The Daily Breadman Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Demetrius Andrade's win over Liam Williams, Tank Davis' upcoming fight with Mario Barrios at 140, the shows by Triller, Tony Harrison's draw with Bryant Perrella, Dillian Whyte, and more.

Hey bud,

How hard is it to teach a fighter to vary his rhythm when sparring or fighting? What do you tell him? It seems like a lot of fighters are in a "I'm going to punch," and "I'm not punching right now" rhythm. Does that make sense? Duran and Mayweather stand out to me as guys who fought differently but still both "got" the idea of not really having a rhythm (at least not for long spells). They also had jabs they used well for different reasons. Maybe there's a relationship there?

Thanks for your time.


Bread’s Response: Changing rhythms is a nuance most don’t get, even when they’re doing it. But catching your rhythm might be the most important thing a boxer can do to win a fight. As far as teaching it, you have to first get a fighter to recognize different rhythms. Bounce, step, off beat, “sway”. There are different rhythms to change to. Floyd was a master. He would walk you. He could stick and move. He could step to you. I’ve never seen Floyd fight off of the “sway” or off beat stick and move bounce. But he’s so talented I’m sure he could. Floyd and Duran had rhythm. They just changed it often to get the job done. As Duran got older he didn’t have the stamina to change his rhythm as much and that’s why he started to lose. Duran could go from a smooth puncher to a frenetic attacker in the blink of an eye. The frenetic rhythm took so much energy, he stopped doing it later in his career.

I saw your back and forth on Twitter about the Triller Show. I know you’re purist but you have to admit it’s entertaining as hell. On top of that it is giving real fighters a platform which is always good. Also what do you think of Jake Paul as a fighter?

Bread’s Response: Twitter doesn’t have enough room for me to always get my point across. I have no issue with TRILLER. I have an issue with people in boxing criticizing TRILLER when boxing is the reason why TRILLER has emerged. They call TRILLER a “circus” but if “boxing” delivered the demand the purist and casuals wanted, TRILLER would not be as popular. In boxing we always get the consolation prize. The “good” fight that no one was really asking for but we will accept, instead of the Super Fight. Instead of our Super Bowl. 

Over the last say decade we simply didn’t get that fight often enough and now a new platform has ascended because of it. Just think about it. We didn’t get Gamboa vs Lopez. We didn’t get Joshua vs Wilder. We didn’t get Stevenson vs Kovalev. We didn’t get GGG vs a  Top 3 guy until 2017!!! No Spence vs Crawford as of yet. No Rigo vs any elite 122lber except Donaire and there was Mares, Santa Cruz, Frampton and Quigg all there. We didn’t get Donaire vs Mares. No Andrade vs Charlo. We haven’t got any of the new “Four Kings” to fight each other just once! This is just off the top of my head. I can literally name 50 fights over the last decade that would have made sense for money and legacy. So now you have boxing people complaining about what Triller is doing. Why, we did this to ourselves!

There was a show called KO Nation back in the day on HBO. Triller has a similar vibe to it. Floyd Mayweather fought Emanuel Augustus on this show. It was different from Boxing After Dark and HBO Championship Boxing. Look at that format on youtube and you will see what I’m talking about. I’m not mad at TRILLER one bit. They bought Teofimo Lopez vs George Kamboose. That’s a real fight and Lopez is a P4P. I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. 

Peter Khan is a big part of TRILLER and I think he’s an awesome “boxing guy”. He’s very smart and influential. I consider him a colleague.

I think Jake Paul may look like someone who doesn’t take boxing serious but he does. I think he has natural “fighting” skills. I knew guys where I grew up who didn’t have the discipline to be boxers at an early age. They were playing other sports. They drank and chased girls. But they could “fight”. They could slap box in the street. They could street fight. They had the right temperament and reflexes. The inner cities are filled with kids like that. They aren’t boxers but they’re fighters. I don’t where Paul grew up but I’ve seen his type before.I think Jake Paul is one of those guys. I suspect he’s a guy who has had his share of street fights. I suspect that he’s won more than he’s lost. I think with his position of being able to pick any opponent he wants. I think he’s going ko some foolish guys who take the bait and assume he’s some clown who can’t fight. He can fight. He may not be a world class “boxer” but for the level of fighter he can face, he’s going to spark them guys out. It may be funny to people on the outside. But it’s not funny to those poor guys he’s koing. Whoever fights him next has to be careful because the people behind him know what they’re doing as far as who they are picking.


Tony was obviously battling some tough circumstances with all he has dealt with in the last 12 months, but I was very impressed with the way Perrella was able to out box him in spots. Even though Tony has three losses, he doesn't get out boxed often and isn't an easy guy to win rounds off of unless he is hurt. Roy Jones Jr really has a sharp boxing mind and I thought he did a very good job with Perrella but maybe he could have gone a little harder in the last few rounds to secure a win. Roy could end up being one of the rare great fighters that are also good trainers when it is all said and done.I thought you made a good point that this performance by Andrade may sway other top MWs to fight him. The problem is though he's still very hard to win rounds off of and has better than advertised pop. I will need to see it to believe it, but I hope you are right!

Take care, Brad

Bread’s Response: I know Tony and I was pulling for him. But I knew early on he was having trouble with Perella’s rhythm. Tony came out in the same posture he did vs Charlo in their rematch when he was actually walking Charlo down. That style is energy efficient but you have to be sharp to pull it off. Perella was alert. His feet were good. And yes Roy Jones had him very well prepared. That was a difficult fight stylistically for Tony. He couldn’t really put 2 dominant rounds together back to back to sort of take the momentum of the fight. I think Tony showed some ring rust. But he was a gamer and he fought through it. Perella should get some big fights after this. 

Roy Jones is a great boxing mind and once he gets the right fighter he’s going to be a great coach, he probably already is to be honest. He just needs the right guy to walk through his gym door and become engaged on what he’s teaching. Roy had Perella ready. He was very ready. A trainer should be assessed on what he got out of the fighter he had. That’s it. For example no trainer can make Butterbean beat Ali. But if he can make Butterbean consistently over perform then he’s doing a good job training. In this fight Roy Jones brought a kid in on the B side, moving up in weight and he really did well. Again, great job.

I hope I’m right also. Andrade is 30-0. He’s a two division champion. He’s been a pro for 13 years. He’s 33 years old. And he’s not a HOF because in this era, it’s so much political avoidance for various reasons that it takes so long for elite fighters to face 3 or 4 fellow elite fighters. Andrade needs a big fight for his legacy!

Greetings Edwards ... Have you ever had to go talent hunting?

I would like you to teach me how to scout. That you display in all the details a technical report on a young boxer without you having prior knowledge of them in such a way that nothing can influence your judgment. Just look at the boxer and make his profile. Nothing to be documented with comments made by others.

Give me an example let's say with ... These days the AIBA Youth World Championships is being played. I have not seen everything but for now I saw a Lithuanian boy who despite losing in the quarterfinals made me come back to watch his fights. His name is Aleksandr TROFIMCUK.

Here are 2 of his fights: you make a scouting report on it and show it?

What things are important to see in guys before investing in them?

Bread’s Response: I assume you’re talking about the kid in the blue. If so, I like him too. He seems tenacious. He has a fan friendly style and he’s athletic and quick for the style he employs. Good eye. When talking about INVESTING in a fighter, two things are paramount. Upside and character. Do you project that this fighter will give you a positive return on your investment? You are not just investing your money but your time. Time is priceless. Character should be #1. I have seen this backfire. Lot’s of fighters take long to develop. And there is no such thing as a LIFETIME contract. Fighters often are entitled and display poor character. Many think you owe them something. They want you to invest your money and time in them but what they don’t realize is that this time my run out legally. 

For example you may have a fighter who you invest 250k in. You’re contract may only be 5 years and upon deadline on contract the fighter may not be “ready” to step up. What if the fighter decides to not renew his contract? And he’s basically just stepping up to 10 round fights and he’s not ready for championship level fights. Then you lost. So that fighter has to have a degree of loyalty and understanding that you have a right to make money also. It’s very intricate and deep to invest in a fighter. It’s not something I would recommend unless you have money and time to burn. In general fighters are only as loyal as their “success”.

For the fighter you showed me he seems to have decent height for the weight. He also seems to have a decent reach. Not overwhelming but good. He has fast hands for his style and good punch release. He seems tenacious in his approach. He’s a little anxious but it’s an amateur fight so that’s understandable. His power seems good but I need to see more. I didn’t research his age. His balance seems good and he was taught good fundamentals. I did that after watching a few rounds. 

Now here is what I personally look for in a fighter. Quickness is in the mind. Speed is in the body. I love both but quickness is more important to me. How fast does a fighter process offensively and defensively. A fighter does not have to be fast to land murderous punches. Alexis Arguello is the prime example of that. Next I look for IQ. Is the fighter intelligent in the ring. Does he do the right thing at the right time. IQ is different from technical ability. You can have a fighter who is not good technically but have a very high IQ. Marcos Maidana made lost of mistakes and he seemed wild but he had a very good IQ. He threw tricky punches and he set traps. After that I look for body composition. Does he have athletic twitch fibers. What is his height and weight relative to his division? Arm length…After that I look for speed. Speed is very important. In the early stages of a career, the faster fighter usually wins until an elite fighter who is not as fast can overwhelm or time him. The last thing I look for his power. It’s important but overrated. You may think I forgot defense but I didn’t. Defense lies in quickness and IQ. Fighters with the ability to process fast don’t get as often as fighters who don’t. Fighters with high IQ don’t often fall into the same traps over and over. You don’t have to be a defensive wiz or specialist. I rate defense on the style that is implemented. From a non physical perspective. I look for character. Does a fighter come in the gym and work or do they get on their phone? How long does it take them to get dressed to workout. Do they say disrespectful things to people in the gym? It’s much more to dealing with a fighter than just talent and the eye ball test.

What's going on Brother! Well wishes and all the best! Hope everything is great in your world! Now let's get to it! I think a guy that doesn't get enough press is Dillian Whyte! As far as guys that are straight shooters in the sport he seems to be one of the more straight forward and honest fighters you could talk to! His statements aren't always PC but they sound truthful whether you agree or not! His thoughts on Fury and Wilder are what I want your take on! He believes Fury is getting too much credit for (winning a belt against a fading Vlad that didn't really take him seriously) 'Vlad's fault' and a very flawed fighter in Wilder, that he himself would have beaten if the WBC ever gave him his title shot! and of which the latter about Wilder, I agree! I think Whyte is the first guy to beat Wilder if given his title shot as he deserved! Because I think he wad the FIRST fighter to realize that the way to beat Wilder was to step to him and not give him time to think. And Whyte was a come forward in your chest me or you is getting knocked out kind of fighter and Wilder's camp knew it as well! And that's why they avoided him like the plague! It's been an unpopular take from people in my boxing circle, so I ask your expert opinion? Whyte vs Wilder, who's your money on? 

Bread’s Response: I think Dillian Whyte is a real fighter. He takes tough fights and he’s never had a title shot. He continues to take them. He’s resilient. He’s been brutally kod twice. Hurt several times and he doesn’t duck work. He’s a straight shooter. He tells it, how he sees it. You have to respect that. He’s a MAN.

But as a fighter I’m not as high on him as you are. I think Harold “Shadow” Knight did a great job with him in his last fight. It’s not easy bringing a fighter back from a brutal ko. But Whyte’s jab was pumping. He looked good in the Povetkin rematch. He came back and did his thing.

Before that fight I thought Whyte had serious stamina issues. He would get tired and start losing form badly. He didn’t lack heart. But he lacked composure. I don’t think he has a glass jaw but he’s not hard to hurt. He get visibly wobbled often. I know he’s a heavyweight but his chin is not dent proof. Before Wilder lost to Fury I thought Wilder would ko him inside of 3 rounds. It’s just a bad style for Whyte. Wilder has the trigger pull and first step of a light heavyweight. Whyte would not even have time to blink before that step in right hand would land and the fight would be over. Now, I don’t know because Deontay has not fought since he lost to Tyson Fury. I am not a fan of long layoffs after a fighter has been kod.

I understand giving yourself time to physically heal. But the longer you sit out the more you doubt yourself. The easiest way for a competitor to get himself back, is to get back in there. You want to erase that bad taste out of your mouth. I think sitting out and hearing how terrible you are on social media, is not good for the soul. It creates more doubt. I know I bring him up often but I love how Hearns responded from kos. He lost to Ray Leonard by ko and was literally back in the ring within 3 months. He fought before Leonard did who won their fight.

Fighters in this era stay out so long after they get stopped. Peter Quillin was a good fighter. He lost by 1st round ko to Danny Jacobs. I know it was embarrassing but he was out almost 2 years. He was never the same and his career was basically over. 2 years is a long time to be inactive in your 30s because of a one 1st round ko loss. Mentally you dwell. Physically you rust. So at this point with Quillin as a point of reference I don’t know what Wilder we will see. But if he's the Wilder of old, I pick him over Whyte.

What did you think of Andrade’s performance? People call him chinny do you believe that or can Liam Williams punch. Who do you think wins between Andrade and Charlo and do you think Andrade is being blackballed because he pulled out on Charlo when they were scheduled to fight?

Bread’s Response: I thought Andrade vs Williams was a good fight. As far as being physically taxing I feel like Williams was his hardest fight. Williams was well conditioned and very physically strong. I actually think if Williams had better punch selection and balance he could have won. Andrade looked fatigue mid way through. But Williams kept falling into clinches and he kept missing punches before being tied up. I give Andrade credit for fighting off the motivated and strong challenge. 

Andrade is not a neat or perfect boxer. He has elite ability but he makes mistakes. He’s an impromptu fighter. He does things off of the fly. So far it has worked. He’s 30-0 and a 2 division champion. I don’t know if Andrade is chinny. I won’t use that term on a fighter unless I have much more information. Besides that no fighter likes that term. It’s insulting. Andrade has never been stopped and only been dropped twice. His knockdown vs Alantez Fox was not real. It was more of a balance thing. I don’t think he has a chin like GGG. If he did he would be a better finisher. Andrade consistently gets fighters hurt but he doesn’t score stoppages. But I don’t think his chin is made of glass. He doesn’t get hit often so it’s really hard to tell. If someone called him chinny it’s not because they know it for a fact, it’s because their instincts tell them he is. In fairness to him he has shown a solid chin. 

I think Andrade vs Charlo is a huge PURIST fight. I really do. I think it’s a 50/50 fight. Some days I lean Charlo, some days I lean Andrade. Andrade was the much better amateur and it does count. It’s not the end all but it counts. It counts because it’s easier to win rounds against Jermall Charlo than it is Demetrius Andrade. Elite amateurs have a way of winning more rounds, than fighters who turn out to be better pros than they were amateurs. Charlo will give up more rounds fight by fight than Andrade will. But it doesn’t mean Andrade can beat him. I think Charlo is physically stronger. I think he’s a bigger puncher. And I think his chin is better. Neither has been stopped but Charlo doesn’t even seem to show the effect of punches. He EATS right through big shots. If he’s ever been hurt, he hides it well. Charlo is also a meaner human being than Andrade and he’s a better finisher. While Andrade has more nimble feet, he thinks quicker. I believe he’s faster, shot for shot. I think Andrade has more god given talent. And again he’s harder to win rounds against. 

Their approaches are different. Charlo has great balance and he sticks to the basics and he’s always in position. You will see him correct himself if he gets sloppy. Where as Andrade will fall out of position and throw punches from odd angles. Charlo doesn’t do stuff like that. They have basically identical records so both approaches have been working. This is truly a 50/50 fight. Andrade looked to be in some distress vs Williams. Charlo is better than Williams but I don’t know if Jermall can cut the ring off as well as Williams did. Charlo is more of a strong stalker who keeps you on the end of his jab. Hitting a moving target and cutting down the ring is different than stalking someone on the end of a jab. 

If you watch the Andrade vs Williams or Culcay you get the impression Charlo will beat him. But if you watch Charlo vs Korobov or Trout, you think Andrade will beat him…Both will have to raise their games to get the win. I think this fight would come down to the camps. As in who has the best gameplan and who had the best camp. I think if Charlo laid back and tried to use his jack hammer jab on Andrade then Andrade would move in and out and frustrate him to a decision. I think if Charlo attacked, cut the ring down and fought a determined fight despite running into Andrade’s shots, I think he would win. I have no idea what style Charlo would fight because I have seen him fight both. I also wonder if Andrade would try to push Charlo back. Andrade does have that in his game but Charlo is a big puncher and that’s dangerous to attack him. This is a really fascinating match up. I would pay to see it. 

When someone is blackballed it’s not an announcement. It just happens. I have no idea if that is what’s happening to Andrade. All I can say is, he messed up big time by not fighting Jermell Charlo. People confuse it but he was supposed to fight Jermell for his WBO title at 154 not Jermall. Pulling out of that fight hurt Andrade’s career trajectory. You can’t make a company spend money on promotion and then NOT fight without proper notice. But that was many years ago. I don’t know if he’s still paying for that or not. But it wasn’t a wise choice. He had a chance to fight Jermell Charlo and he chose not to. Hopefully he makes up for it.  I don’t know if he should suffer his whole career for that mistake and I don’t know if he’s still suffering. He seems to be doing well with Matchroom. But I still think he wants big fights. He has yet to get one.....

I tend to ask more questions of you as historian. This time around, I’m asking a question of you as a trainer: They say the best trainers don’t try to turn their fighters into something they’re not, they REFINE what they ARE? I mean, it does make sense. If you have a guy who fights like say Carmen Basilio or George Foreman, it seems like a waste of time and effort to try and turn him into Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker, right? True? Thoughts?

Greg K.

Bread’s Response: I think the best trainers follow their instincts. They know when to add. They know when to subtract. There is not set formula. The set formula is in your observations and instincts. And the best trainers are right more times then they are wrong. It’s just that simple. You get critics who say, why didn’t they do this or that. I always say how do you know it would’ve worked. For example people used to say why didn’t Paul Williams box from the outside more. I used to say he didn’t have the reflexes or sharpness of Tommy Hearns or Mark Breland. The two fighters he was most built like at that weight. So he had the physical size but not the same attributes. He was successful being a tall, volume punching southpaw. People wanted him to be something he wasn’t. Then you have fighters who are not using enough of their potential. I thought for as great as Oscar De La Hoya was he chose to fight the wrong style often in big fights. There were times he should have boxed when he brawled. He was big on his Mexican heritage but Oscar was a master class boxer. With an all time great jab. A trainer with good eyes, will know what to add or take away. He will just know when to put things in a game plan.

Hey Bread,

How’s it going? I’ve been a big fan of your mailbags for a long time, but this is my first time writing in. I love your breakdowns of HOF worthiness and career retrospectives. Your Mayweather and Gatti and McCallum analyses were top notch (and ring true to this longtime fan). I wonder if you could do the same with Boom Boom. A couple of months ago I listened to Tris Dixon’s Boxing Life Stories podcast and his excellent interview with Mancini, who recounted so many crazy insights into his fights. I especially loved how Mancini said the one thing he wants to hear from young fighters today is “I want to be champion.” Any other reason someone gives for boxing makes him suspect. As a trainer, do you agree with that? I’m Italian-American, originally from Jersey, which is why I’ve been a hardcore boxing fan for most of my life.

I grew up watching Mancini fight live on CBS Sat afternoons. The Arguello fight was marvelous, the kind of fight that elevated both fighters. (Arguello and Leonard are my all-time favorite fighters.) Mancini's title win vs. Frias is, for me, arguably the most thrilling KO1 I’ve ever seen. It was so damn exciting I lost my breath watching it live. Unforgettable. And then I watched the Duk Koo Kim fight live and had a hunch that Mancini would never be the same again. Despite my love for Mancini, I’m not quite sure if he’s HOF worthy. I was wondering if you could do one of those great Breadman breakdowns of his career and explain if you think he’s worthy of the HOF.


Mark from L.A.

Bread’s Response: You know I would never say a fighter does NOT belong in the HOF if they are already in. It’s not fair to the fighter. It’s like being mad at a fighter for getting a gift decision when he wasn’t the judge. That being said I think Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini was a tremendous fighter. His fights with Alexis Arguello and Hector Camacho prove that. Arguello and Camacho were truly great fighters. Arguello is an ATG. Mancini while coming up short, was right with both up until the end. He was not outclassed one bit.

Mancini was an elite action fighter. In terms of ability and skills he is on same level as Arturo Gatti. He may be slightly better on his best night but Gatti accomplished more. He had heavy hands. A big heart. And a very good skill set. He was very popular and he had star quality. Mancini had a decent championship run. It wasn’t long or distinguished but it was decent. After he lost his title to Livingston Bramble and lost the rematch, he became very inactive. He performed valiantly vs Bramble both times and had a case for winning the rematch. His 5 losses have all come to quality fighters. Arguello, Bramble2x, Camacho and Haugen. He was stopped 3x. I believe his final record was 29-5 with 23kos. I know he lost his last 4 fights in a row. He was very young when he lost to Bramble. I believe 23 or 24 and his losing streak ended his career. 

Mancini is often compared to Vinny Pazienza, Arturo Gatti and Barry McGuigan. I think it’s because all are white fighters, who were wildly popular and fought in the smaller weight classes. McGuigan and Mancini fought in the same era. Pazienza is slightly after them and Gatti is slightly after Pazienza. Gatti, McGuigan and Mancini are in the HOF. Pazienza is not. McGuigan is the best of the bunch. He was a legitimate great fighter. All you have to do is watch him. . Not just a great ACTION fighter which can be different. Matthew Saad Muhammad is another fighter who was a great fighter while being a great action fighter. Antonio Margarito and Marvin Johnson are great ACTION fighters not so much Great fighters overall.I don’t think Gatti, Pazienza or Mancini are great fighters. But I do think they are great action fighters. 

You don’t have to be a great fighter to be in the HOF. I believe Arturo Gatti deserves to be in the HOF. He had the exciting style. His peak was high enough when he beat Patterson 2x, Rodriguez and Ruelas. He has enough good wins over ex world champions in Leija, Dorin and Millet. And his longevity separates him from Mancini in my opinion. Gatti was a relevant champion and contender for over a decade. Mancini became inactive and lost his title in his early 20s and never regained it.If a fighter has a short prime or doesn’t have over 40 or 50 fights. He needs a very high peak to be a great fighter or HOF in my opinion. He needs to be Ray Leonard, Aaron Pryor, Michael Spinks, Andre Ward or Frazier. All of those fighters had similar number of fights to Mancini but were able to do much more. 

I think the reason Mancini comes up in this conversation is because he fought in the same era as fighters like Marlon Starling and Donald Curry. It took forever for Curry to make the HOF. He was better than Mancini. He was #2 P4P fighter in the world in 1985-86. He unified. He moved up and won another title. Mancini got in the HOF in less time on the ballot than Curry. Marlon Starling is still not in and most likely won’t get in because as time goes on more fighters get on the ballot. Mark Breland who had the same career basically as Mancini is not even on the ballot. Breland won a title at 147. He lost it by ko but regained it. He had a few title defenses. Mancini lost his first title shot but on his next try he won it. Mancini defended his title a few times and lost it. Never regaining it. Breland was 35-3-1 and Mancini was 29-5. Breland’s best win was Lloyd Honeyghan. Mancini’s was an older Bobby Chacon. Both were stopped 3x. Breland was probably the better fighter but they accomplished pretty much the same thing. Mancini was more popular. Breland was arguably the greatest amateur we have ever had in the US. A fair person will say how is it that Mark Breland is not even on the ballot and Ray Mancini is actually IN the HOF. That’s an issue, but it’s not fair to take it out on Mancini who was a very, very good fighter. Mancini’s performance vs Alexis Arguello, is equal to Billy Conn’s performance vs Joe Louis. Both Mancini and Conn fought GREAT in losing efforts to ATG fighters and punchers. I have a lot of respect for Ray Mancini the fighter. He was more than just marketing. He was more than just popular. He could really fight. Just watch the Arguello fight.


I hope you and your family are healthy and thriving in 2021. I believe you have stated that the top Middleweights ever are/were Sugar Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon and Marvelous Marvin Hagler.  My question is, can it be said that Mozon avoided Hagler?  Monzon was champion from 1970 to 1977. Hagler started his career in 1973 but didn't get a title shot until 1979 when his record was 46-2-2. It is a little hard to believe that Hagler wasn't a top contender at least during the last 2-3 years of Monzon's reign. Duck or were there circumstances that prevented this fight from happening?

Thank you, Tray Nicholson

Bread’s Response: I think Hagler was avoided but not so much by Monzon. In 1976 and 1977 Monzon only fought two times. Both vs Rodrigo Valdes to unify the WBA and WBC titles. By the end of 1975 Hagler was 25-0 but in 1976 he lost 2 of 3 fights which set him back somewhat. It set him back too much in my opinion. By 1976 Hagler was not a mandatory he was just a young and upcoming killer looking for a big fights. Being able to fight someone and ducking them are different. Monzon was winding down in 1976 that’s why his last two fights were against the same fighter who happened to give him hell the 1st time around. That wouldn’t be fair to say Monzon ducked Hagler. The fight wasn’t viable when Monzon was active.

There is always someone who comes after you. It’s the same as saying Hagler ducked Michael Nunn in 1987. Sure he could have fought him. Sure Nunn was a talented contender. But Hagler was winding down and fought Ray Leonard. He didn’t duck Nunn. Joe Calzaghe didn’t duck Andre Ward. They just missed each other. Calzaghe was winding down. He took those fights vs Hopkins and Jones. And Ward was rising. Although they fought during the same time, they aren’t really from the same era. That’s not a duck. 

Hello Breadman, God Bless you and your family. I hope that you all are safe and healthy.  You seem very respectful and knowledgeable.  All Time Great question. Looking at Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali and others.  What would be your ultimate matchups for those guys in their prime with others in the history of boxing? Currently, what are the percentages of a Crawford/Spence fight at this moment? If, they don’t fight who would you want them both to fight next? Respectfully, T.K.

Bread’s Response: Robinson vs Leonard at 147. Robinson vs Roy Jones at 160. Muhammad Ali vs Lennox Lewis. I think Lewis’s jab and boxing ability would have given Ali stylistic issues.

I think Spence vs Crawford will happen if Spence unifies vs Ugas. He will have 3 of the 4 belts. He will control the A side, which he wants. I think the chances of it happening is 75%. If they don’t fight I want to see one fight Jaron Ennis and the other fight Vergil Ortiz. I don’t care which one. They can mix and match. But I have seen all of the other top welterweights fight at the level. I’m curious to see where Ortiz and Ennis fit in. I pretty much know where everyone else is.

Hey Breadman!

I love reading your Mailbag, been a boxing fan since Howard Davis & Sugar Ray Leonard were coming up & things you discuss I never read/heard before, it's real inside boxing stuff most never hear.

When you mentioned Bud Crawford throwing that punch that changed in speed that he hit Kell Brook with - great stuff! Was just curious on your take of Tim Tszyu, do you think he's a threat to Castano or Jermell @ the top of 154?I recall when his father was a beast at 140 & eventually ran into Hatton. Would also like to see if Michel Soro (France) & Sergio Garcia (Spain) ever come to the States for title shots @ 154.

Glenn in Raleigh

Bread’s Response; That punch that Crawford hit Brook with was a hook that turned into a jab midway. It’s underrated because Brook is viewed as chinny. But Brook was fighting well. I thought he was winning. I think Tim Tszyu is a real threat to both Charlo and Castano. They call Tszyu the Soul Taker. I love that nickname. He’s a real threat. I want to see more. The more times he gets to get better. The better he will be. I think Tszyu will fight for the title in 2022. They better be ready for that kid. He’s young, fresh and hungry. I think Soro and Garcia took too long. Sometimes your time can pass you by. 

Sup Bread,

I'm writing in over Tank stepping up to 140. I've seen a lot of people give the kid a lot of grief and I cant see why. People complained about his performance against Gamboa. People complained LSC was too small. People call him a cherry picker. I saw Tank out think Gamboa and get the job done even though I believe Tank was out of shape for the fight. Meaning he dug deep and beat the veteran with willpower. I saw Tank walk through a battle field of shots against LSC and do what nobody else has done against LSC and stop him HARD.

I have kept up with Tank and am for the most part impressed. My question is do you think its possible he is fighting Barrios at the higher weight class to silence the critics? I do honestly to a certain degree and I also think with Floyd backing him they see a lot they can exploit in the bigger stronger Barrios. It's a very intriguing step up for Tank if you ask me and I give Tank a slight edge in a dangerous fight. Thanks for all the insight Bread.

Joe from Tennessee 

Bread’s Response: Good question. I think Tank Davis is super talented. I think he’s one of the best 20 fighters in the world. But he hasn’t distinguished himself in one particular division yet. He’s sort of jumping around. Where as Floyd Mayweather who also won a belt at 130lbs had a long and distinguished reign at 130lbs. Mayweather is an ATG in the weight class. I don’t think Tank outthought Gamboa. He beat him up and stopped him in the 12th round. I think he outthought Santa Cruz who was landing a great right hand. Tank processed it and went under with an uppercut and scored a highlight ko. I was impressed with Tank’s performance vs Santa Cruz. That was real. But he didn’t walk through a BATTLEFIELD. That’s an overstatement. Santa Cruz was not a big puncher at 118, he certainly isn’t one at 130lbs. I think Tank is fighting Barrios because the Black vs Mexican PPV module works. Tank has a great team behind him. They know what to sell to the public. But make no mistake this is not an easy fight. Barrios will be the underdog but he CAN win this fight.

Send Questions to