Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag - Extra Edition: Canelo-GGG 3, Tyson-Ali, More

[Afi23]

I think what he was getting at, if I’m reading it correctly, is that Floyd could take his opponents’ first push and could think on his feet to mount a counterattack. He did it with Mosley, Hatton, and Maidana. Took the attack, kept his cool, and adjusted to stifle their efforts and get the win.

Or I could be wrong. Maybe there is a bias. Or he just made a poor analogy between boxing and solving a Rubik’s cube.

Or he was alluding to Floyd's perceived tendency to take certain fights at exactly the right moment. Floyd's opportunistic ways outside the ring sort of speak.

[Switch-Hitter]

Or he was alluding to Floyd's perceived tendency to take certain fights at exactly the right moment. Floyd's opportunistic ways outside the ring sort of speak.

Also possible. Hadn’t thought of that tbh.

[Afi23]

Also possible. Hadn’t thought of that tbh.

When I first read it in the mailbag, I really felt like it was a back-handed compliment, he was "sneak dissing" Floyd in a way.

To me, he was describing three "types" of intelligence but it felt like he was rating the type of intelligence. Loma's is the highest because it is pure genius and Floyd's the "lowest" because it is "opportunistic". And Andre is in the middle because he is the person who gets straight A through will and dedication.

Or maybe, I just read way too much into it...

[Switch-Hitter]

When I first read it in the mailbag, I really felt like it was a back-handed compliment, he was "sneak dissing" Floyd in a way.

To me, he was describing three "types" of intelligence but it felt like he was rating the type of intelligence. Loma's is the highest because it is pure genius and Floyd's the "lowest" because it is "opportunistic". And Andre is in the middle because he is the person who gets straight A through will and dedication.

Or maybe, I just read way too much into it...

I don’t get the rating part. I do think there are different types of intelligence. Wasn’t there an earlier mailbag where someone asked Bread about that?

[aboutfkntime]

Golovkin started looking less dominant once he started fighting better opposition. It's not rocket science.

Getting wins against the Grzegorz Proksas of the world isn't hard to do. Just ask Sergio Mora.

exactly !

and the average guys that he feasted on, did not prepare him for Canelo/Jacobs... they were a significant step up in class

Golovkin wouldn't even fight Mora

[ShoulderRoll]

Golovkin wouldn't even fight Mora

That's true. I had forgotten that.

Golovkin the most avoided, doe!

[The D3vil]

I don’t know what it is about Tyson’s punches but they don’t affect Holyfield the way Lewis’s or Bowe’s did. I don’t know if it was the angle of the punches or that Holyfield just had Tyson’s punch cadence down. But Holyfield was always doing more damage to Tyson than Tyson was to him. That’s huge.

For some reason he was physically stronger and he was the puncher when they fought.

Steroids, Breadman, steroids.

So, with that in mind, which boxer (or boxers) would you describe as “Greg Maddux of Boxing”?

Teddy Atlas always compared Floyd Mayweather Jr. to Maddox and I tend to agree with that. Fans always complained he was "boring", but really was just surgical and put a wet blanket on his much more "exciting" opposition

But to your point, it's tough to tell because as bread alluded to, most clean athletes decline around 34/35 yrs old and unfortunately for ggg, that's around the same time some guys were finally willing to fight him.

Why people just won't admit this is insane to me.

Clean athletes don't get better at 35.

Golovkin started looking less dominant once he started fighting better opposition. It's not rocket science.

Getting wins against the Grzegorz Proksas of the world isn't hard to do. Just ask Sergio Mora.

Clean 35 year old athletes also aren't as good as they were at 32.

This is also not rocket science

[Fire4231]

I think what he was getting at, if I’m reading it correctly, is that Floyd could take his opponents’ first push and could think on his feet to mount a counterattack. He did it with Mosley, Hatton, and Maidana. Took the attack, kept his cool, and adjusted to stifle their efforts and get the win.

Or I could be wrong. Maybe there is a bias. Or he just made a poor analogy between boxing and solving a Rubik’s cube.

I appreciate your clarification on his behalf, if he is reading this he is welcome to clarify for himself.

I respect that he recognized that these are all special fighters, however my interpretation on why didn’t match his.

[AKAcronym]

Still hilarious that a couple dudes here claim that Golovkin ducked Mora. Had Golovkin fought and beat Mora, they would just say Mora was past prime who was losing to guys like Brian Vera. I do recall that Mora said Golovkin was high risk and low reward, or something along those lines when Golovkin was first coming on the American scene.

[TonyGe]

Another great mail bag Breadman. However the more I read these letters, the more I realize some guys have to overhype their favorite with Not so subtle bias. Problem is for me this stuff does not stand up to the litmus test.

Specifically the last writer is a prime example. I am a fan of all three fighters (Loma, Ward and Mayweather. I am just predisposed to like special fighters.).

However, somehow the writer positions Loma as an adaptable genius constantly making creative adjustments and adding frustrations to his opponents simultaneously with the opposing brain hemisphere... Okay no hype at all here.

I am sorry I don’t see him that way at all. I see Loma as having technical evolutionary footwork that is designed to use speed to take advantage of predictable boxer movement and understood blind spots.

He remarkably knows with mathematical precision the angles and can predict when it is safe to throw from a blind spot. That my friends is amazing in itself!!! However what I have not seen is him adapt on the fly and use a completely new style from bell to bell.

Matter fact when the footwork algorithm he has perfected couldn’t be relied on because the fighter (Upset artist and ESPN’s Missing L Salido) didn’t give him time to set it up. He did come on in the end but it was because Salido got tired and Loma’s footwork became effective again. In that fight Loma lost and never even had a desire to avenge it.

Prime Pacquiao would have been a night mare for Loma. To be honest, I don’t think Loma wants to see him today.

However he describes Floyd Mayweather who waited to learn from the brilliance of other fighters. Silently taking notes and dominating fighters with what he astutely snared from others efforts? Yet Mayweather beat fighters in ways that they have never been dominated. He also beat many of them after their most brilliant wins. I saw him losing matches and figure them out before mid-fight to beat them with a completely different style. Who gave him the blue print to do what he did to JMM, Pacquiao, Corrales, Canelo, Judah, Dela Hoya, Hernandez, Manfredy, Mosely, Hatton... etc. in everyone of those fights I saw Floyd beating those great fighters in a manner I had not yet seen them dominated not to mention making quick effective adjustments when things weren’t going his way.

I give credit to Loma for the most evolved and precise technical footwork advancement I have seen since Ali. However this question writer takes a great thing and over sells it as usual.

What he described is Closest to what I saw Mayweather do from fight to fight. And if he learned by watching others, who were the others he watched to put it together? This makes no sense.

Sorry to interrupt a well written mail bag with counter logic to what seems to be based on bias. Whether conscious and strategic or unconscious and incompetent it always shows up. I am realizing as life goes on, the former and the latter always look exactly the same.

I think what he is saying is that Mayweather studies other fighters and knows how they react in various sitations. He stores that upstairs and if his fight plan needs tuning he can reference that data to turn the fight in his favor. I think it's a huge compliment.