By Stephen "Breadman" Edwards
The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling a mountain of questions regarding last Saturday's heavyweight fight between Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury, the recent Boxing Hall of Fame nods, and more.
My name is Kev from Sunderland in England and love reading your mailbags always spot on unbiased keep it up pal. My question is can you break down the Fury and wilder fight, who you thought won and what about the 12th round Knockout/down. How the hell did fury get up from that?? Wow!. And have you seen any videos of Sunderland’s Josh Kelly and what’s your thoughts on him? He reminds me of a prince Naz. Thanks in advance if you reply but no-props if not, sure you get lots of emails bro. And always keep eye out on your lad J-Rock great fighter and trainer. Cheers Kev
Bread’s Response: Thank you for keeping it short. I’ve received an overload of Wilder vs Fury questions so I picked the shorter more precise ones to respond to.
Here is my breakdown of the fight. First off we have to salute BOTH fighters. For some reason boxing fans who happen to be the worst in ALL of sports can never give both fighters props for putting ALL on the line. They have to choose a side and when they do that they degrade the opposing fighter.
Deontay Wilder did NOT get exposed. He is what he is after 40+ fights and 10 years as a pro. He’s a fast, athletic, savage punching killer. If he tried to refine his approach then he wouldn’t be as effective. His big swinging ways is a gift and a curse but no fighter is perfect. Wilder will look like he’s being outboxed when he’s missing because he misses badly. He’s like a homerun hitter in baseball that chooses not to hit for average. He’s go 1 for 4 with 3 strikeouts but he hits consistent GRAND SLAMS. That’s Deontay Wilder.
Tyson Fury is actually approaching master boxer status. His reflexes are next level. Because he’s big and his body is NOT beautiful, the public takes for granted how well he boxes. His footwork, his feints, his reflexes, his defense and his ring generalship are the best in the heavyweight division by far.
Here is what I saw. I saw early uneventful rounds where neither guy dominated. Because of his cute feints and superior footwork it looked as though Fury was winning them. I was live at the fight and I didn’t have a pen and pad. But I leaned towards Fury in most of the early rounds because he was making Wilder miss so bad. Defense does get scored and those misses were huge. Neither fighter was landing anything significant early except for an occasional jab but Fury was doing slightly more from my point of view.
Wilder started landing a nice jab to the body around the 2nd third of the fight. I can’t remember exactly the round. I thought he pulled off one of the earlier rounds clean. But no more than one.
At the midway point Fury started landing cleaner shots and his boxing started to look more obvious but you guys have to remember a judge can’t go back and change their earlier scores because it’s more obvious as to what Fury was doing whereas before it wasn’t.
As the fight moved into the last 3rd , Wilder needed to make something happen and he did. He dropped Fury. Fury got up and kept boxing well. In the 12th round the consensus opinion among ringside observers was Wilder needed a knockout or a BIG 12th round. He got it.
He hit Fury with a right hand, left hook combination on the MONEY and the fight looked to be over. The referee Jack Reiss did a tremendous job. He counted. He counted over Fury and allowed Fury to get up. Fury did get up and not only that, he caught Wilder coming in and proceeded to win the last part of the round. GREAT FIGHT with a drama filled conclusion.
Naked eye I thought Wilder won between 3 and 5 rounds. Naked Eye I thought Fury won between 7 and 9 rounds. The consensus among ring side was Fury won 8 rounds to 4 which is 114-112. For some reason fans, fighters and people involved in boxing do not understand how to score a fight.
I heard for 3 days that Wilder gets awarded 4 rounds because of the 2 knockdowns and he won 2 OTHER rounds so therefore the DRAW was fair. The only thing wrong with that theory is the math is OFF if that is your reasoning. I’m not outraged at a DRAW but thinking Wilder only needed to win 4 rounds total to get the DRAW is what causes false myths in boxing.
Let me do the math for you guys. If Wilder wins 4 rounds in the 10 point must system then that’s 40 points. If he loses the other 8 rounds and was awarded 9 points for the rounds he lost then that is 72 points. 40+72=112 for Wilder.
If Fury wins 8 rounds in the 10 must system then that is 80 points. If he loses two normal rounds then he’s awarded 9 points for two rounds which is 18. If he gets knocked down in the two OTHER rounds he lost then he’s awarded 8 points in those rounds. That’s 16 points. 80+18+16=114.
So if you believe that Wilder won 4 rounds total you have to stop saying he deserved a draw because your math is OFF. Wilder needed to win 3 OTHER rounds besides the knockdown rounds NOT 2 in order to get a draw. Wilder NEEDED to win 5 total rounds in order to PULL a draw.
I heard ex fighters, long time trainers and countless other people involved in boxing ARGUE that on social media. It was shocking to say the least. You don’t get 4 points for 2 knockdowns. You simply get an extra point for each knockdown. You get a 10-8 round instead of an 10-9 standard round you won. That’s IT.
Now that, that is cleared up I can see Wilder winning 5 rounds. I think that is the max amount of rounds you can fairly give him but before Fury really got into his rhythm midway, the earlier rounds were uneventful and a couple of them were SWING rounds. The problem I have in this is a judge would have to give Wilder ALL of the swing rounds because again, it’s hard to give Wilder anymore than 5 total rounds.
I’m not outraged at 113-113 which is 7 rounds Fury and 5 rounds Wilder but because of the 2 knockdowns then it’s an even fight. I am however disappointed in 115-111 Wilder because that means that Wilder had the fight Won going into the 12th where as everyone in the stadium including Wilder knew he needed a big 12th round. There is NO way possible Wilder could have won 7 rounds. It’s just not possible.
It takes away from Wilder’s CLUTCH 12th round. What a clutch gene Wilder has. He hit a triple in the last inning and pretty much tied the game up but everyone keeps talking about the BAD scorecard. I feel bad for Wilder because he does things the right way. The crowd was against him in his own country. He’s proactive with drug testing. And now he has to defend a judges perspective when he’s not a judge. He’s a fighter.
I also want to address this long count Theory. Listen it’s a 10 count. No referee has ever had a perfect stop watch in their hand and at the exact 10 second point they waved the fight off. They try to duplicate 10 seconds but no person in this world can replicate it exactly counting out loud. Fury was UP and clear headed on the count. He went down at 2:21 and was up by 2:11.
Again I love boxing but the FANS in boxing are the worst, most incompetent fans of any sport. You can’t even have a decent conversation with 90% of the people who watch boxing. I saw 14 and 15 second count theories. When you can clearly see the time clock at the bottom of the screen. I won’t even address that anymore because only a fool argues a FACT. Fury was up in time.
I loved the job that Jack Reiss did but I don’t like the walking back and forth stuff that some of the refs do. That to me is giving too much time. After a fighter gets up. You ask him if he’s ok, tell him to walk towards you and they go back to fighting. The fighter who scored the knockdown is shortchanged if anymore occurs because that’s too much time given.
Great fight from two of the best heavyweights of this era. It’s a shame there is so much controversy. Both guys deserve better from the fans and media.
I have also observed that Deontay Wilder is being baited by the media. In his recent interviews the reporters are telling him who thought he lost and it’s causing Wilder to get defensive and attack. That’s a shame. In my opinion that is a divisive bait tactic. Wilder is in an emotional state. Most competitive people would be defensive at that moment. I hope someone on Team Wilder recognizes this and shields him from the negativity. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it’s not negative or disrespectful.
No matter who you thought won Wilder and Fury both need to be praised for a tremendous event and performance. There should not be this much negativity surrounding such a great fight.
Wanted to get your opinion on the Wilder vs. Fury result. Not the scoring per se, but the actual result.
I ask this because I’m actually OK with the draw for one reason - In my opinion you need to win a fight (especially a title fight, especially a heavyweight title fight) with clean, effective punching. I was at the fight and from what I saw neither guy landed enough clean, effective punches to really “win” the fight. I know there are other elements that go into scoring, but I’ve always believed that to win, and definitely to take a champ’s belt, you need to do it with clean punches.
According to the stats Fury did slightly outland Wilder, but if you factor in the two knockdowns then their clean punching probably comes out even. I just can’t see a guy winning a heavyweight title fight with defense and ring generalship. If you think back to Fury-Klitchko, it was a similar fight and I’m sure if Klitchko had knocked down Fury twice (with everything else going the exact same way) then Klitchko gets the decision and keeps his belts.
I’m sure you’ll probably point out why I’m wrong, but that’s what I love about your mailbag. So, what do you think?
JH in LA
Bread’s response: Please don’t take OFFENSE to this but this is why I can’t have conversations with 90% of boxing fans. You are making up your own criterion for scoring. A fight is scored on Clean Punching, Effective Aggressiveness, Ring Generalship and Defense. How can you dismiss Ring Generalship and Defense when they are vital parts of scoring a fight? It’s really ridiculous to assume what you like is more important than the actual rules.
I appreciate you writing in and I would never disrespect you. But you have to learn how to score a fight before you openly state your point of view. You’re very WRONG sir. Fury controlling the actions and making Wilder miss BIG has to be scored. You can’t dismiss it!
One more thing. I fight is scored on 12 individual rounds. Not one 36 minute event. A knockdown does not carry over to the other rounds. It’s a 10-8 round and that’s that.
First of all, my bad. I meant to write Castro and accidentally ended up writing Gallimore in my previous email. Well, congrats to both of you. Two things -
1. It is so hard to watch boxing in India. We can see all UFC events on our television live at one or the other channel like SONY ESPN or Sony TEN but no such thing for boxing. It will be great if some promoters did the same with boxing in India like the UFC did for MMA. Trust me, it is a huge emerging market. Our amateur team is good and with the right training they can over the period of time turn into good solid pros.
2. Man, what is it with all these nuts saying Joe Louis would be to small for this era and despite talent he will not overcome that much size. Louis knocked out Carnera and Buddy Baer. People love to crap on Carnera but he was a legit fighter who also happened to be a natural 260 lbs guy. He relied on his size quite a bit but why shouldn't he? Roy Jones relied on his athleticism because that was his strength. Same is applicable for Carnera. Anyone who says he was chinny or did not have heart should watch his fight with Max Baer. Yes, some of his early fights were fixed but his later fights were not and he beat Sharkey legitimately. That stupid theory that all his fights were fixed have been thoroughly debunked. Anyone, who says he does not have skills should watch Reznick's video - 'Redemption of Primo Carnera'. You do not become a undisputed champion unless you are crazy skilled. Just look at how Louis handled him (a natural 260 lbs guy) and Buddy Baer (a natural 240 lbs guy). Unlike today's heavyweights who either have good 20-30 pounds of muscle or fat (Tyson Fury), they were naturally that big. They were cut but did not have an iota muscle mass or fat. Buddy Baer could have been a champion in any other era but unfortunately his prime years were in Louis's 'reign of terror'. Also, there have been 3 deep eras in boxing - 90s, 70s and late 20s to late 30s. Louis went through a murderer's row before even becoming a champion. Way out of his prime, that old man came out of retirement in 1949 and fought more guys then today's welterweights do in 5 years. A past his prime Louis knocked out Walcott and a totally shot Louis still defeated Bivins. What more evidence do that need?
All the best to you and J-Rock for the future.
Bread’s Response: I am a firm believer you can be too BIG at heavyweight. Did you notice Tyson Fury who is a huge man came in under 260lbs. Deontay Wilder came in at 212 and he had a mask on at the weigh in. he was probably 210lbs. There are some fighters who are too small like say a Floyd Patterson. But Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, George Foreman, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield would be just fine this era or any other era. Everytime I bring up Wilder someone says well he’s tall. I always say well it’s weight divisions not height divisions. And according to you experts he would be too skinny to take a punch from a man over 240lbs. Wilder is not only taking their punches but he’s hurting them more than they are hurting him. No one can argue that.
Bigger men have slower reaction times and their stamina is less efficient because the blood and oxygen takes longer to flow through their bodies. That’s a fact. It’s why when Wilder feels threatened he comes in lighter. 6’3 220 is still the perfect size heavyweight in my opinion. If weight was the end all why is Deontay Wilder at 212 a better puncher than Tyson Fury is at 256?
You also have to factor in the more oxygen that pumps to your brain the better you will take a punch.
Size and weight does matter but it’s just not the MOST important factor when it comes to heavyweights because there are other factors that elite and special fighters have that can trump size and weight.
Love your column! What are your thoughts on a rematch between Wilder and Fury? I feel like Fury fought the fight of his life and still almost died (let's be real, at least 4/5ths of his soul left in the 12th round). I think Wilder can make improvements and still has the equalizer. Can Fury do better in a 2nd fight?
Bread’s Response: I am in the minority with this but I feel Wilder has the advantage in a rematch. Here is why.
It’s simple. Probability. Wilder can win less rounds, land less punches, be the less efficient boxer, land less jabs and still win. All because he has a bionic right hand. Fury has to box perfectly for 36 minutes. Fury should be sharper because that was good work to get after the layoff. But he still has to fight perfect to stay away from that right hand for 12 rounds.
If Wilder tweaked his right hand just a tiny bit. Threw it straighter 50% of the time. Sometimes dropped it to the body to soften Fury up. Fury was making him miss that missile by an inch or 2. That would be difficult to replicate. Fury is clearly the more skilled man but that doesn’t mean he can beat Wilder everytime. I agree with you. For as great as Fury boxed, it would be really difficult to be that ON again vs Wilder and keep making him by that small of a margin.
So Wilder / Fury happened. It was fun and it played out like a lot of people thought it would. It's obvious that Wilder will never have the boxing fundamentals of Fury but he'll always have the great equalizer of a right hand.
My question is this: Wilder has seemingly been making a point to come in lighter and lighter for fights while having no problem giving up 30-40 lbs to his opponents. Would he benefit from coming in at say... 220-225 (He weighed in at 212.5 for Fury) to improve his punching power?
Bread’s Response: Wilder comes in lighter for a reason. He’s faster and his stamina is better. He’s came in higher before but obviously when he’s threatened he likes to be fast because he knows the reaction time of his opponents is his major target point of attack. Over 12 rounds they don’t react quick enough to get out of the way of his violent outburst.
Hey Bread, can you give me your assessment on what you saw in that fight? I didn't see the fight the way the commentators saw it. Unlike you, I actually break out the pen and paper and had Wilder winning 116-112. Between the commentators, the split decision draw, and then my score, I'm kinda confused on what the f*** we saw in that fight. Yes, Wilder was swinging to take that mother****ers head off, but I didn't see Tyson doing too much either except for the clear rounds I saw him effectively outboxing Wilder. And as much as I love Malignaggi, he needs to STFU. He don't even know what he was looking at in that fight. ~ NewYoRican
Bread’s Response: Geezus Gawd. If you had Wilder winning 8 rounds then I just don’t know what to say. I will post your comment to get different perspectives of the fight but not even Wilder’s people who can’t be objective gave him 8 rounds! If Paulie reads this he’s going to laugh at you bro.
I enjoy your mailbag and insight very much and with the Fury-Wilder fight fresh in my mind I wanted to run an idea past you and see what you think.
I don't like it when people scream hyperbolic claims as soon as their man loses (Robbery! Fix!) and I think the Fury-Wilder fight was closer than some seem to think, especially on this (European) side of the pond. That said, I find it hard to see how any of the judges could see Wilder winning, even with the knockdowns. In particular, I'm bemused by how Alejandro Rochin could give Wilder every one of the first four rounds.
Judges are human and judging is subjective. There's enough in those two statements to cover 90% of the questionable decisions that we get in boxing. So rather than screaming about corruption, I prefer to think if there's a way to help the judge return less questionable scores.
It seems to me that one problem we have is that the current scoring system allows any particular individual judge to have a huge effect on the eventual result. Having more judges would help – one Byrd-style scorecard out of three has a much bigger effect than one out of five, obviously – but even without increasing the number of judges it seems to me that there is a way to improve things.
At the moment each judge assesses the fight individually and then the scores for each judge are totted up to give three verdicts. Instead of this, why not do it round by round? Take the scores given for round 1 by all judges and award that round to one of the fighters (or give it as a draw), and do the same process for each subsequent round. In other words, to win a round you have to convince two judges that you were the better man for those three minutes.
The Fury-Wilder fight, judged this way, looks like this:
Rochin>Tapper>Edwards = verdict
Round 1: W>F>W = F9 W10
Round 2: W>F>F = F10 W9
Round 3: W>F>F = F10 W9
Round 4: W>F>F = F10 W9
Round 5: F>F>F = F10 W9
Round 6: F>F>W = F10 W9
Round 7: F>W>W = F9 W10
Round 8: W>F>F = F10 W9
Round 9: W>F>W = F8 W10
Round 10: F>F>F = F10 W9
Round 11: F>F>F = F10 W9
Round 12: W>W>W = F8 W10
TOTAL Fury 114 - Wilder 112
No system is a panacea, of course, but it seems to me that scoring a fight this way makes it much harder for one bad/misguided/off form judge to skew the verdict.
I took a look at a couple of other controversial fights recently and scored them according to this system. Here are the results:
Canelo-GGG 1: Canelo 113 GGG 115
Canelo-GGG 2: Canelo 116 GGG 112
Kovalev-Ward 1: Kovalev 113 Ward 114 (in line with the official result)
There will always be controversies, and there will always be fans who will scream blue murder when their guy loses. But I think there are some things that would help, and this might be one. And just think, if the Canelo-GGG fights had been scored that way we'd be at 1-1 and looking forward to a rubber match right now...
Bread’s Response: Finally a well thought out question. I love it.
I love your idea and I actually stated it on twitter with a slight tweak. I definitely think we need to go to 5 judges. 3 people is not enough. The more opinions you get the more valid the opinion becomes.
I also love the consensus scoring idea. The majority rules. So no matter how many judges are scoring the fight, if the majority of the judges score the round in that fighter’s favor then that fighter wins the round.
The only thing I’m not sure of is if the CONSENSUS scoring being used as a tie breaker in the case of a draw, or should it be scored all the way through like that. I think it should be used as a tie breaker in case of draws. But I wouldn’t complain either way.
Something does have to be done about 3 judges. It’s just easier to corrupt or have an incompetent person on the panel of 3. A panel of 5 is better. I feel that the judges should be on all sides of the ring and one judge should be watching the fight from the tv monitor with no announcer audio. Boxing has to evolve in it’s scoring.
We are in an era were fighters are inactive. They fight twice a year. Two bad decisions can cost a fighter millions of dollars and the HOF. Think about Mauricio Herrera. I’m not saying he beat Danny Garcia and Jose Benavidez. But more people think he won than think he lost. If he gets those 2 decisions he’s Glen Johnson in 2004 and he wins FOY. Instead his career turned left and he became a solid gatekeeper.
One more thing I want to add. The pool of people we pick the judges from has to change. The standards have to be raised. It seems that judges who give scorecards totally against the consensus opinions never get interviewed or have to show accountability for screwing up. What’s more troubling is they get jobs after they mess up. That’s a huge problem for me. A judge can NOT be rewarded with work for messing up someone’s career.
And before anyone says it I don’t think the panel should exclusively be ex fighters. Fighters as a whole not ALL, score fights terribly. They favor fighters who fight like them or fighters they relate to with back stories. I still hear fighters say you have to take the belt from the champion. It would be a total disaster if the judging pool were strictly ex fighters. I’m not saying the pool should exclude ex fighters, but it shouldn’t be exclusive to ex fighters. Roy Jones, Andre Ward and Paulie Malignaggi are sharp dudes and could score fights easily and accurately. But trust me most ex fighters are not them.
First off can I just thank you for your weekly columns? Always insightful and I never fail to learn something new.
I won't talk too much about that Fury fight because as disappointed as I was in the final result, I am anything but in the fight itself. It was great boxing and we have two Heavyweight fight of the decade contenders in consecutive years between this and Klitschko-Joshua. I do think it was smart of Fury to take advantage of the full count on the first knockdown (he might've been out initially on that second one). When fighters fail to capitalize on getting up on the full 8 count do you think that's typically them just running on instinct/adrenaline? Hard to criticize if so but it probably helps you avoid a Judah-Tsyzu situation if nothing else if possible.
The other thing I was hoping you could weigh in on was the Hurd-Charlo unification we may get (sooner than later hopefully). I saw the Welborn fight and Hurd seemed to commit to defense more and I think was decently successful for good spells against an extremely game and chippy opponent. I think that's good practice because if this makes sense I think Hurd seems to need more rounds to get comfortable than it does because he's unskilled. He seems to have some techniques in his arsenal such as some subtle southpaw shifts when he's in the pocket or coming in but it lacks the polish of a Mike Tyson simply because Hurd is later to the game/less amateur background. At least that's my take. Let me know if I'm off base there.
The final observation was that I think Hurd may be a bad matchup for Jermell. The recent power surge for Charlo seems to be more related to lining up perfect shots than anything else based on the fights I've seen. Even if the power is real, he seems to be too in love with that and looking for the perfect punch and as a consequence his activity seems insufficient to take a powerful pressure fighter than can handle those shots. And rewatching the Lara fight Hurd definitely took his fair share of good shots. I very well could be wrong and that's in part why I want to see the fight go down but I was hoping you could lend your insights as you have no doubt studied them both for obvious reasons. Appreciate it. Thanks again.
Bread’s Response: I go back and forth on Charlo vs Hurd. Sometimes I lean Hurd other times lean Charlo. This is a fight that they will have to decide in the ring. It’s a toss up. Both have advantages.
Hurd has a higher workrate. He also closes better in the late rounds. Hurd is the calmer man under fire. And in a dog fight that’s huge.
Charlo is faster. He’s more explosive. He has a better jab which is the most important punch in boxing. Charlo is the better athlete. Charlo also is better technically.
Neither guys pitches 12 round shut outs, so I expect both to win rounds. It’s a great fight.
Congrats on J Rock’s recent win. I’ve been following you since BT days and you are consistently the most entertaining and insightful writer in the game. I got into boxing in the early 2000s watching Friday night fights on ESPN. The two fighters that won me over were James Toney and Tokunbo Olajide, followed by Chico. Was Interesting to hear Olajide recently come up in your bag. His loss to Mendoza was one of the hardest I’ve had to stomach as a fan.
Was good to see the WBC belt finally freed from hostage in Canada, albeit terrible to hear about Stevenson’s condition following the fight. I don’t see Kovalev winning the rematch, but if he did that would be amazing that all 4 belts could be controlled by eastern block fighters. 175 is such a deep and interesting division now. Who do you think sits at the top 2 years from now?
Never been was a fan of Fury based on a lot of his written interviews/press releases, but hearing him in person he’s a lot more charismatic and you can better understand the method to his madness. Recovering from that 12th knockdown and finishing the round strong definitely converted me as a fan. I don’t see any other current heavyweight getting up from those shots. One thing about Fury, is it my imagination or does he sometimes he punch with a flexed wrist (ie his knuckles are above his forearm)? Also, what do you make of his trainer Davison?
Finally, what do you make about Khan gunning for Bud over Brook? I know you are high on Khan, but I’ve never been a fan. I commend him for taking the bigger challenge, but at this stage you really have to think something about Brook is scaring him. He’s going to be taking twice the beating against Crawford for half the pay. Not only that, Crawford is a guy who could end that career for good.
MM: Chocolatito V Jorge Arce (pick the weight)
Lomachenko V Edwin Valero (130)
Toney V Roy Jones (@cruiser in 2003)
Paul Williams V Mayweather (147)
Eric from Florida
Ps. I know this got a bit long so feel free to cut some out if you are gracious enough to answer any of this in your mailbag and want to focus on a specific question/topic.
Bread’s Response: The 2000s were a great time in boxing. It wasn’t as good as the 80s or 90s so it gets overlooked. But if you look close the 2000 had some great fighters and they match up well over anytime period.
All of the know it alls, who blasted Fury’s trainer need to stand down. It’s always amazing to me when people attack someone’s resume without knowing their resume and background. It happens the most in boxing. An old trainer who never got the chance to do anything significant in boxing. Will attack another trainer’s resume. It’s usually out of jealously. Davison did an amazing job with Fury. He didn’t let other people’s opinion influence his self esteem and what he knew he could do. Tyson Fury has a high boxing IQ and he’s an elite level skill man. Fury picked him for a reason. I’m very happy for Ben Davison and I hope he gets more big stage opportunities.
Fury’s one flaw is he doesn’t have great punch technique. But it’s not a bad flaw and here is why. Fury is not loading up or trying to knock your head off with shots. What he’s doing is throwing quick scoring shots. He’s a big so they hurt over time. Muhammad Ali punched the same exact way. Those quick flick shots are very hard to counter and when you miss you don’t fall off balance.
Amir Khan is a gun. I don’t like his boxing IQ but I do respect his willingness to take tough fights. But if I’m honest I think Brook is the one person he’s not overly thrilled to fight. I don’t think he’s scared of Brook but I think losing to Brook is a lot for him to handle because they come from the same country.
If Khan challenges Crawford you have to stand down and give him more props. Crawford is better than Brook. He’s more established. Crawford is the #1 fighter in the world. Khan is something else man. Nobody likes to hear this but Khan was avoided by the best fighters of the last era. Tim Bradley, Juan Manuel Marquez, Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather all had opportunity and never fought Khan.
I think Khan is crazy to fight Crawford but it doesn’t matter what I think. You have to be a little crazy to be a great fighter. If Khan pulls off the upset he’s in the HOF. He’s betting the house on himself. Let’s see how it plays out.
Chocolatito. Roman Gonzalez at his best was an all time great fighter. It’s too bad you guys didn’t get to see him at his apex. I was watching him for years on youtube and he’s the best pure pressure fighter since Chavez.
I don’t know enough about Loma or Valero yet. It’s weird because they both were and are established champions but it’s a tough fight to call. Good one because I’m stumped. Maybe Loma but I have no idea.
Jones over Toney. I love Toney but RJ is a bad style for him. Toney is a great adjuster though I would have liked to see it.
I say Mayweather by close decision today. It’s a tough fight though.
What’s up Bread,
It’s my first time writing so I def have my fingers crossed hoping you chop up my question. You seem to be someone who really focuses on intangibles when it comes to the fight game and rightly so. Intangibles make a huge difference, can you talk to us about wilder and Tyson furys intangibles? In my opinion wilder is amongst the best of our era when it specifically comes to mental strength. To be able to maintain focus and score a huge KD in the 12 round after being out boxed in the second half of the fight with a 50 pound weight disadvantage is incredible. Fury also showed massive mental strength in fighting back in that 12th round, he almost had “glow” from the ring walk to the final bell that I’ve never seen from fury before. Would love for you to touch on the intangibles of wilder vs fury and how they measure amongst other great fighters.
Bread’s Response: Both Fury and Wilder have tremendous boxing minds. You need to have a strong mind in order to be a GREAT fighter. Both of these guys want to be great.
Deontay Wilder is a BULLDOG. He’s giving up 40+ pounds in his biggest fights and he’s attacking like a honey badger. That’s not just determination that’s fearlessness. Evander Holyfield and Joe Frazier like fearlessness.
But I think Wilder’s biggest mental attribute is his self esteem. Let me explain. Wilder does not care about looking neat in a boxing match he knows he’s the man. He’ll miss punches badly. He’ll try stuff on the pads in front of the media and in real fights. Wilder does not care. I love that about him. In fights it makes him difficult to gauge. He keeps trying until he hits the homerun.
I saw Tyson Fury’s ring walk live. He came down to that Will Griggs Soccer Song. Man that song revs up the UK crowd. I knew Fury was ready to rock. Ringwalk music and the energy it lets off is important to me.
Fury is crazy in a good way. He’s also fearless. He also does not care what people think. Fury has brainwashed himself into a boxing master. Tyson Fury can box his butt off. The feints, the double steps, the twitchy reflexes. Man Fury tries things that other more athletic fighters won’t try. Fury’s mind is next level. People won’t like me saying this but Fury has a lot of Ali in his game. Ali’s self belief and finding motivation in a greater cause is very similar to what Fury is doing.
Fury has that undying character that Ali had. Fury getting up from that last knockdown reminded me of how Ali got up from his knockdown vs Joe Frazier in their 1st fight.
Great prediction on Wilder vs Fury. I read on ESPN that you said the fight was too close to call. I bet on a draw when I read your prediction. The last time you did that Broner vs Vargas was called a draw. I bet that also. Draws are the best payouts. Do you think any other upcoming big fights will end in draws?
Bread’s Response: You’re welcome. Not off the top of my head. Draws are tough to predict. Very tough to predict.
What do you think of new Hall of Fame inductees? Did Teddy atlas go in as a trainer or announcer? He’s a solid trainer but he surely isn’t Hall of fame level. Thoughts?
Bread’s Response: I don’t know how Teddy Atlas was voted in but he deserves to go in as both. Atlas has tremendous knowledge and he’s articulate enough to translate his knowledge onto the microphone. Not many can do that. Atlas has had a 2 or 3 world champions which is a lot for this era and he did excellent amateur work with Mike Tyson. Congratulations Teddy Atlas.
I have been beating the drums for Donald Curry. Curry had the highest peak of any fighter who was NOT in the HOF. He was #2 P4P in 1985! To put into context how good Curry was in 1985 Michael Spinks, Tommy Hearns, Aaron Pryor and Azumah Nelson were active and close to their primes. Curry’s fall off was bad so that keeps him from being an All Time Great but he was definitely HOF worthy.
Julian Jackson is the hardest puncher most of us ever saw. He took some bad losses and he was a better puncher than he was a fighter. But he has done enough to be in and he should’ve been in. Jackson’s two best wins over Herol Graham and Terry Norris along with winning the junior middleweight title and middleweight title multiple times, Jackson was long overdue.
I will admit that I’m surprised Buddy McGirt got in. Not that Mcgirt wasn’t a tremendous fighter because he was. He was also a top 5 P4P guy in the early 90s. He also fought a perfect fight vs a long time unified champion in Simon Brown as an underdog. I was just surprised McGirt got the nod over Meldrick Taylor who stopped him in their primes and accomplished pretty much the same thing. But congrats to Buddy. He also deserves it. For any kid who wants to see basic boxing and the best foot feint around, watch his performance vs Simon Brown.
Now that Jackson and Curry are in I will beat the drums for Nigel Benn, Meldrick Taylor, Rafael Marquez and Ricky Hatton. All deserve SERIOUS consideration. I also have believe that Diego Corrales should at least be on the ballot. My goodness how can he not be. He was a two division champion. He won his title from a real champion who was undefeated in Robert Garcia. He defended his title vs a solid list of contenders. He moved up to 135 and went on his best career run vs Acelino Freitas, Joel Casamayor and Jose Luis Castillo. All 3 of those guys are HOF level fighters.
Of I forgot to mention that Corrales was in the best fight of this century and maybe ever. At least put the guy on the ballot!
Send questions to [email protected]