Tweet
I guess if you think Stephen Breadman Edwards is a moron you should probably either say why or post who you think writes or 'videos' more persuasively or more intelligently than him. Vivek Wallace? Dwyer? Doug Fischer?
Breadman is the best. He's written at such length about so many different fighters and fights. How he can 'lose credibility' for scoring a fight differently than you is crazy. It's just a different take. He'll win more debates than most though because he's more specific than most.
I think most boxing fans these days haven't watched that many fights. They decide they hate a fighter after youtubing 30 seconds of Rod Salka. Stephen Edwards watches a lot more fights than 99 percent of fight fans. He's a great reference because he's watched the thing you skipped. You can flesh out your idea about a fighter, or a period of boxing or a type of fighter by reading him. He sort of does the work for you by going through all the fights and telling you the ones you gotta see.
Breadman is the best. He's written at such length about so many different fighters and fights. How he can 'lose credibility' for scoring a fight differently than you is crazy. It's just a different take. He'll win more debates than most though because he's more specific than most.
I think most boxing fans these days haven't watched that many fights. They decide they hate a fighter after youtubing 30 seconds of Rod Salka. Stephen Edwards watches a lot more fights than 99 percent of fight fans. He's a great reference because he's watched the thing you skipped. You can flesh out your idea about a fighter, or a period of boxing or a type of fighter by reading him. He sort of does the work for you by going through all the fights and telling you the ones you gotta see.
Comment