Daily Bread Mailbag: Why Keith Thurman can win another world belt; identifying the best punches

GARY ANTUANNE RUSSELL… SHADES OF AARON PRYOR

Hi Breadman, Once again thanks for taking the time to read these emails. Your mailbag is one of the best sources of boxing insights out there. Personally, I am tired of hearing about Tank’s decision to take a knee. It was a knockdown. Plain and simple. Ref got it wrong. Let's move on. My question is about an amazing performance that unfortunately is being overlooked: Gary Antuanne Russell was an absolute monster. The aggression… the skill ...the gas tank! I was reminded of Aaron Pryor. Russell simply invaded Rayo's space all night.  Rayo was uncomfortable from rounds 1 to 12. For me, it was another great, "feel good" comeback story for 2025. Stephen Fulton's performance earlier this year being the other. Where does that win leave Russell among 140 pounders? Teo Lopez might be the best in the division right now and he is a great counter puncher, but even the best counter punchers would have a hard time with Russel's output and aggression. I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Mark

Bread’s response: Gary Antuanne Russell gave a special performance. I never paired him mentally with Aaron Pryor but I can see it. As far as who’s the best at 140lbs; it has yet to be determined. They all have to fight and we have to see the performances. I wouldn’t count Russell out. I think on any given night he can beat all of the top guys at 140lbs.

THE BLADE IN SAQUON BARKLEY

Sup Bread? Did you know that Saquon Barkley is the great nephew of Iran Barkley and was almost a boxer? His father used to have him fight random kids in the streets before football took over.

Bread’s response: Yes I knew Saquon was Iran Barkley’s nephew. I also read Saquon’s dad made him fight random kids. It shows when he plays football. It also shows because Saquon is coachable. Kids who are raised with strong fathers are usually more coachable.

POUND FOR POUND

My current P4P list for reference:

1. Inoue

2a+2b Usyk, Crawford

4. Bam

5. Bivol

6. Benavidez. I think he ko's Beterbiev

7. Beterbiev

8. Canelo

9. Nakatani

10a+10b+10c Tank, Shakur, Oscar Collazo

Bread’s response: I like your list…. P4P list are fluid and performance based. Here is mine. 

1a. Crawford

1b. Inuoe

1c. Usyk. The top three all are interchangeable and each has a compelling argument to #1. For the record I put them in alphabetical order 

4. Bivol

5. Beterbiev I’m respecting the official decision of their fight. But they seem about dead even…

6. Bam

7. Benavidez

8. Canelo

9. Nakatani

10. Boots, Shakur and Tank are all fighting for this spot. I want to see their next performances to see who earns it. Right now, I would give an edge to Boots. Listen to how highly Shakur and Tank speaks of Boots. They know how special he is because they were in the amateurs with him. They have information that the general public does not have.

WHY FIGHTERS STRUGGLE TO RETIRE

There have been many fighters who fought long past their prime because of financial issues. But that's not what I'm asking about. I'm curious about the fighters that you think keep going simply because it's not in them to hang up their gloves? I've known people in various walks of life who seem to be physically incapable of walking away or retiring. I knew an older gentlemen who tried retirement, but it didn't stick. His attitude for work is that he's just going to go "until the wheels fall off". Have you known or seen boxers like that? Like it took an intervention from loved ones to get them to retire because they wanted to go "until the wheels fall off"? 

Bread’s response: 90% of boxers don’t retire from boxing. They stop when “boxing” retires them. What I mean by that is they retire once they get beaten so bad, that they are incapable of coming back. Or the system of boxing mistreats them so bad, that it’s not worth fighting. So most of the fighters I know are what you described. 

It’s why I always want fighters to go out on top. I also preach to them to step away a fight early, rather than a fight too late. Being in the limelight is very addictive. It activates the dopamine and getting someone to walk away from that is not an easy task. But the one thing I won’t ever do is try to force my opinion on a fighter. I state my opinion and allow them to do what they want. And what I realized is the same things that make a fighter a good fighter, also hurts them in real life. Their determination and stubbornness are traits that make them good fighters. But it also keeps them from walking away on time. It’s why most good careers end with losses to fighters that they once would’ve beaten. 

I don’t think it’s a way to overcome this. It’s almost like the Laws of Nature with boxing. Most boxers don’t really retire. They sort of fade away through the laws of attrition. Andre Ward, Joe Calzaghe and Lennox Lewis are the outliers in boxing, not the norm.

NYSAC RULING ON TANK-ROACH

What do you think of the NYSAC ruling, to overturn the draw in the Davis vs Roach fight? Personally I’m torn. I feel it was a knockdown but I also feel like Tank would’ve stepped up his attack if it would’ve been called a knockdown. Where do they go from here?

Bread’s response: I think both Tank and Lamont go directly into their rematch. The rematch will garner big money and big attention. I thought it was a knockdown also. But I also factored in your point. Tank may have reacted differently if he knew he lost a round 10-8, similar to how he reacted when Floyd Mayweather told him he was losing to Mario Barrios. It’s one of those things where you view it differently depending on what dog you have in the race. 

If you’re a Lamont Roach fan, you lose your mind. You feel like if Lamont gets a 10-8 round, then he wins the fight. If you’re a Tank Davis fan, you say Tank would’ve fought differently if the knockdown was called.

I personally say, the right call should’ve been made in the moment or in between rounds. The referee actually started counting, as did the timekeeper. The replay was on the screen. If the fans can see the replay, the officials could. So overall, I think it was a “knockdown”. I think a call was “missed”. 

But I think waiting and trying to overrule something after the fact is always difficult because of the variables. At the end of the day, Lamont Roach is the victim of a missed call. I’m not going to say he would’ve definitely won because Tank may have gone into beast mode. But Roach was surely deprived of a knockdown. 

CAN KEITH THURMAN COME ALL THE WAY BACK?

Normally, I would dismiss the chances of an older, often injured fighter coming off a layoff. That being said, I actually think Keith Thurman has a chance to win a  championship again. When I look at the champions between 147 and 160 pounds, I think Thurman can compete. He’s not the best of that bunch but I think he might have a real shot to win against a few of those champions. Am I thinking with my heart instead of my head? Do you think Thurman is finished or do you think he has a shot to beat relevant again? Thank you!

Bread’s response: If anything Thurman should be preserved. He’s fought four times in eight years!!! You would think he would look rusty but he rarely does. He’s an A-side fighter who has star power. He can call some shots. I bring that up because he can survey the landscape and pick who he wants to fight. I think he can be a player and beat certain fighters. I give him a live shot to beat Tim Tszyu. I don’t think it was a coincidence that Thurman just fought a tune-up in Australia. It makes sense because Tszyu has struggled three out of three times with his fights here in the US. He’s 1-2 and in his one victory he was dropped. 

Thurman also has some huge fights between 147-160. And as long as a capable fighter can pick the best match up for himself, he has a chance to succeed. If that fighter has the pedigree of a Keith Thurman, he has a better than average chance to succeed. Let’s see what happens. I believe if Tszyu is successful vs Joey Spencer, Tszyu vs Thurman will be a big showdown in the fall.

IS ORTIZ DUCKING MURTAZALIEV?

Hey Breadman, Did you see the story where Oscar said he didn't want Vergil Ortiz to burn out by having too many (3) tough fights in a row by facing IBF JMW champ Bakhram Murtazaliev next? Kathy Duva sent Vergil/Oscar an offer to fight on June 28th. Do you believe it's a case where they don't want any part of Bakhram because he's too tough and they can find an easier title shot or just Oscar doesn't want 3 tough fights in a row for Vergil? Thanks! Glenn

Bread’s response: I didn’t read that but I certainly understand it. While they say you should never turn down a title shot, I get that line of thinking, if indeed Oscar said that. Vergil Ortiz is not a fighter who appears will age well in boxing. He goes 100mph, he has a high anxiety type of energy in the ring and he marks up really bad. He’s being compared to Fernando Vargas and Oscar may be looking out for him. 

I would favor Ortiz to beat Bakhram but you can’t win a fight that you don’t take. And Bakhram looked like a wrecking ball vs Tim Tszyu. In the era we are in, I can see Bakhram being ducked. Let’s see how it plays out.

THE TURKI TAKEOVER

Hey Breadman, Hope you're doing well. Thanks for doing this every week, my brother and I love it. My question is about Turki. I think that he's realised that out of all the sports in the world, boxing is the one you can basically "buy". No matter how much money you have, there are too many systems, rules and governing bodies in place in other sports like football and boxing to make it conceivable to really "control" the sport as a whole. I won't get into the reasons behind why Turki wants to do this (sportswashing, etc.) because I know you don't like getting into politics, but my question is if you think he CAN do this. My guess with this new league is that it aims to follow the model of UFC. However, do you think they can do this model considering how much more boxers get paid? Maybe their aim is to reduce the amount boxers are paid similar to the UFC, but I don't think that any current boxers are gonna accept a pay cut, and I feel like up-and-comers may see what boxers are making now and refuse anything less. I also think there are just too many professional boxers to be able to do this. Maybe they can try to sign the top 20 fighters in every weight class (the ones they are planning to keep, anyway), but they are always gonna be missing someone, or relying on other promoters to build fighters, etc. I think MMA wasn't really developed as a sport, which is what allowed the UFC to be created. Boxing is, and I don't know if they'll really be able to do it, but my question is: Do you think they really can "buy" boxing? My other question is what do you think of the reduced number of weight classes? Personally I don't like it and think it's less safe for the fighters. Thanks again and sorry for the long email, you told my brother last week that he has to start sending shorter ones so I thought I'd carry the torch, Dean

Bread’s response: The one thing I have learned in life is not to rush my opinion. People who rush a strong stance on any subject often look foolish when things aren’t what they said they were. That’s where I am on Turki Alalshikh. 

I just don’t know enough about the new league to say if I like it or not. I haven’t seen enough of a body of work to say what’s what. I have to see how things go for a few years. I have to hear the fighters’ and managers’ opinions of how they are treated. I have to see how the pay is dispersed. I have to see how a fighter is treated when they lose. I have to see how they bring along young prospects. Right now I’m going to keep my mouth shut and just observe.

DEBATING THAT MELDRICK TAYLOR STOPPAGE

Bread, Hope you and yours are well. Great seeing you on the ProBox panel recently, and hope it’s the start of something fruitful. You were on point regarding the Whitaker and Randall fights going JC Chávez’s way, something was obviously amiss there. Looking at the Taylor outcome through that lens is a stretch though considering JCC was actually in his prime for that one, and the culmination of the steady work he did was worthy of a stoppage by any metric you go by.  Sure, HBO’s DAZN-like commentary was late in seeing the damaging work JCC put in the whole way in chopping down the naturally bigger man, but that’s beside the point. I realize the sentiment isn’t yours alone, but to say Richard Steele was on the take because of how things ended is simplistic, at best. Putting on your forensic boxing historian hat instead of that of the fan from Philly you were when you first saw it, a spotlight is needed on Steele’s actions through the entire fight. He was impartial, took no points, and didn’t interject unnecessarily. As a matter of fact, you hardly notice his presence throughout. The conspiracy you spoke of hinged on the hopes of a late KD? That just doesn’t compute. It was a call made in the moment and it was a difficult one, no doubt.  Taylor, dead game warrior that he was, got up on horribly unsteady legs, took a full 8, looks badly hurt and is given a really hard look, fails to respond to a pointed question, and only then is this masterpiece of a fight called. Steele stood up like the man he was and breaks down his mindset in plain terms during the post-fight interview. I know you think he should’ve had eyes on the clock, but he gives you his mindset there too.  Of course anything is possible, and he may have made bad calls in later fights, but how can you honestly say he was crooked based on his conduct during this fight and his reasoning for the stoppage?  His stoppage of Hagler-Hearns is widely considered a merciful one, yet it’s another brutal war where the vanquished beats the count and is stopped on his feet. You’ll say that was the 3rd round, not the 12th, and the fact of the matter is the rule states a fighter “may” be saved by the bell in the final round. It doesn’t say a fighter “must” be saved, it’s a judgement call. The whole reason they were going 12 is because of Kim-Mancini less than 8 yrs earlier, another grueling battle of attrition. You think refs of the time weren’t drilled on safety first after that tragedy? If corruption was at play in this fight the only way it could’ve been done is the way it’s always done, on the scorecards. Taylor was winning there, no 118 - 110 scores like Leonard was gifted against Hagler in another controversial fight fans of the time will forever be passionate about. Jim Lampley’s hyperbolic reaction at the end is a big reason so much focus is still put on the ending instead of the magnificent test of wills we witnessed by the No 1 and 2 P4P fighters in the world that night. Pundits perpetuating Taylor as a victim of injustice instead of focusing on the fistic dynamo he was have hurt his HOF chances far more than anything though. Steele was without question the best referee in the world going into the fight and had the best view of the two-way action being dished out. It was a life or death contest if ever we saw one and JCC confirmed as much many times. I realize there’s always a need to scapegoat someone when things go awry, that’s just our nature, but you were far more forgiving of Steve Willis recently in that Tank Davis debacle. I get you wouldn’t want to shade Willis in case he works one or your fights, but that one stunk to high heaven. As for the initial question that prompted your corruption diatribe, it’s a great injustice Taylor didn’t make the HOF on the first ballot and still isn’t in. We always say they ruined each other that night but what really happened is they casted each other in bronze forever, and no HOF bust will ever outshine that. Meldrick Taylor was the absolute truth, has a rightful place on any ATG list worth reading, and is one of the most revered fighters, ever, for the Mexican/Mexican American boxing fan base who witnessed the era. We knew what our man JCC was going into that night and true fans of any background who saw Taylor will always know the total package he was. The only injustice here is some have repeatedly been conditioned to forget. Thanks, Ray - Elmhurst, IL

Bread’s response: Once a month someone writes in about Julio Cesar Chavez vs Meldrick Taylor I. Honestly I think I irritate you guys by stating that for as great as Chavez was, and he was truly special by the way, that he was the beneficiary of multiple questionable calls. So in turn you try to irritate me and you bring up Meldrick Taylor. You even bring up Ray Leonard vs Hagler because you know Leonard is my favorite fighter. I don’t miss much, I see what you did. But it’s all good because I’m not irritated. I’m just honest. 

You guys try to bring up the Philly allegiance but I don’t complain about the questionable calls that some Philly fighters have gotten. I don’t bring up Tevin Farmer who was on the short of end of some funny decisions. I don’t bring up Kyrone Davis who I train and his draw vs Anthony Dirrell. And obviously it’s not a black thing, because Richard Steele and Don King are black. Nevertheless, let’s talk about it since you wrote in. 

You say “our” in referencing Chavez. So obviously you’re Mexican. In boxing there has been an invisible racial line that has been drawn. But I can see it. Chavez’s three most controversial fights have been vs Black Americans Meldrick Taylor, Pernell Whitaker and Frankie Randall. I can’t make this up. It’s a fact!

I don’t base my assessment on emotions. I based them on facts. You sound ridiculous stating that you believe that corruption was in place in the Whitaker and Randall fights because Chavez was past his best. But not in the Taylor fight because he was in his prime. My goodness that’s a reach. Taylor was the best fighter Chavez had faced up until that point.

You say Richard Steele wasn’t a big factor in the fight before the knockdown. Well I say the fight was brutal but they weren’t fighting dirty and they weren’t clinching much. So Steele had NO reason to be a factor in a vicious but clean fight. But a fight is twelve rounds, not eleven-and-a-half rounds. So Steele was a factor!

You say my conspiracy theory hinges on a late knockdown. No it doesn’t. My theory hinges on opportunity. When they had an opportunity to screw Taylor, they did. Chavez is a great fighter. He’s actually greater than Taylor, I can admit that. Chavez earned the knockdown. He just didn’t earn the stoppage. Chavez’s competitive greatness gave them the opportunity they needed and wanted. If Chavez doesn’t get the knockdown, all we say is Taylor won but one judge had an off night. 

You say the scorecards weren’t corrupt because Taylor was winning, but they were. One judge had Chavez up 105-104. That’s six rounds to five going into the 12th round. The other judges had Taylor up 107-102 and 108-101. Let me ask you. What judges were correct in their scoring of the fight? I will tell you, there is literally no way that Chavez won six rounds. I thought he won two out of eleven. So that stunk to me, because one judge was obviously in the bag. 

You say Steele explained himself. I say so what. I have never heard a corrupt person say they were corrupt when confronted. They always have a story. Did you ever listen to Pete Rose or Roger Clemens talk about gambling or PEDs? People by nature are prideful and rarely admit wrongdoing unless they’re caught red-handed. They take pride in going to their graves with their stories.

I heard Steele say the clock doesn’t matter to him. I call BS! How much time that is left, is a huge factor in any fight. Taylor would not have taken another punch. Steele has to say the clock doesn't matter because if he acknowledges that Taylor would not have taken another shot, then he loses credibility.

Everyone who is on Chavez’s side in this always brings up rules and safety. Well if you want to stick to rules and safety, then factor in if Chavez is made to go to the neutral corner, the fight is over. With two seconds left, Taylor would have never taken another punch. Stopping that fight had nothing to do with the safety of Meldrick Taylor, it had to do with the preservation of Chavez’s perfect record. 

Don King was the first promoter to tap into the Latino market and turn a latino fighter into a superstar. He promoted Roberto Duran, Salvador Sanchez and later Julio Cesar Chavez. He knew what that market meant….

I base my assessment on several facts that I will name for you. Chavez won a majority decision over Rocky Lockridge in 1986, another Main Events fighter by the way. One judge had it 119-113 for Chavez. While others had it 116-116 and 116-113. I still don’t know the math they used with those cards but those were the scores. I’m not even going to complain that Chavez won. But there's no way he won eleven rounds. That’s what 119 is with lots of even rounds. Weird right…I bet you will say I made this up, but I didn’t.

I will go in chronological order with the rest of the facts. I’m glad you brought up Tommy Hearns. I wasn’t going to but you gave me the segue. Have you seen Hearns vs Barkley in 1988? I have many times. Hearns was knocked senseless by Barkley and he hit his head on the canvas. He tried to get up but fell back down. Then he got up wobbly, with his mouthpiece sticking out. He was asked a question and barely answered and guess what, he was allowed to continue. Hearns was stopped a few seconds later. Guess who the referee was? You got it, Richard Steele. Hearns was in much worse shape than Taylor but he was the A-side vs Barkley. Go watch the fight before you argue.

Then on the fateful night in 1990. Chavez is definitely hitting Taylor with some hard punches and they were doing damage. I can’t deny that. But Taylor was getting the better of the scoring and he was winning. Whatever damage that Taylor was receiving didn’t stop him from outscoring Chavez in 80% of the rounds. The damage that Taylor took only became a big issue after Taylor’s career spiraled. That night no one said Chavez was damaging him so bad, that the fight should’ve been stopped. Go back and watch the initial reaction. It was outrage and suspicion of corruption because while Don King is a great promoter, he is also a man that is not known for a high moral compass if you know what I mean. 

Richard Steele was facing the 10-second buzzer. There is no way he didn’t know how much time was left. Richard Steele also rushed his instructions. He asked “are you ok”, Taylor gave a slight nod and looked over to Lou Duva who is also at fault for distracting him. Steele asked again, “are you ok”, in a hurry and waved the fight before Taylor could answer. I believe Steele knew that the formal commands that come after that, would’ve ended the fight. Again look at the fight and challenge my opinion with facts. 

So exactly one year later in 1991 Tyson vs Ruddock I takes place. The fight is stopped abruptly in the 7th round. An immediate rematch is ordered for three months later. Now I want you to guess who the referee and promoter were. You guessed it, Richard Steele and Don King. In fact Chavez was actually on the undercard. I have a sick memory when it comes to these things. So someone thought poorly of Steele’s stoppage call because an immediate rematch was ordered in a WBC eliminator. 

Now let’s go to Whitaker vs Chavez 1993. There's no need to go into further detail because Whitaker won nine rounds. There is no way that fight was a draw. Tyson was in jail at the time and Chavez’s stature had to be preserved. 

So now let’s go to Chavez vs Randall I in 1994. Richard Steele is the referee in this fight. He deducts not one, but two points from Chavez for low blows. Steele tries to overcompensate to overcome his reputation as a bias referee for Don King’s  A-side fighters. During the broadcast Ferdie Pacheco and Bobby Czyz point out that Steele “gave” Chavez the victory over Taylor and went on to say that Steele was trying to reverse history. Those are not my words. Those are the house announcers for Chavez’s home network. Again, watch the fight!!!!

Despite being dropped and having two points deducted for low blows, Chavez still gets a split decision loss. Meaning he won on one of the judge’s scorecards. Then in the rematch a rule is activated to deduct a point from the fighter who was not cut because of headbutt. Chavez wins a technical decision but some say he refused to fight on because he knew the rule would favor him. I don’t know if he was winning but, better yet, a rubber match does not happen until many years later. If there was ever a need for a third fight, it was in this situation….Hmmmm…I wonder why. 

Let’s go to another A-side Don King fighter a few years later in 1999, Felix Trinidad. I love Trinidad and he was my favorite fighter at the time. But objectively speaking, he did not beat Oscar De La Hoya. There was actually a judge who gave Oscar the 12th round. The judge was overcompensating because his scorecards would’ve been too wide in Trinidad’s favor and the universal view of the fight was Oscar was winning but gave up the last three rounds which allowed Trinidad back in it. But this judge gave Oscar the 12th. Again, I can’t make this up. 

So after seeing the favorable treatment that Chavez had received throughout his career vs Lockridge, Taylor, Randall and Whitaker, then seeing the A-side treatment that Hearns, Tyson and Trinidad received, I believe something stank about the Chavez vs Taylor stoppage. My opinion is not based on emotions. It’s based on real facts that you can research and facts that I can clearly state.

I said Steve Willis missed a knockdown call. But Willis doesn't have mulitple questionable calls to my knowledge. If he does, then write to me and elaborate. But I'm not going to put him in the same category of Richard Steele for one questionable call. I wouldn't say this about Richard Steele if there was just one incident...

As for the Hall of Fame. I don’t argue hard that Taylor should be in the HOF. In all honesty he has a solid case but he’s not a first ballot type of fighter. His peak wasn’t long enough although it was very high. But my stance became more firm when Buddy McGirt got in. Not because McGirt wasn’t a great fighter. But because Taylor stopped McGirt in their primes and they basically had the same career at the championship level. And now that Vinny Pazienza was elected in, I’m ten toes down on fighters like Meldrick Taylor getting in, because by any metric he was better than Pazienza. No disrespect to Pazienza but Taylor was the better fighter by enough of a margin where there shouldn’t be an argument. 

And miss me again with the BS that Taylor is not in the HOF because people like me believe he was screwed vs Chavez. He’s not in because he wasn’t voted in by the voters. It’s simple. Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank aren’t in either. What’s your excuse on why they aren’t in? Simon Brown had 8 title defenses at 147lbs, unified his division and has one of the best wins of the 90s in his stoppage over Terry Norris at 154lbs and he can’t get in. Marlon Starling who beat Brown, Mark Breland and Lloyd Honeyghan can’t even get on the ballot. I'm keeping them out too? The next time you write in, address the facts that I state, instead of arguing just to argue.

WHAT NEXT FOR KEITH THURMAN?

Breadman, Just wanted to give a shout out to ‘One Time’ for getting back in the win column. He was clearly head and shoulders above Jarvis so I still have to give credit to Jarvis for taking the fight. Where do you think Thurman goes next? Does he fight one of the young lions in Fundora, Jesus Ramos Jnr, Ortiz and the likes? Or does he go after one of his contemporaries in Spence, Jermell Charlo or Julian Williams? Heck, I would personally even like to see him against Lara at 160lbs, I see that as a 50/50 fight. Lastly, I just wanted to give you a shout out for what you have accomplished. As a young boy you sat and watched Sugar Ray Robinson and other great fighters fight on TV with your grandpa. You grew up playing hoops, almost D1 level I might add. To slowly getting into the boxing game. From Boxingtalk mailbags to Boxingscene mailbags, guest commentating on podcasts, guiding multiple boxers to contender and championship level and even training your own kids to be world class athletes - your daughter is #1 runner at 400m in the US. You have reached the pinnacle on so many levels. Your hard work, perseverance and dedication to the sport, family and friends have not gone unnoticed! Stand up Stephen Edwards, you have much to be proud of! May the blessings keep falling your way.Richard K. Oregon

Bread’s Response: Thank you. Track season is upon us. This is a big year for both of my kids. I think Thurman fights Tszyu next, if Tszyu wins. If Tszyu doesn’t win, I can see Thurman fighting Jermell Charlo.

IDENTIFYING THE BEST PUNCHES OF THE BEST FIGHTERS

Hello Breadman, I once wrote that Beterbiev's best punch is his straight right to the body. I don't know if you would agree with that or not. If you are interested to give your thoughts I would like to hear what you think is the best punch of the following fighters: Terence Crawford, Bam Rodriguez, Naoya Inoue, Vasyl Lomachenko, Dmitry Bivol, David Benavidez, Oleksandr Usyk, Floyd Mayweather Jnr, Evander Holyfield, Andre Ward, Bernard Hopkins. That's 12 fighters I have named - hopefully it's not too many, one for each round. I intentionally picked fighters who are well-rounded, I think it's more interesting that way. With Floyd I can't decide between body jab and his fast left hook. Bhop in particular I like his lead right hand. Much Respect.

Bread’s Response: This is a very good question because sometimes I see fighters who are known for a great punch but when I study them their best punch is different from what they are most known for. For example everyone talks about Joe Louis’s right hand. But if you study him you see that his left hook is every bit as good as his right hand and it’s more sneaky in terms of shock value when it lands. 

Beterbiev - I think his best punch is his sweeping right hand that lands behind the ear.

Terence Crawford - I think his right hook out of the southpaw stance is his best shot.

Bam Rodriguez is hard to assess. He’s very even handed with his delivery. I don’t want to guess and be wrong but I haven’t really identified a money shot with Bam.

Monster Inoue is also hard to figure. But I’m going to pick his left hook to the liver.

Vasyl Lomachenko - a left hand underneath to the liver from his southpaw stance.

Dmitri Bivol - I’m going to say his straight right hand.

David Benavidez is tough. Very tough to determine. But I think it’s his left hook to the liver.

Oleksandr Usyk - I say his straight left hand to the pit of the stomach. It lands over and over on orthodox fighters.

Floyd Mayweather - I say his lead right hand is his best punch. But his jab to the belly is his 1b go to shot.

Evander Holyfield - is very even handed but I think his left hook is his money shot.

Andre Ward - left jab.

Bernard Hopkins - lead right hand.

Send Questions & Comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com