gifted and he takes more chances. I believe he’s on Crawford’s and Usyk’s level.
I personally ranked Crawford number one when he was active. And now if you twist my arm, I would put Usyk first, pound for pound. But I will admit it’s because I’m more comfortable with them because I know their opponents better. But in terms of accomplishments, Inoue has done just about everything they did. It’s an interesting assessment that you have. And I’m not convinced that you’re wrong. I just don’t want to hold certain things against Inoue because I know better.
Just because a fighter looks vulnerable or doesn’t do things the way we feel more comfortable with, it doesn’t mean they aren’t just as good as fighters who do. I will give you examples. Roy Jones, does not appear more fundamentally sound than James Toney, especially defensively. If they never fight, one may say they can’t put Jones above Toney in a ranking because Jones leaps in with punches; his defense is backing to the ropes with his hands up; etc. But Jones shut Toney out when they fought, and he was more dominant versus common opponents.
Alexis Arguello appears to be more fundamentally sound than Aaron Pryor. Pryor was caught in no-man’s land several times jumping in with his head up in the air and knocked down. Arguello is the textbook fighter. His balance was perfect. As was his punch technique. But Pryor was able to beat him.
Inoue definitely makes defensive mistakes. He definitely looks like he’s going to get clipped. There were a few times in the fight where I said to myself Nakatani is going to drop him. But Inoue’s instincts to evade big punches are real. His toughness and durability to take them when he gets hit is just as effective as Crawford’s and Usyk’s defense. All of them are great fighters. Let’s just see how the rest of Inoue’s career plays out...
Sup Breadman,
I’m sure you’ve been seeing/hearing all the rumors regarding David Benavidez’s next opponent, and one name that’s been floated around is Oleksandr Usyk. My question is do you think Benavidez can realistically make a play at heavyweight? His frame is kind of unique. He carries a lot of weight in his midsection, but his upper body almost seems somewhat frail, for lack of a better term. In the Morrell fight, it also looked like Morrell’s physicality gave him some trouble at times. Do you think Benavidez could truly compete with elite heavyweights, or would the size-and-strength gap eventually be too much? This leads me to another question: is there a proper time and place for adding muscle mass in boxing? If so, how should a fighter approach it, and in what situations would it actually benefit them? I’d imagine you wouldn’t want a boxer doing traditional bodybuilding-style hypertrophy training because of how it could affect stamina, flexibility, and punch fluidity. Curious to hear your thoughts
Bread’s response: I believe Benavidez is the best fighter from 168-200. That’s a big range but that’s how good he is. But I would not pick him to beat Usyk at the moment. Usyk is not as fast as Benavidez in terms of flurrying rapid fire punches. But his timing and the directness of his shots can cancel out Benavidez’s speed. Usyk also has a world-class jab, feet, stamina and durability. Last but not least I believe Usyk is physically stronger than David. Because Usyk is such a great boxer no one talks about his physical strength. He’s extremely strong.
Benavidez is also special and I believe he could hang with Usyk. But hanging with someone is not the same as beating them. I believe it’s competitive fight but at this current moment I’m more comfortable picking Usyk. I believe that Benavidez could hang with certain heavyweights. But he also has to be careful with others. I would pick him to beat Andy Ruiz. But I wouldn’t pick him to beat Moses Itauma. In other divisions you can match him with anybody. At heavyweight I believe the matchmaking has to be more selective.
Gaining strength is not always the same as gaining muscle. You see fighters gain muscle and often times it slows them down. So whatever the gains were in strength, it gets offset with lack of speed. It appears that David does it the right way. He doesn’t try to be body beautiful. He seems to train for function, not looks.
Sup Breadman,
Can you actually develop ring IQ? Is it mostly sparring, or are there ways to intentionally train decision-making and awareness?”
Bread’s response: Of course you can develop ring IQ. The first piece of IQ you develop is listening to your trainer. After that remembering different scenarios and mistakes in the ring, so that when they resurface you know how to overcome them.
I actually believe IQ is one of the easiest things to develop because the first ingredient to developing IQ is to listen to your trainer. If a fighter listens to their trainer, then the trainer’s IQ becomes the fighter’s IQ. Having a better IQ is something every fighter can attain if the fighter is humble and willing to go over their past mistakes so they don't happen again.
What’s good, Bread?
Is David Benavidez’s hand speed something he was just born with, or is it something he really trained over time? Especially since he wasn’t the most athletic kid growing up and dealt with being overweight? I imagine being around Manny Pacquiao at the Wild Card also made him want to fight that way.
Bread’s response: I believe David was born with fast hands, then over time he developed more speed. Speed can be developed. David does everything fast in training. So some people may look at that as a flaw. And it may turn out to be. But as of now, it’s a strength. If you look at how he acts, he’s an upbeat person. He throws those fast hard punches all day long in the gym. So in a fight it’s second nature.
Believe it or not, speed is not just physical. It’s something that lies in your central nervous system. Stimulation of your central nervous system enhances speed. David is always on “go” and because of that his speed is elite.
Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
