The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Manny Pacquiao, Andy Ruiz training with Eddy Reynoso, the controversy with Devin Haney, career of Floyd Mayweather, and more.


Trainer Eddy Reynoso has expressed interest in working with Andy Ruiz Jr, and recently Andy confirmed that he has been talking with Canelo's team and has interest as well.

Two questions:

1.  Do you feel this is a good match for addressing some of the flaws that Ruiz showed in his last fight?

2.  The Reynosos have a monster stable right now with Canelo, Ryan Garcia, Luis Nery, Oscar Valdez, and heavyweight Frank Sanchez.  But what things should a trainer look out for to make sure they are not overextending themselves and giving all their guys the proper attention?


"ShoulderRoll" from the BoxingScene forums

Bread’s Response: First off I have to say Manny Robles caught a TOUGH break. Being a boxing trainer is the most THANKLESS job in all of sports. Robles was in line to be Trainer of the Year in 2019. He put together a great game plan and performance to score the 2nd biggest upset in heavyweight history on SHORT NOTICE vs Anthony Joshua. A few months later his fighter gets out of shape and unfocused and he loses his job. What a darn shame!

That being said I think Reynoso is a GREAT trainer. Not good but GREAT. I really do. He has a style that I think will fit Andy Ruiz. Canelo has evolved into the type of fighter that I think Ruiz has to be in order to be successful. Not a frenetic pressure like Barry McGuigan but a calm calculated pressure like a shorter counter puncher would have to turn into at some point in fights where the opponent is not coming towards him.

Ruiz doesn’t have a Joe Frazier type of gas tank and at this point he won’t develop one. But Canelo is the blueprint for him. But here is the issue. Canelo is special and the Reynoso’s had him since he was a kid, literally. There are things he obviously picked up that others couldn’t. Canelo’s brothers were no where near as good as him. I think it can work but I don’t know if it will. I have to see a few things. Most importantly is how much time Ruiz will have before he takes another tough fight.

The toughest thing about training that many fighters is their schedules. If everyone has a fight within a few weeks of each other it’s very tough because each gym session is between 90 minutes to 2 hours. A Trainer could possibly be in the gym 12 hours a day. And there is only but so much time in a day to train. Most guys at that level want their individual time. If everyone is not the same weight then they can’t even spar together so TIME MANAGEMENT is the key.

You also have to have fighters who don’t have egos. No one will admit but fighters get jealous. And in most gyms there is a pecking order. Every fighter feels as though their fight is the most important but the trainers are like parents they can’t show favoritism even if they make more money with one guy. It’s nice if it can work but it’s a task.

Hi Breadman,

Hope all is well with you and your family.

I came across an interesting quote by trainer, Naazim Richardson. This was during the time when Mosley was in training camp for Pacquiao. “They constantly talk about Pacquiao being a little guy. I totally disagree. I’ve said it a 1,000 times and I’ll say it a 1,000 more times. Pacquiao being a little welterweight is like calling Mikey Tyson a little heavyweight. He’s a solid welterweight.”

What are your thoughts on this quote?

Pacquiao has always been perceived as the little guy because he is short and started his career at 106 lb., but people forget he was 16 years old when he turned pro. It’s also well chronicled that he grew up in poverty and usually went without eating. Early on in his career he was malnourished and was KO’d twice at 112 and below. He then skips 2 weight divisions and starts his run at 122 where he’s a lot more explosive and durable against much bigger fighters.

I found a research article (link below) where it says that the size of Pacquiao’s wrists (bigger than most heavyweights) suggests he has a much bigger skeletal frame and bone density than what is obvious to the eye. This correlates to having better punch resistance, more red blood cells in the bone marrow due to denser bones, resulting in better stamina and the ability to carry additional weight. This explains why he was more effective as he climbed up in weight. I found this intriguing, so I figured I would share with you and get your perspective.

Boxing Science: How Manny Pacquiao's Body Has Tricked Analysts and Opponents - SB Nation

Mythical Matchups:

Henry Armstrong vs Salvador Sanchez 126

Henry Armstrong vs JC Chavez 135

Henry Armstrong vs Roberto Duran 147

As always, I appreciate your amazing work.

All the best,


Bread’s Response: Naazim Richardson actually told me this personally. I used to talk to him quite often about fighters. I think he has some points. Pac is obviously not tall. He obviously doesn’t have a long reach. And because he started out at Flyweight(112lbs), he’s viewed as a SMALL welterweight. People equate size with height, length and what weight you fought at.

Obviously no flyweight has ever been a great welterweight so he deserves immense credit for that. But he has some unique body parts that allow him to compete at the higher weights. I personally think he’s a little smaller than the average welterweight but I think it benefits him. Here is why….

He has a huge head. His head is like a man who is 200lbs. He has huge legs and calves. They are literally freakish. He has big hard fist, wrist and rare forearm strength. Then the rest of his body looks like a guy who should be fighting at lightweight or smaller. So at first look you think he’s small but that’s why great eyes look at things more than once before they assume. So let’s just say he’s compact in key areas.

You’re also correct on the red blood cells. That is directly in relation to one’s stamina. His bone structure also seems very dense and hard which can fool one because he doesn’t have an intimidating physique except for his legs. And people look at the chest, core and arms for that. So Pac has these huge legs that can be on an NFL running back, moving around this small body. It’s like Michael Phelps having a long torso, with short legs and long arms. Phelps literally genetically built to swim. Pac is not only built to fight but built to move up in weight and shock bigger fighters because his size lies in non descript areas.

Many don’t know this but slaves actually didn’t stop growing until they were in their late 20s because they simply didn’t eat right. Once slavery was over and the economic playing filed equaled out somewhat. Black people in America took off athletically. It’s no coincidence that so many southern states like Alabama, Georgia and Florida produce annually so many sprinters and football players. This is a touchy topic for some but it’s the truth.

In relation to Pacman it’s well documented that he came up beyond what we call a normal poor in this country. He was a malnourished kid. I even read a story where they didn’t have toilet paper. That’s really poor. So I can only imagine that he didn’t have a fighter’s proper diet in 1995 when he turned pro. So with his age(16) and start out weight(112) it can be slightly misleading. I suspect if Pac had his same genetic make up but he lived in the US and his parents had average jobs where he ate decent. Then he would have started out at maybe 126 or 130 instead of 112 lbs which is a big difference.

When Pac went on his crazy tear in 2008 I always thought about these things. I didn’t automatically attribute his success to PED use. I’m not saying whether he did or did NOT use PEDS. I personally don’t know and there is a strong suspicion…But I am saying, that I gave him the benefit of doubt because of genetics and upbringing. He always had big legs, big wrist and big head. Very good pick up my man.

Naazim was on it and he even told me that when he felt Manny’s wrist and fist in the locker room before the Mosley fight, he was worried. He said it felt different than anything he had ever touched felt before or since. True Story.

Henry Armstrong vs Sal Sanchez. The best gas tank ever coming forward. And the best gas tank ever boxing. Um flip a coin. Today I say Armstrong.


Armstrong vs Chavez- Chavez can box better than people realize. Watch his fight with Rocky Lockridge. But my guess is Armstrong nips it at the finish line.

Armstrong vs Duran- get an ambulance I have no idea. The question for me is what style will Duran fight. Because Armstrong is going to bring it.

Hey Bread,

Love all the extra mailbags while we’re on lockdown.

I have a few questions for you that may seem politically incorrect at first to some, but it seems to me that it is subject to legitimate and objective historical analysis like just about anything else.

I saw Devin Haney’s comment that he wouldn’t lose against Lomachenko, because he would never lose to a white boy.

I’m a 43-year-old white guy, who has always lived in the Philly-area.  I grew up as a sports fan in general, and, in the 80’s and 90’s, there was always a perception about boxing that “white guys can’t fight.”  Not that there was never a good white fighter in that era, but the joke was always that you should bet against the white guy in a big fight.  I always thought the joke was funny, and it was usually accurate.

I really got into boxing in the early 2000’s.  The catalyst for me was a Philly fighter being considered the best in the world for a while (BHop around 2002).  I remember BHop saying that he would never lose to a white boy when he was going to fight Calzaghe in 2008.  I thought at the time that it was a silly comment for BHop to make about another legitimately great fighter, but it was also just “BHop being BHop” to me. 

Haney’s comment seems even sillier to me now than BHop’s comment seemed then.  Not just because I think Lomachenko is even more well regarded now than Calzaghe was at the time, but also because my perception of boxing since the early 2000’s, and especially in the last decade or so, is that boxing’s top fighters are a healthy mix of all races and nationalities, including white fighters.  Now, I follow boxing much more now than I did in the 80’s and 90’s, so it is possible that the anecdotal “white guys can’t fight” comments of that era never quite jibed with reality and the divisional rankings, but my questions to you are:

Are there generally more good and great white pro fighters now than in the 80’s and 90s? 

If so, why?  Is it generally just more great European amateurs going pro?

You always have a well-informed perspective on race in boxing, both historically and today.  I thought these questions would be right up your alley. 



Bread’s Response: This is the 6th email about Haney’s comment in one day….Ok here is the thing. There are things that are said OFF the record that are common but because of common sense they aren’t said ON the record. I know for a fact that race and region get brought up often, OFF the record. If you go to an Amateur National Tournament one of the things that coaches check for his where a fighter is from. Matchmakers check race and region all the time. They just can’t come out and say it.

Whenever a fighters makes a comment like that I just think to myself he better not lose. You have to back it up because you can’t UNSAY IT. So if Haney says he will never lose to a white fighter he better not lose to one. It’s that simple to me but it’s obviously deeper than JUST boxing.

Personally it would make me uncomfortable because I think my fighter would be TARGETED. In a close fight, what if one of the judges was the race you talked about in your comments. I think of these things by the way. Officials are HUMAN. They read. They have the internet. They don’t live in BUBBLES. Again you have to DELIVER after you make any comments regarding your opponent. And this makes it harder.

If you say you won’t lose to a white boy, you can’t lose to a white boy. If you say your opponent is average, you can’t lose to an average fighter. It’s really that simple. Some fighters can back it up. Some can’t.

Race in boxing is prevalent but people don’t speak on it. If you notice most of the best Mexican fighters, go to Mexican trainers. Most of the best Black fighters, have black trainers. I’m not saying ALL but just look at who trains who. Why do you think that is? Again no one talks about it openly but off the record it’s talked about all the time.

Here is a question. If two guys are street fighting, and you stop to watch? And one is black and one is white. You root for the one subconsciously that you relate to the most if you don’t know them or why they are fighting. People will say they don’t but I don’t believe that.

As for Haney specifically I’m not taking up for him. I don’t know him personally. But maybe, just maybe he wants to be the villain and sell himself like that because he can’t get the fights he wants and he’s following Floyd Mayweather’s blueprint of being the HEEL. In boxing you never know why people do things. Controversy sells. Again I’m not giving him an excuse for saying what he said. I just know how this game goes. Alan Minter said it about Marvin Hagler. Bernard Hopkins said it as you mentioned. Maybe they meant it. Maybe they tried to sell tickets. I don’t claim to know. I’m just giving different takes.

Devin is also 21 years old. I know technically he’s an adult but he’s young. At 31, we look back on 21 and wish we didn’t do certain things. At 41, we look back on 31 and wish we didn’t do certain things. He’s a very young man. He may apologize. He may stand on it. Who knows? It’s important not judge his whole life on a 2 second moment.

For the record I think Devin Haney is the real deal. That kid can fight. I know he hasn’t fought elite guys yet but that doesn’t mean he won’t beat them when he does. It takes talented fighters a little longer to step up their resumes because it takes more to get them bigger fights. I saw Haney in the gym sparring world class fighters for his fight last year. He literally didn’t lose a second of a round. I watched him spar maybe 15 rounds. All I’m saying is that kid can go and I will leave it at that.

As for the prevalence of great white fighters. This is also something that gets talked about off the record also but not on it. There haven’t been many elite world champion American white fighters since the 1970s. I don’t know why the cut off but it’s obvious. Mike Rossman was a really good lightheavyweight from the 1970s. In the 80s Gene Hatcher and Ray Mancini stood out. In the 1990s Greg Gaugen, Vinny Pazienza, Joey Gamache and Tommy Morrison were champions. In the 2000s Paulie Malignaggi and Kelly Pavlik were champions. In this era Caleb Plant is the standout. Correct me if I’m wrong I don’t have an official stat but I can’t think of any other White American champions during the times you asked me.

Ironically from what I have read Morrison, Gamache and Haugen all had strong American Indian Heritage but they were marketed as white fighters. You guys have to remember again how boxing is promoted. Regionally and racially. For the common man, where you are from and what race you are. I assume it was easier for the promoters to promote them that way. When I saw the documentary on Tommy Morrison I couldn’t believe his mother was of American Indian Heritage. I never knew that. All I remembered was the nephew of John Wayne angle that was used to promote him. Stay on the business page guys.

For some reason there have been lots of white fighters who are elite from the UK, Eastern Europe and even parts of Asia. It may be an economic thing. It may be a resource thing. I think it has a lot to do with interest and economics. Boxing is highly populated with POOR athletes. That’s a fact. So there was a time when White American fighters were prominent.

If you go back to the turn of the Century there are some ATG White American fighters. Tony Canzoneri, Willie Pep. Rocky Marciano, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Camren Basilio, Billy Conn I can go on and on. But after a certain point in time around the 1970s it stopped as far as ATG white fighters and the European White fighters have sort of taken the elite status. I think the main cause is economics first and interest second. Baseball seems to be the sport where more average size American white kids go towards.

It’s very interesting. It causes all sorts of emotions whenever race or nationality is brought up in boxing. It’s important we stay level headed and objective and don’t insult each other.


Thanks for your insight and wisdom every week.

I would like to get your views on who will be considered greater on the all time list when the dust settles, Mayweather or PacMan. My friends think Floyd, because he is undefeated, beat PAC and made the most money ever. Which is a strong argument I will admit.

My view is different, I think Mayweather was more skilled and a better fighter, but I don’t think he is greater. Pac already had a HOF career before hitting the stratosphere in 2008 when he started going up the weights fighter killers much bigger than him fight after fight. Fighters his size don’t usually go past 135. The point is he took on huge challenges fighting much bigger men and beating them. Even though he lost to Mayweather, Floyd was still significantly bigger then him, it was never really a fair match up IMO. Pac is still doing amazing things in his 40s against outsized opponents.

Anyway, it’s a shame, because if Floyd had Pac’s mentality, I think he genuinely had the skills to be the best ever, or close to it. Imagine if he had stepped out of his comfort zone and challenged Pavlik for middleweight crown, and if he had done the same to Maravilla Martinez. What if he then went further and took on GGG, when everyone else was avoiding him. And perhaps to cement his legacy, he could have challenged Ward for the 168 crown and/or taken on Bhop for a piece of the light heavyweight world championship. Yes he may have been a dog in  some of those fights, but he could have won them.

My question to you is, what is your view on how they will compare on the ATG list. And if Floyd had shown some more courage, and taken on those fights and won, would he be on Mount Rushmore?

Peace and much love


Bread’s Response: In history there have been several cases where a fighter has beaten another fighter head to head but not gone down as the greater fighter or even better.

First let me tell you the difference between better and greater. The Greater fighter is the fighter who accomplished more. The fighter who held the higher status. The fighter who won the most titles. Had the most title defenses. Set the most records. The fighter who made a bigger impression on history.

The better fighter is more difficult to discern. The better fighter is the one who can beat more people. Now this gets tricky because even if you beat someone head to head they can still be better. For example I think Bernard Hopkins is better and greater than Jermaine Taylor. Hopkins has done more to be greater and he can beat more fighters than Taylor. See Winky Wright and Kelly Pavlik. But Taylor beat Hopkins. So that gets tricky. It’s not just head to head although that counts a lot obviously. Sometimes a guy can just have your number.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao is an ongoing debate. I really wish they fought in 09-10. I know some historians like Max Kellerman who rate Pacquiao over Floyd because Pacman started out at 112lbs. He was competitive with Floyd at 147. He did more by fighting better fighters in their primes. He won more titles. Kellerman drew parallels to Duran being greater than Hagler, Hearns and even Leonard although they all beat him because Duran is smaller and older than all of them yet he gave them all tough fights except for Hearns but he sort of outperformed Hearns vs Hagler, Leonard and Barkley. It’s really interesting….

Today I will say Floyd has the slight edge as far as being greater because head to head does count. If all other things are even you have to use records and head to head as a tie breaker. Floyd is undefeated and I hate bringing that up because it has screwed up how the networks treat fighters who have losses. But Floyd is 50-0 and he beat Pac head to head. Pac fought tougher fights but Floyd’s resume is not so far behind. He fought guns too, just not as many as Pac.

I put them right next to each other historically. They’re basically  somewhere within the top 25 fighters ever. I don’t have an exact list. But let me tell you something. If Pac pulls off an upset of Terence Crawford or Errol Spence then things will be reevaluated. That would be INSANE if Pac did that. That would put him in the top 10 ever with a BULLET in my opinion.

hi Stephen

It has been a pleasure as always to read your numerous mailbags lately.

While i learn so much from your mails (i really do), and while i agree with your comments nearly 95 pct of the time , i am writing to you today because i disagree somehow with the comments that you made on the great fight Leonard vs Hagler.

There is no doubt in my mind of course that your boxing knowledge is far superior to mine (i am not trying to polish your shoes but am just stating an obvious fact) but i was a bit surprised by the fact that in your last mailbag you were more or less implying that there was no doubt whatsoever in your mind that Leonard clearly won  the fight.

I am personally one of those who think that it is Hagler who did win the fight and while i can fully understand that many had Leonard as a winner ,the fight was so competitive that i am always a bit surprised when people seem to think that there was a clear winner without any doubt.

I would like to say however that i do agree that Leonard performed incredibly much better than most including myself anticipated and that to find reasons to diminish his performance is groundless and unfair.

Even if i think that Hagler won the fight i am very admirative of what a guy like Leonard could do.

To come back from a five years lay off and to compete on equal terms in a category which was not his best against such a beast as Hagler (even if in april 1987 he is probably past his peak) just shows how great a champion is Sugar Ray.

I thought before the fight that Hagler would easily destroy him which obviously was not the case....

This said, like you i have watched the fight numerous times and like you everytime i only have the same winner, except for me it is Hagler and not Leonard.

I have Leonard winning clearly the first rounds but as from the 5th round onwards, for me Hagler takes over the fight.

The rounds are close but it seems to me that from that moment it is Hagler who delivers all the meaningful punches and that Leonard while remaining competitive is more on the receiving end.

After having watched several times the fight, one thing, which unless wrong i have never seen mentioned, particularly struck me : it is the fact that as from round 5 leonard has some diffcutlties to cope with hagler pressure and that in each round from 5 to 12 he holds Hagler numerous times in each round in order to stop his assaults while Hagler is not holding one single time in that fight.

I do not know if you noticed that ? but it must have some meaning when one guy is holding very often and the other guy never ?

Also from what i have read, it seems to me that all the specialists were about equally shared between those having Leonard or Hagler as winner ?

And that the most often people were scoring the fight 115-113 for either guy, like 2 judges did after the fight.

Thats why i was pretty surprised by your last which seemed so adamant about Leonard clear victory.

I respect your boxing knowledge so much that i felt compelled to write to you and to ask you : do you really think that there is no room for controversy and that there can be only one winner in this fight ie Leonard ?

Being French, it is also possible that my English let me down a bit and that i somehow misinterpreted the contents of your last mail ?

If not, then despite my high respect for your boxing knowledge i would have to kindly disagree with you for once.

I think that Hagler won, but above all i do really think that the decision could have gone either way.

Please keep the good work as it really is always a pleasure

All the best

Chris from France

Bread’s Response: Thank you. First off let me say something. RESCORING a fight corrupts your integrity. Subconsciously you will give the fighter you WANT to win the swing rounds. It’s very hard to be objective with rescoring. I rarely rescore fights after I know who won. It’s a flawed practice.

Now, by your logic you think Hagler swept the last 7 rounds. No way that is possible.  You WANTED Hagler to win the last 7 rounds because he had to mathematically to satisfy your argument. Maybe the fight could have gone either way but I didn’t see that. I saw a highly competitive fight where Ray Leonard got off to a very good start. I saw Hagler coming on in the 5th round I believe, but I saw Leonard hold him off with his defense, courage and offensive outburst. I saw a fight where Hagler’s best case giving him every close round is 6-6 a draw. But most likely Leonard won 7-5 or 8-4 if you give him an extra swing round.

I’m not saying my opinion is ABSOLUTE. But the fact is Leonard did win.  So it’s not just my opinion but he won officially. I do think ONE of the scorecards were off and I hate that. Because that judge over did it and Ray Leonard didn’t need help. That gives the impression to Hagler fans that the FIX was in. And that’s unfortunate.

One more thing. I’ve scored this fight with a few fighters and people I respect. Not one person who I’ve scored it WITH could look at me in the eyes and say Hagler won. I pointed out some things to them that they didn’t realize. Coming forward is not a criteria for scoring.

Send Questions to