The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Marco Antonio Barrera vs. Naseem Hamed, Gerald McClellan, Guillermo Rigondeaux, the career of Steve Collins, Kell Brook and more.
This week is the anniversary of Marco Antonio Barrera’s drubbing of the Prince. I saw a documentary on the Prince and he seemed to lose that fight in camp. I read some of Emanuel Steward’s comments and he literally said they picked the wrong Mexican and he wanted Erik Morales. What are your thoughts on Steward’s comments did he show lack of confidence in Hamed and should he have kept that a secret? How do you rate the Prince’s overall career?
Bread’s Response: This is one of the few big fights I didn’t watch live as it happened. I had a birthday party that night and I taped it. I hurried home to watch it without finding out the winner. I thought to myself that night, that Barrera fought a perfect fight. He really put a great jab on Hamed so he was able to time Hamed’s unorthodox power punches. I was a Barrera guy. I thought he had got jobbed vs Morales in their 1st fight and I thought he looked sensational vs Jesus Salud in his tune up fight before the Hamed fight.
Emanuel Steward knew what he was looking at. He commentated the Barrera vs Salud fight and you could hear the CONCERN in his voice tone. I saw the documentary on Hamed also. And he seemed complacent. He seemed dismissive. But who knows maybe that’s how he always trained. I personally wouldn’t have liked his demeanor if I were training him but maybe that was just him.
I don’t have an issue with Steward’s comments. When a trainer tells his fighter to NOT take a fight, and the fighter doesn’t listen then the trainer shouldn’t have to FALL on that sword. It’s hard for a fighter to accept his trainer telling him to not fight someone but if the fighter values the trainer’s EYE then he should stand down and listen and if he doesn’t he better WIN. Hamed didn’t win. Just recently Ernesto Rodriguez said in an interview he told Jarret Hurd to not take the Julian Williams fight. Hurd didn’t listen. This happens more than the fans know. Trainers suffer criticism for a fighter taking a loss. Their brand is on the line also. They should be able to say in a respectful way that they tried to avoid a fight and was overruled. Boxing is a sport. It’s not drug dealing. It’s not snitching by telling the truth about not wanting a fight.
I don’t believe a trainer should say personal things publicly about a fighter. But a trainer should be able to speak on things a fighter does counterproductive relating to boxing like gaining too much weight, not being focused etc. I’ve heard many other trainers make similar comments. At the end of the DAY, Steward was correct. His opinion should have been respected.
I rate the Prince’s career very high. I think he has a case for being the best puncher of the 90s. He has a case for being the best puncher ever in the featherweight division. If I’m not mistaken he held every featherweight title at some point or another even if he didn’t hold them all at the same time. He had about 14 or 15 defenses. He was a legitimate great fighter. Maybe not an ATG but definitely a great fighter. He lined up some excellent fighters and he usually beat them by KO. He did openly duck Juan Manuel Marquez and that has to be held against him. But he was much more than the Barrera fight. I think he’s one of the top 15ish featherweights ever and featherweight is one of the original 8 divisions.
I hope you're doing well and your spending loads of time with the family while the gym is quiet.
1. Either you or Doug Fisher in his mailbag mentioned that it seemed McLellan had suffered a concussion during training for the Benn fight. I was hoping you could give some detail on how one could arrive at such a conclusion?
2. Why do you think fighters so seldom go to Canelo's body? He fights flat footed, and his head movement is ridiculous. I would think body shots are the obvious thing to do.
3. You've mentioned, more than any other fighter, that Golovkin leads a spartan lifestyle. Why/how do you see that? And who are your top 5 Spartans in boxing history (Marciano comes to mind)?
Lastly, are there any books you would recommend on boxing technique?
Thanks for the mailbags, they're a weekly treasure.
Bread’s Response: 1. That wasn’t me who said that about McClellan, maybe my man Dougie said it. But I did hear that Tarick Salmaci hurt Gerald McClellan in sparring really bad with a shot that wasn’t a big deal and that may have been an early sign he was damaged going into that Benn fight. I personally think he was damaged going into the fight and the RABBIT punches during the fight didn’t help. Benn hit him behind the head at least 30 times during that fight. I still can’t watch the fight in it’s entirety. It’s such a shame that McClellan only made 250k for that tough of a fight. Fighters today are BEYOND spoiled. They have no idea what talented guys like McClellan had to endure.
2. I think no one goes to the body on Canelo because he’s a master counter puncher and he’s going to punch your face off. The fighter that can consistently touch his body will benefit greatly. Good pick up. No one even tries. I was very disappointed that GGG didn’t touch his body more. But there is a reason for that. Canelo is murder on you when you open up.
3. I’ve said that GGG TRAINS like a SPARTAN. I don’t know what he does when he’s NOT in camp. But I’ve seen him in camp and he trains harder than any fighter I’ve seen. I watched him spar 4 to 5 World Class sparring partners for 12 rounds at 4 minutes apiece in the brutal heat of his gym in the summer. It was unreal to watch that. And each sparring partner was trying to tear his head off. Then after sparring he did a whole bag and weight routine after the sparring with a hot suit on. The fighters in camp also told me he runs really hard on his miles and he does an extensive core and weight routine as his strength work. It was impressive.
What's up, Bread Man? I hope you're well and staying safe.
Just one thing today -- Why are certain fighters totally overlooked, while others are totally over-hyped? I bring this up because a name kept popping into my head whenever Chris Eubank Sr. and Nigel Benn are mentioned. The fighter's name is Stevie Collins, an excellent super-middleweight from Ireland who fought in the 90s. Collins convincingly beat Benn and Eubank Sr. twice and his only losses were by competitive decision at 160 to Reggie Johnson, Sumbu Kalambay and Mike McCallum. He fought on the road most of his career and never lost badly when he lost, and twice whooped two guys fans, media and historians hold in rather high regard?
To ask plainly, why don't fans, boxing media and historians recognize Stevie Collins the same way they deify Joe Calzaghe, especially since Collins ended his career on a very impressive five year winning streak from 1992 until 1997? It puzzles me the same way the fact that Marlon Starling Sr. not being in the HOF puzzles me. I'm not Irish and have no dog in the race, but the manner in which Collins' career has been slighted is mystifying. Maybe it's because his best wins were at 168 and not 160. Please give me your take on it.
Carl Hewitt - New York, NY
Bread’s Response- Good Question. I don’t get asked about Steve Collins much but he could really GO. I think fighters who’s styles aren’t aesthetically pleasing get punished somewhat unless they have HUGE wins. That’s the only thing I can think of because everything you said was TRUE.
Collins reinvented himself. He took some tough losses to Mike McCallum, Sambu Kalumbay and Reggie Johnson. The Johnson and Kalambay fights could have went either way, they were narrow losses. He wins the WBO title at 160 and then moves up and goes on a tear. He actually took Eubank’s 0. People from this era may not know this but Eubank also made it to over 40-0 and his record was marketed as a big deal back then. Collins beat both Eubank and Benn twice apiece and ended his career on a 5 year win streak. Very impressive.
Some may suggest that Collins caught them at the right time or that Benn was slipping which could be true. But Collins is the same age roughly as both, and he turned pro within a year of BOTH. He also fought killers early on just like them. So…… if Eubank and Benn deserve to be in the HOF then why not the rant for Collins, I get it. He also left boxing on a win streak, he knew when to get out.
Collins wasn’t a dominant type of athlete. But he was a busy bruising fighter. He reminds me of a mix of Carl Froch and Barry McGuigan but McGuigan is more dynamic. I rarely pick anyone over Roy Jones. And I don’t pick Collins to beat Jones. But Collins was asking for that fight in 1997 and Jones said he was considering it. Collins was a volume guy and he was tough as a bad of rocks. Jones for as great as he was went back to ropes often but it only cost him later. I think Jones beats him but Collins was on such a hot streak and he wanted that fight so bad. It was almost like he “knew” something. I was very interested in that fight. I have no IDEA why it wasn’t made. But when Collins didn’t get it I think he just said the heck with boxing and he retired in 1997 at about 33 or 34 years old.
Steve Collins was an Excellent fighter and yes he deserves more recognition. When people bring up the UK Super Middleweights you hear Calzaghe, Froch, Benn and Eubank. Everyone forgets Collins who not only beat Benn and Eubank but he came over here and fought some of our best Americans.
Good morning Bread!
Feeling good today, still alive!
Bread, with your experience & knowledge, do you think a boxer is ever required to make a fight entertaining when he could win easy?
I'll give 2 examples.
SRL v Duran III. When this fight as announced I couldn't get excited. Roberto may have looked good v Barkley but it seemed obvious to me that, at 38, he wasn't going to chase SRL down. As it got closer, however, I got more enthused. I figured that Ray had all the physical advantages so he would want to fight aggressively & really make a statement by stopping Roberto. Come the fight, it was lousy, Ray stayed on the move & Roberto couldn't get close. Afterwards the press criticised both men for putting on a bad show which perplexed me because I honestly don't know what they wanted Duran to do, except, perhaps, turn up 10 years younger. To me, it was SRL who chose to win the easy way & not take the chance.
Now, go forward to 2019 & Marcus Browne fights Jean Pascal. This figures to be a bad one for JP. Marcus has all the physical advantages, age, height, reach, plus he's a southpaw, plus JP is quite war-worn. Honestly, I can't see how JP touches Marcus with anything. From R1 MB goes out & is trying to throw overhand lefts. By doing so he is putting his head right in the way of JP's counter-right. He is fighting the only way that will give JP a chance. JP takes the chance & 8 rounds later is new world champion, albeit in somewhat unfortunate circumstances.
My first thought was, how could Marcus be so dumb? Then I thought, he did what I wanted SRL to do: knowing he had the physical advantages he went for the riskier stoppage win.
Who was right, in your opinion? Or am I missing something?
As always, I look forward to your thoughts bread
Bread’s Response: If you’re asking me employed the correct style between Sugar Ray Leonard and Marcus Browne then the answer has to be Sugar Ray Leonard because he WON. And winning has to take priority over everything in sports. But this is more complex than that….I also wouldn’t call Browne dumb. Some times it looks different on the inside than it does the outside.
Sports also have entertainment value. So therefore after winning, a fighter should want to entertain but not at the cost of winning. I’m going to come right out and say it. It has become a PARADOX for black talented fighters over the years. They get called names and criticized for not taking chances in fights but if they do take chances and lose then they criticized for lacking IQ and fighting stupid fights. Some of the names that Guillermo Rigondeaux have been called I won’t even repeat them and Rigo falls into the exact category you wrote about.
Here is my personal take. I fighter should want to win, be impressive and entertain in that order. But again winning takes priority. Especially when fighters are taking huge pay cuts for losing a fight. No one wants a pay cut and a pay cut is a reality for 90% of the fighters after a loss.
To answer you directly. The responsibility is on Duran if he wants to WIN. He either has to draw Ray Leonard into a slugging match. Cut the ring off. Or make Leonard come to him and refuse to be the aggressor. I don’t know why more aging fighters don’t try the latter. Turn the crowd on the faster more athletic fighter and simply do not engage.
Now the responsibility to entertain more is on Leonard. The crowd and PPV audience deserves entertainment and if you don’t entertain and they don’t choose to patronize you again then you have to live with that. But Leonard was a Mega Star so he can get a pass for “just winning”. Leonard simply couldn’t afford to lose 2 out of 3 to Roberto Duran so he had to win that fight and he did.
Ok let’s go deeper. Sometimes when a fighter is not talented enough to slow down the faster fighter, he claims that the fighter “ran” from him. I personally only consider it running when a fighter doesn’t try to mount an offense. But if he’s offensive and he’s scoring while implementing his movement then I’m good with it. If he loses decisions because he refused to engaged then that’s cowardice. But Floyd Mayweather and Guillermo Rigondeaux get called runners but neither have lost decisions, ever. On top of that Mayweather may be the biggest box office draw in history. So while not a ko artist, he did serve some sort of entertainment value.
Rigondeaux was basically blackballed for being too good at 122lbs. Before and after he beat Nonito Donaire no one wanted that work. They can say what they want but the media allowed fighters to just not want to be the best fighter at 122lbs because they perpetuated the Rigo is boring stick. I get that Rigondeaux coasted in some fights. I even will agree that the networks wouldn't want to pay for over matched opponents. But the networks would have paid for unification fights vs other top champions. Rigo was also a brutal puncher and he has the reflexes of a cat with elite amateur pedigree.
So Rigo’s potential opponents did not want to be bothered with his particular skillset and it was allowed by the media who consistently insulted the Cuban champion. Again they blackballed him for being too good, imagine that. Rigo gets it from the media even today but none of the fighters who wouldn’t fight him get talked about. They literally get a free pass for just not wanting to fight the #1 fighter in the division for years. The objective in boxing is to the best, the top fighters who passed through 122lbs during Rigo’s reign all ignored that objective. And for the record if we talk about Performance of the Decade. Name a better one than Rigo vs Donaire?
I also believe that some fighters only turn into killers if they have too. Like Roy Jones when he turned into RJ and like Rigo did once Nonito knocked him down. I also believe that despite Rigo only losing once that his punch resistance wasn’t bulletproof. Fighters know what they feel like when they are hit. Self preservation kicks in at times. You can’t expect a man to get kod just for the crowd entertainment if he’s winning the fight already. I only expect that if he’s losing and he has to go for the ko in order to win. You also have to realize that fighters get damaged by taking punishment. They have a right to fight a fight that lessens their physical damage as long as they try to WIN. Defense does count!
I have an ISSUE with how some fighters get treated who decide to BOX not RUN. I have seen fighters with way more fights than Rigo, who score way less kos, never get called the names that are used to describe him. The media has a way of picking and choosing who they want to INSULT. Objective fair criticism goes around the board, it’s even on ALL sides. It wasn’t for Rigo. Again a fighter has the right to fight the style that best suits him winning. He doesn’t have to make it easier on his opponent and this is coming from someone who likes KILLERS.
Mornin' Bread. hope all is good with you & yours.
i couldn't believe a contributor said Buddy McGirt was an 'average' fighter. i'm glad you corrected him but i wanted to write in anyway. To me Buddy is hof just on his boxing, never mind what he achieves as a trainer. Buddy was a beautiful boxer. He knew the game inside out. His head movement, feinting, defensive skills were exceptional & explain why he is still lucid & articulate today, unlike say, Meldrick Taylor.
Buddy won world titles at 2 of the most competitive weights, 140 & 147, he won the first from the hard-charging Frankie Warren who had previously beaten him (or, to be precise, got a decision over him) & the second over Simon Brown who had made about 10 defences, including knocking out men of the calibre of Maurice Blocker & Jorge Vaca, & who afterwards moved up to 154 & sparked Terry Norris. IMO Brown was hof without a doubt.
Buddy also beat Patrizio Oliva, Tony Baltazar, Gary Jacobs, Howard Davis jr etc etc. it saddens me that younger contributors may think those guys were a walk in the park. I can assure them they weren't!
Buddy lost his 140 title to Meldrick who wasn't, imo, an ATG (your thoughts, Bread?) but was unquestionably a hof. Also, people forget, when Buddy fought Meldrick most people in boxing thought Meldrick was more likely headed for greatness than Pernell. It never quite turned out right for Meldrick. He had some bad luck & he & his team made some foolish decisions: he should've stayed at 140. All the same he was exceptional & he was a bad match for Buddy because, for all Buddy's slick skills, Meldrick just had that edge on sheer speed.
Buddy lost his 147 title to Pernell. IMO no-one except Duran, & just possibly, Henry Armstrong has a hope with Pernell at 135 & no-one but Duran, Armstrong, the 2 Sugar Rays, & Tommy Hearns has a hope with him at 147. You can't blame Buddy for not doing the impossible!
I really think Buddy serves HOF status but I'd love to hear your thoughts Bread
Bread’s Response: It’s not my opinion that Buddy McGirt is a HOF, it’s a fact. He was INDUCTED into the IBHOF. But yes he deserved it. He was a great fighter. He just ran into two prime monsters in Meldrick Taylor and Pernell Whitaker. It’s no shame in that. But McGirt was one of those old school fighters who fought those tough non title schedules. McGirt fought a perfect vs Simon Brown to win his 2nd title in the highlight of his career. He was the real deal. Buddy was also a really good puncher. People don’t realize he had a bunch of kos before he dropped off, he even dropped Simon Brown and Pernell Whitaker.
Buddy McGirt is unique because he was inducted into the IBHOF as a fighter but I believe he deserves a second induction as a trainer. And no it’s not too much. His work with Antonio Tarver and Arturo Gatti was excellent in the early to mid 2000s. I have a saying. “You DESERVE, anything you EARN.” If McGirt is good enough to be a HOF fighter and trainer than he deserves to inducted as BOTH.
I know the comment was about Buddy McGirt but since you spoke of Meldrick Taylor you know you’re the first person to write into me about his weight. He won a Gold Medal at featherweight yet 3 months later he was fighting at lightweight. And within a couple of years he was a junior welterweight. Everyone else from his Olympic class fought close to their amateur weights. Even Pernell Whitaker who fought at 132lbs as amateur fought at 135 for his first 8 years as a pro. Meldrick jumped 3 weight classes in 4 years.
I know the people at Main Events were awesome and they did a great job with that 1984 team but I always thought that was strange. I do know that they didn’t want Meldrick and Pernell to be in the same weight classes at the same time which is understandable. Maybe Meldrick went through a growth spurt or was undisciplined with his weight. Who knows….I can’t think of another reason why a rather short fighter, who wasn’t a big puncher would move up so much so early. I always felt he looked overly muscled at 147 and it made him more stationery. Again I’m not 2nd guessing his handlers but his weight jump always made me wonder, why.
Weight jumping is NOT for everyone. If you aren’t a huge puncher, super tall, or freaky defensively it’s nothing wrong with staying at the lowest weight class you can make healthy. But the CAVEAT is you have to be DISCIPLINED like Marvin Hagler and Kostya Tszyu.
Currently watching Cinderella Man as I write this. Got me wondering... I know this will be subjective... but what do you think are the best boxing movies? If it will help make things more objective... most realistic? Which movies out there best capture boxing in its beauty, brutality, and sheer resilience of the human spirit?
Bread’s Response: When I was a kid there was this movie called “the Champ”. Man it really touched me, the main character died at the end. There was also a movie called Tough Enough with Dennis Quaid that I liked. Then there was this movie name called Body & Soul. If you watch closely you will see it was loosely based on Sugar Ray Leonard with Roberto Duran and Tommy Hearns like character’s being his nemesis in the movie. Body & Soul wasn’t a great movie but as a kid I liked it because I loved boxing.
As I got older Great White Hype the movie with Samuel Jackson as a Don King type character was pretty cool.
The better movies that I have watched about boxing were the Rocky Series and Southpaw. I thought Southpaw had some really nice training sequences. That was some good stuff.
And why Sylvester Stallone gets flack for being in the HOF I will never understand. He only made the greatest series of boxing movies ever. I would assume that makes him one of the biggest Non Participants and Contributors ever in the sport. Again we are apart of the dumbest dialogue in all of sports. People in boxing will keep repeating the same thing OVER and OVER despite it having zero TRUTH. I hear all the time, they put Rocky in the Hall of Fame but such in such didn’t make it.
I get to a point where I don’t correct ignorant people because they will want to fight you and they won’t appreciate your wisdom. But Stallone is in the HOF in the OBSERVER category not as a FIGHTER. Are you telling me a man who was nominated for 10 Academy Awards for the 1st Rocky shouldn’t get attribution for making the greatest boxing movie ever? It’s INSANE that people have a problem with this.
It makes my TEETH ITCH that Stallone and this movie has any critics whatsoever. I watch at least 20 minutes of Rocky every single time it comes on. Being from Philadelphia I know every area that the movie is filmed in and it trips me out to try to figure out where they are. They even used the James Shuler Gym where I train to film scenes in Creed 1 and that was awesome, they turned it into a UK gym that Tony Bellew was training at. No one could really tell but I could.
Back to Rocky, what Stallone did was iconic and it’s ridiculous that he doesn’t get more credit. The training scenes are awesome. The fight scenes are slightly embellished but in every movie that’s going to happen. Carl Weathers and Mr. T can really fight. Those dudes know what they’re doing. Michael Jordan on the pads with Pad Man is real work. Again someone always finds a problem with something in boxing. Rocky has inspired so many kids to start boxing. It’s entertained kids of all walks of life. People still flock to the Art Museum today to take a picture with his statue.
In my personal rankings I like:
Personally I didn’t like Rocky 5 or Rocky Balboa but 6 out of 8 is not bad in a long series. Stallone made a major comeback with the Creed Series.
I’ve read this weeks mailbag and thought the Mayweather question/answer was brilliant. He was the perfect storm of fighting ability, well times matchmaking (albeit not to everyone’s liking) and (self)promotion. It strangely got me thinking of Kell Brook. Although Brook has achieved a lot, and made a decent amount money, but I think he’s skills, athletics and toughness could have achieved so much more. I really think he could have taken over from Floyd as number 1 and been in some brilliant 147 dust ups.
Whereas hindsight tells us Floyd made all the right choices, Brook made the wrong ones I believe. Chasing Khan for so long, held him back. Going 147>160>147 against two absolute killers was very tough on the body. And I also think the last few years of limbo should have been spent making his mark on 154 at, where I think a hungry Kell Brook challenges everyone.
How would Brook’s career have looked if we’d see him fight:
Keith Thurman in 2016 unification (instead of GGG)
Danny Garcia in 2017 unification (instead of Spence coming down from 160)
And then moved up to 154 and fought Jermall Charlo
Bread’s Response: I think you make some good points about Kell Brook. After he beat the rugged Shawn Porter on US soil in his first title fight I said to myself Brook is the best welterweight in the world. He made 3 showcase title defenses then he took the GGG fight. I love it when a fighter challenges himself and hindsight is always 20/20 but that move really took away his career momentum.
Brook was not only the best welterweight in the world before the emergence of Errol Spence and Terence Crawford but he was 35-0 and on the bottom half of the P4P top 10. Brook was looked at as such a threat that Errol Spence was sort of designated to go over to the UK and get the WORK because most likely none of the other top American welterweights would have been able to do it or would have wanted to in 2016-17.
So as you stated Brook loses to GGG in a good but abbreviated fight. Suffers and injury but moves back down to face Errol Spence. Brook is a heavily muscled well proportioned fighter who always just made 147. I assume this because of his two bouts with Carson Jones. He struggled with Jones in a bout at the welterweight limit of 147. In the rematch he fights him at a catchweight of 152 and does a number on him. After observing those subtle negotiating skills I figured Brook struggled to make 147.
So after Brook fights GGG he moves back down and faces a killer in Errol Spence. He has a hometown advantage because traveling abroad and maintaining a diet is never easy. But Brook was the one who moved up to 160 in the fight prior to. He gets stopped late in an attrition fight. That’s usually how fighters who struggle to make weight get stopped. Then he moved up right after losing to Spence which suggest he struggled to make weight anyway. I would have picked Spence to win anyway but those are the facts surrounding the fight. We will never know.
Let e tell you a SECRET that people in boxing may not speak on. Everything about boxing is against the laws of sports science. Boxers lose extreme amounts of weight, just to take punishment on their organs. In other sports they put weight on the absorb punishment because the extra calories, mass, water and protein help the athlete absorb the punishment. But in boxing you lose weight and absorb direct blows. It’s crazy to think of it.
As you stated would Floyd Mayweather have ever made such moves? Heck no he wouldn’t have. That’s why he’s Floyd Mayweather. Kell Brook gave Errol Spence a very tough fight after being hurt bad by GGG. Spence didn’t get the title shot until 2017. Brook won his title in 2014. In a perfect world for Kell Brook he challenges all of top fighters at 147 before Spence’s emergence. The UK money is huge and someone may have bitten. Keith Thurman, Danny Garcia, Jesse Vargas, Adrien Broner, Tim Bradley, Andre Berto, Devon Alexander and Manny Pacquiao were all big names from 2014-17. If Brook could have got just 2 of those guys in the ring his career would be different and he would have been the favorite vs any of them at particular time with Thurman and Pac possibly being even money fights.
A turn left or a turn right can really cost a fighter. I hate to go back on Brook’s career because whatever is meant to happen does happen. But since you wrote in it got me to thinking and you have a serious point.
At some point he could have moved up but he wouldn’t have to face a huge junior middleweight in Jermall Charlo. How about Erislandy Lara who is closer to Brook’s size? There is always more than one way to skin a cat. No one could have complained about Lara because he was the #1 guy at Junior Middleweight during Brook’s time as the top welterweight. Again this why Floyd Mayweather deserves credit for taking the right fights at the right time. Because a fighter like Kell Brook who had about the same record Mayweather had when Mayweather challenged Oscar de La Hoya, knew what fights to take.
Amir Khan is a certified gun. But again you’re correct. Brook was the one fighter Khan didn’t want to fight. It was weird. I think Khan would fight GGG but he won’t fight Brook. Nevertheless he didn’t want to fight Brook and Brook kept bothering Khan. At some point it becomes BULLYING when a fighter doesn’t want to fight you. Just leave it alone after a reasonable effort has been made.
Now Brook is moving back down to welterweight in 2020 to fight the best fighter in the world in Terence Crawford. Brook is now 34 years old and this is a terribly tough fight for him. You see how boxing works. I’m not saying Brook can’t win. Anything can happen. But he’s going to have to put on a performance of the ages in order to beat a prime Crawford at this stage.
I personally believe that making 147 has to do some damage to Brook. You can only go but so low in weight and expend but so much energy. It’s why Errol Spence carried Brook so fast. Brook had the skill but he just didn’t have any more energy to burn. The body can only gather energy from certain places. Carbs, Fats and Muscle/Protein. Once you’re depleted you can only get but so much back in 36 hours. Look for Crawford to carry Brook fast in his own way.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Tomorrow morning, a special Sunday edition of the Daily Bread Mailbag Extra.
Send Questions to firstname.lastname@example.org