The Daily Bread Mailbag returns as Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackles topics such as Floyd Mayweather, Canelo Alvarez vs. Gennadiy Golovkin, Amir Khan vs. Kell Brook, Terence Crawford and more.

I believe Floyd is an ATG fighter. Yet after rewatching some of the Fighters I grew up watching. I pose this ? to you Breadman. How many Fights would Floyd win in your opinion, if he had to Face this Murderous Row of Welterweights from the 80’s. At their Best! Sugar Ray, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Mark Breland, Donald Curry - I say Floyd goes 0 and 6! I love Floyd yet at WW he fought off the back foot and I think at 5’8 with brittle hands. He would be at a disadvantage with this Sinister 6. 

Bread’s Response: This is a fascinating question because you aren’t asking me who had the better career. You’re asking me who would win head to head on their best night. This was definitely Murderer’s Row. And in real time if a fighter had to run this whole line up I don’t think anyone in history would go 6-0. Not even Ray Robinson. It doesn’t mean I don’t think he could beat them all. But if he had to fight them all in his career, I think he would have a bad night or two and have to fight a couple of rematches to settle some scores. Sort of like what Leonard had to do vs Duran. 

The only fighter on this list that is not a HOF is Mark Breland and Breland is a very tough match up for Floyd. Breland had great pedigree. He was 6’2. He had a serious jab and a nice right hand. I watched him on video boxing Tommy Hearns in sparring and he was actually outboxing Hearns. Hearns had to hurt him to put him in his place. Mark Breland is better than people remember. He won a title in his 3rd year as a pro. He lost his 1st title defense to Marlon Starling by ko. But what people don’t remember is Breland had won 9 out of the 10 scored rounds before he was kod in the 11th. I also thought he won the rematch vs Starling which was scored a draw. He then went on to win the title again and he defended it 4 times before he lost to 29-0 Aaron Davis. Breland also kod Rafael Pineda a future world champion and Lloyd Honeyghan the 1st man to defeat the great Donald Curry. Most people who know better think that Marlon Starling is a HOF fighter. Out of 6 fighters you named Breland is the guy that most would claim that Mayweather would beat. But beating a 6’2 elite fighter with the amateur pedigree that Breland had is no easy task. 

When Breland was an amateur, amateur fights used to be shown on national tv. I saw his Olympic fights and Pre Olympic fighter. He literally won every single fight I saw by 5-0 decision or ko. I saw about 8 or 9 of them. He was almost impossible to outpoint. This puts Floyd in a unique situation because he would have to turn into what Pernell Whitaker turned into vs Diabolis Hurtado. I’m not saying he couldn’t but he may have had to. Today for arguments sake I say Floyd would turn into THAT vs Breland. But I think that’s what he would need to be. 

Benitez would be the 2nd choice out of the 6 for fighters that I believe the public would pick Floyd to beat. But this is another incredibly tough fight. Benitez is taller, he’s super tricky and relaxed. He also would force Floyd to lead more than he likes and he’s naturally bigger. I would say Floyd would win a razor close fight.

Third as far who the public would say Floyd would beat is Donald Curry. Curry had rose as high as #2 P4P in 1985. An era that had Michael Spinks, Larry Holmes, Azumah Nelson, Eusabio Pedraza, Tommy Hearns, etc etc. And Donald Curry was rated #2 behind Marvin Hagler. Curry was as sharp and technically sound a fighter as you will see. I’ve seen Floyd face 2 fighters I feel as sharp as Curry and that’s Oscar De La Hoya and Zab Judah. Both Oscar and Judah faded down the stretch. Both did well early. Oscar got a split decision loss. The only one on Floyd’s record. Curry was a 15 round fighter. For the people who haven’t seen Curry watch him vs Marlon Starling, Milton McCrory and Nino Larocco. Curry was a murderous pinpoint sniper. 

I know his career faded and Floyd had the better overall career. But at 147lbs on their best night, I honestly don’t feel comfortable picking Floyd to beat him. I just don’t know about this fight. Curry was that good for about 3 years. So let's call this one a toss up.

Duran was a great welterweight. People don’t realize he vacated his lightweight title in 1978 and he fought 9 fights at welterweight going 8-1, the 1 loss was No Mas. Not only did he beat Leonard but he beat Carlos Palimono in what was a perfect performance vs a HOF. 

I’m going to say this……Floyd’s fans will bring up Duran quitting in the No Mas fight. It’s valid. Duran’s fans will bring up Maidana holding Floyd to a majority decision and Castillo arguably beating him. Those will be valid points. The Duran I saw beat Leonard in their 1st fight, and the Duran that beat Palomino was as good as a welterweight as he was a lightweight. He was just older at welterweight and a prime Leonard made him run it back. I give that Duran a slight edge. 

Hearns is just an awful match up for Floyd. Head to head Hearns is a nightmare for fighters from 147-175. He’s elite in every category except his chin which is good not great. Hearns was never stopped over 160lbs which is weird but true. I would favor Hearns. What Ray Leonard did in beating Hearns may have only been able to be duplicated by 1 or 2 men in history. You have to be an attacking savage willing to walk through one of the biggest arsenals in history at 147lbs. A man who punched so hard he could ko light heavyweights and he had elite boxing skills. 

Hearns matches up better with Floyd but I think Leonard is the 2nd best welterweight in history behind Robinson. Leonard was as a complete a fighter as you will have ever see. However I don’t think Floyd would have been blown out vs Leonard. I think Floyd would have frustrated Leonard and made him lead a little like Benitez did. But I think Leonard would have also frustrated Floyd by being his equal or superior in hand speed and late round stamina. After Floyd beat Zab Judah he said that Judah was a front runner and he knew he would break down. The issue for Floyd with Leonard is Leonard is a deep water shark just like Floyd is. He’s also as vicious and mean as a fighter you will ever seen. Believe it or not Floyd is always the alpha in his fights. Against Leonard that wouldn’t be the case. I give Leonard an edge.

Let me say this before I move on to the next question. Floyd Mayweather is an ATG fighter and he would hold his own vs any fighters in history from 130-147. He’s very unique in that aspect because that’s 5 divisions and I can’t think of 10 fighters where I’m reasonably sure that would beat him. He’s that good. He wouldn’t go 0-6 vs any crop of fighters you can name in those divisions. He would figure out a way to pull out a few fights even if he seemed up against it. I’ve been watching Floyd a long time. I’ve literally seen every fight he’s had starting with Genaro Hernandez to Conor McGregor. Floyd Mayweather was a special dude and he has a right to think he’s the TBE regardless if anyone agrees or not.


Hope you're doing well. Your mailbags are required reading every Saturday. Last week you answered an email about making boxing safer, and you mentioned about referees sometimes taking too much time evaluating if a boxer can continue after a knockdown. I'd like to hear your opinion on if this is something that COULD be done by a referee. I remember one time years ago I was stepping off a boat to the dock. I slipped and landed HARD on the dock, but did not hit my head. However, I stood up and immediately saw starts/cobwebs. I don't know for how long, but I couldn't see anything; I could hear people asking if I was alright. I imagined that is what boxers experience when they have a hard knockdown. During that, if somebody held their hand to my face and asked me how many fingers can I see, I wouldn't have been able to.

So, my question is: could a referee do this to a boxer to see if he's ok to continue, or is it too much? I've seen so many boxers get up, say they are ok to continue, and get KTFO by punches they clearly can't see coming, unable to protect themselves because of the stars/cobwebs.

Thanks, José

Bread’s Response: Here is the thing. I don’t know what a referee can do about that expect stop the fight. People think I’m being cruel but I don’t think it’s fair to take away the advantage that the fighter who scored the knockdown earned. Either a fighter can continue within a 8 or 10 count, or he can’t. I’m all for protecting the athletes. But I’m also all for rewarding the fighters who earned the advantage. I don’t think extra time should be given to a fighter who was hurt just so he can continue. If safety is the issue then stop the fight and not let the fighter take anymore punches. That’s actually better as far as safety because stopping the fight insures he doesn’t get hit again.

Hey Bread,

Two interrelated questions and two never before asked mythical matchups -1. Who according to you is the GOAT in terms their post prime performances? Please create a top 5 list for the same without including SRR and Ali.2. According to you, how much impact should post prime performances have on a fighter's legacy? What if a fighter loses his prime way too early like Benitez? Should that have a greater impact on his legacy. Even with those losses, Benitez's total body of work is great. Sometimes I feel that people give way too much importance to their post prime performances. I mean, I am not telling people to only look at their prime but at least evaluate the total body of work instead of just harping their post prime performances. Roy is also a victim of it. People do not balance and simply give weigh too much weightage to his post prime performances. Hell, unlike Benitez, he lost at the age of 35.3. Hearns vs Mustafa Muhammad and Benitez vs Trinidad

Regards, Saurabh Kumar

Bread’s Response: 1. Top 5 in terms of Post Prime Performances. Ok my take will be different than you expect. In no order. Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins won the title at 30 yrs old. He defended it 20x for 10 years. Then he performed for another decade from 40 to 51 at light heavyweight and won the title 3x beating along the way, Winky Wright, Antonio Tarver, Kelly Pavlik and Jean Pascal. His resume at 175 was better than his resume at 160lbs. It’s unreal what he did after 30 years old.

Archie Moore didn’t win the title until he was in his 40s and he held it for 10 years. With his number of fights he has a case for being the best old fighter ever.

Muhammad Ali. Ali was the best fighter and heavyweight of the 60s. He was exiled for 3 years and then came back and wasn’t quite the same. He wasn’t shot, but he wasn’t the Ali of the 60s. So in the 70s Ali turns out to be the best heavyweight in his 2nd era, past his prime. No other heavyweight can say that. 

Floyd Mayweather never had a drop off in performances going by the EYEBALL test. But he doesn’t get enough credit for what he did in his 30s. If you take Mayweather’s 13 fights in his 30s De La Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Ortiz, Cotto, Guerrero, Canelo, Maidana, Pacman and Berto. That alone makes him a HOF and ATG. Because he was never the underdog in those fights and because he didn’t have a noticeable drop off, his 30s get taken for granted. But Floyd is one of the best older fighters in history. In terms of sustained excellence he has a case for being the best.

George Foreman. Foreman takes off 10 years and comes back in the 2nd best heavyweight era in history and wins the title again. He won the title in the best era ever at heavyweight vs an undefeated Joe Frazier. Then he wins the title 20 years later vs an undefeated Michael Moorer. Foreman doesn’t have great title defense numbers but he’s an incredible fighter. The greatest thing about Foreman is he was never stopped in his 2nd career. He took tons of punishment as an old man and no one stopped him. That’s rare for a heavyweight.

2.Post Prime fights count but we have to use proper context. Can we give Ali hell because Tervor Berbick beat him in 1981 when he was 39 and already showing signs of Parkinson’s. Heck no. Just like we can’t dismiss everything that happens when a fighter shows a little slippage. It all has to be held in context.

What a tip you gave on Amir Khan and Jorge Linares! Let me try to quote you? You said opponents fight you harder when they know they can get past your skillset and have success. You referenced Jorge Linares. He got stopped in the 12th by that exact type of fighter. Then you said Brook was a better fighter than Khan but you just wanted to see how Khan performed under Bud Crawford’s training team. Both of the quotes were 100% spot on. What do you think both of their futures hold and who do you think was the better fighter?

Bread’s Response: Yeah I did say that. I didn’t want to be right about Linares because he’s one of my favorite fighters. But it is, what it is.

I think Khan will retire. I think Linares actually loves boxing and he will continue to fight. I think Linares was technically better than Khan. Linares is who I would want my son to fight like if I had a choice between him and Khan. But I don’t know if he was better than Khan. It’s a tough question. Khan lacked elite IQ and his punch resistance was not very good. But Khan was willing to go through more to win a fight than Linares would. That counts. I’ve never seen Linares turn a fight around he was severely hurt in or losing. I watched Khan literally fight out on his feet vs an underrated Maidana and win the fight. I also watched Khan try to fight through desperate times vs Danny Garcia. As much as I like Linares, he didn’t have Khan’s WILL. Khan also has a better resume. So this question is hard for me. Let’s say it’s even. Linares won titles in 3 different divisions and he’s better technically and fundamentally. But Khan has a HOF level resume and his heart was ridiculously BIG. 

Greetings Breadman!

Off the top of your head, what are your five most entertaining fights? We're at one of those dull points in the schedule where I like to watch old fights. I'm worried that we've seen the last of Terence Crawford. Eddie Hearn says he doesn't have any fights for him. He's suing Bob Arum. There's been no meaningful conversations, per this website, between Crawford and PBC, and one of their executives said they haven't even sent him an offer for the Spence fight because his ask is a non-starter. I don't see how this can work out for Crawford, because the fighters that have promoted themselves successfully have been huge draws. I hope this isn't the last we've seen of him. While I'm happy for Keith Thurman, who takes a ton of criticism, I'm sorry that another name that is inactive and has avoided top names is back in the mix of top welterweights. Here's an idea - let the PBC welterweights fight for their own belt, and Crawford, Boots, Vergil Ortiz, and Josh Taylor fight for the rest.

Thanks, Nick

Bread’s Response: So you think Terence Crawford will retire and not fight again. I don’t think that will happen. Ennis is about to fight for a mandatory spot…..let’s see what happens. Let’s see what Ortiz does this year.Let’s see who wins Spence vs Ugas. Let’s see who Thurman fights next.

5 most entertaining fights that I like to watch: Entertaining doesn’t always mean the best…Hard to condense it to 5…… goes….Toney vs McCallum 1.....Holyfield vs Qawi 1.....Carbajal vs Gonzalez 1.....Duran vs Barkley.....Tito vs Campas

Well, the grudge match finally happened. Older, shopworn Kell Brook steam rolled over older, shopworn Amir Khan. This seems like a classic example of a fight fans wanted, but only got years after its expiration date. When would you have wanted this fight to go down? I’m sure it was brewing for much longer, but the earliest I heard of it was 2015. What if it had happened then? Even if it had happened sooner, would things have gone any differently? The way some folks have talked, it sounds like Brook’s style was all wrong for Khan. Agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts?

Bread’s Response: Brook was always the better fighter in my opinion. Khan’s form that he had vs Devon Alexander and Luis Collazo would give him a helluva chance but Brook is always a tough fight for him. Brook has only lost to 3 great fighters. GGG, Spence and Crawford are great fighters and all can be physical. You don’t have to be a great fighter to beat Khan. In 2015 I would have still favored Brook, But Virgil Hunter had Khan looking really good around that time. Khan would have had a real shot and I believe he would have resisted more back then. Khan is lightning fast and he’s talented. But Brook has better balance, he’s physically stronger, his fundamentals allow him to overcome Khan’s speed. Khan is fast but he’s easy to hit because he doesn’t pick up on incoming punches well. Brook is accurate and sharp. He’s also super calm and composed which is always an uphill to the NERVY Khan. Brook is more durable. So therefore Khan would have to outbox him for 12 rounds at most points in their careers. And that’s hard to do, with a composed sharp fighter like Brook. That always would have been a tough match up for Khan.

What's up, Bread.

Hope all is good with you and yours. What I wanted to talk to you about is boxing road warriors. One of the reasons, I rank Manny Pacquiao over Floyd Mayweather is because he never fought outside of America, and hasn't even fought outside of his (adopted) hometown of Las Vegas since 2006, whereas Pac hasn't fought inside his home country of the Philippines since 2006, being willing to fight guys in their own backyards. What I wanted to ask you is how much of an advantage is fighting at home, whether in your home country or your hometown, and does it affect how you see a fighter if he never fights outside of his home country or if he fights out of his country a lot.

I admit my respect for guys like Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis, Manny Pacquiao, & Jorge Linares has increased over the years because I looked at how much they've fought away from home. While, guys like Floyd & Roy Jones, who I respect both didn't want take the chance of getting robbed (like they did in the Olympics), I find I think it takes away from the legacies that they didn't fight away from home. It'd be like a football or basketball team only having home games and claiming they're the best team ever. What say you, Bread?

Mythical Matchups - Prime Floyd Jr. vs. the Roberto Duran that beat Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980 @ 147Prime Floyd Jr. vs. the Emile Griffith that beat Benny Paret to death in 1962Prime Manny vs. the Tito Trinidad that (allegedly) beat Oscar De La Hoya in 1999

Bread’s Response: Traveling is a big factor in boxing. Getting on a plane for over 2 hours sets you a day back anyway and it dehydrates you. Diet and lodge is also an issue. It’s a very serious thing. Traveling gives you extra credit but not traveling doesn’t take anything away. You can’t take anything away from Floyd or Roy because they didn’t travel abroad. I happen to respect the heck of Manny Pacquioa and his career. But he’s not over Floyd. He’s just not. They fought in the same era. Floyd didn’t lose and he beat him head to head. I know there are cases where the fighter who lost or didn’t get the better of the series is rated over the other. Like Pep over Saddler and Jofre over Harada, despite Jofre and Pep not getting the better of the fights. But I just don’t see it in this case. Manny won more titles. Manny may have fought better opposition slightly. But Manny lost 8 times and Floyd lost 0 times. Floyd beat him and Floyd made more money. I know wins and losses are not  the end all. But the objective is to win. Records are counted for a reason. And if Floyd beats him head to head and is the slightly bigger star as far generating money I just don’t know how Manny can be rated over Floyd. I have heard a few cases that made sense, so I’m open minded to hearing them again. 

The #1 case is Manny is a lot smaller and he wasn’t as privileged in terms of matchmaking. That’s a good case. Manny started his career at 108 and Floyd at 130. That counts and I believe it’s why Duran is rated higher than the other 4 Kings because he’s naturally smaller. But in this case the fighter Manny is going against for supremacy didn’t lose coupled with beating him head to head. But I’m not going to make your case for you. And I definitely don’t agree with the traveling issue. Floyd’s team made it easier on him. That’s a testament to his team. He still had to fight and deliver.

Sir, I absolutely love your mailbag and have been reading for years. First, thanks for taking the time to do it. I suspect you are a super busy guy. Second, thanks for the Thirty Dollars and a Cut Eye book recommendation. What a great, insightful read. Now on to some questions that are a tad all over the place.

1. You called the Brook- Khan fight with Khan losing by a 6 round knockout. I thought he would lose in 8. So, are they future hall of famers?

2. A reader asked about Terry Norris last week and it got me to thinking.

After he destroyed Leonard one of the folks calling the fight (can’t remember who) said he thought the only guy who could bear Norris would be Hagler - if he could be lured out of retirement. One of his co-announcers kind of laughed and said no way. He wouldn’t come back. (Funny the weird things I remember as a youngster but Hagler was always my guy. My uncle took me to meet him when he bought Marciano’s shop in Brockton, MA,  and he did an autograph signing and meet and greet. I asked him sign a poster for my dad. He wrote the kindest message that we both cherish to this day!) Ok, all that said… could Hagler have beaten Norris if he did come out of retirement? I think he would have a shot but ring rust and age could be a factor. Still, that guy could flat out fight so I think it would have been a war!

3. I just finished the Zepeda-Viedas fight on DAZN. And yes Zepeda was taking him to school. But, on that final knock down - when Viedas was down- Zepeda nailed him with a late shot to the body. It was devastating and it was a punch he could have pulled. I think if not for that shot, he would have made the ten count. (Yes it probably would have been stopped later but still.) I don’t think the ref saw it. Not sure if you watched the fight, but I felt Zepeda should have been disqualified or at least a no contest. The announcers compared/mentioned the Roy Jones Jr fight when he was DQ’d. I watched that fight in college and as I recall, it was a different situation. I don’t think Jones could have pulled his punch. Maybe that one should have been a no contest. I can’t remember who the other fighter was but Jones destroyed him in the rematch. Zepeda’s late hit looked intentional. Your thoughts on the Zepeda decision? I guess it’s too bad they couldn’t do an instant replay. 4. Also during a previous fight on the undercard,  one of the guys got a bad cut on his eye. His team was pouring water all over him and it created what the announcers called a “moat” in his corner. It was dangerous and slippery for the other fighters the rest of the night. One fighter almost did a split.  I wonder if maybe when a fighter’s team brings a stool into the corner between rounds that it should be a requisite to throw a towel or blanket under the stool to soak up any water.Anyway, thank you for your time. I’m a big fan.

Regards and take care, Mike

Bread’s Response: Thirty Dollars and a Cut Eye is a great book.1. Um….I don’t think Khan or Brook are future HOFs at this point. Excellent fighters but not quite HOFs.

2. Norris beat Ray Leonard in 1991. So the Hagler fight would have been AFTER that and Hagler would have been off 4 years and he would have been 37 yrs old. Norris was about 23 or 24. Grinding type of fighters like Hagler don’t look the same when they get rusty. It’s not a matter of who is the better fighter. I think we would agree that Hagler would stop Norris in their primes. But no I do not believe Hagler taking off 4 years could have beaten Terry Norris is 1991. It’s not impossible but highly unlikely. Norris is an UBER talent and a 4 year layoff is tough to overcome if you aren't the faster quicker fighter.

3. Williams Zepeda is must see tv. I don’t like DQs and I didn’t like Roy Jones got DQd. So that’s that. 4. Dry towels are a must in the corner. In fact you aren’t supposed to pour water on a fighter’s head. I use a wet icey towel.

What's up, Bread? The Khan-Brook fight went more or less as I expected, so the question now is what's next for these guys? I think Khan should retire at this point.  He's too beat up and too inactive.  Unless he wants to spend a few more years fighting scrubs, he should hang up the gloves. The funny thing is, I think Brook should retire too.  154 seems a bit too big for him if he wants big fights, and it sounds like at this stage in his career getting down to 147 leaves him drained.  Given all this, he may as well retire off what is quite possibly the most gratifying victory of his career, even if he does have something left in the tank.

Thoughts? Doug

Bread’s Response: Yes I think Khan should retire. His wires get disconnected too easy. There are health concerns when a fighter keeps getting hurt like Khan does. I saw that Chris Eubank called out Kell Brook. I didn’t like that. Eubank is a middleweight/super middleweight. I don’t get that but it’s today’s boxing. I do think Brook will continue to fight. Conor Benn also called him out and I think that’s a more makeable fight. Brook seems to be a tweener. If 150lbs was a weight division he would be perfect for it. I can see him fighting Benn at 149-150lb but not Eubank.

Hey Bread: It is always a pleasure to read your column as you are learned, experienced and very rarely allow biases to cloud your judgement. However; in your recent commentary you agreed with Tim Bradley that he thinks Canelo will stop GGG in the 3rd flight. I disagree with you and while I believe Canelo will win say 116-112 / 117-111 he is not going to stop him.

Regardless of the two previous decisions Canelo took a beating from GGG in both fights and in the 2nd bout (while he gave as good as he had gotten), GGG had hurt Canelo on several occasions. Not to the point where he was going to knock Alvarez out but he did stun him more than once. In my opinion Alvarez waited GGG out not that he feared losing to him but he feared taking a beating in gaining that victory. As you have correctly stated, no fighter likes to get hit.

There has been no fighter since GGG who Canelo has fought that had the power to shall we say  "keep him honest". Even against Kovalev (who played paddy cake paddy cake with Alvarez) Canelo fought often in a circumspect manner until he saw an opening and knocked chinny Kovalev out. In my opinion Joe Smith JR has a better chance of beating Canelo than Bivol (as while he is a far better fighter Joe Smith JR, Joe will just keep coming after Alvarez and pounding him to the body, as has no fear). Yes, Bivol schooled Joe but never came close to stopping him (nor can Canelo) whereas' JS Jr. hurt Bivol in the 10th round and if there was more time on the clock I believe that he would have stopped him. Bivol has no chance to stop Canelo.

Two things, (if yes if) GGG can take his power up to 168 then this is not going to be a walk in the park as some people think. GGG still has a chin made on Adamantium and until I see where GGG can be really hurt, I do not see it. Hell, Alvarez could not even close to knocking out Callum Smith. BJS walked into a face crushing punching and it took till the 11th round for him to stop feather-fisted Plant. We will have a better idea of what GGG has left after he fights Murata. Make no mistake about it, Murata is no Canelo but if GGG destroys him and looks great in doing so then this gets very interesting. However; if GGG wins but labors in doing so then I think his will not bode well for him in the third fight. We shall see............

Bread’s Response: It’s not GGG’s power that is the issue. It’s his ability to “get off”. He also has taken some big shots in his career and even great chins can be dented over time. GGG gave everything he had when he rallied vs Canelo in their rematch. 

I just feel like Canelo has the right idea of how to fight him. Canelo fights GGG sort of like how Frankie Randall fought Chavez. Even though Chavez was the vaunted body puncher and had the great chin. Randall attacked him. At that point he just got off quicker. I feel Canelo is in rare form these days. And I haven’t seen GGG in that form in many, many years. 

GGG does not attack Canelo the way he does everyone else. He did in the 2nd half of the rematch because he’s an animal. And he knew he was down. But he doesn’t normally fight Canelo like that. I don’t know if that will get better after 4 years with Canelo operating at a higher level from the last time they fought. I’m a GGG supporter. But my gut instincts tell me Canelo stops him. I think the rematch took his prime out of him. He doesn’t have the gear he once had and he’s going to need it for this version of Canelo. The worst mix you can give an ageing puncher is a fighter that attacks him but is also too fast and reactive for him. 

This has a chance to look like Kostya Tszyu vs Chavez. Or Holyfield vs Qawi 2 not 1. It’s just a bad mix. I can’t think of too many times where the fighter who is referenced to GGG has won this fight type of style match up. Canelo is going to walk him down! That’s the issue! 

If GGG wins the 3rd fight, he’s an ATG fighter and no one better not ever say another bad word about him. Ever! That’s how hard this fight will be stylistically and physically for the 40 yr old great but aged champion.

Send Questions to