The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. vs. Daniel Jacobs, accident of Errol Spence, Wilfredo Benitez, Max Kellerman's comments on Gvozdyk vs. Beterbiev, second day weigh-ins, more.

Hey Mr Edwards

Firstly, thank you for putting me in my place a week or so ago when I wrote in regarding the Crawford-Spence debate. I must hasten to apologize if you felt that I came across as know it all and insulting. Far from it, I have enormous respect for your boxing intellect and importantly, an armchair critic like myself will always defer to someone like you who, on a daily basis, takes some kid's dream and painstakingly convert it into reality step by step. So, profuse apologies for how I came across. My views on Spence haven't changed though and I know you didn't want to dwell on the alcohol issue but recent events must surely make you see the point I was making? Be that as it may, from one human being to another, I wish Spence full recovery so that he can continue to chase his dream.

Secondly, and this is the reason I write in, I have noticed that whenever conversation focuses on the great Puerto Rican fighters, the names that correctly come up with regularity are, among others. Tito, Gomez and Cotto. However, I am surprised that the name of Wilfred Benitez seldom comes up. Where do you rate Benitez among the all time great Puerto Rican fighters?

I think while Benitez did not have a terrific career, he featured in some of the most seismic moments in boxing history. Firstly, he was (I don't know if he still is), the youngest man to win a world title when in 1976, at age 17, he took a split decision off not just anyone, but arguably, the greatest junior welterweight of all time, in Antonio Cervantes (for me it's a toss-up between Cervantes and Pryor).  To put Benitez's win in context, Cervantes subsequently reclaimed the title and went on a nice run until halted by Pryor.

Secondly, three years later, when Carlos Palomino seemed primed to continue his nice little run at Welterweight, Benitez, at the still tender age of 20, stopped him dead in his tracks when he took away his welterweight title by another split decision.

Thirdly, Benitez did not rest on his laurels. In the same year he defeated Palomino, Benitez took on a man who would go on to stand second only to Robinson in the history of the welterweight division in SRL. Sure, he was stopped in the 15th round but not before he put SRL through a trial by fire. This was a fight of massive consequence.

Lastly, two years after losing to SRL, Benitez would add a junior middleweight title to his resume with a brutal knockout of Maurice Hope. I personally think this was his last hurrah even though he would go on to take a points victory off Duran and lose one to Hearns. Benitez was on the decline at the tender age of 22 and his career would effectively be over before he was 25.

So, Benitez went on a five year run between 1976 and 1981 when he was at his peak in which his sole loss was to SRL. There was no shame in losing to SRL who we all now know was a killer despite his boyish charm. To me, this five year run by Benitez compares favorably with that of any of the Puerto Rican greats, if not better. So, how come he's overlooked? Is it because he was finished at the elite level long before he was 25? If so, what about his achievements before then? Most 17 year olds are still asking their parents for money to go to the movies and here was Benitez taking on a sure-fire killer with nearly 90 professional fights in Cervantes? Surely he has an argument for being the number one Puerto Rican fighter and not to be silently ignored? Is it because he was not Puerto Rican born? I'm stymied.

My two mystical matchups are three fights that could and should have happened but never did.

Monzon v Hagler

SRL v Pryor

Ali v Foreman 2

Thanks Mr Edward's and don't stop.


Johannesburg, South Africa.

Bread’s Response: You don’t have to apologize.  Men have disagreements and we move on. It’s no biggie.

I’m not going to comment on Spence’s accident or anything pertaining to it. I just hope the kid is ok. Life is bigger than boxing and I’m happy he didn’t lose his life. I’ve been around him and I have talked to him several times. He’s a nice young fella and I’m not going to criticize him in the perspective that some are. I still think Spence vs Crawford is a great evenly matched fight.

I rate Wilfred Benitez in the top 5 ever from the PR. I think Cotto just passed him legacy wise with his win of the middleweight title. But Benitez is actually more talented and I would favor him to beat Cotto.

Sometimes critics repeat the same thing they heard someone else say. Benitez’s peak from 1976-82 was long enough. 6 years is a long time to fight championship fights. Especially in his era where fighter’s didn’t fight as long. They didn’t have magic potions of recovery if you know what I mean. Benitez is 3-2 vs HOF and he took Hearns the distance in his last great stance at 154.

Only 6 men in history have won the title at junior welterweight and junior middleweight. That’s clearly special. When Benitez did it in 1981 he was the 1st. Weight jumping became easier as time went on because more titles were available. In 1981 they were only 2 titles available in each weight division the WBA and the WBC.

I have no problem with Benitez being 1-5 as far as great Puerto Rican fighters. His burn out is held against him. But the funny thing is Tito’s run was only from 93-01. Eight years and he was done also after the Hopkins fight. And Benitez had way more fights. Wilfredo Gomez’s run from 77-83 was historic but he was done too by the time he moved up in weight. He just didn’t hang around like Benitez. Cotto’s run was longer than them all but I still don’t know if Cotto was a better fighter at his peak. Benitez was special and I’m glad that his name is being brought up in the mailbag.

Monzon vs Hagler is a tough fight to call. I think they could have fought if Monzon had stayed around a little longer. He retired in 1977 and Hagler was a top rated contender around that time. This is an evenly matched fight. Both fighters have iron chins. Both are heavy handed. Hagler has more mobile feet and Monzon is taller. It’s really hard to call because Monzon struggled with fighters that Hagler was just as good or better than in Briscoe, Valdes and Griffith. Hagler struggled with fighters that Monzon was better than in Willie Monroe and Bobby Watts. Today I say it’s a drawish fight.

The notion that Sugar Ray Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor is laughable. Pryor never moved to welterweight and he turned down an offer to fight Leonard in 1981 right after Leonard won his title back from Roberto Duran. So Leonard moved up to 154 won a title there vs an undefeated champion then fought Tommy Heanrs in a super fight at 147. Fought once more and retired for 3 years.

Meanwhile Pryor had just won a title in 1980 and was trying to build a legacy. He didn’t fight his super fight until Leonard was retired in late 1982 vs Alexis Arguello. Leonard’s old trainer Dave Jacobs jumped ship and started training Pryor. After Pryor beat Lennox Blackmore there is a video on youtube of the post fight press conference. Pryor is asked about Leonard and he said the offer was not enough. Which is a fair statement but let’s remember his biggest payday didn’t come until he fought Arguello 18 months later and it was only 1.4 million. Dave Jacobs can be heard telling Pryor let’s wait on the smaller guys. We don’t need Leonard. I’m not saying Pryor was scared, he was a real killer. But history can’t be rewritten. It’s exactly what he did. He waited on Arguello to move up from 135. Pryor never fought Duran, Benitez or Hearns but yet Leonard gets this stick for ducking a career junior welterweight. Pryor was seen in the ring when Benitez and Hearns fought at 154. Demanding a fight. But he never moved to the weight.

Pryor was a great fighter. All time great. But history has been slanted when it came to him. He was denied a title shot at 135 so he moved up to 140. But he wasn’t ducked by welterweights. He never moved up to fight them. It’s like some smart historian says that Spence or Crawford was ducking Regis Prograis from 2018-2020 but Prograis never moved up.

As for the fight itself I think it would have been a barn burner. But Pryor doesn’t have the physical strength, or defense that Duran did. Pryor had good head movement but his body and head were open to titanic shots. He was mean and indefatigable but so was Leonard. Leonard was a big puncher at 147 once he reached his peak. He scored stoppages in 6 of 7 championship fights. He would have knocked Pryor smooth out and Dave Jacobs knew it. A trainer who used to train a great fighter loves to get, get-back after he leaves that fighter. There is a reason he can be heard telling Pryor to leave the Sugar Man alone.

Ali vs Foreman2. I hate to say this but I would lean Foreman. I think Ali became shot after the Thrilla in Manilla which happened 1 year after his fight with Foreman. Ali gave it his all in those 2 fights and you could see it in his performances in between and after those fights. He was flat. His body didn’t retain muscle. He wasn’t sharp. He just had more on the inside than every other human, so he was able to push. No way Ernie Shavers can take a prime Ali past 8 rounds. But he took Ali 15 when they fought. Ali just turned it on when he had too.

Foreman was messed up mentally but physically who can fight George Foreman twice? Frazier tried and he was ruined. I don’t think Ali could have stood up to that in the physical state he was in post 1975. But I wouldn’t count him out because he owned Foreman mentally and the mind last longer than the body.

Hey breadman,

Always look forward to your Saturday column. Is there any fighter in the history of boxing that could have beat Roberto Duran on the night of June 20,1980. Or even Ray Leonard.

Also who do you think had a better left hook in terms of power and technique-Gerry Cooney or Bob Foster.



Bread’s Response: I think Cooney’s and Foster’s hooks are even. Foster probably had more range on his hook but Cooney’s was just as good and it was also murder to the body. Foster is a better overall fighter but hook for hook it’s even. Cooney’s hook was monstrous.

Duran was special vs Leonard in their 1st fight. But no fighter is unbeatable. If you read the interviews at the time, some thought the fight was controversial. Leonard beat him in an immediate rematch. Some will say Duran didn’t train. Some will say Leonard fought a style that was harder for him to handle. Either way I wonder what would have happened if Leonard fought that style in the 1st fight.

It’s one of the greatest 4 or 5 wins and performances ever. But there may have been fighters who could’ve beaten Duran. Ever hear of Sugar Ray Robinson. I wonder how Duran would have done with Hearns on that night. Or Benitez…..I can’t say because each night is different and Duran was better than he ever was on that particular night.

Max Kellerman has been making the news lately for the wrong reasons with his comments. He said that Gvozdyk quit vs Beterbiev. I don’t think those were the right choice of words considering the recent climate. He also said that boxing should go back to same day weigh ins to stop the weight bullying. What are your thoughts on the fight and his comments?

Bread’s Response: I am a big Max Kellerman fan but I disagree with him on the same day weigh ins. The only way that would work is if all of the current fighters who are champions or high ranking contenders just retired and we started over with a fresh crop of fighters. Fighters would harm themselves trying to make weight the same day. They wouldn’t move up and give up titles they worked hard to get. The fatalities would be prevalent.

It was thought that giving fighters more time to rehydrate and get fluid on their organs and brains would benefit. So fighters started to take advantage and they started competing in lower weight divisions and rehydrating to higher weights. I agree with that.

But I don’t know why the recent deaths in boxing occurred. I really don’t know. I don’t know if the victims struggled to make weight. And I don’t know if the fighters who caused the deaths were weight bullies. I also don’t know the damage each fighter had going into the fights. We have to determine these things.

I think we have to make reasonable suggestions. Fighters need examinations during camp to make sure they are hydrated. 15% weight limits should be put in place by all commissions. No fighter should be 15% over his contracted weight. Fighters and trainers need to learn basic rehydration. I have seen fighters eat pizza and drink soda after weigh ins and training. Most are ignorant to rehydration. I watched a fighter who is close to 6ft tall with long arms, rehydrate 5lbs from 154 to 159 going into a 12 round fight at junior middleweight. He suffered down the stretch of that fight.

I think more strict drug testing needs to be in place. The reason fighters can lose 30+ and still be strong is because there is a lot of banned PED usage in boxing. If commissions, networks and promoters joined in together instead of letting fighters who are the A side police themselves on a fight by fight basis, we can get more done. I have a statistic for you. How many fights have we seen brutal injuries occur where there has been 8 or more weeks of strict drug testing?

The TIME of weigh ins have to also be universal. I have seen A side fighters make weigh ins earlier in the day or later in the day in relationship to how big their opponent is. Weigh ins should be the same time across the board and that time should be set by the commission. I say 5pm sharp is reasonable. Dinner time.

We have to understand that the objective of boxing is to render your opponent unconscious. There will always be injuries. But we can limit them.

Changing the weigh ins to the same day won’t cause fighters to move up. They will make weight UNDER any circumstances, legal or illegal. These champions won’t vacate their titles because of the new rule. They won’t become more discipline and stay closer to the weight. They will take drastic measures to make weight. Period. Fighters are not old enough to know what it’s like to fight in a same day weigh in fight. And don’t tell me about the amateurs. That’s a 3 round sprint. Not a 12 round run. Most move down in weight after the amateurs anyway to get weight advantages.

I was at the Beterbiev vs Nail fight live. I didn’t hear Max’s comments on the Nail quitting. I saw poor body language but Beterbiev hits hard. I can’t say if he was right or wrong. I mean if he felt he quit then he can say that. Quit is not a curse word. It’s a relevant term if it’s in context. I saw a man sort of capitulate under a firestorm.

I think it’s a difference if Max Kellerman called The Nail an insulting name. If he called him a coward, or yellow or a quitter then I can understand the criticism. But from what I heard, I heard Kellerman say he thought The Nail quit. If that is what Max Kellerman saw I don’t get why he can’t say it. Maybe a better word like surrender or capitulate is more socially acceptable after the Patrick Day tragedy but I didn’t think he was trying insult The Nail when he said he thought he quit. I thought he was saying that’s what he thought happened.

I thought the fight was close as far as rounds won. But not as far as punishment being dished out. The fight sort of reminded me of Cotto vs Margarito 1 without the blood. Beterbiev has enormous strength and brutal compact power. Boxing is mental and the Nail seemed to be bothered by the physicality of his opponent. He sort of wanted the fight to hurry up and be over while Beterbiev was enjoying himself and could have fought like that all night.

I want to give both fighters props for taking a tough fight like that. The Nail actually fought a good fight. He was doing some nice things in there and he was in shape. But Beterbiev was better than I ever saw him. He raised his game up. His feet were better. His stamina better. He even fought off the back foot for a couple of rounds and showed a nice check hook. His offense was brutal and efficient and he would not accept clinches. We often give the boxer props for great performances. But that was great pressure performance. Beterbiev just put on a big time performances in his biggest moment. That’s why fights aren’t won on paper they are won on the ring. Beterbiev was his best when his best was needed.

Hi Bread,

Saw your tweet opposing same day weigh-in. Pretty much like you, I believe that the boxers of this era are mentally weak. They just do not want to give up any physical advantage like height, reach and weight. I think they are more afraid of giving up height and reach advantage. Most likely, they will still cut crazy amount of weight to stay in their weight class but will not have enough time to rehydrate properly and can get seriously hurt in the ring. Imagine a guy like Jacobs who walks around 190 entering the ring weighing 165. He will be murdered.

My question to you is - what is the ideal walking around weight for boxers in each weight class? How much weight would you recommend a boxer to cut without severely affecting his performance and health?

Prograis or Taylor?



Bread’s Response: The fighters in this era have always had day before weigh ins. They weren’t born when fighters had same day weigh ins and they don’t really even know why it was changed. So I wouldn’t call them mentally weak because this is something they inherited they didn’t have a choice.

I think the 95% of the fighters are undisciplined. Undisciplined is the correct word. They lie about their weight. They don’t check the scale in between fights. They know that there are so many weight loss tricks that they have access too they just will resort to the tricks instead of being more disciplined in between fights.

People get upset with me when I say a fighter should be 15% over his fighting weight at all times and especially during camp. They say that’s too much. They just don’t know fighters real weights because they aren’t around fighters in an intimate way. 95% of the fighters I know walk around 15% over their fighting weight. Rarely do fighters walk around within 10% which is the suggested number.

Welterweight seems to be everyone’s favorite division. Well let me tell you. Your favorite welterweight does not walk around in the 150’s unless his name is Manny Pacquiao. They walk around on the average from 165-180. This is a secret in boxing most fighters are embarrassed about. They don’t want the world to know they aren’t disciplined. But it’s the truth. Approach a fighter you know and ask him randomly to get on scale. Make sure he doesn’t have a fight in the next 8 weeks. You will be shocked.

Caleb Plant just recently posted picture of him weighing 181 lbs. He fights at 168lbs. That young man is rare and I salute him. But I’m telling you he is of the 5% of the dedicated. Look through the other champions social media accounts. They will post pictures of all kinds of things. I bet you won’t see a scale with their weights on them.

For this era my suggested ideal walking around weight is 15% max. So a fighter who fights at middleweight will not allow himself to get over 184lbs on a solid diet. You may think oh wow 184lbs is huge for a middleweight but it’s not. It’s common. Ask Roy Jones and James Toney their true walk around weights when they fought at middleweight. After a fighter starts training and cutting calories the weight will fall off. As the fight gets closer you get within striking range but make sure you’re fully hydrated. If a fighter loses just 2lbs/week for the first 4 weeks of camps he’s 176lbs with 4 more weeks to go. That’s only 10% over. He makes the 30 weigh in check by the WBC. That 30 day 10% check is in place medically for a reason.

While rules have to be in place we can’t be too extreme either because it will cause fighters to panic and do harmful things. If you think about it. The 10% weight check is done 30 days from the fight. If 10% the suggested amount that fighters should NEVER go over, was truly standard then the weigh in for 30 days out would be 5%. The medical people know that fighters don’t walk around 10% over weight, so what they do is they give them a month to get down in weight safely.

Prograis vs Taylor is a real 50/50 fight. I have been really high on Josh Taylor but lately I think he’s been treading water. I think his style has gotten monotonous and he looks to be struggling to make weight. Sometimes you can stay at a weigh too long. I think that may be the case with Taylor. But I still think he’s the goods.

Prograis has short arms relative to his body. But he fighters with short arms can turn their punches over easier because of less travel time. Prograis throws short, compact shots that are natural. He’s what I call a natural fighter. His movements seem non rehearsed. He seems to be right side brain dominated. He’s creative. Taylor seems to left side brain dominated, he’s seems practical.

I think Taylor is the bigger puncher for one shot. But Prograis may be able to land his best shot easier. His mind probably processes faster. After studying these guys it’s harder to make a pick. At one time I was higher on Taylor. Right now it’s closer and Prograis looks better on video. But I’m going to stick with Taylor. The one flaw I saw in Prograis is he’s in love with exchanging. He knows he has a smooth mid range game. Fighters who haven’t lost get greedy sometimes and infatuated with their GIFTS. Taylor hasn’t lost either but he’s been really pushed. He fights more careful and respectful of opponent’s abilities.

I think this will be another FOY candidate. Taylor bleeds and cuts up. I think both fighters may go down. But my hunch is Taylor clips Prograis with a big hook late in the fight and either stops him or pulls a close decision in a classic.

Good afternoon Mr. Edwards,

I thought to write in to you to request an update of your opinion of the best punchers in boxing.  I know this is a topic you cover somewhat frequently so feel free to ignore this email and I'll inquire again when another fighter moves the needle.

Specifically, I'd like to know if Artur Beterbiev cracks your top five for active fighters in terms of punching power.  My list is as follows (I'm sure you'll have some good additions).  This is in terms of pound for pound power that a boxer can put on all his punches:

1. Naoya Inoue: no question here for me, pound for pound the Monster can put anyone in front of him down with any of his shots.  I agree with you that he is the best puncher in the sport.

2. Artur Beterbiev: The Gvozdyk fight sealed it for me, but Beterbiev's KO of Campillo was the most brutal right hand-left hook combination I've seen in my lifetime.  To my eye, it's the perfect modern equivalent to the shots that Marciano threw against Walcott.  A short right that ended it (Rocky's being more of a hook, Beterbiev's coming straighter in) and a left hook walking away.

3. Srisaket Sor Rungvisai: He doesn't have much technique and isn't even the top fighter in his weight class (which can also be said of at least one other boxer on this list), but his punches just sound different compared to his peers.

4. Richard Commey: Serious power in both hands, and against better opposition than the next guy on my list.

5. Gervonta Davis: Tank has some serious power, but has faced a very low level of opposition (even lower than what Beterbiev had faced  prior to Gvozdyk).

Honorable mentions: Gennady Golovkin, Errol Spence, and Deontay Wilder:  It's hard to keep Golovkin off this list, particularly when he's doing what he's doing at this stage in his career, but his power has not shown against his best opposition.  The same can be said for Spence, especially after the Mikey Garcia fight.  And Wilder might not have a place on this list as his only truly powerful punch might be the straight right in his 1-2.  Having said that, it's simply the most powerful punch in the sport.

I'd love to know your thoughts.



Bread’s Response: Any list if top punchers in boxing without Deontay Wilder on it is just not a competent list. Don’t take this offensively but Wilder is one the best punchers in history not just currently.

I won’t argue Monster Inoue. All things considered he’s most likely the best puncher in boxing. It’s either him or Wilder for me. Inoue has more variety and a better two fisted attack. He also scores kos with body shots. But Wilder is just as effective with his 1-2 combo.

1. Inoue

1a. Wilder

3. Beterbiev is heavy handed. He’s even handed. He has short, compact technique. He has superior punch release, no load up. Beterbiev is a super puncher. He reminds me of a mix of Kostya Tszyu and GGG as far as punching.

4. Gervonta Davis throws short brutal hooks and uppercuts. His punches remind me of a mix of Zab Judah and Mike Tyson. Both generated superior power with their hooks and uppercuts. Davis is also brutal in the clinch because he doesn’t need load up space.

5. Murat Gassiev is a ruthless puncher. Absolutely ruthless. I’ve watched him train. I saw him hitting the bag. It sounded like a demolition of a building, literally. Gassiev’s ko% is not as high as other guys on the list. He had a few decisions early in his career….. But trust me you don’t want him hitting you. His ko of Jordan Shimmell is on youtube. Shimmell was a solid contender in his prime and never fought again.

Dear Bread,

I hope you're doing well.

I wanted to address a few topics.

Chavez Jr vs Jacobs

Back with Roach. Can he actually make it a fight?

He seems in much better shape than against Canelo and won't be forced to 164.5.

He survived Canelo being dehydrated and not fighting.

Can he go 12 against Jacobs?

Garcia vs Granados

I like the Spence Garcia matchup. I have Garcia higher than most in this fight.

I know you like him.

He destroyed Granados who gave Broner and Porter all they could handle.

Is he damaged goods, did he become shot overnight? Or did Garcia improve a bit? I felt him stronger.

The Revisionism Trend

Kellerman got me cringing when he said Gvodzyk quit...

He was wrong for same-day weigh-in and now his piece about GGG is alarming.

Bad week for him.

Once when one mentioned his age against Canelo you said that he was 95% of what he was before.

Now, I feel like the tragedy of G's career, although formidable, is that he subtly started to regress at the same time he met good competition.

Since he didn't lose a huge step all of a sudden, most people just said he was overhyped and not that great. I disagree. I truly saw a difference starting in 2016. The output, the speed, how he moved and cut off the ring. Yes, it's partly because of age, but not only.

And, he lost a step fight after fight.

Don't you think that today's G is considerably less good than his prime version?

And we can't use the opposition argument, because even vs Martirosyan and Rolls he wasn't the 13/14/15 version of himself.

He still beat the 2 best MW in Jacobs and Canelo (twice) but because we expected this aggressive destructive pressure fighter to dismantle them and it didn't happen, the bias had us say he was exposed.

Media always talk about history yet we forget to mention, in his 4 biggest fights, that G was old.

35 to 37 is really old for a pressure fighter expert in cutting off the ring.

There's something I'd love you to address and without being confrontational at all.

I don't believe that only the numbers speak. But hear me out:

-GGG out-landed Canelo in both fights.

-Legendary Lederman gave 8/4 GGG for the 2 fights, once as the aggressor, once fighting on the backfoot.

-The whole world called the first fight a robbery

-- and it's smartly disguised, with everybody eying Byrd when the real problem came from the seventh round scored for Canelo by Don Trella --

and more than 80% of the media, including the best eyes in the biz, had it GGG or, worst case, a draw.

Now, you often speak as if the first was actually a draw and the second a Canelo win.

-- which kinda reminds me of the Ward/Kovalev story by the way --

What do you make of the 59 cards from media members with only two favoring Canelo, 40 seeing Golovkin as the winner?

57 out of 59 people scoring, with at least some sort of experience, went against the judges' decision.

Shouldn't have Golovkin, regardless of the narrative and him getting older, been crowned as the MW king?

If we consider this and the majority of boxers and boxing people, we actually

-- and I'm speaking unofficially but in terms of real truth, such as Pacquiao Bradley one, Bradley got it on paper but we all know he lost -- have two wins for GGG.

I just hope people don't rewrite history and compare those fights as if everything was even, as some sort of prime versus prime.

You trust your eyes but I trust mine too and I feel like peak GGG on his best night beats any MW of the past 20 years, clean, stop most, and should rank higher historically and wouldn't be f***ed up by Hagler, Monzon, and Robinson.

Of course, looking at the G from the SD fight, one will laugh at me...

Tyson Douglas Hollyfield

I'll also address the Tyson/Douglas/Hollyfield question next week (so no need to publish) because you always say Douglas had Tyson's number and Hollyfield was better but the version of Tyson who faced (and should have beaten) Douglas was distracted and f***ing whores the night before, and the Tyson from Hollyfield, post-prison, was way(yyyyy) past his prime. Tyson relied on crazy explosiveness and athleticism that would require a spartan way of life that he had lost long before. Not even talking about the psychological aspect.

Tyson 88 vs Hollyfield is a different story and it's not the "Bully facing resistance and giving up story". At least, I believe that.


What do you make of the fact that Canelo, seen as the best 160 by far and the king of the division, only fought at 160 (not below, not over, precisely 160) only three times in 5 years?

I love him but shouldn't him Marvinhagler-the-man-up?



Bread’s Response: Chavez vs Jacobs. Yes Chavez can go the distance with Jacobs. Chavez has a good chin and he’s a strong guy.  Sure he can make it a fight. I wouldn’t favor him to win but he can win some rounds.

Danny Garcia is not over his head vs Errol Spence. I think people assume that because the division seemed to avoid Spence like the plague. This is just how this era of boxing is. Fighters don’t take chances to take tough fights. But Spence is similar to GGG except he’s younger. Mikey Garcia like Kell Brook stepped up. Brook had some success vs GGG and Garcia didn’t get stopped.

As soon as that happened in the very next fight both GGG and Spence fought unifications vs Danny Jacobs and Shawn Porter. A knockdown won both Spence and GGG highly competitive fights. Now everyone is like oh they can fight but they aren’t unbeatable.

Spence won’t have a problem getting fights from here on out. Just like GGG hasn’t. And I’m not saying Danny Garcia beats him but I am saying it’s a real fight. Once fighters and top trainers see you’re human everything gets tougher.

Granados wasn’t shot vs Danny Garcia. Garcia made him look shot. He just gets hit too clean to beat Danny.

I addressed Max Kellerman’s comment in another question. I don’t want to rehash it.

I will address what he said about GGG because that wasn’t asked before. Max is basically saying he overrated GGG. I’m not at him because that’s his opinion. But Max and everyone else does with fighters. They anoint them too soon and then when they don’t quite turn out to be what the said they was then they become harsh on the fighter. Max Kellerman once made Zab Judah out to be an All Time Great. Pernell Whtiaker level good. Judah was an excellent fighter. I would even say A- on some nights. But he never lived up to what Kellerman said he was going to be. Sometimes our hunches are right sometimes they’re wrong. It happens.

I think GGG started to decline about 3 years ago. There was an indirect suggestion that he let Kell brook get off before he stopped him. I never bought that. GGG is just not hard to hit. I think training entire camps in altitude combined with taking huge punches in sparring and in fights and taking VADA in your mid 30s will lead to a drop off.

I have said this several times. Most violent pressure fighters drop off in their mid 30s. GGG fought Danny Jacobs when he was 35 and it started to shot.

The prime version of GGG that I saw in 2011-14 could overcome him getting hit clean and lack of elite athleticism. As you get older your flaws become magnified.

I thought GGG most likely won the 1st fight. But I didn’t like how he fought. He left so many shots on the table I really believed Canelo’s clean punches were bothering him. I stated that after the fight. In the 2nd fight I thought GGG made one of the most courageous 2nd half stands I have ever seen. He looked like he was going to lose 10-2. Then all of a sudden he won 3 or 4 rounds in a row and made it razor close. GGG has next level heart and will and it never gets talked about.

People lie and give their scores of fights and in my opinion it’s abuse of platform. I have seen people look at their phones for minutes at a time during fights then give their unofficial score cards as the bible. They get upset with me because I admit that I don’t watch fights with a pen and pad. And unless you score the rounds with a pen and pad during the 60 break in between rounds, close fights are impossible to score giving the eyeball test because being forced to score swing rounds in 60 seconds and assessing the energy and mood of a fight is different.

I think GGG is a HOF. But not an ATG. I can’t give the age excuse on ATG status. He has to find a way to get it done. I think he’s great but not Rushmore great.Last 20 years….. I think he beats Jermaine Taylor, Kelly Pavlik, Sergio Martinez and Arthur Abraham. I think Abraham and Pavlik give him hell especially Abraham but GGG has an edge in pedigree in my opinion. Pavlik gets hit a little too clean for me but he would be right with him. I think he kos Martinez and Taylor. They just don’t have to durability to deal with his elite power. Miguel Cotto all but admitted he was too small to beat GGG.  Danny Jacobs is very good but he never put together that next level performance. If we go back to 1999 We have William Joppy, Keith Holmes, Tito Trinidad and Bernard Hopkins.

I think GGG beats Joppy and Holmes. I don’t know if he beats Tito. He gets hit too clean. That’s a harder fight than people realize. I don’t think he beats the best version of Bernard Hopkins. I have to go by what I have seen and not on projection. So no he doesn’t beat every middleweight of the last 20 years.

No one blows the best GGG out. His heart, chin and power keep him in every fight. But he’s a level below Hagler, Monzon and Robinson.

I agree that Mike Tyson was a monster in 1988. But Evander Holyfield wanted the smoke when he moved up to heavyweight. They were supposed to fight and Tyson lost in early 1990. I love Tyson but he has to take responsibility for banging whores. Tyson was 23 years old when he lost to Buster Douglas. He wasn’t 33.

Tyson’s historic value gets devalued because his fans want all of his hypothetical fights to be in a 2 year span. Holyfield is 4 years older than Tyson and he was kod bad by Bowe and lost to Michael Moorer before he fought Tyson. So while Tyson was not in his prime in 1996 at 30 years old. Neither was Holyfield who was 34 and had more wear and tear. I know Tyson’s style doesn’t age as well but Holyfield was slightly past it also. We have to keep it real on both fighters.

In 1988 I wouldn’t be surprised if Tyson beat him. But going by everything I have seen and know. I have to give Holyfield the edge in a thriller.

Canelo is seen as the best at 160 because he beat GGG and Jacobs. No other middleweight has those 2 wins. I don’t care if he has only had 3 fights at 160. He deserves the #1 spot as of now.

Send Questions to