The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen 'Breadman' Edwards tackling topics such as David Benavidez vs. Dmitrius Andrade, IBF welterweight champion Jaron Ennis, WBC lightweight champion Shakur Stevenson, Subriel Matias, and more. (photo by Ryan Hafey)

Good evening Breadman, hope all is good for you & yours. It seems to me people are maybe being a bit harsh to Shakur. I thought it was interesting that before the fight Shakur started saying De Los Santos was more skilled &, particularly, more defensively adept, than he was getting credit for.  I think a lot of people just assumed that DLS was from the West Indies, had a high KO ratio so was going to come out throwing big shots. He does have a high KO ratio but was getting them primarily as a counterpuncher. So, basically, this was a fight between 2 counterpunchers & it is an old adage that that NEVER makes a good fight. This made me think, matchmakers always say never to match 2 counterpunchers, so what notable fights can you think of between 2 counterpunchers, Bread, & which would be the best? The best I could think of was Toney v Nunn. James definitely liked to let his opponent lead but, as challenger, he had to play aggressor v Nunn. That worked out well for him as he sparked the guy. The other decent fight I thought of was Herol Graham v Sambu Kalambay. Herol felt bound to play aggressor in that fight & it didn't work well for him at all. Kalambay doesn't get much respect these days but he could really fight. One of the truly worst fights I ever saw was between 2 counter punchers when Johnny Nelson first fought for the world C/W title. Anyway Bread, what are your thoughts on this, dreaded, match up?  

Bread’s Response: Top Rank has the best matchmakers. I don’t think they had a choice in the match up. The title was vacant and De Los Santos was the next highest rated contender in my estimation. I could be wrong, but from my understanding when a title is vacant the two highest rated contenders fight. A few fighters turned Shakur down and De Los Santos took the fight. So in this case, there was no matchmaking mistakes. I get your point but it only applies if you get to pick the fight. 

Toney was Nunn’s mandatory if I’m not mistaken. I think temperament is just as important as styles. Leonard vs Benitez was a good fight. Both are boxers but Leonard is a killer and Benitez is prideful so they fought an intense “boxing” match. So often times counterpunchers make boring fights but it’s not 100%. There are times they produce great fights. Toney vs McCallum1. 

I say you can’t match counter punchers in showcase fights if you have the choice of opponents. But if you don’t have a choice, you just have to hope one will lead and take chances. 

Greetings, Breadman Been a couple of years since I last wrote in but have followed your work and appreciate your honest, educational views and dedication to this mailbag. Moving on from the flattery, I just wanted to praise Matias for that performance, (the fight literally just ended). He struggled with that stick in his face early on but made the brave and assertive move to throw WITH Ergashev at a time he was seemingly getting picked apart, if not busted up. I thought we may be in for a Matthysse vs Provodnikov-style war of attrition after the third round but it wasn't to be. Prograis has plenty on his plate with Haney in the near future (and vice versa), but I'd love to see him square off with Matias. How do you see the IBF champ getting on in possible matchups with Prograis, Haney, Teofimo or even Tank, (were he to move up)? Keep up the good work and all the best to you, your family and stable. Warmest regards,

Bread’s Response: Matias separated himself from Ergashev. He made Ergashez “surrender” which is not easy to do, especially with an undefeated fighter is fighting for 1st world title. Every fighter dreams of hearing “and the new!!!”. So for a fighter to surrender that early tells me Matias is serious work. He’s discouraging. He’s forceful. He’s a PAIN deliverer. I don’t know if anyone of note is going to fight him in his current form. However, the fight I want to see is Matias vs Antuane Russell. That’s a brutal fight. 

Bugging you again, hope u had great fam time during the holiday. Benavidez vs Canelo is the fight. Hopefully there were enough eyes on the fight over weekend to get that pushed now. Jermall charlo. As a trainer and boxing mind, what do you get out of this fight? What possibly did his team want to get out of it. was it a good choice of an opponent? I really wanted to see him work after the time off and whatever he had going on. Him and his bro are fun to watch. I'm guessing this fight a tuneup or just sorting out ring rust.   Jose Jr didn’t do bad but didn’t have the size or maybe firepower to test Mall. He missed weight, did get hit. overall a fun fight imo. as a fan, it’s hard for me to get an idea where Jamall is though.  I understand I’m not an insider but questions are not answered about Charlo as a fighter.  my only takeaway is I don’t think he should go to 168.

Bread’s Response: Charlo looked pretty good to me. He was a little rusty but he fought well. He’s powerful. He’s still mean. I thought the fight would go the distance. But I didn’t think Benavidez would take so many big shots. Jermall did well and he’s going to be better the next fight. Jose Benavidez was in real shape. He was undersized but he has heart. He also is tired of being in his brother’s shadow, so therefore he was motivated. You have to take that into consideration. 

I disagree with you about Jermall fighting at 168. He had months to make 163 and couldn’t make it. He’s 33 years old and he’s over 6ft tall. 168lbs may be where he needs to be. But more importantly he knows his body. He knows how he felt getting down in weight and that’s why he came in at 166lbs. Let’s see where he fights in the next fight.

Demetrius Andrade reportedly rehydrated up to 190 pounds in his fight against David Benavidez. Andrade is also 6-foot-1, long and slick. Andrade couldn’t keep Benavidez off him. So how does 5-foot-8 Canelo Alvarez keep Benavidez off him? I don’t see it, so I’m hoping you could explain how it could happen. Thank you so much!

Bread’s Response: Thank you for writing in…But I strongly disagree with you. First off Andrade is NOT 6’1. He’s really about 5’11 or 5’11  1/5. Look at him next to Jermall Charlo and Benavidez. Demetrius just has a long look to him. I know at one time they listed him at 6’1 but he isn’t. Also Canelo is not Demetrius. Canelo is so battle tested it’s hard to compare them. Demetrius is an excellent fighter and has some nice talent. But Canelo has been groomed for big moments. He’s been on big PPVs since he was 20 years old. He’s been a champion since he was 20 years old. He’s fought 19 world champions! Some champions multiple times. He’s fought several HOFs… He’s used to being under stress and anxiety. He’s not just battle tested but he’s battle hardened. Canelo also has GREAT defense. He has great counter punching ability. He’s extremely strong. And he has a great chin. For all we know Canelo doesn’t want to keep Benavidez off of him. Maybe he wants him on him. Canelo is special. He’s an ATG. I don’t know who wins a fight between Canelo and David. But what I know is your comparison is OFF! 

There were so many unanswered questions about Andrade going in. We just knew had talent and amateur pedigree. Andrade may be longer and more athletic. But Canelo is a better puncher, better defender, more durable and a more proven fighter. You’re conflating physical attributes with production. Canelo has produced at the top level. But before we go back and forth with the comparisons. Let’s see if they fight next.

Good evening Bread, I hope you & yours are well. I actually bet on Boo Boo. That was a mistake. That Benavidez is one heavy handed Mo-Fo. What intrigued me, though, was that Benavidez kept having success with a punch that you never hear about, & sort've isn't even meant to exist. Time after time David dragged his back foot up & threw a right jab.So far as I know, I've never heard of an orthodox fighter throwing that right jab but it seemed to work really well for David. Like I say, it doesn't exist in any coaching manual. Have you seen a guy have success with that punch before?  I would guess it is frowned on because, by definition, you have to square yourself up to throw it.

Any thoughts Bread?

Bread’s Response: It wasn’t a right jab. It was a LEAD right hand. People love to criticize Benavidez about his feet and defense. I don’t buy any of that. He has good defense especially for his style. He blocks punches. He catches them on his gloves. And more importantly he knows how to keep you on the defensive. They talk about his squared up stance. But it’s by choice. It allows him to cut the ring off. If you notice he stays in front of his opponents. And here is the point of your comment. When you fight squared up it allows the power hand to be CLOSER to the opponent. So Benavidez brings his shoulder up with his squared up stance and his right hand is literally about a foot closer to the opponent. Andrade couldn’t defend the lead right hand and when he couldn’t, I knew he was in trouble.

Lots of great fighters fight squared up. Youtube Edwin Rosario, Donald Curry, Felix Trinidad  and Mike Tyson. All had good right hands that they were able to land easy. So David breaks some rules but he compensates for them. David is more talented than he’s given credit for.

Breadman ,I was wrong in how I thought the Benavidez vs Andrade fight would play out. Size and power seemed to be too much for Andrade. I still think of the fights David should take in this order - Morrell, Bivol and then Beterbiev. I just don't see Canelo taking the fight and that's ok. My reasons for Morrell first is simply due to him only getting better. Bivol is a tough out, very winnable fight. Beterbiev, wait this guy out. He's a beast in his own right. I didn't mention Canelo as I can see him fighting Jermall in May and then Munguia or Berlanga in September. Canelo has taken on big risks; I think the fights with the guys I mentioned do big numbers and present least risk. Matias...the boy is game!! He'll be fun tv and lots of people they can match him with that would make for good tv. Romero next to unify and further establish value to the name for a Tank Davis or some other champs/big names. Great to see Roach fulfill his dream, great back story. Good card, just one downside was Charlo's lack of making weight. Not sure where his head is at and where he goes next. To me it should be Canelo, simply because the story sells. He said he'll fight 4x next year, highly doubtful. Benavidez Jr vs J-Rock @ 158-160 lbs would be a good fight that would be a crossroads fight. All in all, good weekend of fights including fights on DAZN. Stay blessed my guy.

Richard K. Oregon

Bread’s Response: Jose Benavidez vs Jrock is a good fight. I like it. 

Props to Lamont Roach, it’s a special feeling to win a title. Especially when you lost your 1st title shot. 

So you want Benavidez to fight Morrell. Morrell seems like a tough style of David. But We don’t know enough about him yet although he has the physicality to stay with Benavidez. We just have to see if he has the character.

Call me crazy but I think Benavidez stops Bivol. If you listen to David Benavidez he has a high IQ. If you LISTEN to him closely, you will observe that he’s confident in fighting Bivol because of their sparring sessions. He knows something

Beterbiev I think he knows is a killer like him and he would want to grow into the weight before fighting him first. I don’t blame him. Beterbiev was a standout amateur at 201lbs. He’s a guy who can match David’s physicality. I saw Beterbiev fight here in Philadelphia vs the Nail. He’s a brutal fighter and he doesn’t load up on punches. He’s the type that takes years off of your career. 

Let’s see how this plays out. Something tells me Canelo is prideful and he’s going to fight David. The issue is when. History is repeating itself because the more time goes by the more it favors David. Just like the more time went by, the more it favored Canelo over GGG. See how that works…

Hi Breadman, I have recently observed Steve Weisfield and noticed, he showed he can score fights correctly. However, it is not as good news as it seems, as there is a pattern.  Basically, by scoring round 10 against Loma he ensured that Haney wins on his scorecard. I had to give an example, but this is not Judge Weisfield only; it is a broader issue.  Judges can be criticized, fights called controversial, but unless they make a really major mistake they hardly face any accountability. Then we see them judging again and so on. I loved your answer as regards revision panel last week. So you think, there should be such just after a bout... Would not it be better if they were scored correctly in 1st place? I know, it is a rhetoric question. Related:fighters X & Y fight ; X wins in the ring 115:113. Which does more damage (which score is worse): 119: 109 for X or 115:113 given to Y ? Asking as plain maths may not be consistent with consequences  in such cases.

Best regards, Marek again

Bread’s Response: Steve Weisfeld is viewed as one of the better judges in the world. He gets most of the BIG assignments. I don’t know what his scorecards were for Haney vs Loma but if he scored the 10th rd for Haney then I disagree with that specific round. I thought even Haney knew that Loma won that round. I can remember Loma making a big push in rounds 9, 10 and 11. That’s all I can say because I know Haney won the fight but I don’t know how each round was scored specifically off the top of my head. 

Often times in boxing when the “right” fighter wins the details of the scorecards get forgotten because the man that the majority felt should win, wins. But like you I look at specifics if it’s possible. If a fight is close that I viewed as lopsided, I always wonder, WHY. I think scorecards should be broken down round by round. Not overall score. The review board can’t look at overall scorecards. Round by round is more accurate to insure objectivity. For example a fighter can win 115-113 as the majority opinion. But the correct rounds should be scored correctly. If they aren’t it, it’s an issue. 

It’s not always corruption. Sometimes it’s incompetence. Sometimes it’s just perception. As for the Haney vs Loma 10th round, I have to look at the round again to be honest. I only watched the fight twice and I do remember Loma winning the later rounds but I would like to look at it forensically. I would like to be fair to Mr. Weisfeld. Scoring is subjective and just because you disagree with someone it doesn’t mean they’re disingenuous. 

You’re right. It’s better to get it right the first time. Instead of going to a review board. But the review board is needed because anything that is subjective will have error and the board can actually help put judges in place for future events. Hopefully we get this right in boxing. To answer you directly. HOW you lose is important. If you lose close competitive decisions, it’s different than losing by blow out or ko. 

Hey Bread, Thanks for the weekly mailbag. I’ve been an avid reader for a number of years now. It’s quite rare that someone with such knowledge and wisdom, shares it so freely. So, just wanna say that I appreciate you. In last week’s mailbag, you mentioned that Floyd resisted his corner’s instructions to become the aggressor too early versus Manny. It got me interested in watching the fight again, which I haven’t done for a while. Full disclosure, I’m a Manny fan but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate Floyd! Watching the fight, it’s quite clear that Manny wasn’t at his apex in that fight - Floyd probably wasn’t either. For me, his apex performance was versus Margarito. The beautiful footwork, angles and combination punching made this the complete performance to my eyes. I don’t doubt that Margarito was stylistically made for Manny but still that was some performance. I also believe that fight took something out of him. I think Manny himself acknowledged that fight was a step too far, that the size/weight difference was just too much. So, while he had some great performance thereafter, I don’t think he ever quite scaled those heights again. In particular, by the time he fought Floyd, his footwork appeared to have slowed and, as a result he’d lost the ability to turn his opponent as effectively as he once did (although I don’t doubt that this was exacerbated by facing Floyd). So, my question is, how would the Manny that fought Margarito in 2010 have fared against the Floyd that fought Mosley earlier that year? Thank you very much for your time

All the best Oliver, U.K.

Bread’s Response: Timing is very important when making a fight. One thing I never say when fighter A beats fighter B past his best, is that he would’ve always beaten him. Boxing is a game of inches. Anything can happen in fights. Momentum, rhythm, timing are all detailed things that get effected by the slightest of margins. Floyd may well would have always beaten Manny. But we will never know because he fought him in 2015 and not 2010. Floyd is the type of fighter that raises his game on BIG nights. 

Manny is a high energy fighter where as his time to beat Floyd is a smaller time period than Floyd’s to beat him because relaxed efficient styles have a longer shelf life. I liken it to Roberto Duran vs Sugar Ray Leonard. Duran is smaller and had more miles on him and he needed the highest amount of energy he could muster to win. So Duran won the 1st fight in his prime. And Leonard won the 2nd and 3rd fights. 

I’m not saying Manny would’ve won but I think his chances went down drastically by 2015. Manny was on the best PPV performance run in history from 2008-11. That was his best time for him to beat Floyd. It didn’t happen then and I can’t do the mental gymnastics to try to figure it out. My guts tell me it would’ve been a distance fight with some controversy in the scoring….

Hey Breadman,

I have three questions about “will” that need a bit of buildup. You mentioned in the pre-fight breakdown for Benavidez-Andrade how important “will” was. Earlier today, I re-watched Kovalev-Ward I and realized how right you are.Ward walked through the fire in that fight and fighters with less will would have caved. Kovalev’s gifts are obvious: was long, strong, twitchy, and a bruiser. He had been at the weight since at least 2005. I remember guys with a build like his in the gym whose punch was like having bricks slung at you. So Ward had one hell of a hard task. That’s why I don’t find any fault for the knockdown.Ward was the smaller guy (in reach, 2.5” given up) and he was a year older. He was in great shape, sure. But his will—a less-obvious gift—made the difference. People hate the scoring and to be fair, this was a hard fight to score. But every time Kovalev touched him, Ward came back. The story of the fight was that Ward always took Kovalev’s heat on HIS terms. Accordingly, Ward got in Kovalev’s head. And when Kovalev was ugly, Ward handled it: no touching up after breaks, cuffing on the ears, and firing rabbit punches right back. The ref in this fight (Mr. Byrd) was well-picked.

Ward’s gameplan for the first seven or so rounds was body work (though he made adjustments). In a vacuum, this appeared to be a good strategy. A shorter fighter like Ward with significant mental strength, good midrange and an outstanding grappling game risks less damage implementing such a strategy against a rangy, powerful outfighter than in other cases (see MMs below). But in watching the fight and looking at the unofficial scores on the cards, Ward did give up rounds implementing his approach.Which leads to my questions. First, scoring bodywork. How effective is bodywork generally in professional boxing in the eyes of judges? Is it a strategic tradeoff in some or all cases?Second, how special was Ward’s mental game in this fight? Similarly, what fighters with similar physical attributes to Ward could have taken it to Kovalev like that but with less mental fortitude? Were different gameplans available to Ward against Kovalev that carried less risk of damage or losing rounds?Third, does the “intangible” of a fighter’s overall demeanor in a fight permit them to win rounds? Should it?In the light of the last question especially, here are my MMs:MMs: (1) 2012 Ward v. 1995 RJJr.; (2) 2012 Ward v. 1991 James Toney; (3) 2016 Ward v.  1987 Hagler.Thank you Bread for your time, and for your thoughtful service to the sport.


Bread’s Response: Great write in! I feel like Ward’s will to win was one of his biggest attributes. I literally talked to Ward’s trainer Virgil Hunter about it today. How Ward got rocked in the 1st round by a jab. Then dropped in the 2nd round by a right hand. But he stayed the course. Andrade would have had to have that same type of will to overcome Benavidez, along with the high IQ tactics. 

For Ward’s entire career he was the better boxer in his fights. Even though he went to inside often, it was more by choice than necessity. But for some reason Ward could not outbox Kovalev. But Hunter had groomed Ward for the moment and his inside, midrange and grapple games were on point. Ward was also not a front runner. He responded well to adversity. I can’t think of anyone that could’ve taken it to Kovalev with LESS mental fortitude that could’ve taken it to Kovalev. But I do know a fight were a great boxer, faced another great boxer but the other great boxer, was longer, just as sharp and more powerful. But the shorter great boxer with less length had the mental fortitude and inside game to win. That fight is Sugar Ray Leonard vs Tommy Hearns. In fact Leonard gave up more size in his fight than Ward did in his. 

It takes a very special fighter to overcome what we are talking about. Ward mental game is among the best I’ve ever seen. He’s so gifted mentally. I’ve been around him in the gym. He doesn’t get distracted. He doesn’t talk much until after his workouts. He shadowboxes better than anyone I’ve ever seen. He’s the best shadowboxer in the history of boxing in my opinion. It’s literally like he’s shadowboxing with an Invisible man that only he can see. Kovalev was billed as the puncher when they fought. Kovalev was a great puncher but he could box. Very similar to Hearns. But Ward could outfight him similar to what Leonard had to do with Hearns. 

Usually the great boxer is out of depth when he’s faced with a superior boxer. But the special ones can outfight their opponents if they “have” to. Ward and Leonard are SPECIAL.

Andrade was getting outboxed by Benavidez but Benavidez was boxing going forward so what was happening got misappropriated. Benavidez had a better jab, IQ, tactics, power, durability and gameplan. In order for Andrade to win that fight he would have had to have the WILL of a WWII soldier being held captive trying to get home to his just born child that he’s never met. It’s no knock on Andrade, he did what he did and that was apparently his best on that night. But I don’t think mentally he understood what David is. Sometimes fighters are dismissive to their opponents especially if they don't look a certain way. 

I always have a healthy respect for the fighters my fighters face. People repeat that David has BAD feet, he can’t cut the ring off, he’s a slow starter, he’s easy to hit etc etc. Not one of those things were apparent when he fought Andrade. 

Body work does get scored but it’s not always so obvious to see. It depends on the judge. Some body shots are subtle. Others are apparent. It depends on the body puncher. But good punching is an investment.

I don’t know if Ward can out box Kovalev. My gut answer is no because Kovalev’s jab, off sets Ward’s jab and Ward is heavily reliant on his jab. So I’m not sure what other game plan would have worked, I will ask Virgil Hunter. But from my perspective they implemented what worked.

Demeanor does give the appearance you are in CONTROL. It’s why fighters like Canelo Alvarez are hard to outpoint. Because of his presentation. In a court of law, it’s not always about guilt or innocence. It’s about the presentation of the case. Not guilty does not always mean innocent. Same thing in boxing. When a boxer shows fatigue, discomfort or frustration, judges usually penalize him by giving the opponent the round.

I love Ward but I would pick RJ of 1995 to beat him. Ward would make it tough and I feel like his chameleon style would tell him to fight like Montell Griffin did in his 1st fight with RJ. But RJ is just RJ and I think his range, mind quickness, speed and superior punch variety would earn him a decision win. 

I can’t call Toney vs Ward. It’s too hard of a fight to call. I feel like Toney is the superior offensive fighter but believe it or not I think Ward is more versatile and his IQ makes it impossible for me to pick a winner. I think they would have to fight 3x.

Hagler was a same day weigh in era MW. Ward was a next day era SMW. That’s just not the same size man and I’m not going to try to ponder how Hagler would do with such a big man who is equally as skilled.

Happy Holidays, Coach: And now I’m going to take your response to my last submission two weeks ago apart piece-by-piece. You claim Boots would be favored over anyone in the PBC stable at 147 and 154. What exactly do you base that on, biased projection? Boots is obviously quite talented, but who has he actually beaten that would lead you to make such a projection? His best wins are over Villa and Clayton to this point. We've yet to see him compete at 154 yet. Boots is on several videos stating himself that 154 “would be lovely” for him and that he’d have no problem moving up. These are his words, not mine. If he chooses to remain at 147, that’s fine, but he and his father should refrain from making goofy YouTube videos claiming that they’re being ducked by the two big fish in the division, mainly Crawford. When Virgil Ortiz Jr. went down with a medical issue last year, the WBO was poised to move Boots up to the #1 spot, but he and his father chose the IBF route, which is why and how he came to claim the OBF interim belt and subsequently the full title. These are not my opinions. These are verifiable facts.

How is my logic pertaining to Aaron Pryor misguided? Pryor was a natural lightweight and fought at 132 lbs. as an amateur. In fact, he beat Tommy Hearns and lost to Howard Davis Jr. at that weight in the amateurs. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Furthermore, Pryor was indeed avoided during that era. An all-Ohio fight with Ray Mancini would have been huge in the early 80s. Mancini was featured on CBS Saturday Afternoon Boxing and was virtually a household name back then. Yes, Hagler did indeed have profound self-belief. The fact that he never moved up in weight during his career was due more to the fact that he was only 5’9” and natural middleweight. He wasn’t a weight bully squeezing down to an unnatural weight. Also, Marvin sat tight at 160 waiting for the stars at welterweight to slowly drift up to 160. How many champs at 168 and 175 have ever seen who were only 5’9”? Let’s be serious. Yes, I do indeed watch how people move in life because oftentimes, their actions are markedly different from their words. Crawford and Spence didn’t jump in each other’s face after their fights, but I do recall Bud being at the Spence-Ugas fight.

When informed that Crawford had been in attendance, Spence was mildly surprised. There was no need for either to run at each other. Crawford had made it abundantly clear over the past five years that the Spence fight was really the only one he was chasing. The whole world was aware of the work Crawford had done because their work was considerable. What work has Boots done that makes fans go “WOW!”? Looking great in training videos and hitting the pads isn’t enough when your best career wins are Villa and Clayton.You claim that Boots does crave the limelight or like cameras. That could be true or false, but for a guy who doesn’t clamor for attention, he sure does appear in a lot of YouTube interview videos. Just Google his name on YouTube. I don’t fault him for that. I’m just pointing out in many of these videos, he claims that Crawford and others have ducked him. Then in the next video, his dad is saying that the Crawford offer wasn’t accepted because he and Boots choose to remain loyal to Showtime. So which is it? It can’t be both.

My logic is fine. It seems that it’s yours that is skewed due to obvious pro-Philly bias. You proclaim Boots to be the next Sugar Ray Robinson, and that’s fine, but there’s this concept in business and the Blockchain called “Proof of Work” which verifies the effort expended in a particular endeavor. Thus far in his career, Boots’ Proof of Work is sorely lacking. And that’s putting mildly.You denigrate boxing fans, but you fail to distinguish between mature and genuine fans who simply have legitimate questions about prominent fighters that pundits exalt and place on pedestals and the “trolls and a-holes”, as you call them. In fact, while addressing my last submission two weeks ago, you tried your very best to lump me in with the latter. In no way, shape or form am I a troll or a-hole, nor have I ever disrespected you or called you a name, so don’t group in with clueless 24 year olds who just started following the sport in 2008. I put my name and location on my submissions for a reason, and that reason is because I don’t hide. I don’t hide because I try to treat people with respect and give them no reason to be offended by what I say unless they’re offended by facts. My submission two weeks ago was the final one you addressed. I forgot to include my name and didn’t realize it, so I sent a duplicate with my name and location two or three minutes later. Your editor probably didn’t realize I had sent another a few minutes later. Just because someone says something that doesn’t jibe with your viewpoint doesn’t make that person a troll or “dictator” (a term you used in reference to me previously).

Carl Hewitt, Queens, NY

Bread’s Response: I don’t hide either Carl. I can post whatever comments I choose. I don’t cherry pick. I pick yours, even though you disagree with me. If I picked all the comments that complimented me you could say, I’m a cherry picker. But I give you air time although you like challenge my opinion. So you’re not the only one who isn’t hiding. 

You didn’t pick anything apart piece by piece. I didn’t call Boots the next Sugar Ray Robinson. I said he has unbelievable talent and he has the potential to be special. An ATG. And a champion from 147 to 160. I base my assertion on Boots being the favorite over everyone in the PBC stable from 147-154 on the eye ball test and what I know to be true bout laying odds. Those old men in Vegas are not in the business of losing money. Terence Crawford who I forgot is technically a PBC fighter is the only fighter in those weight divisions who would be the favorite over Boots. 

How about this, call an BIG sports book in Vegas and ask for a proposed lines. They do that, you know. I’m a player. I know these things. I’m telling you Boots would be the favorite over not only everyone in the PBC from 147-154 but everyone in the world not named Terence Crawford in those weight divisions. 

If you really wanted to pick my comment apart you would name a specific fighter. I dare you to name one that would be the favorite over Boots besides Crawford. Cody Crawley, Mario Barrios, Rashidi Ellis, Keith Thurman, Yordenis Ugas, Errol Spence, Tim Tszyu….Boots would open as the favorite over all of them despite his thin resume. 

YSM Sports primary location is in Philly. Boots is the hottest fighter in Philly. So they produce content with Boots and his team in it on the regular. That’s this day and age of the media. Most of the top fighters have their go to media guys. Boots is no different. I think you want to nitpick in order to be a contrarian against me, which is fine.

I NEVER said Terence Crawford is ducking Boots. Crawford and his team are the truth. I think Crawford would fight anyone. He’s a killer. But he’s 36. He has a few more fights. And he wants to maximize his last few paydays. I disagree with anyone who says Crawford is ducking Boots. Even people from Philly. So don’t suggest or insinuate I said that because I didn’t. 

But since we are talking about facts. Crawford has said himself he’s looking for bigger fights and I understand that. Crawford is 10 years older than Boots. He’s on his way out. Rarely in boxing history has a champion of Crawford’s accomplishments took a challenge like Boots with a 10 year age difference. So I get that. But you keep bringing it up like Crawford was giving him a shot. 

Crawford was NEVER going to use Boots as a tune up for Spence. He used Avanesyan as a tune up for Spence. They’re two different level of fighters. So what you’re suggesting is when Virgil Ortiz went down with his illness Boots could’ve fought Crawford in Avanesyan’s spot in December because that's the only timeline that would fit. Oh really! If you believe that, I want to sell you some sand at the beach. 

There is no way Showtime would allow Boots to fight on an APP that no one ever heard of, when Crawford and Spence were on a collision course on Showtime. Am I making enough sense to you. Or do you want to keep on arguing?

You brought up Aaron Pryor, in relation to Boots moving up because Pryor moved up to 140lbs. And I told you Pryor got a title shot within 4 years as a pro and you were misguided. You didn’t address that specifically because a time and date can’t be argued. He turned pro in 1976 and got a title shot in 1980. Pryor got a title shot in his own hometown also. There is no champion at 154lbs that would come to Philly and fight Boots. 

Pryor was an animal. But he was mismanaged and the myths about everyone ducking him especially Ray Leonard were not true. The timing was off and Leonard was busy fighting legends at 147lbs. Pryor was avoided somewhat but it’s not by as much as his people want it to be. The Mancini fight was possible but Mancini lost to Bramble in 1984 and Pryor got on drugs and didn’t do much after the Arguello rematch in 1983. So he was snake bitten by a lot of things. Mainly himself and poor management. What specific big names ducked Pryor? And when? 

I love Hagler and I never say fighters should move up. It’s a choice and if you’re a natural at a weight then I don’t have an issue with a fighter staying there. You’re the one who is suggesting Boots move up when the two biggest names around 147 and 154 are Crawford and Spence and they just fought at 147. And Boots was the mandatory for the winner. So why does it matter if Boots was the mandatory of the WBO or IBF when Bud and Errol were fighting for all of the belts anyway. 

And for the record I can go back in history as long as you can go. Dwight Qawi was short at 5’7. He was the champion at lightheavyweight the same exact time that Hagler was at middleweight. He used to call Hagler out. Hagler never got flack for ducking him. Because it wasn’t a duck. You walked right into that one Carl.

Resumes especially in this era are overrated for some fighters. Some of the more talented fighters don’t have the resumes to prove their worth. David Benavidez didn’t have a good resume before this year. But he proved what he was and he was the favorite in his two big fights this despite having a thin resume. Crawford was accused of NOT fighting anyone at 147 also. Do you remember that? 

Now Boots is in the spot of a guy with supposedly no resume or proof of work. And I’m here to tell you, when you’re as talented as he is, fighters find a reason not to fight you. Being flawed gets you big fights. Fighters will fight Keith Thurman and Mario Barrios at 147. Boots Ennis is a different story. No disrespect to those excellent fighters but it’s a difference. Before last week I never heard anyone even call his name out. Conor Benn and Mario Barrios both said they would fight him. Let’s see if the fights happen. 

I’m here to tell you, you’re wrong about him. And since you brought up Pryor fighting at 132lbs as an amateur so he was a natural lightweight. Boots was at 141lbs as an amateur at the Olympic trials in 2016.  Look it up! So if Pryor was a natural lightweight, what’s Boots? Please stop Carl. I’m not disrespecting you, I’m giving you, what you’re giving me and you’re taking as disrespect. Happy Holidays. Write in any time. I never duck smoke. You actually keep me sharp.

Send Questions to