The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Mauricio Lara missing weight for Leigh Wood, Devon Haney vs. Vasiliy Lomachenko, Terence Crawford vs. Errol Spence, the career of Ricky Hatton, and more.

Mauricio Lara is the latest fighter to vacate his championship at the scales.  Lara came in at 129.8 for his “featherweight” title fight against Leigh Wood. As always, the show will go on. Everyone wants to get paid, no matter how dangerous it is for the fighter who actually did the right thing. So I ask you: how do we solve the issue of fighters blowing weight at the scales? I think the solution is for the sanctioning bodies to have weight requirements at all times for boxers, not just the day before the fight. This would be enforced with random weight checks and boxers vacating their ranking if they don’t meet weight requirements. I would love your thoughts on my solution or any solutions you might have. Thank you so much!

Bread’s Response: I don’t believe random weight checks are the answer because with the tricks that are used today you can have guys who load up on water just to cut it. A gallon of water is 8lbs. I know fighters who will drink 2 Gallons just to cut it and push everything out. So their weight will look high but not be as high as it seems. I suggest suspensions, cancellations and huge fines. Sometimes a fighter will come in heavy for the advantage and they take the money hit. The fine isn’t significant enough for them to not be heavy. But if he’s fined an amount that’s so high that it’s not worth it to come in over then he wouldn’t do it. The reason the shows go on is because of money. If the show is cancelled then no one will get paid. The punishments have to be more severe. Even the promoter has to suffer. If the promoter suffers then the promoter will then turn on the fighter. I’ve heard promoters tell fighters to not drain themselves and just take the fine. Most times fines are negotiable. Very rarely in boxing has a fighter, promoter and manager received a severe punishment for an infraction. Fighters get 6 month suspensions for PEDS when they fight once/year!! They get fined a few thousand dollars for missing weight but they get the win and in the next fight they get to make up for the money. It’s usually worth it to push the rules. 

Lara should be suspended for missing weight by that much. I don’t know what he was fined so I can’t say if it was sufficient. I also don’t know what his purse was. But missing weight by 3lbs is disgusting. Lee Wood fought a junior lightweight he didn’t fight a featherweight. Remember how brutally Diego Corrales was kod by Jose Luis Castillo in their rematch. The win was worth it to Castillo who actually tried to pull the same thing in the trilogy fight. Critics throw up in Lomachenko’s face he lost to Salido. But they leave out he didn’t fight a featherweight that night. Salido wouldn’t have been strong at 126lbs. If he could’ve been strong, he would’ve made 126lbs. I honestly feel like anything over a pound and the fight should be called off. It will teach these guys a lesson. A fine of at least 25% of the purse. A 6 month suspension and most of all no sanctioning of a fight at the weight they “couldn’t make” in the future. 

Lara shouldn’t be allowed to fight at 126lbs anymore. If he would’ve kod Wood again he could’ve possibly ruined his career. Missing weight by that much is serious especially when Wood suffered to make weight but was professional enough to do it.

Hey Breadman,

Question 1: We often hear the statement "It could've gone either way" after a close fight, like Loma-Haney last weekend, but how often does it actually go the other way? I.e. How many times has there been a case where a close fight ends up going to the B-side? May just be brain fog but I can't remember any in recent memory. Question 2: Why doesn't boxing have a universally applied rule-set? It seems to me that referees apply their own versions of the ruleset at their own discretion. Surely this leads to bias and potential match fixing. A few examples: A lot of referees will ignore excessive clinching, which is a foul. They then simultaneously break up any inside action immediately, giving an advantage to the holding fighter. Jack Reiss' ten count, where he has added extra time for the fighter to move left and right. You could argue this helps the downed fighter to recover. Point I'm trying to make is that boxing is a sport. Sports have rules that are universally applied. So boxing as a whole should have rules that are applied the same for all matches, and not have refs decide if and when to apply the rules.

Thanks, RF

Bread’s Response: Great question. Fights rarely go the other way to the B side. Very rarely. I think Manny Pacquiao vs Tim Bradley is the most popular case where a close controversial fight went to the B side. I’m sure there are others but that one stands out because of how big of a fight it was.

As for the rules. The rules in boxing are there to circumvent. Not the just the officials but even for the fighters. I actually had a referee tell me in Arizona to tell my guy make sure he throws a lot of punches. And get this he said it before the fight. Not during it because of a lull in action. But he warned us before to make sure there is action. I couldn’t believe it.

In different states they allow different type of hand wrapping. In PA where I live all you can use is gauze on the skin and tape after. No twisting of tape between the knuckles. In Nevada you can put tape on the skin then gauze. So when I go from state to state I literally ask before I start wrapping because it’s not the same everywhere. Boxing is a great sport but honestly it’s a mess. In any other sport the rules are the rules. But in boxing there is so much room for discretion and different allowances, fighters who have strong financial backing will literally go where the rules benefit them the most. In some places all you can have is water in the corner. In other places you can have Gatorade or sports drinks. Again I have no issue adhering to any rule in place but I do often wonder why things are so different depending on where you go. We need a UNIVERSAL commission who have employees from state to state and country to country. The rules should be the rules but they aren’t. If they were everyone would just conform and fight.

What's good Bread!

I'm a 56 year-old American male , who's been a boxing fan for most of my life. As a kid I watched Sugar Ray Leonard in the 76 Olympics, It seemed like everyone in America was rooting for him and after he won gold, he did lots of commercials and was extremely popular with the American people. The older I got ,the more I noticed Pro Boxing is based on Race and Region ,with Race being the biggest factor. How many times have you seen black amateur boxers get cheers, when they fight for the USA, yet as Pros, they will get booed at home in the USA while fighting Foreigners. Some boxing commentators don't even try to hide their biases. Recently Paulie Malignaggi said "Your a scumbag if you think Haney won" And "Anyone who thought Loma lost just wanted to see the white guy lose" It Feels like Paulie is really projecting his own racist beliefs about black people. Wasn't he fired from a TV gig for saying other stupid stuff about Race? Boxing is still my favorite sport, the race problems seem too have gotten worse....or has it always been so in your face?

Bryant in Phoenix

Bread’s Response: Boxing is definitely a racially driven sport. The promoters are smart. They know people support their own. I don’t have an issue with it. I have an issue with RACISM but not racial support. It’s natural to support who you relate to the most. I also don’t get mad if someone supports outside of the box. I don’t get the offense in that either. Some people are just more appealing and easier to root for. Allegiance shouldn’t be forced. I root for who I want to root for, unapologetically. Often times it is the black guy but it’s not every time. And I’ve never personally said a black guy won a fight that I didn’t think he won. I have kept my mouth shut if someone I had a personal relationship with won a close fight that I thought they lost but I've never lied and said I thought someone won a fight that they didn't.

As for Haney vs Lomachenko I’ve heard it ALL. I’m not going to do the mental gymnastics to try to figure out why. I saw the fight twice and each time I could’ve made a case for both fighters winning. It was NOT a robbery I don’t care what anyone says. It was just a close fight where the 10th round was scored incorrectly but that didn't effect the outcome of the fight.

Boxing has always been RACIALLY driven. Promoters have to make money. Have you ever watched the promotion to the Jack Johnson vs Jim Jeffries fight. This stuff started long ago and it’s part of the game. You have to have thick skin in this business. No one should be verbally or physically abused because of race. That’s an issue. But boxing will always be racially promoted. Some of the biggest fights in history have been Black fighters vs White or Mexican fighters who were available and on the level. 

What I mean by that is obviously someone will say what about Leonard vs Hearns vs Hagler. What about Tyson vs Holyfield vs Lewis. What about Ali vs Frazier vs Foreman. Obviously there have been some HUGE all black fights. But when the opportunity presented itself and an elite white or Mexican fighter was available and good enough to sell to the public the fights were made because they draw huge money.

Oscar vs Floyd. Floyd vs Hatton. Floyd vs Canelo. Floyd vs Pac. Tank vs Ryan just recently. If you do the economic conversion as far as yearly inflation Holmes vs Cooney is as big as it gets. Most white guys were rocking with Cooney and the black guys were rocking with Holmes. It is what it is. I was live in AC for Jermaine Taylor vs Kelly Pavlik. You could feel the tension in the crowd. I’m telling you I have been to some big fights. Very BIG fights. I was live for Floyd vs Canelo. And, I don’t know if I’ve ever felt anything like Taylor vs Pavlik. The atmosphere was something you had to feel. You can’t even understand from watching it on TV. I still haven’t heard a roar as loud as the one I heard when Pavlik stopped him in the 7th. It was like a funeral for black people who attended the fight.

Writing in about the elephant in the room: The Haney-Loma fight. First off: What did you think of the fight itself, Breadman? For me, that's the closest and most razor-thin fight I've seen LIVE since Ward-Kovalev 1. I mean I really feel like it could've gone either way. I mean it was so close that I felt like the 116-112 card for Haney gave him too much credit. I thought it was THAT close! Normally, I think I've seen very few close fights that earn a draw. I think that fight earned it. In my personal opinion, it should've been a draw.

Second: Let's address the other elephant in the room. Round 10 and Moretti's scoring. Honestly, there were some rounds that could've gone either way and some rounds that I thought had a clear winner. I thought rounds 4, 5, and 6 were clear Haney rounds and rounds 9, 10, and 11 were clear Loma rounds. I know you don't score fights as you watch them, but what did your eyes tell you? To me round 10 was one of Loma's best (if not his best) round of that whole fight. I really think Moretti should be required to explain himself. Because even single rounds can swing an entire fight. I know I'm preaching to the choir on that one, but still.

Third: I'll acknowledge my bias. I am a Loma fan. And I was gutted for him. That footage of him breaking down in tears after the fight was hard to see. But he and Haney both fought an incredible fight. And they both showed grit and resilience, which goes underappreciated by their fans. I mean, I feel like everyone praises the skill and technique of both guys so much that people forget they can scrap! And it was nice to see Loma turn back the clock, if only for a little while. I wouldn't have guessed he was 35 from what I saw in the ring. Fourth: Where do both guys go from here? Is it time for Haney to move up to 140? Does Loma get any more chances? Or is his time at the top done? Also: I've been reading your mailbag for a few years now and I wanna say... you called it. Four years ago you called it! You said Haney would beat Loma in a tight chess match. Granting someone circumstances have changed (the role of favorite and underdog reversed), but you were right. What are your thoughts on all this?

Greg K.

Bread’s Response: Ward vs Kovalev 1 was very tough to score. I didn’t know if Ward won 6 or 7 rounds at the end. If he had won 6 then he would’ve lost because Kovalev scored a knockdown, it would’ve been 114-113. If Ward won 7 rounds then it would have been the same score but instead of Kovalev having 114 it would’ve been Ward having 114 and Kovalev 113. It turns out 114-113 was the score for Ward. I wasn’t scoring it as I was watching but I knew it was an extremely difficult fight to score.

I felt as though Haney vs Loma was a 115-113 either way fight or 114-114. I didn’t like the feel of the 10th round being scored for Haney. Haney had plenty of other rounds where he did better than he did in the 10th. The 10th was poorly scored and it’s one of the reasons why there is so much controversy.

Loma is a great fighter and he fought a heck of a fight vs a talented young stud. The part about being 35 is not that you can’t do it anymore, it’s just that sometimes you can’t do it as consistently as you once did. Loma was in a performance slump before he fought Haney but he raised his game as the competition went up.

I think Haney moves up to 140lbs. I would love to see him vs Shakur or Tank for all of the belts. But I don’t know if Haney would be willing to struggle to make weight again vs those 2 talented fighters. It may be too risky even though I think Devin would fight anyone. I’m not sure if he would be willing to fight anyone at 135 next. 

I think Loma may consider retiring but fighters with his type of personality usually don’t retire after such a good performance even though he lost. Most likely I think Loma fights for a vacant belt if Devin moves up. There is a chance Loma fights Shakur.

Hey Breadman,

I hope you and your stable are well. I noticed that you don't always get questions on UK cards but we just had a tripleheader weekend and you didn't get any questions so apologies in advance for the length! Firstly, I've not kept count but over the last couple of years of Mexican/Mexican-American versus British/Irish boxers has been a one-sided beat down! - Can you think of any other nationalities that have or had a dominant record over another nationality? On the actual boxing, Luis Alberto Lopez landed a nasty uppercut on Conlan, sadly after those two nasty KO losses for Conlan he may want to consider retirement. - He seems to have come from nowhere but what do you make of Lopez? I'm happy Leigh Wood managed to get the win, especially after the shenanigans Lara pulled with the weight. Wood's current run, reminds me a bit of Crolla's a few years ago, he may not be the best in the division but he's hit his stride and deserves his props. I think in his last 4 fights he has been the underdog and he's come out with a 3-1 record. - What have you made of his run? How would you rank the current featherweight champions? Lara looked flat and I suspect he will move up.- How do you think he fares at 130? Do you expect his power to transfer up? I had a question on the cruiserweights but I won't take up more of your time, keep up the good work!

Darns, Marrakech 

Bread’s Response: Yes Mexican fighters are having a field day with UK fighters. Mexican fighters also do really well vs Puerto Rican fighters. Not sure why….Lopez is a rough, rugged and clever. He’s a very good fighter.

I feel for Conlan. Top Rank has done everything they could to develop him. He’s got the right fights. He’s gotten his opportunities. This last fight was a winnable fight in his hometown. Conlan has just not come through. He’s developed very slowly. I noticed it a few years ago. I don’t know if he has weight issues, I suspect he does. I don’t know if it’s a mental thing. But Conlan is pretty much the same fighter he was years ago. I’m definitely not criticizing him after a loss. This has to be really tough for him. I’m just stating what I observe.

Boxing just comes down to simple things. Who can land the best punches the most consistent round for round. Who can avoid their opponent’s punches the most consistently round for round? Who can take punches with less effect the most consistently. And who can control the action. Whichever fighter answers these questions the most on a round by round basis, wins. That’s the fighter you would rather be in each round. 

Conlan, without criticizing him harshly because this was a gutting loss. Just seems a level below elite despite having pedigree. Every fighter makes mistakes but if you make your mistakes you have to be able to make up for them. Conlan hasn’t made up for them. Not sure where he goes from here. It’s not so much the kos. It’s keeping your self esteem up while you build towards another big fight. I hope Conlan is ok. This is the tough part of reality for any athlete. 

I’m a big fan of Lee Wylie and Ben Davison so I always want their fighters to do well. I’m happy for Leigh Wood. He’s a good action fighter. He’s not a great fighter, but he’s capable of having great nights because he has a big heart and big punch and he has excellent coaching. I’m not sure who the best is right now at 126lbs. But the division is wide open. My guess would be Brandon Figueroa or Rey Vargas. But if Stephen Fulton moves up I will change my answer.

I suspect Lara will lose his physicality if he moves up. Fighters who miss weight as badly as he did, rarely move up and be as good. I believe one of the reasons he did well at 126lb was the physicality he had fighting smaller fighters. If he moves up I think it’s gone. 

Hey Breadman,

I hope you're doing well. A big thanks for these mailbags. They bring lots of joy. Would appreciate if you could answer 3 questions for me. Question 1: On the back of the Lomachenko controversy I was wondering if there's a reason judges no longer score even rounds? I can't recall the last time I saw one. It was very common many years back but it feels that these days judges don't dare score an even round no matter how indistinguishable (This is the reason we see silly things like Loma getting the same "value' from the close rounds he won than from the 11th that he absolutely dominated, i.e. a 10-9 in his favor). Question 2: It seems there's a scoring recipe used in high level fights when the money fighter seems like he's getting beaten which ensures he can't lose on the scorecards, and it goes like this: One unapologetically biased judge in favor of the money fighter. Another slightly biased judge that has the money fighter winning by a hair, or at worst has a draw. And a third whose score is almost irrelevant as it can at worse cause a draw, but who normally has just the opposite of the slightly biased judge. This way it's a draw at worst for the money fighter and the commissions are off the hook to hold anyone accountable as "the final result was still very close". Doesn't always happen, but too common to be coincidence. Your thoughts on this?

Question 3: I've seen many examples where a fighter and promoter split, the fighter then becomes a world champion and the promoter then demands compensation since they are contractually entitled to a proportion of the fighter's winnings in the event that the fighter becomes world champion within a few years after the split. I've also seen many examples of fighters building their careers with one trainer, get to that place where they make loads of money and then demand they pay the trainer a fraction of the percentage of the purse they always have or else they find someone else (example include Pacquiao/Roach and GGG/Sanchez). My question is why don't trainers sign similar types of contracts with fighters to the ones promoters do and fix things like the purse split and ensure compensation if the fighter leaves but becomes world champ the next year? Trainers contribute at the very least as much as a promoter to a fighter's career progression.A story you probably know, but when Hagler started making it big his trainers said it's ok if he pays them a smaller percentage of his purse than he always has. To which Hagler replied unless they keep the same agreement as always he'll leave. Gotta love Hagler for that.

Waldo, Brisbane 

Bread’s Response: I don’t mind judges scoring rounds even but I don’t want them to use even rounds as a crutch. Judges should try their best to figure out who WON the round. If they can’t figure it out only then they should score it even……I think judges still score EVEN rounds, it’s just not as often but I would have to do forensic research to be sure. I don’t like the recipe you stated but I do notice it favors the A side like 90/10. I don’t know what else to say….

Hagler was one of ONE.

Ok…..Trainers don’t have contracts but ADVISORS and managers do. Often times trainers double down as managers and advisors and they get a contract with fighters. It really depends on the relationship and WHEN they started working together. If a trainer starts with a fighter early or in the beginning before the fighter starts making 6 figures, the LEAD trainer usually makes 10% on the average. Especially if they start out with the fighter. If a trainer comes on after the fighter is making high 6 figures or low 7 figures they usually work out an agreement before the fight. I feel like anything that is agreed to should he honored. 

What’s not fair to the trainer is if a trainer thinks he’s making one amount and then after the fight he makes a lower amount after he put in the work in camp. What I also don’t like is when the fighter tries to save money and the trainer is the first pay cut. 

The trainer is the most important person on the team besides the fighter. He’s the one preparing the product. He’s the one who is doing the most work hour for hour in the gym. If a trainer is with a fighter from early on or day 1. He deserves to be compensated. Fighters don’t cut their managers pay. They don’t cut their promoters pay. But they cut the pay of the person who is with them everyday and literally has their lives in their hands. I don’t like to see that.

I had a fighter once tell me “Bread, you’re riding with me. If I make 10 million, I’m paying you 1 million.” He hasn’t made 10 million yet but I respect him for saying it and saying it with honor. If he makes 10 million I’m going to remind him. But I don’t think I will have to.

Again I wouldn’t complain if a 7 figure fighter didn’t want to pay me 10%. But I also want to be fairly compensated and we have to agree on my pay BEFORE the fight. They also have to be making enough for the pay to be worth it if it’s not 10%. I can’t work in camp for 2 months wondering what I will make. This is a business. Fighters who are honorable don’t have an issue agreeing and honoring the agreement and are transparent. But I have seen some disingenuous ways and I know some bad stories although I don’t have many myself as far as money. The small issues I’ve had over money, I just informed the right people that the fighter was a POS and I simply never worked with them again, very early in my career. 

I also hate to see trainers mistreated by fighters they depend on or are attached too. I’ve seen lead trainers make 50k off of 3M purses and they have been with the fighter since he was a 4 round fighter. That’s no bueno. That’s abusive.  That’s less than 2%. 50k may seem like a nice payday for one night but it’s not for a lead trainer if you have been with a kid since he was a 4 round fighter and he’s making 3 million dollars. Everything has a CONTEXT. And once that happens the fighter will never pay the trainer right because he got away with it. Often times trainers have to take it because they don’t have incomes outside of boxing and usually they don’t have other big time fighters, so this hypothetically is their biggest account. 

Again it’s abusive because the fighter knows this and he takes advantage of situation. I always tell fighters treat your trainers good. Trainers love them more than anyone pound for pound. The last thing you want to do is make a trainer loathe you and feel bitterness towards you and he’s the person who has to train you for war and protect you from tragedy . 

I have an affinity for each of the kids I train. I can honestly say I have love for them all. I would protect them with my whole being. I’ve cried in private at least 4 times in my career after tough nights. None have ever screwed me over with money and I’m glad they haven’t because I wouldn’t feel the same way about them and I wouldn’t work with them again unless the money was straightened out. My agreement is I get paid on the night of the fight when they get paid and my agreed percentage is of the GROSS not the NET. Very simple and I honestly haven't had many issues because I choose to work with good kids.

Hey Bread, After this past weekend. There was non stop discussions about robbery, scoring and accountability from judges. I'm curious what that looks like, because even if judges speak after fights to justify their cards, it's to difficult to disprove what they see from their POV. Ward and Bradley had an exchange during the Valdez fight where Ward said we are looking at two different fights, and they are seated next to each other with completely different perspectives about the action.  Without having a recording of the exact visual POV from the judges, it's impossible for them to sit and explain their cards by looking at the TV recording of the fights. I'd like to know your thoughts? 

Bread’s Response: Two people can see a fight different. Scoring a fight is subjective but two competent people won’t see a clear fight that far off. Close fights will have their subjective preferences..... The winner should have a meaningful case of winning. Despite the MYTH close fights CAN be robberies if a CLEAR round goes the wrong way and it cost a fighter the fight. In Haney vs Loma a judge gave Haney the 10th. Most felt Loma won the 10th. But that round didn’t cost Loma the fight because Haney won the 12th which sealed him the victory. 

The issue is the judge didn’t know Haney would win the 12th. Each round is scored individually. The scores are handed in each round. So Haney in my opinion EARNED a victory. But he just lost the 10th round. Round by round is important because the right person should win each round because we don’t know what will happen in the successive rounds. So scoring them correctly is paramount. 

We have come to the point where judges should be able to articulate why they scored fights the way they did.

What's up Breadman,

I'm a fan of Brazil. How good was Ricky Hatton in his prime?

Thanks and great week

Bread’s Response: I think Hatton hit his prime a couple of years before he fought Kostya Tszyu. So maybe 2003 until a little after he beat Tszyu. Hatton was very good. I don’t think he was a great fighter but he’s close. He has some very, very good wins. The Tszyu win is a great win. Jose Luis Castillo was excellent. Malignaggi, Phillips and Maussa were all solid wins. Hatton was the lineal champion for 4 years. I think on the night he beat Tszyu he was a monster. That level wasn’t sustainable for him but Hatton was special that night within his style. He was a high energy pressure fighter, who blew up in weight. So that drop off is usually bad. Hatton’s drop off was bad. But he got good work done up until he ran into the ATG Mayweather and Pacquiao. His HOF case is credible a case because of the 4 years as lineal champion, unification and his celebrity UK status.

I am hopeful for a great fight between Crawford and Spence but I worry about a similar decision that simply favors the A side younger fighter with more promotion behind him: just like Loma's loss vs Haney. Do you foresee something similar and how do you reconcile yourself to such unevenness in the sport which is supposed to be a truth machine? I don't use "truth machine" to throw that quote back your way since you've used it before. I like what you write, so I am just curious about how you reconcile the truth that boxing should provide with such conventions that kind of are the sport. If they were smart, they'd give it to the B side and then have 2 paydays because of the rematch clause. The B side has to rematch if they win, more than the A side, it seems in combat sports.

Thanks for your time.


Bread’s Response: I just hope that the fighter who EARNS the win, gets the WIN. Nothing should be given to either guy just because he is the A side or B side. That’s the issue with boxing or the perception of boxing.

I think Errol and Terence’s fight will be hotly contested. I don’t think either guy will pull away as far as points scored or rounds won. I think it’s going to be hard for either guy to win 3 rounds in a row and I see both having to adjust more than once. 

The JUDGES have to get this one right. But so do their teams. They can’t allow judges with too many questionable scorecards do this fight. When the judges and referee get announced, I’m going to know a few things……

Hey Breadman,

Great work on the column and I always enjoy your appearances on the Showtime Boxing Podcasts! I know leading up to the Loma-Haney fight, you mentioned it would take a monumental performance and perfect game plan for the smaller, older Loma to make it competitive.  You wrote if he somehow pulled it off, there's an argument for him being an ATG.  What are your thoughts on Loma's career if this was indeed his last great performance? FWIW, I thought Loma clearly won the fight with his masterful performance. The smaller, older Loma outworked, outlanded, and at times even backed up the larger, younger DH, had him hurt on a few occasions while never being hurt himself. I think the boos from Haney's hometown crowd were telling but more so the fact that live round betting odds (the most unbiased source) had Loma a heavy -500 favorite heading into the final round.

Judge Morretti should have never gotten the assignment following his indefensible scorecard in the Tank-Garcia fight where he scored the KD round 10-10. Judge Cheatham ignored Akmedov's body punching vs Kenneth Sims a week earlier yet justified Haney's body work for his shady scorecard. When you have incompetent judges, the official decision in a highly contested fight becomes almost arbitrary. This leads me to the fact that a lot of people who may be biased use swing rounds to justify a bad decision yet their judging CRITERIA  may change from fight to fight. I also disagree with the accepted notion that a close but clear 7-5 fight cannot be a robbery. In basketball and football, even the most dominant teams win by the slightest margins in the Finals and SB. That would be like an NBA ref incorrectly calling Jordan for travelling in his game winning shot against the Jazz in the 98 Finals; it would've been a close loss but a robbery.

Anyhow, among which fighters would you rate Loma historically if this was his last great performance?Also, I'm really looking forward to Taylor vs Lopez!  I slightly favor Lopez in this fight as I believe you do as well. If Lopez were to win he would be undisputed at 135 and now hold the linear title at 140. Despite his young age and inconsistency lately, would an impressive win put him in the HOF? A win over Loma and Taylor is a better resume than most future HOFers have today. What if Taylor wins? He cleaned out the division on his way to undisputed beating a handful of tough, mostly undefeated fighters. Is he a borderline HOF?Congrats on your amazing work as a trainer and boxing insider. Your columns and podcast appearances are always extremely insightful.

Best Regards!

Will Alston

Alston Realty GroupBroker/Owner

Bread’s Response: I favor Teofimo Lopez also. I’m a big Josh Taylor fan but something just tells me Teofimo is going to soar. I think if Teofimo is wise with his words and stop saying some of the things he’s been saying, I think the public sentiment will be on his side and so will the fans. But he has to be careful…The crowd influence is a real thing. Especially for a hometown UNDERDOG.

Loma’s performance reminds me of Erik Morales vs Marcos Maidana. If he won it would be on the level of Barrera vs Hamed but he didn’t get the W. Historically I rank Loma pretty close to the great Mexican rivals. But he needs that signature that they have. Barrera has Hamed and Morales. And Morales has Barrera and Pacquiao. If Loma had a win like that it would push him over the edge. He has the title fight record and the 3 division titles….. 

Hey what's up Bread? Hope all is well. I was just thinking about the Spence-Crawford fight and I'm glad that it has finally been made after years of hope and then failed negotiations, it was starting to look like it would never happen. But, thankfully it is happening, so let's hope that we see a great fight. To me, this is truly a 50/50 pick 'em fight, that I can see either guy winning. And both guys are pretty close to their prime, and seem to be healthy, despite any lingering injuries Spence may have due to his car accident, which could be a factor, though hopefully it won't.

Aside from that, what other major fights in this era have matched two undefeated champions who are both in their prime, with no clear advantage for either guy? I can think of many fights that were pretty close, and were good fights, and better than most thought they'd be when just going by records and wins and losses. A few fights like that were Chocolatito vs Estrada 3, where Gonzales was much older than Estrada, yet still fought well, GGG vs Canelo, where GGG was older and on the decline against Canelo, and of course the recent fight between Haney and Lomachenko, where Loma is 11 years older than Haney and seemingly on the decline.

Obviously, there are plenty of other examples that you know of, and those were all good and sometimes great fights, but aside from a few unification fights, which are obviously important historically, I don't recall two undefeated fighters close to the peak of their careers, and that are also two of the most known boxers in the sport. Anyway, even if I'm tripping, and there have been more even match-ups than I thought there was, I am still excited about this fight, and hope that it delivers the drama and action that all of us boxing fans crave.

Thanks- Mike from Salt Lake City

Bread’s Response: The fight that Spence vs Crawford is mostly compared to is Leonard vs Hearns 1. But everyone forgets Ray Leonard wasn’t undefeated. He had an avenged loss vs Roberto Duran. But that fight fits the bill otherwise. 

So does Leonard vs Duran 1 but again Duran had 1 avenged loss. 

Whitaker vs Chavez was also big but Whitaker again had 1 avenged loss. 

Fights where both fighters were well known, undefeated and near the top of the P4P rankings….Chavez vs Taylor. De La Hoya vs Trinidad. Ali vs Frazier. Toney vs Jones. Ward vs Kovalev. Trinidad vs Vargas. Mayweather vs Corrales. I’m sure I forget a few but those stand out in my memory. This is a big fight. But it’s an even better match up. 

Mayweather vs Pacquiao was bigger at the box office but in terms of match up, I think it’s the biggest since Oscar vs Tito. I believe the Spence vs Crawford is 50/50 and the winner is stamped as a GREAT fighter. I think unless someone gets caught with a huge punch I think the fight will be tight. Crawford has found a sweet spot for kos and Errol has found a sweet spot with his fundamental aggression. Errol boxes while going forward. The question is, is he playing into Crawford’s trap or does he even care. Errol may just believe in his chin and stamina and he doesn’t care if he’s supposedly playing into Crawford’s traps.

Hey breadman, hope all is well. Want to start off by thanks you for answering these questions every week. Got a question this week I was hoping to get insight on. When approaching fights it feels like no matter what the matchup is that there is always an emphasis on the jab. As somebody who is interest in the meta games within a fight I was wondering if you can expand on what committing to the jab does for a fighter. Additionally when you think back to the evolution of the jab throughout the years do you think some of the art of the jab has been lost? Is there anything in particular you think has been eroded over time? When looking back at some of the greatest jabbers of all time I’m curious how you would rank some of them or any others you feel deserve to be named up there. In particular when I think great jabs I think Larry Holmes, Sonny Liston, GGG, Paulie Malignaggi, Ali, Hagler, Hearns. Just wondering if you have any insight on who you think were the best and what makes them the best.

-Manu De Piedra

Bread’s Response: I love a great jabber. I think there are some excellent jabbers it’s just that the jab is not celebrated anymore.

Some of the best jabbers of all time. Tommy Lougran, Willie Pep, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Ray Robinson, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Bob Foster, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Dwight Qawi, Oscar De La Hoya, Wladimir Klitschko, Ike Quartey, Pernell Whitaker, Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns and Winky Wright. 

Currently Errol Spence, Charlos Bros, Dmitri Bivol, Shakur Stevenson, Devin Haney, Jaron Ennis and Caleb Plant have great jabs. 

I think defending the jab has evolved and it’s easier to take guy away from his jab. Fighters aren’t as dedicated to landing their jab today. Before the 90s fighters simply caught the jab with their rear hand. Now they do so much to defend it and then the jabber stops jabbing. If he kept it going he could wear a guy out who’s expending big energy trying to defend the most efficient punch in boxing. I think fighters still use their jabs. It's just easier to get a fighter to stop using it in this era..

Send Questions/Comments to