It’s that time of the week again when boxing mastermind Stephen “Breadman” Edwards takes your questions. This time he examines the legacy of Terence Crawford, evaluates the career of Ike Quartey, examines Oleksandr Usyk’s credentials and explains why Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns were so special at 147.
Hey Bread, I've been catching up on recent fights I've missed, and I got around to watching Devin Haney. A lot has been said about Haney. Mostly unfairly. I did notice that he has great legs and tight footwork. Anyone who is going to beat him is going to have to take his legs away from him. Conventional wisdom would say to go to the body. Is this true? Is the body the best or only way to take away legs? Thanks, and hope all is well, MJB
Bread’s response: There is always more than one way to skin a cat. Going to the body definitely takes the legs away. But there are multiple other ways. Making a fighter overuse his legs is another. Everyone has a ceiling on their energy output. So if a fighter is made to move faster and longer than his threshold can handle that will also take the legs away. You can also snap a fighter’s head back with a jab. I know you may say, how does a jab to the head effect a fighter’s legs? Let me explain. Getting your head snapped back with a jab all night disrupts the spine. And if your back becomes tight, it will limit your mobility. The whole body runs off the spine. Just think about how gingerly a person walks, who’s having back issues.
There are even more ways to take the legs away that I won’t state openly… so while the body work is definitely effective, for fighters who aren’t great body punchers there are several other to take away the legs.
Hi Breadman, Hope all is well in Philly for you and yours. Do you have your fighters train to music? If so, what sort of tunes? Do you use certain tempos, styles? What makes a good tune to train to? Dave Panichi
Bread’s response: I actually like fighters to train to music. Especially when they’re shadowboxing or jumping rope. Boxing is a rhythmic sport, so music can be essential. My only rules when it comes to music is it can’t be blasting loud. The fighter has to be able to hear my instructions clearly and no headphones. Again, he has to be able to hear me clearly from anywhere in the gym. It doesn’t matter to me what type of music a fighter wants to train to. As long as it gets him in his groove, I'm good with it.
Hi Bread, Thanks for your previous answers and all you do. Do you see Ike Quartey as a potential Hall of Fame candidate? Why or why not? How do you see a fight between him and Pernell Whitaker if they fought in 1998 as originally mooted? Thank you, Sam
Bread’s response: Ike Quartey should be on the ballot. He was WBA champion for from 1994-98. He was undefeated during the prime of his career. He won his title with a stoppage over undefeated Crisanto Espana. He defended it seven times vs. some sturdy fighters like Jose Luis Lopez, Oba Carr and Vince Phillips. Then in his first superfight he battled Oscar De La Hoya to a virtual standstill. Oscar edged it on the scorecards but it was so hotly contested no one would’ve batted an eye if Ike would’ve got the nod.
After De La Hoya, Ike became an inactive fighter only taking big fights. He lost the next year to Fernando Vargas. I thought Vargas won the fight, close but clean. After the Vargas fight, Ike was inactive for five years which took away his prime. He comes back and beats Vernon Phillips who is a very tough fighter. Phillips is not the kind of guy you take coming off of a five-year layoff but Quartey was always matched tough. After that he fought Vernon Forest and Winky Wright. Winky beat Quartey cleanly.
Winky was just too much at middleweight for the inactive and ageing Quartey. But I want you to watch the Forest fight. Quartey got smoked with that decision. He beat Forest in my opinion. Wright was the last fight of his career. He finished 37-4-1. If Quartey and Whitaker would’ve fought in 1998, in my opinion Quartey would’ve edged it. Whitaker’s last great stance was against Oscar in 1997 and if he would’ve fought Quartey in 1998, I think Quartey would’ve won a hard-fought decision. I believe Whitaker would’ve had to be at his full peak to beat Quartey at 147lbs. And in 1998 he was not there.
I also took into consideration Whitaker’s fight with Azumah Nelson, Quartey's countrymen in 1990 at lightweight. Whitaker won a decision over Nelson by two points. He didn’t dominate or whitewash Nelson. It was an extremely competitive fight. Quartey wasn’t as savvy as Nelson in terms of setting traps for counter punches. But he was bigger, just as relentless and he had a better jab. They also fight in similar stance and physical make up. As a Whitaker fan I’m glad he didn’t go near Quartey in 1998.
Hey Breadman, I wanted to discuss something with you. When Lara fought recently, they showed a graphic with the oldest champs. Hopkins, Foreman, Moore, and Lara, and my mind went to how Holyfield should’ve been on there, but he got robbed! Holyfield might’ve been one of the first boxers I was really into. When I was in high school, I would watch his bouts on ESPN Classic. The Bowe fights, George Foreman, Mike Tyson, Bert Cooper. In late 2008, Holyfield was going for the WBA belt against Nikolai Valuev. I remember watching it on my computer. At the time, Holyfield was 46 years old, so there was significance to this bout. Holyfield won so clean. Nikolai looked too stiff. Didn’t really do anything to warrant him winning. Holyfield didn’t do anything special, but boxed well. Fought off the bounce, in and out movement. He got in, landed a few quick combos. Got out. Rinse and repeat. He won that bout clean, but lost an MD. Do you remember this bout? How bad was that decision? Thanks.
Bread’s response: I remember the fight. I can’t remember the details verbatum but I remember thinking Holyfield won. I remember thinking at a certain point in a fighter’s career you don’t get the same treatment you get when you’re at your peak box office appeal. In my opinion that was the case when Holyfield got slighted vs. Valuev.
Hey Bread, Thanks for a wonderful answer on the best welterweight of recent generation by comparing them to Hearns and Leonard. All the best, Vince from down under
Bread’s response: I don’t think people realize how good Leonard and Hearns were from 1979-82. They were blowing through contenders and world champions at an historical rate. They won their welterweight titles from Hall of Fame champions in Wilfred Benitez and Pipino Cuevas. Their first fight was the best display of skill at welterweight that I’ve ever seen in HD. So, since that time, it’s just logical and practical to compare the other greats to them. It’s a badge of honor. I’m assuming people in my position did the same thing for Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong after their careers were over.
I have written in previously questioning how future generations would perceive Oleksandr Usyk’s legacy. I believed his decision to focus on the United Kingdom and to fight rematches with three different fighters would hurt his legacy. Usyk recently vacated the WBO title and announced his intention to fight Deontay Wilder. While Wilder is no longer a highly ranked heavyweight, I believe Usyk made a smart decision here. I believe if Usyk fights and defeats Wilder, it will do more for his legacy than any other fight currently available for him. Do you agree?
Bread’s response: I don’t believe Usyk will get the credit he would’ve gotten if he defeated Wilder a few years earlier. Wilder has lost four times since Usyk has entered the heavyweight division. I don’t mind that Usyk fought Joshua, Fury and Dubois. All were relevant opponents. I don’t like to nit-pick an all-time great. But the rematches with all three weren’t exactly necessary.
If you’re suggesting he could’ve done more for his legacy, I guess you may have a slight point… Usyk has never really ducked anyone. I suppose he could fight Agit Kabayel or Moses Itauma. Or maybe next year Jai Opetai or David Benavidez. I don’t think it’s possible for him to fight all four. So maybe two out of the four. Other than that Usyk’s legacy is beyond secure. He’s a top 5 fighter of this century. He’s a top 2 cruiserweight ever. And he’s a top 10ish heavyweight ever.
Hi Breadman, Touching on the Joshua vs. Paul fight, and how things have developed. If we rewind back to December 2016 and the Molina demolition, Joshua looked like the most destructive heavyweight since a prime Tyson. The Klitschko fight then happened. People say that Ruiz ruined Joshua, but if you look at the post-Klitschko performances, even prior to Ruiz, that is clearly incorrect, Joshua changed his stance into a safety first 'boxer', that he never was. In my opinion, that Klitschko fight clearly confused him. He realised that his seek-and-destroy style will not work with all opponents, especially elites. Since then, he appears to be in a constant state of flux. He appears to have no trust in his obvious innate abilities that made him a serial killer. Unfortunately, he has now become a name that people are trying to feed off, every man and his dog seems to call him out. This has now led to him fighting a YouTuber for a serious payday, which he has chosen above any attempt to redeem himself, which I believe he is fully capable of doing based on his abilities. I don't believe he can lose this fight, however, if he does, he has truly reversed his standing from someone who could have been generational, to the biggest embarrassment in boxing history.
Bread’s response: You make some good points. I’ve always felt the Klitshcko fight changed Joshua also. Before the Klitschko fight he was a killer and a legit KO artist. After the Klitschko fight he became an over thinker who just happened to have a big punch. The Andy Ruiz fight just confirmed his trepidations. But make no mistake. Joshua was that guy at one time.
I’ve also always felt his resume was underrated. He fought four undefeated fighters in a row in the middle of his ascent to the title. Joshua took Joseph Parker’s 0, Dillian Whyte’s 0, Charles Martin’s 0 and Dominic Breazeale’s 0. He also has stoppage wins over Klitschko, Wallin, Povetkin and Pulev. And if you throw in his rematch win over Ruiz, you’re looking at a career worthy of HOF consideration.
But, again, if I were to pinpoint a spot where things went in a different direction I would point out the Klitschko fight. Joshua was hurt and exhausted for about three rounds in a row. He seemed under a severe level of stress. When this stuff happens, often times fighters don’t want to put themselves in that position to go through those things again. I think that’s what we are seeing in Joshua. I also think that’s what the handlers of the fighters who are calling him out are also seeing.
Here is where I will disagree with you. I think Joshua CAN lose this fight. I think Jake Paul is similar to Keyser Soze in the movie Usual Suspects. Keyser Soze convinced the world that he didn’t exist which was his power. And Jake Paul has convinced the world that he’s some clown that doesn’t take boxing seriously. I don’t believe that. I believe that Jake Paul trains extremely hard. I believe he takes boxing very seriously. I believe he’s very resourceful. Paul may not be a great fighter. But he’s a very competent one and he’s very serious about his craft in my opinion.
For Joshua’s sake he better take Paul very seriously. If Joshua does not take Paul seriously, he can lose. The timing of this fight favors Paul. Joshua is coming off over a year layoff and a brutal KO loss. He already had confidence issues and dealing with Paul reminding him of his shortcomings won’t be easy. Joshua also “has” to win. When a fighter is in a position where he has to win, sometimes the pressure is overwhelming. Joshua has to win this fight, or his legacy is ruined.
The one good thing I see in Joshua’s favor is his performance vs Francis Ngannou. Ngannou gave Tyson Fury all he wanted and Joshua was picked to deal with Ngannou and dealt with him he did. I liked the spite that Joshua brought into that fight. If Joshua fights carefree and spiteful I believe he will be ok. But anything less than that, there is a reasonable chance he loses.
In my opinion, Joshua needs to step right to Paul and attempt take his head off his shoulders. Joshua doesn’t need to ponder. He doesn’t need to think. He needs to react like a savage. Throw out all the cerebral approaches and be a killer. It will do a lot for his confidence and brand moving forward.
Lennox Lewis had some nights where he wasn’t a total killer and he took plenty of criticism for it. But Lewis had an IT factor that Joshua hasn’t shown in a very long time. Lewis would just show up at times in KILL MODE especially if he felt danger. He showed up like that for Razor Ruddock, Frans Botha, Michael Grant, Andrew Golota and the Hasim Rahman rematch. Joshua can’t play with his food in this fight and watching his countrymen’s demeanour in the fights I mentioned would be good for him as he goes into this fight.
What do you think of Keyshawn Davis leaving BoMac? Davis just announced he cleared out his entire team. But if my memory serves me correctly Keyshawn missed weight by a few pounds and his fight was cancelled. Do you think he’s blaming BoMac for his weight issues or did I miss something? I live in Vegas and there are always rumors swirling in the gyms. I think BoMac handled it with class but it’s still not right. As a trainer is it hard to sacrifice for fighters then at a moment’s notice they can just leave you out to dry? If Davis contacted you to train him is that job you would be interested in?
Bread’s response: Whenever I see fighters leaving their trainers, the first thing that comes to my mind is “I wonder who will be his next trainer”. I sort of mentally exercise my boxing mind and I try to internally predict who the fighter will go to. Other than that, I don't give it much thought. It’s the norm in our business.
In this case, I haven’t heard Keyshawn speak on it publicly and I don’t want to add to a rumor that may not be true. So, until then, I won’t speak on it.
Bread, I follow your journey with your kids on social media. Your son is one of heck of a point guard and wide receiver. And I’ve never seen your daughter lose a race. Her races are amazing. Congrats on the job you’re doing with them. I know you must be very proud. Let’s just say that they didn’t play other sports and they wanted to box. What fighters would you want them to fight like and what fighter would you train them to fight like?
Bread’s response: This is a terrific question. But first off thank you. I live for my kids and I just want to see them be the best version of themselves they can possibly be. Both have made me very proud.
I actually try to dissuade my children from boxing but if they ever wanted to box, I would want them to fight like a prime Sugar Ray Leonard and Roy Jones. Leonard and Jones are the best fighters of my lifetime.
Now who I would train them to fight like is different than who I would train them to fight like. I say this because Leonard and Jones had gifts my kids may or may not have. I may not be able to teach them to fight like Leonard or Jones. But if I had to pick fighters to teach them to fight like. Those fighters would be Terence Crawford, Floyd Mayweather, Salvador Sanchez or Ricardo Lopez. Crawford, Mayweather, Sanchez and Lopez all do teachable things in a fundamentally sound way at an elite level.
There is a viral clip of Floyd Mayweather counting money neat Jay Z at a Lakers game. Ironically enough, I heard you once say that Floyd Mayweather is the Lebron James of boxing because of their sustained excellence. So I started thinking who is the Jay Z of boxing? If you have any other neat comparisons that you like to come up please feel free to share them.
Bread’s response: You guys have me thinking this week. I do remember saying Lebron is actually the Floyd Mayweather of basketball. Floyd is older than Lebron… but both never really had drop offs after their peaks. It’s actually hard to determine when their peaks ended because of their sustained excellence. I never really thought about who the Jay Z of boxing is. When I say these things it’s always an organic statement. It’s just something I come up with. It’s never planned.
So now you’re putting me on the spot. Jay Z is very similar to Lebron and Floyd where he has amazing, sustained excellence. So maybe Lebron James is the Floyd Mayweather of basketball, and Floyd Mayweather is the Jay Z of boxing.
I would say that Muhammad Ali is the Babe Ruth of boxing. I would say Sugar Ray Robinson is the Michael Jordan of boxing. I can’t think of anyone else off the top of my head.
Hi Mr Edwards, I enjoy your work, both as a trainer and educator/journalist which is what I consider the Mailbag. I'm writing in because of something that you were talking about regarding judging and the difficulty of it. It's definitely not as easy as people think a lot of the time. Most people who criticize judges’ scores are doing it because they have an emotional or financial investment in seeing one or the other fighter win. They aren't focusing 100 per cent on the action in the ring or writing down their scores. I did want to correct what appeared to me to be a misconception on your part about how we score and the scoring criteria. I'm a professional boxing judge, I only have a years’ experience but I am a lifelong student of the sport. The only time that that we take defense and ring generalship into account is if the clean effective punching is completely equal and it never really is. Effective aggression is part of clean effective punching; ring generalship and defense only matter as means to put you in position to land clean effective punches. In a nutshell, clean effective punches are really the only criteria that matters when scoring a fight, we don't evaluate the clean effective punching and then the other criteria. The others only get looked at if the clean effective punching is equal, and it never is; one fighter’s punches will always be superior either in number or especially and most importantly in effect. I'm sorry for such a long message. I hope that what I explained made sense. Have a great day. Merry Christmas and best wishes to you and your family.
Bread’s response: Thank you for writing in.
Brother Bread, Hope all is good with you and yours, especially in this holiday season. Now, I know you saw that our main man Terence "Bud" Crawford has decided to hang up his gloves and, unlike a lot of guys, Bud seems like the type of dude who lives up to his word & isn't going to come back every few years like some people. My question is, can you give us a full analysis of his legacy in boxing? Where do you see him all time at 135, 140, 147, and pound for pound? How do you think he matches up head-to-head against the greatest who ever did it. Salute.
Bread’s response: After Terence Crawford retired I got about a dozen emails asking me the same thing. But this one was nice and short and concise… I don’t like comparing fighters of different eras because no one can control when they were born. Some eras have better fighters. Some eras have a better business model. Some eras have more belts available and so forth. So, I will try my best but it’s no exact science because of the era factor.
That being said, I don’t rank Bud Crawford all time at 135, 154 or 168. I rank him all time at 140 and 147 and, overall, as a fighter. He just doesn’t have enough fights at 135, 154 and 168 for me to rank him all time in those divisions. But head-to-head there are plenty of great fighters in those divisions I feel he could’ve beaten.
In this century, Bud is as good as any fighter that has competed from 2000 to the present. He may be the best fighter of this century. Only Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Monster Inoue and Oleksandr Usyk can make a strong challenge to that statement.
Bud is one of the best switch hitters I’ve seen. He has to be top two in that category. Only Marvin Hagler can challenge that.
He’s one of the best southpaws I’ve ever seen. Only Pernell Whitaker, Marvin Hagler, Oleksandr Usyk and Manny Pacquiao can argue that.
I think Bud is a top 5-10 junior welterweight ever. Head-to-head he may be able to beat everyone at 140lbs. There are some great fighters who fought at 140lbs. Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Aaron Pryor, Julio Cesar Chavez, Wilfred Benitez, Oscar De La Hoya, Floyd Mayweather, Pernell Whitaker and Manny Pacquiao. Bud stands a 50/50 or better chance to beat every one of them.
Welterweight is boxing’s greatest division ever in my opinion. It’s harder to break through in the top 10 ever at welterweight with fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Leonard hovering strong in the Top 5. And fighters like Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao having some of their career-defining moments at the weight. I think Crawford is the best welterweight of his era. I think he can compete head-to-head with any of the welterweights in history. But I don’t believe he’s top 10. I would say top 15ish. His resume after the Spence fight at 147 is not deeper than the greats who are ahead of him.
Bud Crawford, in my opinion, ranks higher head-to-head and overall than he does in a specific division. One of the reasons for this is because in this era, fighters jump divisions more and promotional ties effect who gets to fight who. I don’t take credit away from Bud because of his lack of HOF and ATG on his resume but I also can’t rank him over fighters who do have the ATGs and HOFs on their resumes.
Overall, I think Crawford is one of the best fighters ever. He’s one of the best I’ve ever seen. He’s the only fighter in history who is competitive with anyone in history from 135-168. And I would comfortably say he’s one of the top 25 fighters ever. Special fighter.
Send CONCISE questions & comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
