The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackles topics such as fighter styles, Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Thomas Hearns, transgender boxers, controversy with referee Tony Weeks, Vasiliy Lomachenko, Artur Beterbiev vs. Callum Smith, and more.

What’s up Bread?

I hope all is well and I’ll get right to it: Which active fighters would you say are the most difficult to:1. Stick and move against (“minimize the violence”) 2. Control with a jab (or keep them at the end of it) 3. Apply heavy pressure against (mount a sustained body attack) 4. Land a “kill shot” on (end the night early) 5. Discourage overall (get them to make a “silent agreement” or be a “game quitter”)Happy New Year by the way,

William in West Palm 

Bread’s Response: Good Questions. 

The most difficult fighter to stick and move against and minimize the violence with is David Benavidez. He has a VIOLENT way about him that has caused violent encounters in each of his fights. 

The Most difficult fighter to CONTROL with a jab is again I would say Benavidez. You can win rounds with a jab on him. But you need a little more because he comes on so violently.

Applying heavy pressure against... I say Terence Crawford. Pressuring Crawford is like walking into a blizzard with that hard dry snow, that cuts your face. 

Land a kill shot on is Shakur Stevenson. Stevenson is very defensive minded and he’s also very AWARE. He doesn’t have LAPSES of concentration in the ring.

There are plenty of guys who fit into this next one.... Most of the greats are hard to discourage. But if you ask me who’s the hardest. Today I will say Monster Inoue. He fought with a broken face vs an ATG puncher and barely blinked. But I could easily say about 6 other guys.

Happy New Year Breadman!

So last year I had a good year in being able to predict fights. I don't gamble, so it is just for fun, but I correctly predicted Zhang beating Joyce, Parker beating Wilder, Ngannou upsetting Fury and more (all on record either with friends on whatsapp or twitter). Reflecting on this, I realized these predictions were based on a few simple things I have learned, largely from being a longtime reader of your mailbag and following the sport closely. I wanted to share these things with you and your readers. 1) Joyce losing to Zhang - you can only rely on a chin for so long! Joyce was winning fights through attrition and it is only so long that can last. Never bet on someone's chin (too often!). 2) Parker beating Wilder - like any sport, at the top level, everyone loses. As good as Wilder is (heart and power for the ages), the eye-test should tell anyone he wasn't good enough to run through the best. He was due a loss. He came close vs Stiverne 1, Ortiz x2, maybe even Molina and Spilzka. There's only so many times you can pull it out the bag so spectacularly.

3) Fury vs Ngannou - I used to work in sports betting, at a high level. My manager had millions in his betting account (imagine what he had in his bank accounts!). He knew NOTHING about sport. He used to ask us only one question. "Who has the motivation?". The Rocky 3 story is real. Some fighters can get too showbiz, too big, and opponents just become the next stepping stone. Well, sometimes that stone is determined to become a mountain. Similarly to wilder too, we have to always account for wear-and-tear, activity, outside the ring activities etc. 4) An MMA one; I predicted Sean O'Malley to beat Aljo Sterling when he was a big underdog. I saw that Aljo's losses came when he was a bit reckless in his pressure style and a sharpshooter sniped him. Well, O'malley is a great sniper in MMA, and Sterling being favourite meant overconfidence was likely. Moral of the story- see patterns! Certain equations work in fight math.With this in mind, I think either Smith beats Beterbiev or he ruins him forever. Smith has put a lot of people out cold. He is seasoned and in his last chapter. Beterbiev is there to be hit. Smith will let it go. It's just about if the Russian can keep on truckin' through bombs. He may get through it, but it will stay with him.

I also think that regarding the idea that at the top level even Ali and Ray Leonard eventually lose when they fight elite-after-elite fighter, Fury has a loss incoming. He's put his body through a lot. I think he beats Usyk in a boring close fight, but if within a year he fights Joshua, Hrgovic or rematches Usyk, he will lose. Please share your thoughts on the above. I'll end with a question; name us some fights you hope to see in 2024 and why.Thanks for sharing your wisdom champ, here's to another year of your mailbag.


Bread’s Response: Great insight. I like your reasoning and I agree with it. But the only thing I will warn you on is, disciplined fighters don’t need motivation. They do what they’re supposed to do because they just do it. It’s just in them to do productive things concerning their careers. So be careful when you think the other guy is MORE motivated and he’s facing a disciplined consistent fighter. Fights I hope to see in 2024. I’m going to name real fights and not fantasy fights that I don’t think can get made.

Choc vs Ioka

Bam vs Estrada

Stevenson vs Muratella

Tank vs Gary Russell

Lopez vs Haney

Boots vs Thurman

Plant vs Charlo or Munguia

Benavidez vs Morrell or Canelo

Beterbiev vs Bivol

Usyk vs Opetai

Fury vs Joshua

Hello Bread,

Hope you had a great holiday season with your family  and all is well. Long time reader here but first time sending questions your way. I mainly want to hear your take on Thomas Hearns specifically and the Leonard-Hearns rivalry. Every so often I go back and watch the Kings documentary and am so blown away by those two. What a matchup that was at that time. To me there’s no better fight in the history of boxing as far as the talent/skill of the fighters and the timing of the fight than Leonard-Hearns 1. Would you agree? Please correct me if I am wrong but I tell people all the time that if a prime Thomas Hearns were active today he’d be number one p4p.

I know he had a great career but still feel he’s criminally underrated due to the great fighters he lost to. Would a prime Thomas Hearns not beat anyone from 147-168 today? I have a feeling you might say that Hearns and Bud Crawford would have to decide that in the ring. Who would you favor in that fight? Also Leonard-Crawford. I don’t think Canelo or Benavidez beat him at 168 but that is up for debate.  Emanuel Steward said that Hearns losing to Leonard was worse than a family member dying. He knew how special of a fighter he had and him losing the biggest fight of his career was crushing. I still don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more special fighter on film than Hearns to this day. SRR, SRL, Tyson and Roy Jones come to mind as far as that goes. That also goes to show how special Ray Leonard was.  I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of this.

Thanks and take care. 

Bread’s Response: Leonard’s performance vs Hearns is the greatest performance in the history of the division. If Leonard doesn’t beat Hearns in 1981, there is a chance Hearns goes onto the be the greatest fighter ever. Hearns is literally 2 wins away from GOAT status. Losing to Leonard in 1981 and Hagler in 1985 is the only thing that keeps him from that. The later losses to Barkley would be looked at as fluke if they ever happened. But look at this. Hearns would be a 5 division titlist. And he would have had wins over Cuevas, Benitez, Hill, Duran and add on fellow HOF Leonard and Hagler. Hearns would be on a throne all alone as possibly the best welterweight and Junior Middleweights ever. His physical dimensions make him a nightmare match up for anyone in history head to head. And he passes the eye ball test with 20/20 goggles on. And to think Leonard beat him on their biggest night by come from behind, walk down tko. Leonard’s clutch gene on that night is the best I’ve ever seen. It’s why I rate him as the best fighter of my lifetime, although I was technically born when Ali and Duran were fighting. Ali was past it and Duran is Duran. But I’m partial to Ray Charles Leonard and the main reason is the night he beat Tommy Hearns.

I think Hearns would have been #1 P4P if he fought in this era but that doesn’t mean he would run the table. He was a GUN. And a GUNSLINGER. And GUNSLINGERS get clipped. I think Hearns would win titles from 147-168 but that doesn’t mean he would beat everyone from 147-168. Just like he didn’t in his era but he still won the belts. In the 4 belt era, it’s literally no way he wouldn’t have won the titles. I think 175 in this era would be too big for him because they walk around over 200lbs. Beterbiev is just all wrong for him because of the size difference.

Benavidez would interesting. Today I say Benavidez is too big. But I think Hearns beats Canelo. He wipes out 154 and 160. 147 would be interesting. I want to see more of Boots to know if could handle someone of Hearns’s size. Right now I would favor Hearns. I love Crawford but I don’t think he could beat Hearns. It’s a great match up but Crawford’s Achilles heel is his penchant to lose rounds while figuring things out. The issue with Hearns is he can knock you dead while you’re trying to figure it out. Crawford is so competitive and his IQ is so insane he has a chance to adjust to something but I say Hearns wins on points. 

Leonard vs Crawford is the match up. All Time Great fight. They would take turns leading and countering. Body punching and feinting. I say Leonard edges it by a hair because Porter and Benavidez threw Crawford off, somewhat with their boxing and Leonard is a two tiers above them as a fighter, no disrespect to them. Leonard also is a little faster than Crawford in the mid range and I think the fight would take place there for the most part.

Hearns is not the most special fighter I’ve seen. But he has the best mix of size, talent, power and most of all sharpness in boxing history. There has never been a 147 or 154 that sharp, powerful and talented all in one. His jab, right hand, body hook, check hook and boxing ability on a 6’1 fighter with a 78 inch reach is video game stuff. But I believe Leonard is slightly more special because he beat him!!!

Bread, thanks for the AAA content and insight you deliver every weekend. While Fighter of the year is the no1 award of the year, how the heck is Performance of the year not a super close second and should have way more prominence than it does when different boxing outlets hand out year-end awards?? Truly baffling to me. Personally, that is easily my favorite award of the year. In my view, there is no planet on which Bud's performance isn't no1. For me Teo looked as ELITE and SPECIAL as anyone can on the night vs JT and I'd have him no2 ahead of eg The Dream v Regis or Benavidez v Boo Boo. How would you rank the top 5 performances of the year? Male fighters only.

Many thanks, Ash

Bread’s Response: I have been saying that Performance of the Year should be an award with the RING and BWAA ever since Julian Williams beat Jarett Hurd 5 years ago. This year it would be Crawford over Spence for me. I’m not a contrarian. What Crawford did was a thing for the ages and it's the correct answer without trying to overthink it. That fight  would be followed by in order 

2)Lopez over Taylor.

3) Inoue over Fulton. 

4)Benavidez over Andrade. 

5)Haney over Prograis.

Breadman, first thank you for the time and effort you put into this endeavor. It is often the 1st thing I read on Saturday. Hoping you’ll give a fellow Pennsylvanian (Harrisburg) some insight. I compete in Masters amateur boxing. I call it, jokingly, “old people with disposable income and time on their hands boxing.” Real brief, amateur boxing for those 35 years old and older, often well matched on age and experience criteria, often shorter rounds and very watchful refs. Stoppages are not uncommon and it usually does not require much damage. The question. In your experience and knowledge, is having family and friend support in the arena for those competing always helpful? When I have competed, I am adamant that my family and friends do not attend. The reason is basic, but I think rational. As a man, you don’t want to loss in front of those that look to you for protection. The mystique of “my father, my husband, our “protector” just lost.” Not in basketball or a track meet, but at something that might help them feel secure. Maybe even the mystique of machismo. No one wants to be emasculated, especially in front of their family. I think of all the pro fighters who bring their families to their fights with the potential of losing. Does the thought of loss or, particularly, emasculation ever enter their mind? I assume not because as a pro, you are among a few who are still the toughest men or women in whatever arena they just lost in. But, for this a part time, super amateur, advanced age (50 y/o) boxer… the struggle is real. So, to bring it home, what would tell one of your fighters with these thoughts? Do pro boxers have that thought. In your experience, have you ever seen a situation that having familial support mean the difference between a win and a loss. A situation where you might have said “if it weren’t for his family’s support he would not have pulled that off.” Or is my emasculation angle totally foreign?

Respectfully, Anthony“Fly Eagles fly”

Bread’s Response: This is a very intriguing question. Before I answer I want to tell you about a personal experience. My grandfather was a big boxing fan and the most influential person in my life. So after high school I started boxing. I was good but I used to get tired because I would go out blazing and I didn't understand pacing. I didn’t invite my grandpop down to watch me to spar, until I was confident that my gas tank would hold up. I didn’t want him to see me in a vulnerable position. 

So coincidentally right after I invited my grandfather to watch me spar. My mom’s car got stolen. A kid from neighborhood did it. I called his house and told him when I saw him, I was going to beat his ass. His older brother and uncle brought him to my house to squash the situation. I was so confident in my boxing/fighting ability I told them we could squash it after we fought. My mom who is from the hood was outside screaming for me to whoop his ass. A 30 second street fight is a long time. We fought for about 2 minutes and he started to fatigue. I hit him with a body shot and he literally QUIT. 

I never viewed myself as THE MAN but at that POINT I know I was A MAN. I was 19 and I had to protect my family. My mom, my sister and my 1st cousin were all outside cheering. So my point is it can really exalt you to have family present when you fight. In fact even today I try to avoid trouble. I won’t run from trouble but I will avoid trouble. An ounce of prevention, is a pound of cure. But the worst thing anyone can do to me, is bother me in front of my wife, kids or mother. This isn’t a public threat but I’m going all the way there in a street fight if you bother me in front of them. The last thing I want to do is have my kids look at me funny because someone has emasculated me in front of them. So in my experiences it has made me a more vicious person. But in boxing I have seen in work both ways. 

If you’re really in shape and you’re confident you can lick your opponent let your family come. But if you’re in DEEP and there is a chance you can get kod, don’t let your kids see that bro. It could destroy them and it would damage you mentally. If you kick butt, then just have it recorded and if it ends in your favor show them later. That’s a safe play in my opinion. 

In boxing I have seen it work both ways. I’ve seen friends and family who have distracted fighters. Most people are casuals and they don’t realize there is a winner and a loser to a fight. But I know some fighters who need their family around. They want them around. And the family actually serve a purpose. I hope I helped. This was one of the most intriguing questions I’ve ever had in over 14 years. Thank you.

Hi, Bread      

I read that Tony Weeks claimed Lawsons eyes rolled back into his head and THAT is why he stopped the fight and awarded the TKO to Vergil Ortiz. Yet Lawson was alert enough to protest. Ortiz, considering the long layoff, could have 'used the rounds'. One might wonder if Weeks made that claim to counter the criticism of a premature stoppage. But, as has been said, better too early than too late. How did you see it?     It was disturbing to learn that USA boxing will allow transgender men to compete with women, I've read about their hormone level rules, but still view it as offensive. It's bad enough in sports like swimming, but in the ring hurt is inflicted. Some top female boxers have spoken against it, like Clarissa Shields and Amanda Serrano.

I read that the WBC may start a transgender division; most of the fellow fans I know would have zero interest. There's plenty of trash-talking in boxing as it is. I believe the transgender males will sure be targeted by the men who are still fighting men. What are the reactions you've seen as a trainer? And, always, the 'Daily Bread' is an eagerly awaited Saturday ritual.


Warren, Pa.

Bread’s Response: I will discuss this respectfully….Hormone therapy is not legal in boxing. But with transgender boxers it’s seemingly encouraged. I don’t understand. I think a transgender category would solve all of this and I don’t understand why no one just doesn’t creates the category. I don’t train any female boxers, so it hasn’t directly affected me. But that doesn’t mean I won’t ever train one. I think it’s dangerous. And I’m really confused and troubled as to why another category has not been created.

Men have larger lung capacity, bigger bone density, and more natural muscle mass. Men are also naturally taller. So even if a person born a man, decided to be transgender at say 21 and they meet the hormone level requirements. Let’s say this person was 6’1, 160lbs and was very powerful with hard bones. They would still be 6’1 with hard bones. I don’t how much weight they would lose because I don’t know how the hormone therapy affects that, but they would still be physically imposing because they weren’t born a woman.

I hate to even discuss this but I have daughter who excels in track and field. And for as fast as she is, she’s not faster than the FASTEST boy in her age group nationally. She’s 12 and the difference is slight but it’s still a difference and  as she gets older the differences will increase. Then you also open the door for a disingenuous person who wants to cheat and they manipulate the hormone therapy levels. I think this should be discussed on an open national forum. I don’t know how to reconcile this. And I don’t like to say what I would do in these situations because it’s subjective. But I can say what I will do if it was my daughter and she was a fighter. I just wouldn’t let her compete against anyone who was BORN a male in a fight. The same way someone has the right to do something. Others have a right to NOT participate. 

If there was a P4P referee list at one time Tony Weeks would be in the top 5 easily. I think the Romero stoppage and now the Ortiz stoppage has now changed that. There has been a hard fall from grace with Weeks who once refereed the greatest fight of my lifetime in Corrales vs Castillo. I think we have seen some residual effect from Weeks in regards to the fight in which David Morrell seriously hurt his opponent. I was live at that fight by the way. So I’m assuming that has affected Weeks’s assessment on stopping fights. I don’t want to call him corrupt but in totality, his quick stoppages have still favored the A sides, which never looks good. 

If they were RANDOM then the corruption angle could be ruled out. But they weren’t random so you have to consider corruption which I hope they weren’t. I’m of the inclination that Mr. Weeks is a little gun shy because of the Morrell fight, which again is understandable. But that’s where the commission’s come in. In Law Enforcement when an officer shoots someone, they have classes and therapy they can attend to help cope with the incident. I don’t know if commissions provide this for referees, but if they don’t they should start. Because I think that’s the most logical reason why Weeks has had these two bad stoppages.

We can all assume that Ortiz was going to ko Lawson within the first 3 rounds. I think he would have. But a referee can’t assess on what WILL happen, he has to assess on what IS happening. Ortiz was starting to lay some leather but it wasn’t near stoppage time just yet. It was obviously early. But the reason you can’t TOTALLY rule out corruption is Barroso was winning vs Romero. He’s a better fighter than Lawson and Barroso was denied an opportunity that he has PROVEN he deserved. So BOTH of these stoppages combined are concerning where as if they were separate they can be viewed as a bad day or misjudgment. 

As of now until more information comes out let’s give Tony Weeks the benefit of doubt and say bad judgment but it will be a short leash because again the Romero vs Barroso stoppage didn’t feel or look right and with Barroso's most current performance whatever assessment Weeks had of Barroso just got worse. 

Boxing needs a universal commission and a union asap!!!!!


You got me looking up the 130lb rankings. Do you think if Loma drops back down he runs the table? Imagine if we somehow ended up with Lomachenko vs Navarrette for undisputed, what a fight that would be... Unfortunately if my read on him is right the move to 135 was a little about money and a little about being slightly jaded with boxing after such a long amateur career. I fear that we saw his last great performance vs Haney. Loma is a SPECIAL fighter, one of those unique ones like an Ali or a Pacquiao, so it does feel almost like an affront that he doesn't (currently) have the special legacy to go with it. I don't rule out they eventually put him and Inoue together, if they can you know they will.With Haney and Tank, like with Usyk and Fury, you have two camps with seriously knowledgeable boxing people on each side. This is why I don't think Haney-Tank ever happens. Due to the way the fight went it got overlooked, but early on Tank was having trouble with Ryan's size and it's only because of his power that he could stem that tide. I'd bet every penny I have that Tank and Haney teams both see it. Bill Haney might low-key be the wisest man in boxing right now. Devin is bigger longer and faster, 0% chance that fight happens in my opinion, certainly not while Tank is still undefeated.Frankly former fighters often make the worst coaches because they see everything through their own eyes. To be a good coach you have to be able to take a 360 degree view of things, and you have to know what your fighter can do and can't do regardless of whether YOU could've done it. If it was so easy there wouldnt be any coaches the fighters would train themselves! So in my view the only fighters who make good coaches are either the ones who have the ability to learn and adapt on the fly themselves when they do fight, or the fighters who are less athletically gifted and so had to rely on smarts more than any raw physical athleticism.Who are the top 5 or so former fighters turned coach, how many were world champion, and do any make it in the top ten coaches of all-time?

Bread’s Response: Loma has not made 130lbs in about 7 years. I don’t even know if he can make 130lbs anymore….. Until he does, he’s a 135lb lightweight.

I won’t say Tank and Devin won’t EVER fight. But I will say I don’t believe they fight this year.

Some former fighters are excellent coaches. Buddy McGirt, Robert Garcia and Freddie Roach all have won Trainer of the Year. 

It’s hard to say who are the top 5 or 10 former fighters who turned coaches. Because I get the feeling you mean notable or famous former fighters. Not just guys who had official fights. There is a huge difference. Also it’s too many variables to say who is the best coaches ever. Because everyone isn’t afforded the same opportunities. And with fighters jumping from coach to coach it’s hard to say who did what. But here is what I will do. I will tell you who I rate off the top of my head as the as some of the top coaches currently in the game. And all time. And you research and tell me who were former fighters or not. Because I don’t have the time to research an amateur career from 90 years ago and often times if a trainer wasn’t a pro fighter, he may enhance his amateur career somewhat with unverifiable facts. 

I say off the top of my head because it’s really off the top of my head..

All Time in no order:

Emanuel Steward

Eddie Futch

Angelo Dundee

Cus Dmato

Nacho Beristain

Freddie Roach

Ray Arcel

Georgie Benton

Charlie Goldman

Nazim Richardson

Jack Blackburn

There is a trainer from Philadelphia named Jimmy Arthur. I don’t know him but I have seen his work through his former fighters. He is the most highly respected trainer that I have “heard” of in the Philadelphia gyms without being nationally known. Many feel he’s the best ever from Philadelphia. I won’t say if he’s the best or not because I honestly don’t know. But I will say he deserves an honorable mention because of how revered he is in my city.


Derrick James

Virgil Hunter

Robert Garcia

Kevin Cunningham

Ben Davison

Sugar Hill Steward

Jose Benavidez

Pedro Diaz

Ismael Salas

Bozy Ennis

Brian Bomac Mcyntire

Red Spikes

Shingo Inoue

Papa Lomachenko

Shane McGuigan

Ronnie Shields

Chino Rivas

Sup Bread,

I just watched the Lawson v Ortiz Jr fight and it happened again. It happened to Julian Williams against Adam’s , it happened in Rolly Romero v Barroso, with the same ref Tony Weeks making a very early stoppage for the A side. Ortiz v Lawson was not only a bad stoppage, but it happened in the first round and there were no knockdowns and he was clearly protecting himself although hurt. I’m not sure how many more times this can happen in boxing before the preferential treatment for the A side turns off even the die hards like myself. Is it crazy to think that maybe the referee should not have the power to stop a fight and only the respective corners? Obviously, that puts the safety, solely  on the trainers but in theory who knows the fighter better than the trainer and whether he’s legitimately hurt or not?  Too  many great bouts have ended prematurely and suspiciously. I would like to get your thoughts ?Also, do you have a favorite arena you like to fight in or a venue you dislike? I have only seen fights in Las Vegas and one at Carnegie Hall so I wonder what the atmosphere of the smaller venues are like..


Take care, Aaron from Cleveland. 

Bread’s Response: I agree that there are too many A side premature stoppages. But I don’t agree that the corners should be the only ones who can stop fights. No offense bro, but that’s a terrible idea. The fights would then be fixed…The guys who know they won’t win, will bet on specific rounds and literally stop the fight in those rounds. Or you will get someone seriously hurt because on the opposite end you will have corners who get too brave and allow their fighters to take too much punishment. From my estimation we just need better more competent referees. And we need commissions who will regulate better. 

Usually an official doesn’t get reprimanded when he makes  a call or turns in a bad score card. It usually has to happen multiple times for some type of discipline to be put forth. At some point referees and judges need to be reviewed on a fight by fight basis. And any negative findings will result in NO ASSIGNMENTS. We make this too difficult. It’s common sense. A bad referee can’t harm anyone if he’s not ALLOWED to referee. Same with a judge as far as judging.

Do you expect Beterbiev-Smith to be competitive? I feel like everyone expects Beterbiev to blow Smith away but I could see this fight being very close towards the later rounds.

Thank you so much!

Bread’s Response: Not sure how competitive I expect it to be but I expect high drama. Beterbiev’s favorite shot is a short looping right hand to the side of the head. Smith’s best move is a catch and counter left hook countering a looping right hand. So one’s guys go to shot, is the other guy’s go to counter shot. The logical pick is Beterbiev by mid round stoppage. I would say between the 6th-9th rounds. But I also say he has a shaky moment and gets hurt or dropped before he ultimately wins.


Don't remember if you answered this question yet. Your definition or qualifications of each category listed below.  And then if you can list maybe 2-3 fighters that fit into each category.1.  Better than a all time great.  Once or twice in a lifetime.2.  All time great.3  Hall of fame not all time great.4. Great Fighter but not Hall of Fame material.5.  Very good fighter but not great fighter.

Thank You, Rich Mathews

Bread’s Response: 1. This is Mt. Rushmore level transcendent fighter. Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson

2. All Time Great is a fighter who would special in any era. A dominant fighter if he were born at any time. Marvin Hagler and Sandy Saddler.

3. Hall of Fame is a fighter who is easily a HOF but slightly below ATG. I would say Wladimir Klitschko and Tim Bradley.

4. Great Fighter but not Hall of Fame material. Let’s see a fighter who has had an excellent career but not exactly HOF level. Let’s say Ike Quartey and Paulie Ayala.

5. Very good fighter but not a great fighter. Most solid champions fall into this category. Let’s say David Tua and Glen Johnson.

Send Questions and Comments to