The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Claressa Shields, Jermall Charlo vs. Jose Benavidez, fighter compensation, premature stoppages, Evander Holyfield, IBF welterweight champion Jeron Ennis, and more.

There was a heavyweight on the Top Rank card this weekend named Brandon Moore. I’m not sure if you know him but he is exactly what you were talking about as far as an athletic guy who didn’t quite make the NBA or NFL so he chooses boxing late. The announcers literally quoted him as saying it’s easier to make it in boxing because you how it’s set up. Did you see Moore in his fight and if so what do you think of his potential?

Also I looked up more examples of what you talked about and you didn’t mention Cassius Chaney, Gerald Washington or Dominic Breazeale. All played football or basketball then went to boxing late and had solid careers. In your opinion do you think American heavyweights are slightly behind on the world class stage because they start late, where as foreign heavyweights train in boxing much earlier in age so certain things are embedded in them where as our heavyweight are learning on the job? But in the past our best heavyweights were top amateurs in their early teens.

Bread’s Response: Great comment. I don’t need to say much in response. Just see above. I agree with everything you said.

So this might be a different question from what you're used to getting but it's one I've been puzzling over for a while. So wrestling has scripts and roles for their wrestlers and stories and arcs and such (your faces, your heels, the heel turn from one to the other, etc). But while boxing isn't scripted (despite the claims of some online trolls), do you think there are roles that boxers find themselves cast in? And how many? I feel I've thought of a few but maybe there are way more. The first one I thought of were the "Pretty Boys" that dazzle with charm and graceful boxing and beautiful flurries and are charismatic and magnetic, but all those things make people underestimate their true killer instincts. Maybe to the point where you've had to tell folks "Don't let that thousand watt smile fool you. Don't underestimate them!"

I feel like guys like Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather all into this category. The second one that came to mind were the "Bad Boy/ Bully" types that people hate or love to hate, like they just have great boxing but they thrive off the hatred and vitriol from the crowd. Maybe their fighting style can be a reflection of their a$$h-lery. I think of guys like Roberto Duran, Tyson Fury... maybe Ali and Mayweather here too. People contain multitudes so why not blend groups? Then I thought of the type I'm calling the "Quiet Craftsmen". I think of them as the efficient talents who impress in the ring but don't self-promote the way the Pretty Boys do. Or maybe are gracious sportsmen who are charming in private but don't have that wow factor that draws the camera in. You get the sense they do the promotions and other things more because they have to rather than want to. They'd rather go off and train in isolation and then beat their opponent and then restart the cycle.

For this I think of guys like Salvador Sanchez, Alexis Arguello, Vasyl Lomachenko and Marvin Hagler. That's all I can think of with types. I'm sure that's not nearly enough so what other types do you think there are? And what are the different kinds of narratives in boxing you see? I think of "Prodigy Fulfilling Their Destiny", "Underdog Beats the Odds", "Redemption", and "Villain Gets their Comeuppance".

Are there more that I'm missing here? What do you think of all this? I feel like all these things happen a little bit more organically in boxing than in wrestling. But I also know that we as humans love stories and categorizing people. So what are all the different types and arcs you feel like you've seen unfold in the squared circle over the years?Apologies if this was a lot, but I wanted to get this question off my chest.  

Bread’s Response: I love your concepts. I think you have a future in writing. I agree with everything you said but I feel as though there can be more than one script and storyline. There can also be more than one label and all are fluid, let me explain. 

Ali may have been the villain for a time. But he organically turned into the people’s champ right in front of our eyes. For fighters like Ali once they pull off a huge win as the underdog. The next time they are in that role, the world waits for them to do it again. See Ali vs Liston then Ali vs Foreman. Another category is the popular action fighter. Guys like Saad Muhammad and Arturo Gatti. They just get the public to love and anticipate their every move because they give so much of themselves…..Let me think of some more later.

Hey Breadman, hope all is well with you.

This is my 1st mailbag submission as I usually don't take part in boxing discussions as there are so many uninformed young fanboys out there, it's not really worth my time to engage in discussions. That being said, I used to box amateur, and I've been watching fights since I was a kid starting in the late 70's, so you and I probably share some of the same memories. I have 2 questions:1. I've been around boxing a long time, and one thing I noticed in my opinion, is that sometimes the questionable side of boxing shows a bit more than other times in regard to legitimacy. Knowledge of fixed fights, judges, demands, referees, padding records, incentives to lose and more have been proven and been around forever, but in this current landscape, I feel boxing's "slip" has been showing a bit more than usual. For instance, in the last year or so, I've seen several fights on ESPN in which I thought the stoppages were not only "premature" but downright outrageous.

I like Bam Rodriguez, but in my personal opinion, when he fought Sor Rungvisai, I didn't believe he was in any bit of trouble when the ref stopped it. Sor Rungvisai's chin is made of steel, fought the toughest, best and hardest punchers in the sport like Estrada and Choco many times, and came through like a warrior. A decent but not even hard combo stops the fight. Next is the Shakur vs Yoshino fight. I know I'm going to catch hell for this, so let me say, Shakur looks like the goods and certainly passes the eyeball test, I am a huge fan, but when he fought Yoshino, there was a good uppercut by Shakur, but there was a lull in the action and was then stopped when there weren't even punches being thrown. All over ESPN, I see refs stopping fights by just walking in and waving it off without much reason in my opinion. Many up-and-coming fighters in undercards especially, I see the refs stopping it for almost no apparent reason. I feel it is getting to the point of ridiculous, and it's not just ESPN, I only used them as an example.

Can you review those two fights, and perhaps comment on some of the recent fights that appear to you to be stopped simply to protect the invested money up and coming fighter. Again, I feel recently, boxing's slip has been showing in that regard, especially when I remember Tyson Fury Being knocked down by Deontay in their first fight where it's the 12th round, he's fighting against one of the all-time hardest punchers ever, he's flat on his back and his eyes are completely closed, and they STILL decided to give Tyson a full 10 count to keep it going, while So Rungvisai gets stopped by a little fluffy combo, wasn't even rocked, was actively ducking etc. Hell, Yoshino in his fight w Shakur put his arms up and openly laughed, and said the stoppage was a joke. I see it time and again, the invested house fighter, especially the new big thing kid doesn't even have to fight to get a stoppage and I recall one fight where the other guy was actually in the process of throwing a combo, and still got stopped, like in R. Romero's "title winning" recent fight. It's not just ESPN, it's all of them. Can you comment on this and highlight any recent awful stoppages that YOU have seen recently that made you take note or laugh? Sorry that was so long btw

2nd Question is an observation. As an old timer by today's standards, it's very sad to now see Showtime leaving. HBO and Show were the highlights of the last 40+ years in boxing, long live the kings. But I noticed a remark that Stephen Espinoza made in one of his last interviews that almost seemed like an exiting-swipe at ESPN. In the interview that I'm going to include, at the 9:40 mark till around the 10:10 mark where he talks about the recent changes at ESPN as well (we've seen those changes recently) he then states he feels there are more significant changes going on at ESPN and in their near future that he feels are NOT being reported on. That brings up the next rumor. I feel as a parting swipe at ESPN perhaps, he let slip that ESPN is not only not done with its changes, but in fact eludes that there are much bigger changes that are taking place at ESPN in regard to boxing that obviously feels no one seems to be talking about vs Showtime, where we all know now.

I've heard from several sources that perhaps ESPN as well is next on the block not for cancelation, but major changes in regard to exclusivity of promoters, what they will show, and how they will show it. Have you heard any rumors pertaining to what Steve E. is alluding to?

Thanks again, one last thing. I was recently fantasizing about a fantasy matchup of my favorite all-time fighter Evander Holyfield vs Ike Ibeabuchi in 'say '97 or 98.I don't know who would have won but I can't help fantasizing about what a damn good fight that would have been. Your thoughts?

Take care,                


Bread’s Response: Ok…..I agree that A side stoppages happen. But I disagree about the fights you named. With Shakur vs Yoshino I think Shakur was hurting him and dropping him. Shakur isn’t a 1 punch ko artist. So the accumulation of the punishment is actually worse than a 1 punch ko. Yoshino wasn’t out on his feet. But he was being dominated. He also wasn’t landing much, so the ref felt like it wasn’t worth him just taking 3 or 4 rounds more of that. I’m not mad at that stoppage. I’m a guy who wants conclusive stoppages. But mercy stoppages are necessary when a fighter is taking a beating and can’t get offense going. I want to see a fighter who is landing his share but losing finish on his feet. But the fighter who is just taking it and not giving it back, I don’t want to see him get hurt. Especially if there are several rounds left.

As far as Bam and SSR. SSR is an elite older fighter. He’s earned the right to go on. But he was hurt. He wasn’t totally helpless and maybe the stoppage was a tad early but it wasn’t awful. It was getting to that point. I’ve seen worse. But just because I don’t agree with your examples, doesn’t mean I don’t agree with you. I think there are plenty of cases where the A side gets the benefit of the doubt. 

I’ve seen refs stop fights early simply because the SHOW is taking too long. Too many distance fights. So the 1st time the B side gets in trouble they stop it, so the show can move along faster. The officials know boxing too. So therefore reputations precede them. So the officials know the A sides without being told who's the A side and who's the B side. So the A side usually gets the benefit of doubt. It’s just how it is although it’s not how it should be.

Let me say this though. I don’t believe a person with sunglasses walks up to an official with an envelope and tells them what to do. I think it’s an unspoken favor. I also believe the advantages are in the details. How much time a fighter gets to prepare, weight, gloves, ring size, drug testing and officials are all things that can have huge factors in a fight. And usually it favors the A side. It sucks but this is not the business for the feint of heart. You have to be strong to survive in boxing. 

Glen Johnson won FOY in 2004 because he beat Roy Jones and Antonio Tarver as the B side. That’s a rare thing if you know boxing but he did it with his fist. You can’t feel sorry for yourself or play the victim. But that being said. This is a simple fix but it won’t be easy. The reason officials side with the A side because they know they will get more work with the promoters. But if the officials got reviewed for and disciplined for bad CALLS and suspended then these things would stop. There would be no more rewards for these bad decisions and the officials would be more inclined to be consistent and FAIR.

I don’t know anything about ESPN leaving boxing. I didn’t even know Showtime was leaving until they left to be honest. I just hope other platforms arise.

Holyfield’s last great year as a fighter was in 1997. Remember he stopped Tyson and Moorer in rematches and won FOY in 1997. After that he was spotty and inconsistent even though I thought he looked good in the Lewis rematch a few years later. When a fighter like Ibeabuchi leaves boxing with an undefeated record at his peak, it’s hard to properly place him and usually that means slightly overrating him. I was high on Ibeabuchi but it’s still hard to say. My guess is Holyfield would have to be at his best to beat Ike and in 97 or 98 he wasn’t at his best absolute best. So my hunch is Ike would outwork him but Holyfield could adjust and if he found something and boxed with a plan like he did in the 2nd Bowe fight, Tyson fights, Douglas fight and Lewis rematch he would probably outbox Ibeabuchi but who knows. It’s a tough call.

Hey Bread.

A couple of mailbags ago, you were asked a question regarding headgear in the pros and what it would look like. You responded by saying you wouldn’t be a fan of the sport anymore or you wouldn’t watch it.  Something to that effect.  I thought that was quite a strong take on the matter.  Can you explain further? And could you potentially see the sport going in that direction?  Does headgear offer any benefits as far as protecting your brain from injury?  I know it’s mainly useful for protecting you from cuts.  I don’t know how beneficial it would be for concussive injuries. If headgear does in fact offer some potential benefits from brain injuries, they should be mandatory shouldn’t they? Boxing is an unforgiving sport, so I’m all for protecting boxers lives.  We all know that CTE is a real thing, especially for boxers. 

Bread’s Response: I said what I said and I meant it. I would not watch boxing if pro boxing implemented head gear. I wouldn’t be pro boxing anymore. Getting cut. Seeing a fighter’s facial expressions. Getting stopped is all what makes professional boxing intriguing. If you put headgear on the fighters, then it wouldn’t be the same sport.

I’m for safety also but that would be too far in my opinion. Part of the intrigue of the sport is the danger. Some say head gear doesn’t stop CTE. Some say it does. I’m not a scientist but I will say this. In the gym you get less kos and knockdowns than you do in fights. In the gym you wear head are obviously more variables but those are facts. No, headgear should not be mandatory in pro boxing. I don’t believe that for one second and I disagree strongly if you do. 

Do you think Pound for Pound list should include men and women? I feel like they should. Do you feel that women can compete with men.? I saw Claressa Shields calling out Keith Thurman, what are thoughts on that fight. Also who do you think is the number 1 fighter currently in women’s boxing and all time in women’s boxing?

Bread’s Response: No I think the  men's and women's P4P list should be separate. In other sports, individual rankings are separate as far as sex, as they should be. 

Um…I’m sure there are special or elite women that can beat marginal men. But that doesn’t mean men and women should fight. I have a daughter who is freakishly fast. She’s 12. She can beat 99% of girls her age in history. And I say this factually. She can beat 85%-90% of boys her age currently. You see the difference. In non consequential meets I don’t mind her racing boys. But for meets that count, I’m against it. And track is not a combat sport. 

There are laws that protect women from violence by men. Now you’re asking me about men and women fighting. Whoever wants to engage in that, so be it. But I don’t even want to answer a question about a man fighting a women. So don’t ask me again.

The #1 women’s fighter currently is Claressa Shields. Shields may not be the best in every area, like power or even athleticism. But her overall sum is better than everyone else’s. She has supreme conditioning. She’s durable. She has elite IQ. She’s fast and athletic. And most of all she has the winning pedigree. Against Savannah Marshall I think Shields was hurt. I watched the fight carefully because of the great promotion. But Shields simply would not accept Marshall’s will. And Marshall really came to win. But Shields just bested her and never let her get too much momentum. Not by a mile but by enough. It was a true Super Fight where you get to see a great fighter vs a worthy peer in their prime and Shields responded. That was great stuff if you know what you were looking at. Claressa is the best current fighter in my opinion in women’s boxing. 

All Time is hard for me because women’s boxing hasn’t been around that long and I don’t follow it as close as I do men’s. So it’s hard for me to say exactly who the best is. Someone will challenge my opinion and I may not have the facts to back up my opinion. But you asked me so I will try to answer my best. 

From the eyeball test the best women’s boxer comes down to two women. Claressa Shields or Lucia Rijker. You guys know Shields and I wouldn’t argue with anyone who says Shields is the best. She has all of the accolades as far as amateur and pro. I believe she deserves every praise she gets. But I bring up Rijker because she’s the only women I’ve seen that can match Shields as far as the eyeball test. Rijker fought in the 90s so she doesn’t have the titles and accomplishments of Shields. But if you saw her you know she’s on the level. She was 17-0 with 14kos as a boxer. And beat every woman she ever faced a kickboxer. I specifically said woman because they matched her in an exhibition with a man in kickboxing and she was kod brutally. I can’t even look at it, it was such a bad ko. But I’m not going to speak on that, you can see it for yourself on youtube, it’s one of the reasons why I don’t think men should fight women. 

But back to Rijker when I saw her fight, I said to myself she’s better than Christy Martin who was way more popular at the time. But Martin had the promotion and media behind her. Rijker didn’t. I thought if they fought, it would look like Floyd Mayweather vs Arturo Gatti. No disrespect to Martin she was a great fighter in her own right. But Rijker was just something. Rijker got injured when they were scheduled to fight and it never happened. I wish it did because I would have a better gauge on her competition or I wish she would’ve fought in this era where women’s boxing is more popular and organized so I can compare her and Shields side by side. Both are great fighters and from what I have seen they are the two best. 

Did you hear Charlo and Benavidez insult each other at their virtual press conference? Do you think it got too personal? I enjoy the verbal insults but a part of me thinks that bringing up a shooting and mental health is too much. Then on the other hand I think it could be scripted to sell tickets especially with this being Showtime’s last PPV. Do you give Benavidez a chance in the fight.

Bread’s Response: I don’t think it was scripted at all. Just because it’s good for the PPV doesn’t mean it’s scripted. I think these platforms allow fighters to say what they feel. And that’s how they felt.

They were taking shots at each other. In an argument you take the gloves off. Once the insults start flying with fighters then it is what it is. I’m not a fan of getting personal but it’s not offensive to me because at the end of the day they have to fight. It’s not a man arguing with his woman where you have limits. They probably should keep it on boxing but boxing is a mental game so you want every advantage you can get. They were trying to hurt each other with words. 

Jose talked about the mental health, Jermall talked about the shooting. That’s just how it is. It’s not really a right or wrong, it’s a verbal fight. And once you’re in it, you’re in it. I favor Jermall in the fight but obviously Jose has a chance. He has a great sparring partner in his brother who can give him great work. But Jose started out at 140lbs. He didn’t win a title at 147. He lost to Danny Garcia at 154. Now he’s fighting Jermall at 163lbs. I just don’t know if a fighter who started at 140lbs can beat an elite middleweight at 163lbs and the fighter who started at 140 lbs never won world title, “regular” titles not considered. 

But We have to see if Jermall is rusty or has some lingering effects of his outside of the ring issues. But just going by logic, this is a tough fight for Benavidez. It’s not just height and reach. It’s bone density and physicality. I’m interested to see Benavidez’s gameplan because Jermall fights BIG. So I wonder if Benavidez will use the same tactics Danny Garcia used vs him or will he fight mad and try to jump on Jermall.

For the record I think Benavidez will have early success because he’s been active and Jermall hasn’t been hit with 10oz gloves and head gear for over 2 years. So it may take a few rounds to get his feet wet. But after he does, I suspect his hard jab will carry the fight. 

Hello Breadman ,                            

Straight to the point . Boots Ennis is a favorite of mine . How can this mans career be stalled . He has been in the shadow of Spence and Crawford . Now that Crawford has all the belts there is no title shot there . He is just frozen out waiting on someone to move up . He does not control his own destiny . I don't want to be negative or bash anyone . But his career has no momentum . He needs marketing , he needs his name out there , create some buzz , some zing . Nobody but hardcore boxing fans know who he is . Everybody knew who SRL was before he was Champion . Besides after Spence and Crawford are gone what is left in the division.

There are no super fights left . There are only a few fighters that can make the super fight, and Canelo is not fighting Boots . Boots is ready now . He does not need any more low tier fights. Boots has been ready for several years now . Boxing should enforce mandatories . What do you make of all this.

Thank You                                                                                      


Bread’s Response: Boots is definitely ready now. He is one of my favorite fighters to watch in the world. I love the kid. I’m not going to say too much but I’m going to leave it right here. Boots has to add some muscle to his management/promotional team. It’s simple. He needs a PUSH that will match his talent. He was already fighting on PBC shows it’s obvious what he needs to do. Al Haymon, Luis DeCubas and Leonard Ellerbe would have Boots as the talk of the boxing world right now at 26 years old in boxing’s greatest division historically. 

I'm going to go on record with something. If Ennis gets the right promotion before he gets too old, not only can he be the #1 fighter P4P in the world. He could be in the argument for the best ever. That's how good he is. But he can't wait like Demetrius Andrade did. He needs to make the move ASAP.    

What’s up Bread? Hope all is well.  

You’ve spoken about the “Rock, Paper, Scissors” and of boxing (assuming the skill level is relatively equal and I’m paraphrasing) Pure boxer > Puncher Swarmer > Pure Boxer Puncher > Swarmer Can you share some insights about high-profile exceptions to this general rule? You’ve said this rule holds true about 75 % of the time and I’d like to hear about the other 25% if possible.

Peace, W. Hollis Boxing in West Palm Beach 

Bread’s Response: Good question. Ok I have swarmer over a puncher in Chavez over Rosario. 

I have a puncher over a pure boxer in Julian Jackson over Herol Graham. 

I have a pure boxer over a swarmer in Benitez over Duran. 

I have 2 questions. I’m a big shot TV/streaming executive looking at boxing, not necessarily to replace Showtime but just to get in the game at a high level. I give you a call as one of the foremost no-BS boxing people in the game and ask for the following advice: “The NFL, NBA, MLB sell competition and drama. The Lakers and Celtics always play twice a year even if the first game is a blowout, KC and Philly might lose the big game in January, but fans are still ready for next year. Tampa Bay might build a great record but nobody wants to watch them play. I want to change the culture of boxing and get it more in line with mainstream sports. I want to reward fighters who fight. I want to condition the audience to reward competitive spirit, entertainment, and stop punishing losses so harshly.

Other networks can worry about building stars, with padded…I mean perfect records, and safety first styles. I only want to be in boxing if I can turn it in to the NFL or even the UFC, except with fighters getting the money, not the promoter. Is this possible?1) Here’s a blind resume: an Olympic gold medalist, 1/48 Americans (if Wikipedia is accurate) a 2-division champion, who challenged the best in a 3rd, despite being clearly undersized. This fighter might not have had the longevity of his peers, but he was the shooting star, so much so a sizeable contingent believes he rightly deserves a unification on his resume, having bested one of the truly all time greats despite a terrible ref call…Every HOF suffers from the longevity trap, rewarding the solid athlete with a long career over the athlete that was considered among the very best for a time, but who because of injury/wear and tear was done sooner. If I was to mount a social media campaign with voters, extolling Meldrick Taylor’s greatness to finally get him his due, how would you speak to the shooting star being >/= the workhorse? Or am I off the mark not having greater appreciation for those in the HOF who might not have been thought of as the best in their time but who finally at the end won greater recognition?

Bread’s Response: I would tell you, yes it’s possible. But you will have to break the status quo. You will have fighters and their managers complain still. Because what’s a good fight for one fighter, may not be a good one for another. And as you know it takes two to fight. 

I would suggest proper compensation as the priority. There is an underdog in every fight. Some fighters go their whole careers and never take fights as the underdog. So 10 years in their careers, it won’t be easy to convince them to take a fight as the underdog. You would have to limit their options with  “take this or don’t fight” ultimatums. After a few years of this then the culture will change. 

Did I say proper compensation. You can’t pay a fighter say 5M for a 70/30 fight, then try to pay him 5M for a 50/50 fight. Fighters won’t care that their opponent needs to get more also. So they may have got 5M in their 70/30 fight, but they were able to because the opponent only made 1M. But in their 50/50 fight, the pot may be bigger but the split is lower. You have to understand the business side of this game. I would also interview teams to feel them out. All fighters are not willing to fight tough fights, although publicly they claim they will. You will get the sense of who really wants to fight if you interview them and ask them questions and look in their eyes for real answers. 

I knew you were talking about Meldrick Taylor before I finished reading. I rate the high peak over longevity 9 times out of 10, as long as the peak had enough work. I thought Meldrick deserved to get the win vs Chavez. There is no dispute that Chavez is an ATG. Well Meldrick was getting screwed in every which way in that fight. Even the people who agree with the stoppage acknowledge that Meldrick was winning on points by a considerable margin. The official scorecards going into the 12th round was 108-101 Taylor, 107-102 Taylor and 105-104 Chavez. 

Chavez earned the knocked down and gave himself the opportunity to win. There is no debating that. But if anyone thinks the odds weren’t lined up for Chavez to win is insane. There is literally no way Chavez was up 1 point going into the last round. It’s literally impossible. Taylor won either 8 or 9 rounds going into the 12th. And make no mistake everyone knew it. 

I’m not saying Taylor is a HOF lock. Because I do feel he fell off a little early. He was done as a player in 1992 when he was just 26. So consistency and some degree of longevity does count. But Buddy McGirt who Taylor stopped in their primes for Taylor’s 1st title went in the HOF. McGirt and Taylor literally have the same career as elite fighters. Buddy has more fights but not so much at the championship level. Because Meldrick was an Olympian he was moved faster. But they literally did the same exact things at the top level. But the difference is Taylor won cleanly when they fought head to head. I love Buddy McGirt. Great fighter and great man. But if he’s in, then there should be stronger consideration for Taylor. 

This argument goes to a lot of sports. I usually go for the guy who had a higher peak than the guy who lasted longer. Ray Leonard only has 40 fights but look at his peak. People rate other fighters over Roy Jones but in my estimation Jones did enough from 1989-2004 to be the best fighter since Leonard. 15 years is enough for me, even if others of his era lasted longer. 

I love this argument because I have it over Lebron and MJ in basketball. I love both by the way. I think Lebron is the 2nd best ever. His fans point out that he was better at 38 than MJ. I don’t argue. They point out that he has more career total points, I don’t argue that either. But I kill them with MJ did more in less time which is the biggest factor. MJ has 10 scoring titles, Lebron 1. MJ has 3 steals titles, Lebron 0. MJ has 6 rings, Lebron has 4. MJ has 5 MVPS, Lebron has 4. MJ has 6 finals MVPs, Lebron has 4. MJ has 1 DPOY, Lebron has 0. So one guy was greater longer, but the other guy reached a higher peak. Give me the guy with the higher peak if he wasn’t a 1 night or 1 season wonder. 

If Taylor gets the win over a 68-0 Chavez we don’t have this conversation. He wouldn’t have to add more time to his resume, just get the win THAT night. As time has went on some people have changed their stance and agree with the stoppage that hardly no one agreed with in 1990. I respect opinions but I can’t respect flawed reasoning. 

If you say it was stopped to protect Taylor and time doesn’t matter, then you wanted Chavez to win. Time is kept for a reason. The 10 second clicker goes off for a reason. The red light signaling 10 seconds remaining is there for a reason. If Taylor wasn’t going to take another punch then don’t tell me he was in danger of getting hurt because he could’ve only been hurt by a punch. If you’re a freak for rules don’t tell me that Chavez shouldn’t have been ordered to the neutral corner. If you listen to the commands don’t tell me Steele didn’t rush his questions. He asked are you ok, and as he asked a 2nd time, he was waving the fight off. And since we are talking consistency, Richard Steele was the referee in the Tommy Hearns vs Iran Barkley fight. Hearns who was the A side was dropped BAD without breaking his fall. He got up in awful trouble and could barely stand. Steele didn’t ask him any questions, looking at Hearns he most likely would not have been able to answer. Steel just let him continue. With no commands. Hearns was in worst shape than Taylor as far as having his bearings. If Hearns could be let go without any questions or commands. Then Taylor surely could have. The only difference is Hearns was the A side and Taylor was not.

The one reason I will hear is that Taylor was unresponsive. I saw Taylor shake his head slightly but he was distracted by Lou Duva and he looked away towards his corner as he slightly nodded. That happened and Duva deserves more blame. But in that case you ask for a clear response just to be sure you aren’t confused by his response. Steele rushed to stop it. IF you consider Steele made another questionable call the next year when A side Mike Tyson another Don King fighter, had Razor Ruddock hurt without going down and stopped the fight prematurely in their first fight. You realize that the only consistency was the A side got the benefit of doubt under various circumstances. 

I didn’t like how it felt the night of March 17th 1990 and I still don’t. My guts rarely lie to me. Go back and fact check every single thing I said and tell me your thoughts. Give me the HIGHER PEAK guy if the PEAK had some substance and not just one Buster Douglas like night. The only time I take the longevity guy is if it’s really close and then longevity is the separator. In Taylor’s case he would’ve been a 25 year old 2 division champion with wins over HOF Buddy McGirt and Julio Cesar Chavez. Stand up Mel. I know what they did to you champ and I don’t care what anyone says.     

Send Questions