Stephen “Breadman” Edwards, at the end of a week in which Vasiliy Lomachenko's retirement and the cancellation of Devin Haney-Teofimo Lopez inevitably divided opinion, answers your questions and assesses your assertions in his latest mailbag
Hi Bread,
Hope all is well for you and yours in Philly. Time travel is now a reality, and you are given the opportunity to go back and witness three title fights live from ringside. You may choose any three fights since 1900. Which would you choose and why?
Dave Panich
Bread’s response: Great question. I would pick the title fight of Harry Greb vs Mickey Walker. The reason being is in the 1920s Greb and Walker were top five middleweights of all time. Rarely does a match up have that type of historical significance – of two top-five-all-time talents meeting in their primes. I also would want to see Greb with my own two eyes. I have heard people say everything from him being the GOAT to him not being a real person. So I would want to see for myself.
My second pick would be “Sugar” Ray Robinson vs Kid Gavilan. This would be a match up of two all-time welterweights in their primes and I would get a chance to see the prime version of Robinson, whom my grandfather got to see live and told me he’s the greatest fighter ever. My grandfather was born in 1931 and he passed in 2000 and until the day he passed he told me Robinson was the number-one fighter he had ever seen throughout the years.
The last fight would be Leonard vs Hearns I. I don’t think people realize how significant a performance those two gave us. I don’t think people realize that Leonard stopping Hearns with that late rally is the greatest performance in the history of the division in terms of performance value, historical significance and the simple difficulty of the win. I saw it as it happened but I would have liked to be there live to see my favorite fighter dig as deep as a fighter has ever dug against an opponent who is as difficult to beat head to head at welterweight as there has ever been.
Bread,
I’m sure you encourage guys to stay off of alcohol and highly processed garbage foods when training. How much are you into their diets during training camp? Do you mandate anything? What’s your view of carb cycling; keto; carnivore; strictly unprocessed foods, etc?
Jeremy
Bread’s response: I recommend to all of my fighters that drinking alcohol is bad for the body. It dulls the senses, makes you gain empty calories, and it ruins the liver. I also tell fighters the value of a clean diet. I don’t get overly specific with the clean diet because I also believe in eating “familiar” foods. And what’s familiar to some may not be familiar to all. However, I don’t mandate anything because I can’t be with a fighter 24/7. I tell them what I believe to be true and it’s up to them to believe me and do it. Some do it and some don’t. But the grind knows all and sees all. And if a fighter doesn’t listen, it will eventually show up. I may not know what he does when I’m not around, but he knows what he does when I’m not around. My saying is simple: “You can’t cheat, the grind.”
Hi Breadman,
I’m not going to mention names for obvious reasons, but when a trainer has multiple fighters pop, can it really be a coincidence? If you also believe something more sinister is at play, if the trainer themselves are not the one responsible for driving this, is there any way the trainer can be oblivious?On the subject of PEDs, if an ageing fighter were retired for several years – say three – could they spend two-and-a-half years juicing heavily, then wean themselves of it for six months or so just before they are scheduled to fight and be subjected to testing, and still reap the benefits? There is another very high-profile fighter, currently active, whose career best performances coincidentally occurred after testing positive, which appears to indicate sustained benefits after using.
Bread’s response: Three-part question here… first I will say is it’s always possible for a trainer to not know what his fighters are doing when they aren’t in his presence. Trainers are not babysitters. They don’t follow fighters around after the gym. But it’s highly unlikely that a trainer will have multiple fighters get caught for juicing and not know they’re juicing. Here is why… fighters know who’s okay with juicing and who’s not. So although the trainer may not be the supplier of the PEDS, they know the trainers who will turn a blind eye to PED use, and simply tell them to not get caught. For example, juiced fighters don’t approach me because they know I’m anti-PED and I’m not covering for them or turning a blind eye to it. Not only do I not believe in juicing, I also know that if I have multiple fighters juice, then my career as a trainer would be over. Whereas other trainers are able to get away with it time after time. So again, dirty fighters don’t approach me because they know juicing is not my thing. I won’t be successful if I have to cheat to win.
If a trainer has had one fighter get caught, and if that trainer is outspoken about it – in terms of saying publicly or privately they are not ok with a fighter cheating – other fighters will be scared to juice under that trainer’s guidance because they know the trainer will not take the fall for them. So to have three, four or five fighters juice under your watch in this era, and not know anything, is virtually impossible – or that trainer has the world’s worst luck, and I don’t believe in luck in boxing.
Yes, fighters can conceivably juice for two-and-a-half years, then cycle off for six months and reap major benefits. I believe that’s actually a practice that gets done in this era. I’m not sure which fighter you’re speaking off in the last part of your comment, because there are several who fit the description and it’s hard for me to narrow it down to one so I can accurately answer.
Bread, what’s good?
It’s been a minute since I’ve written in but there a few things I want to touch on. First off, I’m tired of Teofimo. While he is a talented fighter, I don’t rock with him at all for various reasons. And now for some reason we’ve got people like Tim Bradley and Pauli Malignaggi talking about him like he’s the boogeyman. Was he the boogeyman when he was asking “Do I still got it?” after the Sandor Martin fight? Was he the boogeyman when he lost to George Kambosos and made no attempt to go get his belts back? And I’m supposed to believe “Boots” Ennis is ducking smoke from him? Nah. Then there’s Devin Haney. Now let me preface this by saying I’m not some rabid Devin Haney fan. I’m a boxing fan. But, man, I’ve never seen a guy get the blame for losing to someone who popped dirty like Devin has. Ryan missed weight, not Devin. Then we all saw what happened in the ring and then the subsequent dirty tests. People’s response: “Devin needs to learn how to block a hook.” Brotha, while Devin was fighting, all Jim Lampley could talk about was: “The Electric Ryan Garcia!” I get that people have their own preferences and biases, but a lot of this shit has to stop. That young man lost some of his prime that night to a fighter who tested dirty and somehow he’s the one getting all the flack.
Which leads my next point… The PED problem in boxing. The problem isn’t just that fighters are using them – much more than people think – it’s that fighters, their camps and their promoters all understand one thing. A lot of fans and some media members simply don’t care. They don’t care that Ryan tested positive for ostarine after a fight where he looked like a monster, and then looked like shit when he was clean the very next fight. Canelo’s dirty tests might as well have never even happened at this point. Jaime Munguia? He’ll serve a suspension and come back like nothing happened. And what bothers me the most is that you’ve got people in boxing media that have real platforms that don’t hesitate to jump out in defense of fighters that test dirty. They have no problem saying things like “I don’t believe he knowingly took ostarine”. He was suspended for PED usage only to come back and be the headliner and main event in his first fight back. It’s infuriating but I don’t foresee it changing anytime soon because, again, people don’t really care. Thank you for your time, brotha, and keep doing what you’re doing.
Amac, CALI.
Bread’s response: I have been very impressed with Teofimo Lopez on his hot nights. His performances as a rising prospect were awesome. He also looked great vs Loma, Josh Taylor and Arnold Barboza. But I never viewed him as a ducked fighter. Loma gave him a shot as soon as he won the title. He didn’t have to wait. Taylor gave him a shot at the Ring title as soon as he got to the division. Barboza was looking to fight him. As was Ortiz and Martin. I also just read that Devin Haney signed to fight him August 16th. If that’s true, I don’t see how anyone can view Lopez as an avoided fighter, because avoided fighters don’t get this many high-profile fighters to fight them while they are as young as Teofimo Lopez. So I would say Lopez is extremely talented but he’s not avoided. There is a difference.
I’m not sure what happened with the Boots vs Lopez negotiations so I can’t speak on them… But I agree with you on Devin Haney. I heard several high-profile people in boxing, who have opinions that move the needle, say that they didn’t believe Ryan Garcia took PEDS on purpose. How would they know if Ryan would take PEDS on purpose or not? How do they know if Ryan’s character is so high that he would or would not take PEDS? I found those comments counterproductive, to be honest, because in the grand scheme of PED use in boxing, given someone who openly drinks and smokes, a PED pass in their biggest career win – later to be ruled a no contest – is never okay with me.
But I heard all of the “Devin can’t defend a left hook” comments and I never liked it. Devin fought and took punches from a man who tested positive, then in his very next fight he looked awful. And Devin got more criticism than the man who tested positive. It told me all I needed to know about integrity of boxing in general.
If you expect the promoters to say “I’m not going to promote a cheater” you’re expecting a cold day in hell. It’s not going to happen. Promoters are capitalist by nature and I understand that. The commissions have to make rulings more harsh. The first time you test positive it should be a two-year ban and six-figure fine. The second time it should be a lifetime ban. And culpability should not have to be proven. A positive test is all that should be needed. The goal posts are being moved in terms of culpability and that is turning into the biggest issue.
Hi Mr Edwards,
Thank you for taking the time to read and answer our questions on BoxingScene. I enjoy the peek into your boxing mind. Since it seems like Lomachenko is retired at this point, I was wondering what you thought about his career overall? My opinion is that it’s been rather underwhelming, considering the talent and skill that he had. He had all of the skill and talent in the world; it was a real treat to watch him do his thing. It was beautiful to watch. Overall, though, especially when you consider how talented he was, I think that his career has been a disappointment. He’s had too few fights as a professional. As long as he’s been a pro, he should have at least double the amount of fights that he’s had. He had the talent of a top five, all-time great, but certainly not the career of one.
Bread’s response: I think Lomachenko is under-appreciated. I think he’s a hall-of-fame and great fighter. I think he’s an all-time-great junior lightweight. However, I’m not sure if he’s an overall all=-time great, but he has an argument.
I think he had enough career fights. I don’t hold his career fight total against him. He’s 14-3 in title fights through three divisions. That’s very impressive and those numbers can stand up in any era, in the divisions he competed in. I’m sure they would rival Marquez, Barrera and Morales, the three stand out fighters who competed in primarily the same divisions that Loma competed in. I think Loma is one or two close decision wins from being a clean all-time great. If he gets the Haney or Salido decisions he’s an ATG.
I thought Teofimo edged him. I don’t know if Haney beat him – it was that close. And I have seen fights where fighters in Loma’s position got the Salido nod. Loma never lost bad in his entire career. That counts in career evaluations. His move to go straight to Gary Russell after the Salido loss was one of the gutsiest moves of the era. If Loma loses that fight, his career is essentially over. He would’ve been 1-2. No one remembers that Loma fought Russell on a card where Russell’s promoter controlled the show. So think about this – Loma loses a controversial decision to Salido, and in his very next fight he takes on a better fighter on that fighter’s promoter’s card. That specific fight let me know Loma was real.
Loma’s run at 130lbs is among the greatest in history. I saw Arguello, Chavez, Nelson, Pacquiao and Mayweather at 130lbs. I don’t think Loma is the best but he could’ve hung with any of them, best night for best night. I honestly think Loma’s biggest mistake was moving to lightweight. He’s a great fighter but he didn’t have the anatomy of a lightweight. Lightweights in his era are 5’8, 170lbs on average. Loma has short arms, a long torso, and he’s a high energy, attacking technician. His style and body type simply doesn’t fit weight jumping beyond two or three divisions. The Linares fight was the last time we saw Loma at his apex. He may have still been at his peak, but not at his apex. He gave up so much of himself in the Linares fight that I think it had an effect on his following performances. If you look at him closely, you will see what I mean. Official decisions matter. In the moment, people will hold the performance in context. But as time goes on, the black and white of the official decisions matter. And for as great as Loma was, he lost officially to Teofimo Lopez and Devin Haney, and it does cost him some historical status. Overall I think Loma was special. And I not only respect his career, but I hold him in very high value. Great fighter.
Hey Bread,
There’s a new series on VICE called The Grudge and, in each episode, they feature a sports rivalry. One of the episodes features the Mayweather vs Pacquiao rivalry. I haven’t watched it yet, but I plan on it soon and it made me curious about your thoughts on the whole Mayweather vs Pacquaio rivalry. What are your top 10 greatest boxing rivalries of all time? Does Mayweather vs Pacquiao make your top 10? I remember it seemed like the sports world froze when it finally happened in 2015. Everyone was talking about it. It doesn’t happen all too often when the consensus top one and two pound-for-pound boxers face off against one another. But with Pacquiao coming back against Barrios, I have a prediction. I know it’s a long shot for Pacquiao to beat Barrios, but if he does, I imagine he would call out Mayweather for a rematch. Lastly, keeping with the rivalries theme, what are your thoughts on the Fury vs Wilder trilogy? I think it’s a modern-day classic. It certainly doesn’t rival anything like Holyfield vs Bowe or Ali vs Frazier, but in its own regards, I think Fury vs Wilder holds its own as a great modern, heavyweight boxing rivalry and trilogy.
Thanks
Bread’s response: Mayweather vs Pacquiao was not a great fight but it was a great rivalry. They took turns fighting common opponents to see who could outdo who. I thought Mayweather performed better vs Marquez. I thought Pacquiao performed better vs Oscar, Hatton and Cotto. Their fans fought back and forth because of the details of the fights. Then there was all of the social media experts, who became experts in PEDS. As I’m typing I would say Mayweather vs Pacquaio is one of the greatest rivalries ever. More people tuned in on PPV to watch the fight than any other fight in PPV history. So off the top of my head, let me try to name the top 10 rivalries in boxing history in no order… Pep vs Saddler; Leonard vs Hearns; Leonard vs Hagler; Leonard vs Duran; Ali vs Frazier; Ali vs Foreman; Mayweather vs Pacquiao; Robinson vs LaMotta; Louis vs Schmeling; Holyfield vs Tyson
Hey Breadman,
I forgot to address this question as you requested – are you the person I asked if they would want their son to be taught to fight like Arturo Gatti or Floyd Mayweather? If you are, you didn’t answer me in your reply. And if you aren’t, could you please answer me the next time you write in. If that was me, of course it would be Floyd. Something I read years ago said by Mayweather was that he wished the fans loved him the way they loved Gatti. I guess we can have everything. I can't remember where or when though.
Bread’s response: Thank you for being honest. Now here is what I want you to think about – why would you want your son to fight more like Mayweather than Gatti, if you prefer Gatti’s style so much more over Mayweather’s? You don’t have to write back telling me. Just answer that for yourself and think about your answer when you’re so critical of Mayweather’s style that you can make the claim that safety first fighters are ruining boxing.
Hi Breadman,
I pray God is blessing and continues to bless you and your family and the fans of your mailbag and their families. People respect intelligence but they admire courage. Haney, Shakur, Mayweather, Camacho, Whitaker, Spadafora, Malignaggi and others will never be loved by most because their style is not crowd-pleasing like Pryor, Holyfield, Saad Muhammed, Chavez, and others. Ali, Leonard, Toney, McCallum and other boxer-punchers are just more fun to watch then pure boxers. The stylists who are pure boxers need to stick with what works for them and create a villain persona if they want to make money. Most fans come to see them get beat. I’m black and I bet on Haney to beat Loma but even though I bet on Haney I started cheering for Loma to win because Haney bores the hell out of me and so does Shakur. Now that I’ve seen Haney get destroyed by Garcia there is no need for me to watch him anymore. I got my satisfaction. Seeing Chavez destroy Camacho was also very fulfilling. Every time those type of fighters lose I feel the sport of boxing wins because the warriors who come to knock people out are the most entertaining fighters to most of us. Sorry to see that Plant lost and RIP to one of my all-time favorite fighters, Mike “the body snatcher” McCallum. He was a boxer-puncher who was an absolute joy to watch. He will be missed.
BG, from Philly
Bread’s response: I really respect your perspective. We all have our preferences. Personally, I have fighters I like to watch. I have fighters I like to study. Then I have both. I will tell you guys who I like to watch and study. I find myself watching Chavez vs Rosario when I want to study pressure fighting. I don’t know if it’s the best pressure performance ever, but I can say I have never seen a fighter have a better night employing Chavez’s style. For anyone who has not seen the fight they need to watch it. It may be the best pressure fighting performance ever.
When I want to watch pure skill without moving too much. I watch three fighters. Roberto Duran from his fight with Ken Buchanan, up through his lightweight reign – with my favorite performance coming against Hector Thompson – along with his fights above lightweight versus Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard, Davey Moore and Iran Barkley.
For pure skill I also watch James Toney vs Mike McCallum I and all of their fights around that time within a three-year window. When I want to watch a premier attacker, I watch Tito Trinidad. When I want to see great technical ability along with elite boxing, I watch Salvador Sanchez or Ricardo Lopez. When I want to see freaky defense I watch Pernell Whitaker at lightweight. When I want to watch highlight reel KOs I watch Tommy Hearns, Julian Jackson or Naseem Hamed. And when I want to watch pure greatness in the form of a boxer puncher, I watch “Sugar” Ray Leonard, “Sugar” Ray Robinson, Roy Jones, or Muhammad Ali of the 1960s.
That’s not to say I don’t watch other guys, but those are my go-to fights. I say that to say we all have our preferences. My only issue is if we can’t appreciate styles that are not our personal preference, because throughout the history of boxing we have seen great fighters execute every style.
What are your thoughts on the fight between Devin Haney and Teofimo Lopez? I have no idea what’s going to happen in this fight. Both fighters seem like underachievers to me. I almost wish I could bet against both of them. With a gun to my head, I’m leaning towards Lopez. I think he has shown he can reach a higher level when motivated. He also hasn’t been beat up yet. Who are you leaning towards? Thank you!
Bread’s response: I’m getting a lot of emails about Lopez vs Haney. In the latest turn of events, I read somewhere that the fight was now off because Lopez wanted to go in another direction. I don’t know what the truth is. But if it did happen next I think Haney holds a stylistic advantage because Teofimo is better against attacking fighters, while Teofimo holds a big confidence and clutch-performance factor. Teofimo has three big performances vs Lomachenko, Taylor and Barboza. Haney has some nice wins but he hasn’t shined as bright as Teofimo in his biggest moments. That matters when analyzing fights. That’s my initial take on the fight. Let’s see what happens before I get into too many details.
Hello Breadman,
Writing in this week with a few tactical and legacy-style questions, plus one about what happens to fighters as they age. One – some elite fighters seem to “program” their opponent early in a fight to land something big later. What’s actually happening in those sequences, and who does this best today? Two – which current fighter uses feints, not just for flash, but to consistently draw mistakes and create real openings? Three – are there any all-time greats who never fought, but whose style would’ve been a nightmare for another all-time great? One of those what-if match-ups that could’ve flipped a legacy? Four – I’ve been thinking about how punch resistance changes as fighters age. Tony Jeffries mentioned that the first thing you lose when you’ve been out of the ring a while isn’t power or speed, it’s timing. He gave the example of seeing a punch coming but not being able to get out of the way. He also talked about how ageing reduces brain mass, which creates more space inside the skull, meaning the brain moves more on impact, leading to increased risk of concussions. Add in neck-strength loss, and it makes sense that older fighters are easier to hurt. What’s your take on that? Have you seen these kinds of changes firsthand in ageing fighters? Thanks again for sharing your boxing brain with all of us every week.
Tommy, Europe
Bread’s response: Mostly all elite fighters set up opponents for future shots throughout a fight. It’s what makes them elite. I would say out of everyone, “Tank” does this the best today. He’s the one guy who gets the most one-punch KOs and that’s no coincidence. “Canelo” is very good at feints. I would say he’s the best currently. I can’t think of too many all-time greats who didn’t fight who could’ve fought and history would’ve been changed. For example, I know Leonard vs Pryor didn’t happen. But I believe Leonard would’ve stopped Pryor. Hearns vs McCallum never happened but I don’t know who wins the fight, so I can’t say McCallum would’ve won and history would’ve been changed. Maybe Winky Wright vs Oscar De La Hoya – I’m not sure if Winky is an all-time great but I believe he would’ve been all wrong for Oscar if they would’ve fought. And believe it or not I think Amir Khan would’ve been a hard fight for Tim Bradley and Juan Manuel Marquez. Obviously Khan is not an all-time great, but Khan’s length and hand speed around the time he beat Devin Alexander would have been a nightmare for both of the hall of famers.
I’m sure you’ve been noticing across social media the constant critiques about Nikola Jokic’s physique. I know I certainly have. I’ve seen several remarks about him being “fat”, “out of shape”, “doughy”, and on and on. It's not as bad as it has been in the past, but I still notice it and I find it ridiculous and unfair. I mean, sure, no one will ever describe Jokic as an Adonis or looking like an artistic depiction of Hercules. But what does it matter? I mean, he’s doing things that basketball hasn’t seen since Wilt Chamberlain. And he's a multi-MVP and a champ, so I just find it so idiotic. But I also feel like this isn’t unique to Jokic or other basketball players. It seems like it’s commonplace across all sports. Where do you think boxing ranks in terms of this kind of body shaming? Is it as bad or even worse than other sports? I remember Andy Ruiz being body-shamed before his upset over Anthony Joshua, and again after losing to him in their rematch. Who are some other boxers you believe got too much flak for not being cut from marble? Do you think physique gets too much attention in boxing? How fair is it to criticize a fighter's body? Where do you draw the line between legit criticism and body shaming?
Bread’s response: If a fighter is usually “cut” and he comes into the ring flabby and he’s fighting at or close to the division he was “cut” in, then he deserves criticism. But if a fighter is performing at a high level and he doesn’t have a great body, then he should be left alone. From my recollection historically I think Larry Holmes was body shamed. Tupac Shakur even made a verse about Holmes looking flabby and sick in one of his songs. I think Holmes’ body shaming was misguided. Holmes was a consistent, great fighter, who always came into the ring in shape. Body shaming him was inappropriate. In this era David Benavidez and Emanuel Navarrete get body shamed the most and, again, I think it’s unwarranted. Both come into the ring in shape on a consistent basis. I’m very careful about judging a fighter based on how cut he is. Oftentimes that can simply be a genetic thing. Some people are cut and they can’t do a push up. Others are not so cut and they can run all day…
Send Questions & Comments to [email protected]