The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Juan Manuel Marquez, welterweight contender Conor Benn, welterweight champion Terence Crawford, Saul 'Canelo' Alvarez, Artur Beterbiev vs. Andre Ward, Tim Tszyu vs. Keith Thurman, and more.
How are you Bread Man?? Thanks for your mailbag...How good Juan Manuel Marquez was in his prime?? which style he was?? Have a great Week, thanks.
Bread’s Response: Marquez was great. In my opinion an ATG great. He won 4 division titles from 126-140. So that’s rare. Not many fighters in history have those 4 titles. He’s one of the 10 best Mexican fighters ever. He’s one of the greatest counterpunchers I’ve ever seen. He’s an excellent puncher. He has one of the best uppercuts I’ve ever seen. He has the BEST recovery I’ve ever seen in a fighter, in terms of being severely hurt but not allowing himself to be stopped. Marquez has been dropped about a dozen times but never stopped in over 60 fights. That says a lot. His combination of grit, toughness, clutch gene, punching power, counter punching, IQ and technical ability made him one of the top 10 fighters of the 2000s. Great, great fighter.
I do not know if you remember same, but some months ago we had some exchanges about Connor Been, and the fact that recently, he was found positive twice during his fights. I watched his 2 last fights since he came back from his suspension, including his fight last Saturday against Dobson, and i rewatched most of his fights during his incredible run 2019-2022 when he suddenly became a ko artist, which he was not before. When i compare his 2 last fights to his previous fights before he got suspended, it seemed clear to me that in his 2 last fights he did not have the same explosivity and power as he had before. I was even stunned how different it was, and it proved to me that forbidden products can really increase a fighter's power by quite a subsequent margin. I am now even wondering how many other fighters are much more powerful than they should be by using similar forbidden products...As you no doubt know, last week a young and promising Japanese fighter died at the age of 23 as a consequence of the blows, that he received during his last fight, and this reminded all of us again, how dangerous is boxing. We should never forget that those guys are risking their life's, every time they step into the ring.
Considering all above, this made me think? that in boxing it is just crazy that doping is not fought more harshly than it is. If I take the example of Connor Benn, and how much his power seems to have increased when using forbidden products, nobody can tell me? that when a fighter is juicing, he is not knowingly putting another man's life in danger, when fighting. This brings me to the point on which i really would like to have your opinion. We certainly would all agree, that at the moment, when a fighter is caught cheating, the penalty that the fighter incurs is never bad enough to really discourage most from cheating.
However if we consider that a cheater is knowingly putting another man's life in danger, would it not be possible for another fighter or his trainer, or his promoter to sue that man in a proper legal court is he has been found guilty of doping ?Did you ever think about addressing that issue to a lawyer to see if there would be grounds for a proper claim and that if guilty, a fighter could be severely sentenced by a legal court, for deliberately putting another man's life in danger for his own profit? After all if a fighter could be heavily sentenced, outside the boxing world (who is doing nothing or very little against doping) could it not be the best way to make people think twice before cheating? When Lance Armstrong was cheating, this was a real shame, but he was not putting anybody's life in danger. Thats not the case in boxing, and i was wondering if somebody had ever fought before of suing a cheater for the reasons expressed above. Would you consider same if in the future one of your fighters is meeting a guy who is subsequently found guilty for juicing? I might be delusional, but i would like to have your views on this.
All the best, Chris from France
Bread’s Response: I AGREE with you. Fighter’s and their teams should sue if they face someone who is juicing. The issue is, most times the cheater gets caught before the fight and if the fight is cancelled you can’t sue them for physical damage but then again you can sue them for attempting to hurt you, and the money you lose in camp if they don’t find you a new opponent. But if an opponent of one of my fighters test positive AFTER the fight, and we lose. I would be in favor of suing. It may or may not deter fighters but a bigger punishment needs to be in place!
As for Conor Benn, when I was watching him fight Chris Algieri I said to myself, he’s juicing. I would never say it out loud because at time he had not tested positive and it’s not professional to publicly accuse someone of cheating without tangible proof. So when he tested positive, it was no shock to me. It just confirmed what I already believed. I was as sure as I could be that he was juicing without a positive test.
Benn simply became a better fighter. People will say PEDs won’t make you a better boxer. That’s ridiculous. Imagine this. Two people have the same exact talent and skills. But one starts juicing for 6 months. The one who is juicing can work out harder and recover faster. So his PEAK will become higher. He’s going to be stronger, he’s going to be faster, his blood flow will be better and blood carries oxygen. So therefore he will take a better punch, because his recovery will be better. I can’t believe that nonsense gets repeated that PEDS don’t help with skills.
If you can practice more, and apply your skill with more FORCE, STRENGTH and ATHLETICISM, then PEDS will make you more skillful. The issue in this sport is that no one really cares unless they are directly attached to the fighter who fought the cheater…….Most times the outrage is self serving and fake….
Hoping all is well with you and yours! I'll get right to it: As a lifelong fan of Boxing, I'm beyond frustrated with what's happening at both 147 and 168 and wanted to get your thoughts. I think it's pretty obvious that both of these divisions are being held captive and I can't understand for the life of me how it's being enabled by "the business side" of the sport and even "boxing people" and insiders. Somehow, Terrence Crawford and Canelo Alvarez are being ENABLED to avoid the consensus number 1 "contender" in their division without getting stripped or shamed into either moving up or down a division, or fighting the fight. Yes, the WBO inexplicably stripped Crawford before he even had a chance to fight anyone after the Spence match. But, I'm hearing way too many boxing people saying that Crawford "earned the right" to not fight Boots because he beat Spence. Huh? That's fine if he doesn't remain at 147 or if he doesn't get to keep the belts, but NOT otherwise. That's NOT a rule any more than "you have to do more than win the majority of rounds if you're going to take the title from the champion." That's not a rule either. With Canelo, the excuse we're all used to is: He's fought so many Hall of Famers and ATG's throughout his career that he can pick and choose who he fights, irrespective of the size, weight, or viability of the opponent. The Mexican Monster was an undefeated champion of that weight class twice, lost the belts without losing a fight, and has gone through a "who's who" of the weight class without getting a shot from Canelo.
I'm fine with Canelo picking and choosing whoever he wants to fight at this stage of his career, just not while he holds all the belts hostage! This is an outrage and if he does go on to (as Oscar says) fight Charlo again lol, he should be stripped! Plain and simple. David Benevidez should NOT have to vacate the division because he's too good... Canelo should have to vacate the division or at least it's belts if Canelo and/or Reynoso think he's too good. And I hope "Don" Mauricio Sulaiman reads your mail bag ;) Terence Crawford is a generational talent and put on a masterclass performance against Errol Spence, and surely deserves his flowers for doing so.
But ONE super fight after beating a few former champions during their "farewell tours" does NOT and should NOT entitle him to hold that division hostage while Boots Ennis is in it. Imagine if that was the attitude of Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Ali. We make excuses about A side/ B side nonsense and justify catch-weights and rehydration clauses so the "A" side can keep his "0" while still riding a bike with training wheels. Tank should've been ridiculed for making Garcia sign a rehydration clause in order to fight him. Instead we have to hear, "Well, Tank's the A Side." Why not put in a clause for "No punching in the face?" The net result, which is the real injustice, is GENERATIONAL TALENTS like Boots Ennis and David Benevidez don't get to shine and show how good they truly are. They don't get what they've earned and worked their whole lives for along with their respective teams, and this should bother boxers, active and former, as well as trainers, instead of resorting to the canned A Side/ B Side narrative and talking points like good company men. Neither Ennis nor Benevidez should have to move up until their body dictates it.
And saying Ennis needs to sign with a particular "Entity" in order to get what he's earned through hard work and dedication to his craft, is like the people who told Jake LaMotta to swallow his pride and take the dive against Billy Fox to get his title shot. That was the "business side" in the 1940's and '50's. I've heard Teddy Atlas make the comment that the sport was less corrupt when the Mafia was running the "business side" than it is with today's cast of characters on the "business side" of the sport. At least back then they all fought each other, usually in their primes and often more than once. We've come to accept, through years of conditioning, that the sport is corrupt. We've been conditioned to expect horrible/ criminal decisions and criminally awful refs at times, shady deals and corrupt sanctioning bodies. It's extra demoralizing when we have to hear talking points and spin-doctor narratives from the insiders who should be more upset about the injustice than the fans. Canelo and Crawford are both great fighters. But so are Ennis and Benevidez and they've earned the right to fight for and prove their supremacy at the weight they are still capable of making. If Canelo and Crawford choose to avoid those challenges, no problem, but they need to be forced to surrender their titles if that's the choice they make. What say you, Bread?
Thanks for all you do and keep punching,-Sean in Atlantic City
Bread’s Response: Canelo and Crawford are among my favorite fighters to watch. Each time I watch them I learn something. Boots and Benavidez are two of the best mandatory challengers to great fighters that we have seen in a very long time. This reminds me of when Riddick Bowe was Evander Holyfield’s #1 contender. Or when Sugar Ray Leonard was Wilfred Benitez’s #1 contender. That’s serious work breathing down your neck as a champion.
So....Here is MY take from an objective perspective. Crawford was boxed out of the BIG fights for a very long time. He’s 36. He finally got the showdown fight with Errol Spence and now he has a uber talented kid who’s 10 years younger than him breathing down his neck in Boots Ennis. I see both sides of this.
If I’m Boots I want my shot. I earned it. If I’m Crawford, I’m going to say no one is forcing me to do anything. I had to go through too much to EARN my position and I won’t be dictated to.
Boots is going to say, Crawford is doing the same thing to me, that he claims THEY did to him.
Crawford is going to say, too bad young fella. I’m not giving you a shot.
Canelo is going to say to Benavidez you lost your belt because of your out of the ring issues. That’s on you. I’m the boss.
Benavidez is going to say, Canelo you had out of the ring issues also. You’re not perfect. I’ve earned my shot. Don’t judge me because you failed a test too.
Again, I see both sides of this. However, I see Crawford’s more than I see Canelo’s. Crawford just got the Super Bowl fight in July of 2023. Benavidez has been breathing down Canelo’s neck for a long time now….a few years….We don't even know if Crawford will be fighting at 147lbs in his next fight. Canelo has taken big fights at 168, right where Benavidez is parked and still hasn't fought him. Although for the record, I have to say, that if Canelo doesn't lose, I think he's going to end his career with the Benavidez fight. Canelo seems very prideful.
Where I agree with you 100% is the belts. If a fighter chooses not to defend against his mandatory, he should be stripped. I think the IBF moved a little fast with Crawford for the record. He had just won the belt and he was stripped. But at least they’re enforcing their rules. At least they set a standard where fighter’s know they can’t sit on their mandatories.
Benavidez has been the mandatory for a very long time. He has been interim champion for a long time. I don’t know exactly how long but I’m sure he has exceeded the time limit as far as being a mandatory. At some point a champion has to be stripped or else we shouldn’t have mandatories. From my recollection it’s been a few years that Benavidez has been waiting. No fighter should have to wait over 12 months for a mandatory title shot…I don’t mind there being 4 belts. But the governing rules should be standard across the board. There are too many loopholes and unenforced rules in boxing.
Given what you know about your own personal gifts and skills, along with your perception of talent, here's your challenge: First, choose any fighter in any weight class, at any time in boxing history. Second, choose an opponent from that same time period. What would be the biggest possible upset that you think you could influence or engineer? What underutilized skill does the underdog have that you could use to expose an overlooked flaw that could produce an unexpected victory? Jeremy
Bread’s Response: Interesting question. I have a few but two standout. I’ve always felt David Tua was all wrong for Mike Tyson. Tyson is the better and more dynamic fighter. He ranks higher and can beat more people. But head to head Tua would’ve been rough on Tyson. Tua has been out boxed, we haven’t seen him out fought. Tyson would fight him and Tua’s heavy handed, grinding style and iron chin would be hard on Tyson over 12 rounds in my opinion. Tua's even temperament, would create anxiety for Tyson as the fight went on.
I also feel like Tim Bradley is a much better fighter than Amir Khan. Smarter, better IQ, and quite frankly he had a better career. But because Bradley is not a big puncher. And he’s not the type of fighter who will run Khan into big shots. I can see Khan giving Bradley a tough fight head to head. Khan throws those fast, straight punches. He seems to have a reach and range advantage over Bradley. And what will surely be a distance fight I can see Khan troubling Bradley because Khan was an elite amateur and he’s very hard to out point.
Hope all is well. I enjoyed your commentary on Hagler vs Leonard today. 100% correct. To me it was a simple fight Leonard was just sharper and won a pretty clear decision. Don't understand how people can see it different. Sometimes we want to believe what we are not really seeing. But that's life. Anyway, I have a couple of questions. You might know some of my favorites by now since I keep telling you.
1. Duran is one of them. If Duran wins one of the last two rounds vs Hagler, he wins the fight and the title. If that happened, I would not have felt good because even if he won it and I was rooting very hard for him to do just that I would know in my heart he did not deserve it. I just would not have celebrated that victory. As a side note me and by buddies watched the fight via close circuit and the feed went out so we saw nothing but just heard cheering. Disappointed we were. My question for you has there been a couple of fights you can point out where some of you favorite fighters have won but, in your heart, you know they really lost the fight. How did you feel when these favorites of yours got the nod even though you know they were beaten?
2. I have watch many of Hagler fights and studied him. He was one of the toughest ever and one you would like to go to war with. Mugabi Hearns and others found out that not a guy you go to war with. Yet in looking at him in some other fights sometimes he almost looks tight. Maybe that is my imagination. Now I know it is not because he was fearful but sometimes, I felt he did not let his hands go. My question is if you ever saw that in him.1. Can even the toughest fighters get into a fight and for some reason just can not let his hands go?2. Or do you think that sometimes Hagler would over think or over analyze a fight and that might be the cause of him not just letting his hands go? You take on George Foreman 100% most powerful ever. Joe Louis might be up there. My question about George. I shook his hand once in 1970's when he was champion. When I shook it seem like between his thumb and forefinger there felt like about 2 inches of mush that I squeezed. Do fighters develop some sort of deposits between their thumb and forefinger due to boxing?
Thank You, Rich Mathews
Bread’s Response: For the people that think Leonard got a gift, I tell them to simply watch the fight. Disregard the narrative and watch the fight. Then I tell them to research the negotiations. A few have thanked me for informing them. But most don’t bring it up again. I’m assuming they did what I asked them to do and found what I said to be true but they’re too prideful to admit it.
1. I love Duran. He’s the only fighter that I bought their whole title reign on DVD. But Hagler beat Duran 10 rounds to 5. He shouldn’t have needed to win the championship to rounds to hold on to his belt. The judges overcompensated in the scoring of that fight in my opinion. I can’t remember a time when a favorite of mind got a decision they didn’t earn. Let me think on it some more.
2. I never saw Hagler really tight except for the early rounds of the Leonard fight. But I think what you saw is a style misappropriation. Hagler has an intimidating physique. He has a ton of kos. He stopped all of his opponents in his title defenses except Duran. He stopped everyone in rematches. And his most famous fights usually ended in violent kos. But if you watch Hagler close, he was technician, who happened to hit hard and be a good finisher.
So I think what you see in Hagler is a fighter, who at times did things you didn’t expect him to do because you view him as a destroyer. He was a destroyer when he wanted to be. But more often than not, he was a technician with head hands, who happened to score kos. If you viewed him as a technician instead of a destroyer I think you’re view of him would be different. Watch him vs Bennie Briscoe and Tony Sibson and you will see what I mean.
Sure fighters can get into fights and not let their hands go. There is a lot of anxiety being under the bright lights. And often times you can simply freeze up. You can know what to do but your body just doesn’t carry it out.
The last undisputed heavyweight championship fight was November 13,1999. The 24 year delay is because of all the complications that come with making those kind of fights.I think it’s fair to call Tyson Fury’s cut a complication.How likely is it that we actually don’t get an undisputed championship fight in the heavyweight division this year? I know the IBF, I can’t see them excusing Oleksander Usyk from his mandatory obligation. What do you think happens?Thank you so much!
Bread’s Response: I think we are going to get Usyk vs Fury. His Excellency seems to be very influential. Let’s see what happens.
Hey Bread, long-time reader of the mailbag. Big fan, I always come away having learned something. Your list of great 2010’s performances last week was great, but I think there was one major omission. Marquez-Pac 4 was the single biggest win of the decade, in what was probably the fight of the decade, wrapping up one of the greatest rivalries of all time (and defining rivalry of the era) in brutal, conclusive fashion. I don’t need to tell you that Manny had been one of the top 2 fighters in the world since 2006.This is simply a massive win, and the fact that it wasn’t a dominant one-sided performance (back and forth fight where Marquez was knocked down and looked in trouble before the KO) shouldn’t detract from that. Stuff happens when you take on the best. I don’t need to go on, the win speaks for itself. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just forgot anyway, understandable when going off the top.
Best, Nate, Toronto
Bread’s Response: When I do list, I do them off the top of my head.
If someone would’ve asked me for the best WINS of the 2010s Marquez over Pac would be high. But the question was about Performances. Which can be one in the same but it doesn’t have to be.
I thought Marquez over Pac was a BETTER win than Performance. I thought Pac was actually performing better and he was getting the better of the work. But Marquez was really punching in that fight and he stuck with it, and clipped him. I wouldn’t argue with anyone who has Marquez over Pac as one of the best performances of the decade. But for me, Pac was actually performing better but got caught, so it was a greater win than it was a performance in my opinion.
Hello Breadman ,
What are your thoughts on the Tszyu Thurman fight. Tszyu is younger. Will Thurman be the biggest test Tszyu has faced so far. Really looking forward to this fight. Also will Tszyu ever fight Jermell Charlo. I like the Charlo brothers but they just hold up the divisions too much . Your thoughts please.
Bread’s Response: Thurman hasn’t shown much ring rust in his layoffs. So that’s hard to quantify to me because I haven’t seen it with Thurman although it can show up at any time. I think Thurman is the best fighter Tszyu has faced. I think Thurman not having to make 147 will also help him because as you get older your metabolism slows down. Thurman also fought at 152 in the amateurs….Tszyu is a big favorite because of the size, inactivity and age. I understand it. But as I stated the size and inactivity may not be an advantage for Tszyu.
However, What I do think is an advantage for him is his style. Tszyu has a very good pressure style. He pressures you with a probing jab, then when you open up to fight him off, he has some neat counters. I think it’s why Tszyu is so dominant on the scorecards. Fighters who move too much, he methodically tracks them down. Fighters who try to move then punch, get countered. And Tszyu seems to be forceful so fighters don’t want to stand and trade with him.
Thurman bounces in and around with Tszyu’s pressure and I can see Tszyu making him reach and countering him when he tries to open up. And when Thurman is in total moving mode, I can see Tszyu carrying him too fast and tiring him. Thurman seems to be a fighter that is going to run out of gas with his movement but he never really does. I think Tszyu can be the guy who fatigues him. I give an advantage to Tszyu in this one. 65/35 in Tszyu’s favor.
Dear Bread – what’s cooking? I’m a big fan of your work and this mailbag is my only regular dose nowadays for boxing wisdom and insight. Never stop! Firstly, I have a question about the delay to Usyk v Fury and a question about postponed fights in general. Who do you think the delay favors more? In my view, Usyk is better equipped mentally and physically to manage his regime sensibly and get his mind right for a new camp after a resting period. His team seem elite in terms of preparation. That said, Tyson may also benefit from distancing himself further from the perceived humiliation of the Ngannou fight. Not known for his discipline, it could work the other way for Tyson, too. And if he has self-doubts, time isn’t usually a friend. The bigger risks in terms of the delay impacting performance, I think, sits in the Fury camp. What do you think? Generally, these postponements fascinate me. Have you ever had to deal with one? What’s the strategy? Stop training altogether and start a new camp down the line? Keep things running at a lower level so the fighter stays sharp? Is that just TOO long for a guy to stay focused? Finally, I was curious about your take on a mythical match-up: Beterbiev v Ward at LH. Who and why? Peace and love to you and yours,
Bread’s Response: Beterbiev vs Ward is a really tough fight to call. Ward had a big advantage in physical strength over most of his opponents and I don’t know if he would have that over Beterbiev. Ward also loved to grapple and land steal shots on the clinch. I think they would be there but he would be in the line of fire. Beterbiev doesn’t need room to load up and he seems to have not only destructive power but physical strength to match Ward’s.
This is a tough fight for both guys. I think Ward would have to box Beterbiev and use his legs more than he did later in his career at lightheavyweight. The Ward that beat Mikkell Kessler fought a perfect fight. That Ward may be a little too quick minded for Beterbiev but that was at 168lbs. I don’t know if he could do that at 175lbs and more importantly I didn’t SEE him fight that type of fight once he moved up. My heart goes with Ward. But my mind tells me that this is too tough of a fight to call.
Beterbiev’s small space work is what troubles me in flat out picking Ward. When fighters could box with Ward, very few could. But when they did have success, he went to work on the inside. See the Kovalev fight, who had boxing ability and a jab equal to Ward’s. But he didn’t have the inside and grapple game. Beterbiev has the physical strength to match Ward and that small space power to cause Ward issues. Fascinating fight. Today I can’t call a winner because I didn’t see that Kessler like performance at lightheavyweight from Ward.
Fight postponements are intricate. Depending on how much time a fighter has in between postponements depends on how you start the next camp. It’s happened to me but NOT at this level. The next date was about 4 weeks away. So we took off for a two days and went right back to work. It was sort of a continuation of camp.
Personally I’m NOT a fan of LONG camps and I have my reasons. If a fighter is totally out of shape, then I’m ok with 10 week camps. But if he’s in quality shape, 6-8 weeks is all you need. Camp gets boring. Boredom causes a stale mind. And you will go through too many ups and downs if you stay in camp too long.
On top of that there is a risk of peaking too early and having to hold it. Fighters need to stay in the gym but NOT in camp.
I have seen all types of reasons on why postponements happen. I have seen a fighter looking great in camp and then the other team comes up with an injury and makes him restart. I’ve seen fighters looking bad in camp, then they make up an excuse to postpone the fight just to get themselves together. So until I know the actual reason it’s hard to say.
But I’m going to assume the postponement will benefit Fury and it won’t effect Usyk. These are only assumptions by the way. But I feel like bigger people in general take longer to get in shape. So therefore more time benefits Fury. Their new fight date is in May. So it’s early February. If I’m Usyk my guess would be to rest up, do some strength work on a needed area and rest up until the 1st or 2nd week of March and get back to work. Usyk can be ready in 6-8 weeks. Fury may need a little longer, so he would most likely have to start the last week of February. But that CUT looks serious. A cut heals about 1% everyday. So it takes 100 days to totally heal. The cut may not be fully healed by the time they fight. Fury has to be very CAREFUL he doesn’t cut again.
It dawned on me reading last week's mailbag (and I can’t believe I didn’t realize it sooner) that you use critical thinking to articulate questions and provide thought provoking answers. I like to use analogies as well when trying to explain a point or a fact. It made me think about critical thinking related to the boxing. Example: Floyd Mayweather and his people clearly used critical thinking to manage his career - who and when to fight, leveraging certain things to gain advantage, etc. He also used critical thinking to prepare for and during fights. What positive changes do you feel could be made to the sport and business of boxing if more critical thinking was used? To me, the possibilities are limitless. Side note, I’m not saying no one else in boxing uses deep critical thinking tools. It just seems like boxing is on a hamster wheel and many of the power brokers do not use long term critical thinking to uplift the sport.
Thank you sir,
Mark Stoy Columbus Ohio
Bread’s Response: Thank you. But I want to be honest. I know what CRITICAL THINKING means but I don’t think about the term when I’m working in boxing. I do think about having DISCERNMENT. I do, my best to try to be OBJECTIVE. But I never applied the actual term critical thinking. Although you’re correct. It is what I’m doing and I thank you for this comment.
Most people in boxing don’t use critical thinking. And it’s why people in boxing will repeat a lie without any research.
The possibilities are limitless. I don’t want to mention judging and drug testing because that’s not so much critical thinking. It’s just common sense to NOT appoint bad judges. And the drug testing is ridiculous because the fighters choose when the drug testing stops and starts. I’m a smart guy but you don’t have to be smart to understand the word random. And it’s not random if you choose when it starts and stops.
I would like CRITICAL THINKING to be applied in getting fighters more dates. The inactivity of this era, in my opinion causes a disconnect with the fans. If the fans got to see their favorite fighters more often on NON PPV events I think the sport would be bigger. The best era of boxing that I have lived through was the 80s. I literally saw HOF and ATG fight on free tv on a consistent basis. I’m not talking about Friday Night Fight level fighters. I’m talking about Evander Holyfield vs Dwight Qawi on ABC on a weekend afternoon. Yes we got to see an ATG vs a HOF on network tv for free. If someone could apply this concept and allow the fans to see great fighters in their grass roots stage on free or APP TV, boxing would BOOM.
The Super Bowl is the biggest sports event in the US by a mile. It’s on regular tv. The companies who want to run ads and commercials pay a ton to run them during the Super Bowl because everyone is watching. If someone in boxing could figure out a way to market boxing like American Football there is no limits to how big boxing can be. Football comes on for 21 straight weeks and the fans love it every single weekend. No one can tell me that boxing can’t hold big cards every other weekend on various nights. There are 52 weeks in a year. The format of boxing has changed since the 80s and it’s showing now. I know things evolve with time but boxing didn’t need an overhaul.
Watching people fight is the most visually intriguing interaction in the world. If you don’t believe me go to any event including a boxing match. And if a fight breaks out, the attention of the audience will go towards the fight, no matter what sport the fans are there to see.
What up Mr. Breadman?
Let's just roll into this. Can we finally put an end to the Tank and Haney saga? After the Conner "170 pound" Benn call out I am done as a fan of boxing. Now don't get me wrong that is a great fight but Benn is a welterweight. Why would Tank give the Haney's the cold shoulder after the Saudi money offer? He then probably took a liking to Conner Benn's performance and straight forward style and decided to cherry pick . He probably will make weight restrictions. How can he be called the face of boxing when he is ducking "fades"? As for Haney he needs to just win. In today's Mayweather offspring era of keep my "0" Devin can't afford to lose and that sucks . I grew up watching the best fight the best even after an "L". Too many casual fans now. He should just defend the title against Cateral or try and get that Barrios 147 pound work. Now he can only have performances like the Prograis fight . And even after that performance he still can't get the dance partners he is chasing. Matias makes sense for legacy but even I say for the money it is not worth it. Is Devin the boogie man even if he is not a knock out artist? I love what Bill Haney is doing as the modern day Don King reppin' his son to the fullest. From this day on Devin has to be the villain and just hunt these so called stars down. He also can't lose that WBC belt for leverage so Cateral might have to get done to satisfy his mandatory . Let me know what your take is. Tank is the bully who feast on only certain styles . He ducks Haney, Teo, and Shakur and to me won't make hall of fame. His belts are not real and may I add he said belts don't matter.
That's it. I am out!
Michael "Expedite "Blount
Bread’s Response: I don’t listen to internet call outs. I don’t watch youtube. I don’t pay gossip any attention. So I didn’t know Tank called out Conor Benn. And if he did, I wouldn’t pay much attention to it. Tank has a solid team around him. And he can’t fight whoever he wants, whenever he wants. It’s obvious that it’s a team decision and it’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how they work and it has worked for them.
On the other hand, I also don’t have an issue when a fighter goes against his team and does what he thinks is best. But the only issue for THAT fighter is if he loses. He’s never going to be treated the same if he goes against his team’s advice and LOSES. So he better be CLUTCH.
So for the people who say, the team works for the fighter and not vice versa. They’re 100% correct. But the fighter pays his team for advice and guidance. And when the fighter doesn’t listen and he loses, the trajectory of his career changes, and it usually changes forever. He also is paying his team for nothing if he doesn't LISTEN…
I think you’re passionate about boxing. But you’re getting too caught up in the gossip. Benn is with Eddie Hearn and he’s at 147. Tank is with PBC and he fights at 135. I’m not saying they can’t fight but right now it just may be talk. Let’s see if it gets some traction before you get upset.
As for Tank I think he’s a great talent. I think he’s on his way to the HOF with a couple more BIG wins. He’s fought Ryan Garcia and he has Teofimo Lopez, Devin Haney and Shakur Stevenson left to fight as far as contemporaries in his era. If he fights 2 of the 3 and wins, I think his legacy will be intact. Let’s see what happens.
Marketable fighters like Tank are going to be selective on who they fight. I’ve come to this realization once I started earning a living in boxing. It’s not a criticism either, it’s acceptance.
But there is another side to this. As the marketable fighter gets older, they start taking the more lucrative fights. Because as the fights build up, they start to make more BUSINESS sense, especially as the end is nearing. When the business side, matches the risk side these fights take place. So all is not lost. If you’re patient. You will see fights CREATE themselves.
Send Questions to firstname.lastname@example.org