The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Floyd Mayweather vs. Canelo Alvarez, the career of Gennadiy Golovkin, Canelo's recent win, Lomachenko scoring comments on the Lopez fight, and more.
History is necessary to train people with criteria. And some history that I want to know is about the best fighters in the world at any time.
The P4P charts appeared, I think, in the early 80s. And before that, I don't know if some determined someone to be the king, as it is done today, someone must always be # 1, whether in the highs or lows, someone is # 1.
There are periods of time that in my opinion are fun to determine, like when Turpin beat SRR, or after Ali's suspension in April '67 until Napoli was the best in the world at 69-70; I am intrigued if Monzón was ever the king of boxing, and in many cases number 1.
I wonder if you, who have knowledge of boxing history, can determine who and at what point has been number 1 in the decades before the 80s. The decades that you can.
Bread’s Response: Sure I can.
In the era before the 1970s there weren’t many fighters with beautiful records. So therefore a consensus #1 for an extended period may be more difficult to determine but I will give it a shot. You have to remember that “looking back” on an era after it was over and determining who was the best, is different than trying to determine who was considered the best at specific points.
Specifically in the time after Robinson lost to Turpin. I think Robinson was still considered the world’s best fighter. Here is why. When he lost to Turpin it was viewed as Robinson taking him light and messing around too much on his European trip. He Lost in July of 1951 and he won his title back in a rematch in September of 1951. That’s only 2 months.
You have to remember the other fighters who could claim to be the best during that exact time were Sandy Saddler who consistently lost non title fights although he has a case. Ezzard Charles who lost his title by ko that same month. And Willie Pep who was on the worst end of his series with Saddler. Rocky Marciano was not yet a champion, he wouldn’t be until a year later. And Archie Moore was great but he didn’t become a champion until a year later also. So I think it’s safe to say that during that 2month time span between Robinson’s lost to Turpin and his rematch win that it wasn’t enough time to crown a P4P #1 and by the time anyone thought about it Robinson was the guy again.
I think after Ali was exiled the world’s best fighter was Fighting Harada. He had just recently defeated the great Eder Jofre in 1965 and 1966 and he wouldn’t go on to lose until 1968. After that as you stated Jose Napoles has a strong case but he lost his title on a cut during a brief halt. The most consistent fighter without losing up until Monzon ascended was Joe Frazier who didn’t lose his title up until 1973. Frazier and Napoles were fighting for the top spot but how can anyone not put Frazier #1 after his victory over Ali.
I believe Frazier was the #1 guy up until he lost to Foreman and then the spot was taken over by Monzon.
Now let’s go backwards. Obviously Ray Robinson was the #1 fighter until he lost to Joey Maxim in 1952. But I think Rocky Marciano took it over after he dethroned Joe Walcott up until his retirement. Robinson was a little hot n cold by the mid 50s and the only other person to the claim was Archie Moore who Marciano kod.
From 1943 up until Ray Robinson lost to Joey Maxim he was the world’s best fighter. He won FOY in 1943 so before he got his title shot the world knew. Before 1943 The titles were sort of stagnant because of the war but Joe Louis was the guy.
Before Joe Louis it was Henry Armstrong up until he lost his title in 1940 to Fritzie Zivic.
Now in the time before Amrstrong officially took the P4P title in 1938 the #1 P4P fighter was Barney Ross. He had got the better of both of his top rivals of the time in Jimmy Mclarnin and Tony Cazoneri. Ross had one of the better records of the day.
Before Ross ascended I say the best fighter was Mickey Walker for a short time. And before he him it was Gene Tunney who retired in 1928.
Harry Greb is usually the sexy pick for most historians to bring up. And he is here for me also. His resume was superb for the era. And although Tunney got the better of their series, I would assume that because of the size difference and Greb winning their 1st fight he was the GUY until he lost to Tiger Flowers.
Before Greb surfaced in the early 1920s I would assume Benny Leonard was the world’s best fighter reigning over a rugged lightweight era of the late teens.
Before Leonard, the great Sam Langford was the man. He had the best record considering the weight divisions and best performances of the time. Before Langford it has to be Joe Gans who Langford defeated in 1903.
Before Gans I would assume Jim Jeffries who was an undefeated fighter for much of his career. And before Jeffries I assume Bob Fitzsimmons boxing’s first 3 division champion.
How is that? I know you guys may nitpick my time line but that’s the best I could come up with off the top of my head with no extended research. Just fact checking a few dates.
P4P is much harder to determine before Ray Robinson because rarely did fighters go more than 10 fights in a row without a loss.
Seasons Greetings Breadman ,
It seems as though GGG gets a raw deal . For some reason people like to tear him down . But I think he is the best thirty eight year old fighter out there . His win against Szeremeta is ever bit as good as Canelo beating Rocky Fielding .
People have to remember GGG beat a prime Canelo . Forget the Byrd scorecard , that fight was won 8-4 easily . The second was closer but edged by GGG . He at least had a draw . I have always thought P4P was a joke , and it is a joke that a number one P4P fighter can lose to a guy eight years older than him and still be considered number one . Abel Sanchez was right , he said Callum Smith would be no trouble for Canelo , an easy fight . CS claim to fame is beating George Groves . There is no such thing as P4P , makes no sense . I do think Canelo has great management . His match making is number one . And Eddy Reynoso is a great trainer . GGG should have fought the fights Canelo is fighting . I think GGG would beat CS and Kovalev . I do think Canelo beats Caleb Plant . He stays away from Beterbiev and Bivol .
Jermall Charlo would be an interesting fight , but dont count on it . GGG is at the end of his career , he is thirty nine next year . People need to give this man some respect . I hope Oscar does come out and fight him .
Bread’s Response: P4P is not a joke. P4P gets diluted because people don’t realize how to determine it and then they get mad when their favorite fighters are not ranked as highly as they would like.
I respect GGG as much as any fighter active. But here is the truth. GGG didn’t win the 1st fight. I thought he did by it wasn’t a great performance. He left food on the table. So Canelo got the benefit of the doubt on the scorecards in swing rounds. In the rematch Canelo stepped to GGG. GGG boxed more carefully and then made a late great historic surge. I thought it was possibly a draw or Canelo victory. I was at a fight party and that was my initial impression and initial impressions count the most.
But that was two years ago. And Canelo has ascended and GGG has descended. As much as I think GGG got a raw deal historically. As much as I believe he would have defeated all of the best middleweights from 2010-16. He didn’t. His fans have to learn ACCEPTANCE. It didn’t happen.
So since they fought Canelo has had better matchmaking. Well that’s what A side fighters get. Better matchmaking. Guys like Canelo can fight whoever they want. But he still fought the fights. He moved up in weight. And he looked good doing so. If you’re the blue collar guy like GGG is, you have to win the Super Bowl in the ring. He didn’t.
I respect GGG. I think he’s a HOF. I don’t think he’s an ATG. He has to do more. I think he was ducked by an era of middleweights. But I think he was too careful in the Canelo fights. He was fighting for his legacy and respect and he was a little calculated and it cost him. I think GGG is slipping because he’s a CLEAN fighter, who was not super athletic in the first place. And CLEAN fighters slip at 38. Especially middleweights, who used to be pressure fighters. I think Team GGG needs to exercise the smart matchmaking that Canelo does. Because I see about 5 fighters from 160-68 that I don’t know if GGG can beat at this point, where as 4 years ago I think he would have. I also think if they fight a trilogy that Canelo decisively beats him. That’s not to say GGG doesn’t deserve a trilogy, he does. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to win. Canelo had a huge advantage in this. FATHER TIME. He’s 8 years younger. So he used it to his advantage. He took his time fighting GGG. He’s faster and he’s more twitchy. While GGG is getting older, Canelo is getting better.
You have no idea how much respect I have GGG as a fighter. I’ve told him so. You have no idea how much respect I have Jonathan Banks and Abel Sanchez. Both of his trainers I’ve met. But this is the truth. And it could be a painful one if they fight again.
So I have two questions, but I’ll just lump them together in one swoop.
First, I saw your Twitter post that Pacquiao is a top 5 ATG if he just so much as gets in the ring with either Spence or Crawford. As unlikely as it is, let’s say he were to beat either one or even BOTH… purely for the sake of argument. Could he argue GOAT status? A win over one and I say yes. Both? Definitely can argue GOAT. Who else could start out at flyweight, climb so high, have a welterweight resume that’s BY ITSLEF one of the best, then beat two top KILLERS at 147 who are both a decade younger… and be a forty-something undisputed champ? Man, the more I type the more I think both wins would put him over Sugar Ray Robinson as GOAT (I hope I have not blasphemed by saying that).
Second question: At work the other day, a couple coworkers were waging the rather tired argument of Michael vs Lebron for basketball GOAT status. But then the guy arguing for Michael put his argument in a way I haven’t quite heard before. He rattles off five names and says, “Charles Barkely, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller… Google a list of the best players to never win a championship and they will all show up on that list.” He then added, “A top ten list will include those five names… half the list! Never won a ring because of one man!” Perhaps my friend was guilty of some overstatement (basketball is a team sport after all) but it did raise a valid point: Jordan and the Bulls reigned at a time when competition in the NBA was STACKED! And my Dad said this was back in the days when you reigned as champs until someone knocked you off. So, have their been fighters you could compare to an argument like this? I mean, Ali reigned as king in the Seventies, which was the Golden Age of Heavyweights. I do believe if a lot of those guys had fought at a different time, they might have been champs same as the ballplayers my coworker mentioned. So that’s one example I guess… who are some others? I guess what I’m asking is: Who are some fighters whose accomplished and talented competition highlighted their own greatness?
Bread’s Response: If Manny Pacquiao defeats Errol Spence and Terence Crawford under strict VADA, he’s the GREATEST FIGHTER in the HISTORY of BOXING. But it has to be under strict VADA to leave no doubt. I think that’s fair. Pacman has a shot at it let’s see if he’s crazy enough to go for it.
I think MJ is #1 ALL TIME but not because of that reasoning. Here is why. MJ won 6 titles. Barkley for example played 16 years in the league. If Jordan kept him from winning title in 6 years what happened the other 10 years?
That argument only makes sense if Barkley only played the 6 seasons that Jordan won titles. Lots of great players won titles when Barkley was in the league. Not just Jordan. The same goes for everybody else you named.
Jordan is the best because he’s the best. If you throw out analytics, stats and everything else. Expect what player do you want to win a game, a series, a season or to make a play. Jordan checks off more boxes than anyone else if you’re honest.
It’s the same reason why I say Ray Leonard is the best fighter of MY specific lifetime. If I want a fighter to WIN a fight vs any style in a big clutch moment, he’s the guy I take. Defensive genius, he can stop Benitez. Pressure Fighter and Inside Genius, he can make Duran quit. Long range great jabber, brutal ko power and freakish physical size. He can stop Tommy Hearns. Hard nosed Southpaw technician, he can outpoint Hagler. Win a Gold Medal in the Olympics vs one of the greatest amateurs ever in Andres Aldama and Leonard comes through with the win. Jordan is the same way.
Fighters who I think could have been greater or champions in other eras. Bernard Taylor was an excellent pure boxer. He caught a draw with the great Eusabio Pedraza. Taylor fought in an ATG featherweight era but he could bump. Rocky Lockridge fought in that same era. He won a title but if he fought in a different era he would be an ATG. Close losses to Pedraza and Julio Cesar Chavez change his legacy if he’s in another era. Ruben Castillo’s title shots came against Alexis Arguello, Salvador Sanchez and Julio Cesar Chavez. I mean how bad can your luck be.
Well Oba Carr’s title shots came against undefeated Felix Trinidad. Undefeated Ike Quartey. And undefeated Oscar De La Hoya. Ridiculous.
David Tua has kos over John Ruiz, Hasim Rahman and Michael Moorer. But he only got one title shot against ATG Lennox Lewis. In another era Tua is probably a HOF.
What's good Bread?
A couple of mailbags ago you received a comment detailing the book “Blink” by Malcom Gladwell and the commenter applied the concepts presented in the book to three fighters in Mayweather, Ward, and Bud Crawford with their in-ring IQs. Reading that, it was one of the more insightful boxing comments I think I've ever read. That concept not only shows up across all sports at all levels, but also in business, academia, etc.
With that concept in mind, who across the young under 25 stars in boxing do you see that in? My three would be Shakur Stevenson, Devin Haney, and Jaron Ennis. With Shakur and Devin being "neutralizers" in a neat environment like Sweet Pea and Mayweather respectively. Jaron has a combination of meanness and showmanship that leads to him really hurting his opponents, but he takes a couple of touches too many to inflict that hurt like a Crawford. I haven't seen Ward's influences on some of these young fighters yet, but that doesn't mean we won't in the future. Always a pleasure writing in.
Stephen from Dallas
Bread’s Response: I agree with you 100%. I see the same exact thing. I think Haney is a pure boxer. I think he has a great jab and he’s very active. I think his mind processes at warp speed.
I think Stevenson is actually a little more advanced than Haney at this point. I think Stevenson is a little neater. A little harder to hit. And he’s more efficient. His punches are shorter and more compact.
I don’t know yet who’s better. Time will tell.
And yes Ennis is more like Crawford. He’s more offensive. He’s a more vicious human being. But let me tell you something. Ennis has freaky defensive reflexes also. He can play defense if he chose to. I suspect if he gets clipped or knocked down he may show the world he can also play neutralizer. But again you’re correct he’s more offensive at this point. He also has a way of knowing when to punch to take away the opponent’s will to counter. The harder you fight him back the more vicious he beats you.
It is a shame Boots fight got stopped in the first round due to the headbutt, but this guy has special talent and attributes. Call me crazy, but I think he could and more importantly, WOULD beat Crawford right now. People talk about Crawford being able to switch and it is impressive, but what he does is he will box more off the orthodox stance and will try to walk you down once he goes southpaw. Well, guess what? Ennis can switch himself and he can push Crawford back while being a little more athletically gifted. His punches will get there first and he throws sharp combinations finishing with hooks that will take advantage of Crawford pulling straight out. It would be a great fight, but one where Ennis makes Crawford hesitant just enough and takes a decision or possibly a late stoppage.
As for Canelo, the man is now a mixture of James Toney with a little Salvador Sanchez with the way he can slip shots when coming forward. He is at his best right now and it's going to take a special speical fighter to beat him now. Only chance for a fighter to beat him will be one who is just as quick to process as him and can match him or surpass him in hand speed. After he left 154, he hasn't fought anyone quicker than him minus Khan. Plant is one that would interest me the most, but I need Plant to fight someone legit who will test his stamina because he has to be in dog shape to win that fight.
Bread’s Response: Ennis is definitely a super talent. But I don’t want to say that he can beat the best fighter in the world at this current moment because beating Crawford would take more than talent. It would take a degree of maturity. I love Ennis. I think he may be the world’s most talented fighter. Only a few guys can even question that. But Crawford has proven to be special at the top level for 7 years and counting. People attack his resume but it’s world class. He’s been a champion since he beat Ricky Burns. I believe that Ennis would beat everyone on Crawford’s resume. But that’s projection and assumption. Crawford has done it.
And I’m also not saying Crawford can surely defeat him. I don’t know who I would pick at this moment. I’m just saying let Ennis secure the title shot first. From the looks of things. Ennis won’t be fighting for a World Title until 2022. I can see him fighting 3-5 more fights and forcing a mandatory or fighting for a regular or interim title.
Ennis did look sensational. But as I watching the fight I was saying to the TV screen, “Calm down Boots.” He was really amped up and although the head butt wasn’t his fault. He put his opponent in panic mode and the energy of the fight caused the head butt. Ennis is a fast starter but in his next fight I guarantee he’s going to be more mindful of that.
I think Plant stylistically causes Canelo lots of trouble. I think Benavidez’s physicality causes Canelo lots of trouble. I think Charlo’s jab would be interesting to see if Canelo can deal with it.
Yes you’re correct. Canelo has not fought someone as fast or quick as him since 2014. Let me let you in on a secret. Canelo is this era’s James Toney and Mickey Walker. He’s better vs the BIGGER guys.
Because of his chin, relaxed defensive approach and 154lb coordination, he doesn’t worry too much about punchers and big guys. What causes Canelo fits is someone who can process and pull the trigger as fast or faster than him. BINGO. Although GGG gave Canelo trouble, the only punch GGG throws quick these days is his jab.
A fighter who can replicate the speed troubles Canelo had at 154 vs Floyd, Trout and Lara would be the one that gives him the most trouble in my opinion.
James Toney was the same way. James Toney took Sam Peter’s punches at heavyweight. But got dropped by Reggie Johnson at middleweight. Toney was able to stand in the pocket with Vasiliy Jirov at Cruiserweight but had trouble with Dave Tiberi at middleweight. It’s how some fighters are.
A mix of James Toney and Salvador Sanchez. I say a mix of James Toney and Julio Cesar Chavez. Chavez’s come forward relaxed defense was CRAZY. And his ability to stay in front of bigger guys is James Toney like. If I’m being fair and honest the performance I just saw vs Callum Smith is one of the better displays of skills and boxing going forward I have seen in the last 10 years. It was so good I saw people questioning Callum Smith’s credibility. Canelo made him look that bad. And Smith is a very good fighter. But SKILL can make you look ordinary.
I know P4P rankings are determined with bias from the author’s 99% of the time based on who their favorite fighters are currently, but one thing has been consistent in the last few years: Loma (prior to Lopez) and Crawford have been #1a and 1b, or #1 and 2 on most P4P lists. Not sure what the latest update is with Loma’s recent loss. But, after watching Canelo fight this past Saturday, I made myself aware of the fact that besides the PED controversy with him a few years ago, that man has fought a who’s who of fighters dating back to 2010 one year after his pro debut. I’m confused why HE’s not #1 on most of the P4P rankings in the last few years since Mayweather’s departure from the scene. Canelo’s resume is HOF status compared to Loma (kind of) and Crawford thus far. Can you please explain?
Thanks for the consistent reading every Saturday since your days at boxingtalk.com. Always a pleasure and you’re appreciated. ~ NewYoRicanPapi
Bread’s Response: Another person wrote in and he thinks the exact opposite of you. It’s all about perspective. So let me explain mine.
Before Loma lost I had 4 fighters who I thought were operating on a level different from everyone else. Crawford, Loma, Inoue and Canelo. I was ready to make Loma a clear #1 if he was able to beat the YOUNG GUN Teofimo Lopez. But he didn’t, so 3 remain.
As for why it’s not so clear cut that Canelo is #1 P4P….Here are a few reasons. Canelo has had a few controversial decisions. Inoue and Crawford have had ZERO. Canelo has benefitted from being able to fight WHOEVER he wants to, on the NOTICE he wants to. Canelo was able to make Sergey Kovalev and Callum Smith both put their titles on the LINE on very short notice. I don’t think it’s a big deal if you are in decent shape. But I don’t know what type of shape they walk around in. The Kovalev fight especially is smooth matchmaking because I believe GGG, Jermall Charlo, David Benavidez and Caleb Plant would all beat the current version of Kovalev. But because Canelo is Canelo, he’s the only one who can get the fight.
So people who know boxing, know better. It’s a great accomplishment to be a 4 division champion. But beating Kovalev specifically is crafty matchmaking. I think that gets held against him slightly.
I also think Canelo’s weight advantage over Inoue gets held against Inoue. Inoue has defeated just as many RING Rated fighters as Canelo and he has way less fights. Defeating RING rated fighters is a fair way to determine who’s dominant in their era because not everyone has the opportunity to fight HOF. So while the era is in motion, beating RING rated challenges count.
Eye Ball Test. So while Canelo has a better resume than Crawford and Inoue. It’s not by the miles you may think. Let’s take the 5 best fighters Canelo has beaten. Remember he lost to Floyd Mayweather. So I say GGG 36 years old. Cotto 34 years old. Mosley 39 years old. Kovalev 36 years old. Erislandy Lara in his prime. Canelo’s resume is excellent.
But it’s not quite the same as say Manny Pacquiao’s.
Crawford and Inoue don’t have the big names but they have solid RING RATED threats. Especially Inoue.
And I’m not suggesting that just because a fighter is in his mid 30s, he’s done. That’s not true at all. Floyd was 36 and he beat Canelo. I’m just pointing out exactly why some don’t view Canelo as a SLAM DUNK #1.
When you give these fights the EYE BALL Test you can see that the fighters for the exception of Lara are not what they were. And Crawford and Inoue seemed to be slightly better up until….
Up until Callum Smith I looked at Canelo as a slight notch below Crawford and Inoue. But not anymore. That performance was different. Callum Smith is equal to or better than Kell Brook at this point. And for the first time I didn’t see a difference in execution and skill set between Canelo and Crawford.
I know boxing. I’ve observing fights in a different way for a very long time. Canelo was MASTERFUL. He fought his 1st career perfect fight. That’s how good he was. So if EYE BALL test is even and Canelo has the better resume, he most likely deserves the #1 spot with one CAVEAT….
I always leave myself wiggle room because I pride myself in being OBJECTIVE. You brought up the Positive PED test. Crawford and Inoue have not failed any test. Canelo has before his biggest career challenge in a rematch where most people felt he lost the 1st fight. I know this is a sour subject and I don’t bring it up unless I’m asked. But it’s a big deal. And without accusing Canelo of anything. It is something to ponder.
What's the better/more impressive win: mayweather-canelo or pacquiao- margarito
Bread’s Response: The BETTER win is Mayweather over Canelo. Canelo was a veteran of over 40 fights. He had over 5 championship fights and he had just fought a unification vs Austin Trout. The notion that he was GREEN is ridiculous. He may have improved but he was far from GREEN. Considering what he’s done since he fought Mayweather that WIN has aged as good as any of the decade.
The more impressive win as far as the eye ball test. I still give the slight edge to Mayweather because Canelo is better than Margarito. But not by a lot. Manny also fought a PERFECT fight. Margarito may not be a HOF but he has a ROUGH style. There was a huge SIZE disadvantage for Manny. And Manny's violent in and out boxing display was on PAR with with Mayweather did to Canelo. But I still give the slight edge to Floyd because of Canelo’s status.
As the year comes to an end, I hope next year brings us all good health and the big fights we have been waiting for!
One of the gifts of Canelo even thought he had a 13-month laid-off is he made an undefeated fighter with significant advantages of height-reach look average at best. Great fighters can always do that to you. The ring leadership, IQ, and body punches of Canelo was on well displayed. As a boxing fan, I appreciate that Canelo is always taking the best fighters when he doesn’t need too. What were some of your thoughts Bread? Did anything surprise you from the fight even though you picked Canelo to win?
It’s hard to predict the future, but one of the paths that Canelo could take is fighting his mandatory Avil Yildirim in late February and then taking on either Billy Joe Saunders or Caleb Plant in May. GGG dominated Kamil Szeremeta as we all expected, but he appears to be reluctant to make the riskier fights like Andrade, Charlo, Plant, or Saunders. Personally, if he wants the Canelo trilogy or a big fight he could move up to 168 and fight either Saunders or Plant, that could lead to the Canelo fight for all the unification belts in September. I know GGG had a long amateur career, but at 42 Pacman is still willing to fight the best..
Who would you like Canelo and GGG to fight next year? More importantly, what odds would you give Bread in 2021 of these potential fights happening:
Spence Jr vs Crawford, Canelo vs GGG, Fury vs Joshua, and T. Lopez vs D Haney, R Garcia or Tank?
As always, thank you for the mailbag the entire year, my friends and I always look forward to it.
Bread’s Response: I was the most impressed I have ever been with Canelo. He fought a perfect fight. I wasn’t surprised he won. But I was surprised he won every round. I didn’t see one round that Smith won. I was also impressed that Canelo dominated Smith so much with his jab. I knew Canelo had a great jab but he completely out jabbed the taller, longer Smith.
I thought Smith would show Canelo less respect. I thought Smith would really try to knock Canelo’s head off. He sort of fell into a pattern of being punished and not giving it back to the extent I thought he would. I thought it would be more of a shootout. Not so much as far as who’s winning the most rounds. But as far as who’s giving resistance and trying to continue to win at all cost. For example Manny Pacquiao dominated Antonio Margarito. But at no point did Margarito stop trying to damage Manny severely. He was giving a serious energy of resistance. I really respect Callum Smith and his trainer. They did an excellent job getting to the big dance. But I didn’t see the energy from Smith that I thought I would. I thought his brother Liam, who is not as big or talented fought harder vs Canelo. Liam was just more outgunned. I don’t mean this to criticize Callum, I’m just saying what surprised me as far as his performance.
I've seen where you've said and I'm paraphrasing, fighters need discipline between fights, keep weight down, live right etc.
What do trainers do to stay sharp? Do trainers "get outta shape" between fights? How do trainers stay on point? How much does lifestyle play a role into how effective trainers are?
Bread’s Response: Great question. Trainers definitely need to stay motivated. Your core program will normally be in place if you reach the top level with a fighter. But you need to have good instincts and observations to remember what worked and what didn’t.
A trainer’s energy gives off on his fighter. A trainer has to have energy to complete the workout. His mind has to be sharp to make things fun, intense and learning worthy. A trainer has to realize what that energy is and keep it.
In between fights with more advanced fighters, I stay in trainer’s shape. Believe it or not I keep my weight down. I work on pad routines with my less advanced fighters so when the advanced guys start camp, I sort of have a feel on what things I will add or take away.
I keep my equipment bag ready and neat. I rack up on tape and gauze. I watch film. I order new devices I think I will need in camp. Mitts, punch counters, neck harnesses, stop watches etc. I really stay in a motivated mind set so it doesn’t take much to get me “UP”. So when the matchmaker calls and you get the fight date. Just like a fighter who stays in shape. You’re ready to go.
Hey Mr Edwards
Props for another super mailbag. We are fast running out of accolades but that shouldn't stop you.
Please indulge me on my pet subject, Errol Spence jr. I don't hold with trolling fighters for no reason than that anyone who steps into a boxing ring and puts his life on the line deserves respect. So, I'm not trolling, I'm speaking from the heart.
I refer to reports that Spence wants a 70/30 split in his favour for a fight with Terrence Crawford. If that's true, Spence has gone from a coward to a joke. In fact, he is becoming a serious disgrace to a division that has given boxing some of its greatest fighters of all time.
I have told you time and time again that the argument of boxing economics which you have used to defend legitimate claims that Spence is ducking Crawford cannot hold water. I have great respect for your boxing knowhow. It's second to none. But how you see Spence-Crawford as a 50/50 fight is a mystery to me. And Spence's attitude towards a Crawford fight should tell you he knows he's on the receiving end of a bad beating if that fight happens. The only thing Spence will offer in that fight is chin and nothing else.
What has Spence really done to qualify him as a great fighter? He has only one win of note in my view, in his fight against Kel Brook. The fight against Mikey Garcia was a farcical mismatch and he still could not put the smaller guy away. Mikey does not get out of the 8th round against Crawford. He was life and death with Shawn Porter and if Porter's glove does not touch the canvas in that 11th round the scoring is very interesting. Come on, junior welterweight Broner's knockdown of Porter is much more authentic as Porter finished that fight on rubbery legs. Crawford clips and stretches Porter out at any point in the fight given his precision and Porter's recklessness.
I can cite many examples. But for me, Spence is too predictable to stand a chance against a multi-dimensional fighter like Crawford. People overanalyze Crawford being clipped by Gamboa but who was the man still standing when the dust settled? They say Mean Machine put Crawford down but who took care of business? Spence does not have one-punch power like say, Hearns, so he may also only shake Crawford but the Nebraskan will storm right back at him and Spence may have to be rescued by the referee.
Throughout history, there are fighters who have entered the ring knowing they are on a beating to nothing but they've taken the fight. Cuevas was a lamb to the slaughter for Hearns. Braddock had no hope against Louis. Minter was doomed against Hagler. These guys still went ahead with the fights because they didn't duck.
I'm sorry for the long email and if your editor does not forward it to you, I perfectly understand. I just think that unless Spence stops making excuses and fights Crawford in 2021 his name should not come up when the great welterweights are discussed because he will belong in the Hall of Shame and not the Hall of Fame.
Johannesburg, South Africa
Bread’s Response: I think you are taking Errol’s comments too personal. He may be trying to lay the ground work to let Crawford know he’s the A side. I’ve seen this tactic work before. The B side guy gets angry because he’s mocked for taking less money and not being as big as a star and then he forces the fight and loses. Floyd Mayweather has done this over and over. And I’m not surprised at Spence’s tactic.
It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want to fight. I’m not saying he’s eager to fight Crawford. I don’t know what’s in his mind or heart. I’m just saying that just because he’s not going out of his way to make the fight, doesn’t mean he’s scared to fight Crawford.
Often the fans over analyze. If you let Team Crawford and Team Spence figure it out, you will save yourself some gray hairs. If they want to fight, they will next year. And the SPLITS will be the SPLITS. 2021 is the ripe date. After that we can call DUCK.
I do think it’s a 50/50 fight. I think whoever is on that night will win. I think whoever has the best camp will win. It’s a very close fight.
I think it’s frustrating for Crawford’s fans because, Crawford is older and he’s on the outside looking in. This can turn into a GGG vs Canelo thing in another year or two if the fight doesn’t get made.
Man, what is up with Canelo’s cardio? I think he has found his ideal weight class at 168. He ain’t Qawi but boy he is closest thing to him I have seen in a long time. He just doesn’t get tired these days. That is something his opponents used to count on and now they don’t even have that. Have you noticed, ever since Mayweather fight people have been assuming that outfighting is the best way to beat him but I am not sure anymore. I think he has become quite comfortable fighting back to back fighters on front foot. I think, he is not comfortable when you push him back. What do you think?
Also, why are some coaches effective with some fighters only. Reynosos are brilliant with Canelo and look good with Garcia but their equation with Valdez and Nery is not getting set properly? Why do you think that is the case?
Bread’s Response: I think the fighter to beat Canelo will be the guy that will make Canelo move at a pace he doesn’t like. Whether it be going backwards or forwards. What’s happening is his skill set, punch selection and defense are so good these days, that he doesn’t expend as much energy and the opponent is always being threatened. If Canelo was walking forward on a guy who was sticking and moving and jabbing his face off it would cause him to have to pick up the pace. If he was being pushed back by someone who didn’t respect his power and keeping a higher volume and scoring, he wouldn’t look so comfortable.
Canelo’s composure is a result on why his stamina is so good these days.
Every fighter is different. Eddy Reynoso is one of the top trainers in boxing. But there is only one Canelo. Canelo’s brothers didn’t turn out as good as him and it’s unlikely for another fighter in that stable to either. Trainer’s aren’t miracle workers. They implement and routine and some fighters pick up better than others. It’s just like in school. Every student won’t be an A+ student even if they are being taught the same thing. Some will be A-. Some will be B, C and so on. Some will do better in certain subjects.
Canelo is Reynoso’s greatest fighter. So what he did was mastered Canelo’s gifts and body type. Now he can expand with his other guys through trial and era. For a long time although Canelo was a shorter fighter for his weight class, he couldn’t come forward as good as he needed to. Now he can and he looks good doing so. It took a while but they got it.
The reason why some fighters get certain things and some fighters don’t is simple. Some people learn at a different rate. Genetics allows some of us to see something once and learn it. Then some of us need to do things several times to learn it. No two fighters are exactly the same. But a solid trainer will have more success than failures regardless of who he trains.
Real quick. I know you don't usually take mail after Thursday. Maybe this gets through.
What did you make of GGG's work? Some say the layoff was good. I've heard some say he is a goner against A level competition. I think he looked like he did against a durable non-puncher.
I still see the 6 to 7th round slump in energy from him. They say he trained more strength (for a guy who gives up space and doesn't impose physicality, but just imposes himself through punching power, working strength is good, I think). Maybe that's just the way he is. He goes B, C, A in energy from rounds 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9 to 12.
You think, opponent aside, he can still compete at the A level (you know, since he's one of the FEW clean fighters.....).
Bread’s Response: I thought GGG was solid vs his opponent. But I saw a fighter he would have stopped in 2 rounds if this was 2014. As you get older, you lose the “Trigger Pull”.
I think Charlo and Canelo would be really tough on GGG at this moment. I think Munguia is a 50/50 fight.
I think his chin and pedigree will allow him to compete. I don’t think he beats Charlo and Canelo at this point.
You may not realize this but everyone needs a 2nd wind at a certain time. It’s how our lung capacities are wired. I’ve seen guys no matter how good of shape they are in need their 2nd wind in the same round. Sergio Martinez always needed it around the 4th or 5th round and he was a high energy guy.
GGG needs his during the midway point and it’s sort of why he either gets you early or late but not so much in between. Good pick up.
With the latest words of Loma and him believing he got robbed. His round by round breakdown made me rewatch the fight! And tho I know you're not a huge fan of this, rewatching the fight, I have to agree with him! And much like Canelo/GGG, I believe the business of boxing beat Loma that night and not Lopez! The Guy with the bigger upside got the win! My question is how often do fighters lose fights on the perception of how the fight should have went in comparison to how it actually went. Example, Canelo/GGG 2, Canelo seemed more aggressive there for he seemed to get extra credit tho he lost just as many rounds as he did in the first fight! I can conceive a draw but in no way do I think he won. And now with Loma/Lopez! I think Lopez got extra credit for fighting a great fighter better than expected! Not for actually winning! Again with this fight, I can conceive a draw but there is no way he won that fight. Loma punished that kid down the stretch and I can't see how anyone can't find 6 clear rounds for Loma! Also who would you have wanted to be at the end of that fight? Loma beat up Lopez late far worse that Lopez hurt Loma early. Acknowledging that a fight is 12 individually judged rounds, those scorecards were horrible and I think Loma has a legit gripe! Do you?
Bread’s Response: I don’t know if there is a translation problem with what Loma is trying to say and what he’s actually saying. But accusing judges of being bribed is serious. If that’s what he actually meant. Egis Klimas is a very smart manager. And I supposed he would filter some of those comments.
As for who won the fight, when the final bell was announced I thought The best Loma could have done was a draw. I thought the worst Lopez could have done was a DRAW. I believe the right man won the fight.
I think what beat Loma was the rounds he allowed Lopez to win were easy to score. They weren’t swing rounds. The rounds Loma won he had to really work for them. In fact some of the rounds he did better in were swing rounds. So one fighter had about 5 easy rounds to score. The other fighter only dominated maybe 2 rounds. The remaining 5 were swing rounds and in those rounds Lopez got the benefit of doubt.
I am a big Loma fan. But you can’t overlook him, not stepping on it until the 7th round. I thought Lopez won 5 out of the first 6 rounds. You only need 6 for a draw and 7 for a win.
I don’t know what to make of Loma’s claims. I handle it like how handle everyone else’s. “A LIE is a LIE, even if everyone believes it. And the TRUTH is the TRUTH, even if no one believes it.” Let’s see if Loma can prove his claims.
Also we have to be exact in looking at Loma’s claims. Most people agree that Lopez started early, held on to his lead late and won a close fight. 115-113ish is usually the scorecard. I have heard some 114-114 which is a draw. And possibly a 116-112 which is the max.
But the scorecards in this fight were 119-109, 117-111 and 116-112. Judges are watching the fight at Ring side with absolutely no distraction from fans and the ability to hear what’s in the corners. 119-109 is 11 rounds to 1. 117-111 is 9 rounds to 3. I think Loma is trying to say that he had no chance of winning regardless because most will agree he won more than 1 or 3 rounds.
It’s interesting to say the least. I’m a big fan of both guys. If Loma wants it again. I think he’s earned the right, to right his wrong. He’s a HOF and was the former #1 fighter in the world. Let’s see if it was a bad night. Let’s see if Loma can get it back.
Send Questions to firstname.lastname@example.org