By Stephen "Breadman" Edwards
The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling questions regarding Daniel Jacobs goings for the IBF middleweight title, Demetrius Andrade vs. Canelo Alvarez, an update on Keith Thurman, the Charlo Brothers and more.
What Up Bread! I’m just gone keep it short an to the point. You got all mad and indignant with me for calling Pacquiao Qwackman, this you did despite the numerous times he’s ducked top fighters! His most recent Duck is against Terrence Crawford who he now is saying was scared to face him. I wonder why does he fill he can completely spin what happened? Is could it be because many of you in the media always give Pac a free pass and never hold him accountable! Now him and his sycophantic fan base are going to rewrite history and it will be Terrence Crawford who is accused of ducking instead of Pac. What is your position on this issue?
Bread’s Response: I didn’t get mad. I checked you. You aren’t QUALIFIED to insult a great fighter and give him a disrespectful nickname in public. I stand on that. We live in a time where you can say what you want behind a keyboard with no accountability. Go to Manny’s gym and give him some sparring then call him what you want publicly. Until you can do that I will continue to check you like I did.
You are obsessed with Pacquiao so I know you must be a fan of Floyd Mayweather. Just like when a someone is obsessed with Floyd they have to be a rabbit fan of Manny’s. This is just how this works. I’m used to it.
Manny has fought one of the most murderous schedules in modern history. Even his down fights like Chris Algieri and Jesse Vargas are solid wins for everyone else except an ATG like Manny. For example I love Errol Spence as a fighter. But Algieri is one of his 3 best wins. For Manny it’s not even his top 20 win.
On to your topic. I don’t even know if Manny runs his social media. If he does he’s trolling. Terence Crawford didn’t duck him. I think Top Rank knew Manny’s days were numbered with them and they did what any big company does. They try to put a younger, talented person in the same position as the older one because the younger one has more upside.
I think Manny and his team sort of “avoided” Crawford. No doubt about that. But it wasn’t a HUGE duck and here is why. Crawford was not at Manny’s weight. Crawford was cleaning up 140 when they first started talking about the fight. Manny the A side didn’t move down. He could have but that’s not a clear duck. When does any A side fighter ever concede weight. Manny lost his title to Jeff Horne and Crawford moved up to defeat Horne. Again Manny could have certainly fought Crawford there was viable opportunity but that’s not a clear duck.
It’s not like Crawford was a welterweight and was Manny’s mandatory for a few years. Crawford literally just moved up 2 fights ago.
What happens is obsessed fans can take a look at any fighter’s resume and find another fighter who fought at the same time and then claim a duck. It’s like someone saying Floyd Mayweather is ducking Shawn Porter. Mayweather could fight Porter but is it really duck that he’s not fighting him. It’s more realistic to say that Keith Thurman ducked Errol Spence than it is, to say Floyd Mayweather is ducking Shawn Porter. You won’t get that because you can’t be objective when it comes to Manny. I can be objective on any fighter.
People love a duck story. Just because a guy didn’t fight you it doesn’t mean he ducked you. There are those who say Marvin Hagler ducked Mike McCallum. How did that happen when Hagler never fought again after April of 1987 and McCallum didn’t move up to middleweight until 1988? Stop repeating stuff for the sake of repeating it.
There may be a fighter or two that Manny didn’t fight for whatever reason. But you need to stop the nonsense and look at who he fought instead. If there was a list of the toughest resumes since 1980 he would be in the top 10 and as we sit, out of all of the active fighters he has the best. Manny fought for a world title as a 20 year old vs a 33-1 Lineal champion as an underdog and won. He then moved up to 122lbs and took a real champion on short notice who was also 33-1 as an underdog again. Then he moved up to 126 and took on an ATG in Barrera as an underdog again. He did all of that before he was 25. After that he basically fought Barrera, Morales and Marquez back to back to back. I’m not going to get into what he did at 140 and above. He was a HOF before his run in 2008.
You need to put some respect on his name and any other great fighter who you think it’s cool to give a nickname to that they wouldn’t approve of. As we say around my way. “Who the [email protected]#$ is you?”
What up Bread, total repect for you and your pieces. We're around the same age an era, kinda same background of how we got our boxing history from older heads before us. And i can agree to disagree with you on nearly everything you write. Keep up the UNDERRATED GREAT WORK!!! I never write because if I give it time someone will ask a question that i would like your opinion on and i get to hear your opinion. Anyway my thing is since you've been answering on PED usage lately as the question has came up more, is why we haven't spoken on our boy R. Jones and S. Mosely who one tested positive a few times and of the heavyweight fight all the muscle he had, and the other who admitted to attached to a PED company. How much of the greatness do we credit to PED usage and to raw talent? My personal comment to is Lenard vs Hagler being Hagler's my all time personal favorite because he's the 1st fighter i seen develop as a young kid growing up, he beat your boi Leonard in my personal opinion even though i understand the split decision boxing politics. One thing i will say that i don't think Ray gets a lot credit for in that fight is his heart and focus instead of the flash everyone talks about, usually after that many rounds Hagler knocks out his opponent or has broken his will where he trying to just finish the fight. Ray responded when i used to seeing even good fighters of that great era fold under the same pressure. Sorry for the long text, thanx in advance the repsonse.
Flintown by of Az
Bread’s Response: Thank you. You need to tutor the guy who wrote in before you on respect. You can criticize a great fighter without disrespecting them.
I have talked about Shane Mosley and Roy Jones whenever I have been asked. I think the Mosley case is pretty much clear. He admitted under oath he cheated. He also had a coach and nutritionist corroborate the story. I don’t know when the usage started and stopped but my practical rule about that is when the public finds out it’s usually not the 1st time.
Other than that I don’t know what else there is to say. I won’t discredit Mosley’s accomplishments and I won’t enhance them. Any logical scribe would be well within their rights to openly “wonder” while still giving him his props.
As for Roy Jones I’ve always said his Rip Fuel positive test is understandable in my opinion. He’s one of the few guys who said I didn’t know what was in the supplement that has a reasonable excuse. I actually used to see that Rip Fuel supplement in GNC and I believe that could have been a common mistake. Other than that I don’t know of any PED usage by Roy Jones. If you know, let me know.
I believe Roy Jones was a special god gifted fighter. I think he was better than Mosley and from what I can gather their circumstances are different. Jones was with Mackey Shilstone who was the top weight gaining guru in boxing. So there was nothing suspect about his performance vs Ruiz in my opinion.
Ray Leonard is top 10 ever dead or alive. His grit, determination and concentration are next level. That Golden Boy stuff was just advertisement.
Leonard won that fight vs Hagler. I would love to sit and look at it with a panel and show you guys how to score a fight. Leonard didn’t fight in spurts he was offensive in spurts. He moved, he used ring generalship and he made Hagler miss all dam night. Andre Dirrell fought a similar fight vs Carl Froch that he really won. The difference is Leonard had a special charisma and he got rewarded for it.
I’ve watched Leonard vs Hagler 100s of times. The best you can ever score it for Hagler is 6 rounds a piece and you have to go out your way to do that. I’ve scored as many as 9 rounds for Leonard. Hagler just lost. He thought he was going to turn it on whenever he wanted to but Leonard had underrated toughness and he was in the zone that night. He wasn’t going to get stopped. By the time Hagler turned it on Leonard was zoned out and staying right with him. He allowed Leonard and the crowd to get into it and he couldn’t stop it once it started. It was an all time miscalculation.
Mailbag always a great read.
1) If they were fighting early 2019 and you HAVE to pick a winner????
Loma vs Mikey
Crawford vs Spence Jr
2) In prime at 140 The Hawk vs Hands of Stone????
Bread’s Response: Dooooran but he would be forced to go to HELL.
I can’t pick Loma vs Mikey yet. Let me see Loma at 135 a little bit more.
I also can’t pick Spence vs Crawford. I think they are only fighters at 147 that could beat the other.
Pretty discouraged with the sport. Maybe when it rains it pours. Maybe your thoughts will help.
Seems like any time a fight goes the distance it favours the A side with the money behind him. People can say, "well, that was a close round, it could have gone either way," but then it usually breaks only one way at the end of 12 rounds: in favour of an A side with money behind him. If he's young, even better. Time and again. If the boxing ring is a truth machine, and I believe that it is in a lot of the ways that you have said, then that means it is revealing something, too, about the crooked patterns in the game.
You factor in that the highest a judge has been paid (from what I have seen) is $20k for the Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight, and that Teddy Atlas just was interviewed and said the system is broken when a promoter can take a judge out for dinner and no one bats an eye, and you see how easy it is to get those close rounds rolling in one direction. Judges are the quiet susceptible ones that can get bought. Buying a fighter - they learned in the early 19th century - is too obvious: boxers are terrible actors. Buy the judge. It's all subjective and they NEVER get punished.
You take, for example, the two most close fights with a side with money behind him in the past two years and take those two Canelo vs GGG fights as high profile case studies. In both fights, the two judges that mattered in the 12th gave canelo the win, when, of all the rounds, it was GGG's. Let' look at the first bout. Let's start with how in the blue fuck does Byrd end up on every Canelo card? Fine, that's the start or weird shit. Let's see. In the first GGG "draw" she wasn't bought, she just has no skills and has a way of only seeing certain things so she was always going to break Canelo's way. Promoters have sway, they shop for judges, and if they can't pick, they buy them. Just her innate perception bias was always going to shine through. It's that curious draw card (Trella?), the only one of the three, that absurdly gave Canelo the 7th round when even Adelaide Byrd gave it to GGG. That guy was bought. I can only say this because it keeps happening with big fights involving adored A sides historically in the sport.
Weird shit happens often enough and it stops being coincidence; it starts being deliberate action.
Go back further: Hagler' defeat to Antuofermo. Same thing. Hagler was young and could rebuild. Golovkin isn't and he is screwed...because of a few bought men. Because of one integer.
How about Ken Norton vs Ali 3? Most agree that Kenny should have got the nod, but he comes up short. Now Kenny gets called an over-achiever for beating Ali, but never being able to deliver in a decisive way. Ali is great. I respect that he went at every danger point in the division, traveled the world to fight others. Showed real guts. Respect. But he got some nice gifts, that are part of a ongoing picture when we see the A-side pattern. Sure, this is the nature of close fights, but again, the close decision always goes to the A side with the money behind him.
It happens even on the smaller scale. Watch Berto vs Soto Karass. You see the lopsided cards if Soto Karass. It was a 105-103, 103-105, and even going into the 12th. The fight was not close. People were bought that night. A side Berto was on the comeback trail, he was going to win, even if he shouldn't have. Good thing for Soto Karass that Berto tore his shoulder (weird injury from PED user sidenote).
It's bullshit when people say, well, he fought the way people didn't expect, or, he won the story of some bullshit idea. Okay let's label one football team the B side and have them run on 110 yard field during their offense, and the other side only has to play on a 100 yard field during theirs because they are the A side. It stacks things. It stops being a competition between two sides and starts being the house (the A side) stacking a deck. I know boxing is subjective, but it gets predictable when the A side with money behind him gets the benefit of the doubt more often than not.
If you keep looking at the examples more and more, you end up with a lopsided list in favour of the Aside with money behind him.
As Hamlet once said, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
What's really ridiculous is that people will look at those close losses and then undervalue the loser when, really, if the liar swapped one point in the real direction, then the life of the fighter who laid it all on the line would be remembered in a VERY favourable light.
Is this just a cruel reality or a mis-perception?
Thanks for your time, bro.
Bread’s Response: I know you’re frustrated but you have to have faith. Boxing needs to be fixed but we love the sport.
I agree that the official outcome does screw some fighters. Let’s look at Mauricio Herrera. If he would have gotten the Garcia and Benavidez decisions his life is different.
I feel your pain but you can’t be a pessimist. Be a realist and understand it is what it is. Do your part as a respectful and responsible contributor. Write in to the top commissions and express your concerns. Everything counts.
Did you see Demetrius Andrade’s fight this weekend? I may be over critical but I really don’t see what the big deal is about Andrade. I have watched him fight several times and each fight he does the same thing. I think Eddie Hearn is setting Andrade up to get slaughtered by Canelo. Canelo would decapitate Andrade. This is how boxing works!
Bread’s Response: I don’t think Eddie Hearn is setting Andrade up. Canelo may not be able to beat him. Canelo is the more accomplished fighter and over the years his skillset has surpassed Andrade’s in my opinion because Canelo has fought and prospered vs a variety of styles. But Andrade is a stylistic nightmare for Canelo. If Canelo can defeat Andrade he’s an ATG that’s how tough of a style match up that is.
I saw a few rounds of the fight. Andrade was dominant but his opponent was overmatched as I expected him to be. I think the problem with Andrade is you have to put him in with elite fighters in huge fights where all he has to do is win and not so much impress. You can’t put him in showcase fights like say a Tommy Hearns or Mike Tyson. He’s not an overwhelming offensive fighter with a killer instinct. You can only put dynamic offensive fighters with killer instinct in showcase fights. But there are lots of great fighters who aren’t killers like Hearns. Andrade is really a tall athletic boxer. If he doesn’t get the ko early he sort of falls back and boxes. He doesn’t go for the kill like say a Terence Crawford.
That’s just who he is and at 30 years old he’s not going to risk his 0 trying to be something he’s not. He has to fight elite competition or he will never be appreciated. Andrade will be tough to beat despite what you feel as shortcomings. Canelo and his team know it also.
Who would you rate as the best southpaws ever?
Bread’s Response: Nice and simple and to the point. I think the clear 3 are Manny Pacquiao, Pernell Whitaker and Marvin Hagler. They are all fighting for the top spot.
Have you heard anything on Keith Thurman , or when he may return . I think Thurman vs Crawford would make a great fight .
And I give Thurman an equal chance . How do you see this one playing out ?
It seems at welterweight the best fighters wont fight each other . Why is this ?
I am a huge Adonis Stevenson fan . So Adonis Stevenson vs Bob Foster prime to prime best night ever for both , who wins and why ?
Thank you soo much ,
Love your column ,
Bread’s Response: I haven’t heard anything on Keith Thurman. I’m curious as to what type of injury he has that makes him miss 2 years of his prime after his biggest career victory in a unification bout.
Terence Crawford and Errol Spence are the top 2 dogs at 147. Until Thurman fights again it’s no use in putting him in the equation.
Stevenson’s left hand makes him a threat to anyone but Foster is actually a better puncher and better fighter. Stevenson has severe stamina issues and he’s not the same guy on the other side of 6. Foster was a 15 round fighter. I like Foster by stoppage within 8.
Big fan of your mailbag. Love Dougie’s work as well. One difference that I have noticed between the two of you is that he gives way to little credit to Roy Jones, Tommy Hearns and Andre Ward in mythical matchups. Let us take Ward for example - he picked Hearns to beat Ward at 175 and you picked Ward to beat Spinks in a rematch. While Hearns was much more sturdy at 175, I think he loses a razor thin decision to Ward at 175 and as good as Ward is I just do not see him beating Spinks, even in a rematch.
Anyway, how do you think would Ward do in 'best of 3' against the below mentioned -
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Archie Moore
3. Bob Foster
4. Matthew Saad Muhammad
5. Dwight Muhammad Qawi
6. Michael Spinks
7. Michael Moorer
8. Floyd Patterson
P.S. Ward is one of my favorites in this era. Keep up the good work.
Bread’s Response: Ward is a terrific fighter. You know you’re great when you get compared and matched up to the list you sent me. I assume you match Ward up at light heavy because in other eras with same day weigh ins he would be a light heavy.
Ezzard Charles may be the best fighter ever hovering around 168-175. Maybe only Roy Jones, Sam Langford and Harry Greb can argue you that in head to head match ups. I don’t believe anyone on the list could beat Charles 2 out of 3. So I say Charles 2 to 1.
Archie Moore is a great champion but head to head there are guys ranked below his greatness that match up well Head to head. I think Ward could hang with Moore. Ward’s problem in fighting Moore 3 times is Moore is the most prolific ko puncher ever. He has more kos than anyone. Ward wouldn’t want to take Moore inside because of Moore’s many tricks. He could really get clipped and get clipped bad. I say Moore wins the 1st one. Ward plays it safe and moves all night in the 2nd. Flip a coin on the 3rd.
Bob Foster is a bad match up for Ward. The height and reach advantages are tough. Foster’s jab is better than Ward’s. Kovalev’s stature and jab gave Ward fits. Foster is better and bigger than Kovalev. I say Foster wins the first 2 fights. It’s just a bad match up for Dre.
Saad Muhammad and Ward would go to WAR. During Saad’s historic run he always found his shots. Saad was also a lights out puncher. Ward would challenge him in the mid range and win his share of exchanges. Saad gave up too many punches to beat Ward twice but he would beat him once. I say Ward 2 to 1.
Qawi is another brutal match up for Ward. Qawi had the strength of a heavyweight and he’s another guy who could jab with Ward on even terms. I don’t see Ward muscling Qawi around. Holyfield at 190 couldn’t. The key to this fight is Qawi could get lower than Ward. Ward loves to get low. I say Qawi 2 to 1.
Michael Spinks would have been undefeated in the 80s had he not ran into a prime Mike Tyson at heavyweight. In other eras everyone had great jabs like Ward does. I think they split the 1st two fights. But I don’t see Ward beating Spinks 2 out of 3. Spinks is just a terribly underrated fighter. He had great size, great reach. Great power. Great IQ. Great punch selection. Terrific stamina. And he was just as good as an amateur as Ward. I say Spinks 2 out of 3.
Michael Moorer was a comet at 175. He blew through 175 and was fast tracked. He had 9 defenses of the WBO title and he won the title at 21 years old. I think Moorer was terrific but I don’t think he was unbeatable at 175. He had lots of physicality and he was huge for the weight. But if you watch his fight vs Leslie Stewart you know he wasn’t as good as some of the all time great at the weight. I think his physicality would have made him tough on Ward but I think Ward wins the first 2. Moorer processed slowly even at 175 and Ward has one of the quickest minds ever.
Floyd Patterson is an enigma. Patterson is primarily remembered for his fights vs Ali and Liston. But if history stopped when he fought Liston and Ali they would have been top 5 ever in the division. Patterson had serious credentials. He was just chinny and small for heavyweight but he would have been bigger than Ward, he fought at higher weights. His weakness was big punchers. Ward is a good puncher but not a big puncher. Patterson had terrific hand speed and he was a terrific puncher. He also had some excellent wins over Archie Moore, Yvon Durelle, Tommy Jackson, George Chuvalo, Henry Cooper and Oscar Bonavena. Patterson was no slouch. If Patterson were fighting in this era he would be a 6’0 super middleweight with a 71 inch reach. Exactly like Ward. I say they split the 1st two and I have no idea who wins the 3rd.
Who do you like this weekend between Danny Jacobs vs SD? I can’t call this fight. I give Jacobs serious cred for fighting a guy that everyone in New York knows gets the better of him in sparring.
Bread’s Response: This is a tough fight for me to call to. Some people say that sparring doesn’t mean ANYTHING. I am not one of those people. In my opinion it depends on who the fighter is, how many other sparring partners were there, how many rounds they sparred, and in what part of camp did the sparring take place.
For example some fighters like say Ali and Holyfield they really don’t care about sparring and they don’t spar well. You can’t quantify their sparring. But a fighter like say a Mike Tyson or Gerald McClellan who try to get the better of everything, sparring means something with them.
You also have to factor in when in camp the sparring took place. If you spar a young stud who’s always in the gym in the 1st week of camp. Most likely you won’t get the better of it. Just like if you spar the stud the last week of camp when you’re cutting weight the last week of camp you probably won’t get the better of it.
Also you have to factor in how many rounds was the sparring. 4 or less rounds favors the faster fighter who just came out of the amateurs.
I have also heard that SD gets the better of Jacobs in sparring. It doesn’t mean he will win. And I would have to factor in everything I mentioned to determine if it’s valid. But make no mistake it is a factor. Maybe Jacobs was working on stuff. Maybe SD was sparring Jacobs along with 3 other guys. I have no idea. But I am curious to see how it works when they fight under the lights.
Right now I will say this will be a drawish type of fight. I expect a highly controversial decision. The judges will play a BIG factor in this one.
Now that the Charlo brothers have announced their next fights which one do you think is in tougher. Tony Harrison is skilled but he’s chinny. Willie Monroe quit against GGG and he gets a pass. I think both fights are blow outs. What are your thoughts?
Bread’s Response: I think they are both solid fights. Charlo 160 is the mandatory for Canelo. We can’t blame him because he hasn’t gotten his shot at the WBC title. The WBC ordered him vs GGG. He's waiting on his big fight that he deserves.
Monroe is from NY so Brooklyn makes sense. I don’t think it’s a great fight. But it is a reasonable stay busy fight.
I do remember Roy Jones or one of the HBO announcers saying Monroe told the ref he had enough after he was knocked down by GGG. Charlo160 is GGG like. I also saw BJ Saunders sort of get physical with Monroe. So I expect Monroe to be slick and be fast and land some shots. But because Saunders was able to get physical with him and GGG was able to overwhelm him I expect Charlo160 to do the same. It will be tough on Monroe after the first 4 rounds. Maybe he makes Charlo160 frustrated and outboxes him. He has the skillset. But mentally I don’t know if he can take the pressure of such a physical fighter bullying him around. From what I have seen so far. I take Charlo160 in 7 rounds.
I think that Charlo154 is in tougher. I like Tony Harrison. Harrison can fight. He does have stamina and chin issues but sometimes that can be hidden. Especially the chin factor if you fight the right fights. Lennox Lewis and Wladmir Klitschko can attest to that.
Harrison has similar attributes of John Jackson who won 6 rounds in a row vs Charlo154. Harrison can box just as well as Charlie Ota and Demetrius Hopkins who both gave Charlo154 fits. Fighters who are less than or equal to Harrison have given Charlo154 tough scraps.
I give Charlo154 credit however. He has a clutch gene. In supposed tough fights he comes through BIG. Like in the Lubin and Hatley fights. But in fights where he is expected to blow a guy out, like Trout or Jackson he struggles. Maybe Charlo154 doesn’t get up for fights where he is a huge favorite I don’t know. But people crap on Harrison because he has 2 losses. But Harrison still believes in himself and that’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter what any of these know it alls in the media has to say. If the fighter believes in himself and he believes in GOD he can win.
I believe Harrison is strong mentally. My concern for Harrison is his stamina. He doesn’t seem to operate at 154 well. He fights better when they let him come in a little bit over at like 156 or 157. Harrison is over 6ft, he has long arms and he has a Big head. Making weight is a struggle for him. He will have to make 154 or under for this fight. It’s hard for me to pick an upset because I know Charlo will be smoking going for the ko late. And with Harrison’s stamina issues he may have trouble. But I think this is a real fight. A real fight. Don’t be surprised if Harrison outboxes Charlo154. I will give my official pick once the fight gets closer.
The PBC looks like it scored another big fight in Spence vs Garcia. The company needs that fight because of what DAZN just did with Canelo. Do you think the fight happens and if so how does it play out?
Bread’s Response: I think the fight happens. I think the PBC needs it with all of this APP boxing. Usually the PBC makes their big fights by surprise and they allow a nice lead up after catching people off guard. Many thought Mikey was going to fight Richard Comney. Then boom the Spence fight resurfaces.
Historically the Black American vs the Mexican American has done well. This is a Texas, Vegas or LA type of fight. I think they can meet their quota. I say between 250k to 400k PPV buys. It really depends on when in February. I say late February because you don’t want to mess with the Super Bowl which I think is in ATL this year. I don’t know…Maybe NBA All Star Weekend.
I don’t know what either fighter is making but I assume they both want to make 5 million dollars. Garcia is risking his health by taking on a bigger puncher in his prime. Errol is risking his reputation. He doesn’t want to struggle vs a smaller guy. Both are top 10 P4P. This is a Big fight. I don’t call it a super fight because enough people don’t believe Garcia can win. But this is a huge fight and huge event.
I think if Garcia was a welterweight this would be a 50/50 fight. Garcia is a huge puncher, disciplined smart boxer and he has a better resume than Spence. Spence passes the eye ball test big but his resume is slim. No one in the PBC wants to fight him so Mikey stepped up.
I think the pressure is on Spence. He has to smoke Mikey or else the critics will come out. But anyone in boxing knows that smaller, quicker guys are hell in the gym and you see lightweights spar welterweights and get the better of it all the time in the gym. It’s not that big of a deal.
I like Spence in the fight but I don’t think he blows through Mikey. I think he has some tough moments like Crawford had vs Gamboa. Spence’s eyes will need time to adjust to smaller man’s quickness. Mikey is not a speedster but he’s very quick. His 1-2 is money.
I think Mikey’s problem is not just Spence’s size but how he imposes himself. Spence fights like a down hill running back. He’s all over you with a hard jab, brutal body punching and his presence. Over the course of rounds that breaks you down mentally. Spence’s body attack and Mikey’s FRAGILE NOSE keep me from picking an upset. I say it’s even mathematically after 6 but the punishment Spence will be dishing out will be the difference. I say Spence by 10th round stoppage in a brutal fight. Remember the Garcia nose issue. Overall I think it will be an excellent fight and I think Mikey will give a great account of himself.
Send Questions to [email protected]