Stephen “Breadman” Edwards, after Deontay Wilder's winning return, answers your questions and assesses your assertions in his latest mailbag.
What are your thoughts on Roy Jones’s breakdown of fights between your guy Ray Leonard against himself and Floyd Mayweather? Do you agree or disagree on how the fights would have went?
Bread’s response: I didn’t see the entire interview. You sent me clips. So from what I heard, I felt Roy was respectful with his opinion. That’s all I can really say. Roy vs Ray Leonard is a very competitive hypothetical fight. But Roy is an A+ fighter. He’s going to think he can beat anyone close to his size. I don’t blame him for that.
From what I understand, Roy sparred Ray circa 1988 or 1989. Ray is 13 years older than Roy. And although he may have weighed more than Roy at that specific time, he’s not a bigger person than Roy. Roy was an Olympian at 156lbs; Ray was an Olympian at 141lbs. At similar stages of life Roy was considerably bigger. I also believe elite amateurs have an advantage over seasoned pros in sparring. Watch the sparring of Mosley and De La Hoya vs Chavez and Breland vs Hearns. The younger stud had an advantage in reaction time and simply landing punches. The older fighter had to settle things down with a cracking punch.
The story goes that Roy got the better of the sparring, but Leonard landed a huge shot to sort of let Roy know what could happen if they didn’t have head gear and big gloves on. I can see Roy getting the better of that particular sparring, just like I could see Andre Ward getting the better of Roy if they sparred in say 2004-05. So I see why Roy is confident he would beat Leonard.
Leonard’s best days were at 147lbs; Roy’s best were at 168lbs. That’s a 21lbs difference. Leonard fought at 160 and 168 but those weren’t his divisions. He just fought there because he was special. I believe Roy and Ray are too far apart in weight to match them up hypothetically, although pound-for-pound it’s very close. A fair match up is them at 154lbs, where Roy turned pro, but he was a little green at 154 to match him with an all-time great like Ray, who won a title at 154 in his prime. Anything higher than 154, I believe Roy is too big and good.
Ray vs Floyd is a more fair match up because Floyd spent over ten years at 147lbs and won several titles there and had no significant drop off once he moved up in 2005. I don’t necessarily agree with Roy’s reasons on why Ray would win. But I do agree that Ray would win. I believe Floyd has showed tremendous heart. He just hasn’t had a Tommy Hearns-level opponent to show if he could pull out a miracle like Ray did. But Ray Leonard is the best fighter of my lifetime, along with Duran, and I don’t pick anyone over him on his best day at his best weight except Ray Robinson. That’s it.
Hey Bread,
Hope all is well with you. With Deontay Wilder fighting again soon there’s obviously been some publicity around him. I've felt before, and do now, that he gets very unfair comments and criticism. “One trick pony”; “No boxing IQ”, etc, etc. I just want to write in and say if any of these people actually set foot in a ring they’d realise the mental and physical fortitude it took for that man to actually qualify for the Olympics and actually medal as well. That was a minor miracle and then to go on and be heavyweight champion for so long is some achievement. Put some respect on his name; he has ring IQ; he has grit; he has determination; he has skills. Can you please speak on him for a bit and try to clear up how much of a great career he has had and show that he deserves the boxing public’s respect?
Sean, Ireland
Bread’s response: I think different than most. I feel like fighters who are one-trick ponies actually have high IQ. Here is why – to be successful with doing one thing that everyone knows is coming and still have a high success rate illustrates a high IQ. Most punchers don’t get credit for their IQ, but landing a kill shot consistently takes IQ.
I think Wilder’s biggest mistake was listening to fans that called him a one-trick pony. Wilder got to a point where he was doing too much in the ring, instead of simply finding a way to land the right hand. Sometimes the simplistic approach is the best one. I don’t think Wilder is an all-time great fighter. But I do think he deserves hall-of-fame consideration. I’m not saying he’s a hall-of-fame lock. But he deserves to be on the ballot. Every heavyweight champion in history who has been champion for either five years or had 10 title defenses is in the hall of fame. So Wilder, like the others, deserves consideration. Being one of the hardest punchers in history and scoring so many conclusive KOs should also garner him hall-of-fame attention. So while I think he’s more of a great puncher than a great fighter, I think he has earned HOF consideration.
July 4 weekend is always a date that United States boxing promoters completely ignore. Once again, in 2025, there won’t be any boxers from the United States fighting in this country on July 4 weekend. Why doesn’t boxing claim this weekend, the way the sport has claimed Cinco de Mayo and Mexican Independence Day? The only other sport on TV that day is baseball. It seems like an easy opportunity for boxing to grow an audience. Why not try it?
Bread’s response: This is a good question and I don’t have an answer. I’m going to assume that the promoters are scared to do big events on July 4 because people usually travel on the holiday. But I think a historical city like Philadelphia, Boston, New York or Washington DC could pull it off with the right fighters. I’m giving out free game right here, but if the promoters were able to bring a popular British fighter to one of those cities versus a top fighter from one of those cities, I think the event could do well.
Peace and blessings as always, sir,
Quick follow up on the topic from a few weeks back, on the best cities, states and regions in the US that produced the most accomplished fighters. I am in agreement that Philly is in the top spot. Post 2000s your city has it on lock. In terms of the legacy of great fighters, Detroit is right there but somewhere along the way the gym culture in the city changed. There is even a connection with Eddie Futch having roots in the city and being head trainer for Smokin’ Joe Frazier. In Philly you guys are “Philly Fighters”. In Detroit they were viewed as “Kronk Fighters” – even though Mr Steward was bringing in guys like McCallum, Mark Breland and other big names, some of the local guys were overshadowed as years went on. My uncle boxed and put me on to legends like Henry Hank. I had to do research to find out he had the fight of the year against Joey Giardello. Head to head, though, there are interesting close match-ups modern and from the past. Even if it were comparing the state of Michigan with Pennsylvania, it’s still a pretty close heads up (leaving Sugar Ray Robinson out of it because I know New Yorkers get sensitive). Do you view Michaal Spinks as an honorary Philly fighter? I’m interested to hear your take. Joe Louis vs Joe Frazier; Tony Harrison vs J Rock; Tommy Hearns vs Bernard Hopkins; Milton McCrory vs Danny Garcia; Oba Carr vs Meldrick Taylor; Frank Tate vs Willie The Worm.
Jack, Minneapolis.
Bread’s response: Detroit is a great boxing city. I love Detroit boxing. Some of my favourite fighters ever are from Detroit. And in the 80s and 90s they were right there with Philly. The problem is, after Emanuel Steward became more of a hired-gun trainer instead of the grassroots trainer, the Detroit fight scene fell off and never really caught back on. Recently, Tony Harrison is the only world champion from Detroit. I will give you guys Anthony Dirrell, Claressa Shields and Alycia Baumgardner from nearby cities. But, overall, Philly still has a big lead since the 1990s.
I agree Sugar Ray Robinson was a New York fighter despite living in Detroit until he was 12. I don’t consider Michael Spinks a Philly fighter, although he has strong roots in Philly, and he trained in Philly for a long time. But Spinks is from St Louis.
I would take Joe Louis over Joe Frazier. J’Rock over Harrison. Hearns-B’hop is a very close call to me. Some days I take B’hop. But more days I take Hearns. Jermaine Taylor is a B-rated version of Hearns. No disrespect to Taylor, but Taylor’s jab and strong presence gave B’hop fits, regardless of what anyone thinks of the decisions, and Hearns is much better than Taylor. Flip a coin, today I say Hearns by close decision.
McCrory was probably a little too big and long for Garcia at welterweight. Garcia was money at 140lbs but he struggled somewhat at 147. All of his losses are above at 140. Taylor over Carr in by tight decision. I would take Monroe over Tate. I’ve never seen a version of Tate that could beat Marvin Hagler. And from knowledgeable people who saw the fight, they tell me Monroe’s win over Hagler was real.
Breadman,
One of my favorite fighters who I think often gets overlooked is Winky Wright. I’m curious – when it comes to one-night performances, where does his performance against Trinidad rank? Is he close to being an all-time great? How would you call Winky-Pacquiao at welterweight?
Bread’s response: Winky was never really a welterweight, so I think Winky Wright is an all-time great fighter at 154. But I’m not sure he’s an all-time great overall. There is a difference in being an all-time great within a division and being an all-time great overall. For example, a fighter like Brian Mitchell is all-time great at 130lbs but he’s not an all-time great overall. I think that’s where Winky fits in. Winky’s performance against Tito was excellent. But overall it seems like the performance is a little devalued, because Tito was inactive going into the fight and the train of thought was Tito had slipped too much. But Winky was older than Tito and if my recollection is correct, I think Tito was the favorite.
Hi Breadman,
My question relates to Usyk vs Dubois. I’ve written in before with hesitation about Usyk’s chances against these giants, which he has always overcome, but something about this one feels different. Dubois is on a rampage and it seems difficult to see how Usyk keeps him away, given the age-and-power discrepancy. I think the bookies are way off with what I’m seeing. Consider the bodies Dubois has left behind in recent fights, Usyk’s age, and his recent and general CV (the best modern CV I have ever seen in fighting the best of the best; I assume this man is the definition of a gunslinger?). I believe you also mentioned Boots would likely struggle to get through the death row at 154 that Usyk has got through already at cruiser and heavyweight? If it were to occur, how would it affect Usyk’s legacy, assuming Dubois reigns for a few years? Whatever happens, I can see an early finish. Contrary to the above, I believe the most probable outcome is Usyk ending it early and conclusively, to leave no doubt. I sense he’s annoyed by the notion the first fight was controversial and he wants to settle and correct this – and he is willing to go all in to prove it, in potentially his last fight. I suppose his termination with his long-time promoter has raised a few doubts. What do you make of that before a fight of such magnitude?
Bread’s response: I can’t talk about what happened with Usyk and his promoter. But he has been on a serious run. His run is impressive because he’s giving elite fighters with elite teams more than one chance to figure him out. This will be his third rematch at heavyweight. If he keeps up this schedule, eventually he’s going to lose. I’m picking him to beat Dubois but I can see an avenue for a Dubois win.
If Dubois goes to the body more and breaks Usyk’s in-and-out rhythm he can win. But Usyk seems to have a special strip in his brain where he simply does what he has to do to win. I also remember him dominating Dubois most of the fight, despite the controversial low blow. I feel like Dubois just can’t keep up with Usyk. Usyk seems to run Dubois’s engine too hot. The stoppage had more to do with exhaustion than Dubois actually being hurt and not being able to recuperate. That, to me, is the difference – although I think Dubois will be more competitive.
I’m curious to see if Usyk can maintain the pace he did in their first fight. I’ve noticed he’s been laboring a little more with his breathing, and those small things lead to big things. That being said, right now I’m taking Usyk by 11th-round KO. I don’t know how a loss would affect Usyk’s resume, because I have to see how he loses. But no matter what happens, he’s a first ballot hall-of-famer.
Hey Bread,
I was rewatching Kell Brook-Errol Spence the other day and marvelled at a prime Spence’s willpower and endurance. It’s one of my favorite fights of the past decade – JMM-Diaz is another one. Can you name your top 10-fights in which guys got broken down? I mean fights were it was even and one guy over took the other guy in the home stretch. No knockouts, just straight stoppages.
Bread’s response: Spence was a choo choo train vs Kell Brook. That was a big-time performance. Spence had one of the best gas tanks in boxing around that time. Marquez hit Diaz with one of the best combinations I have ever seen. That was a terrific example of an older fighter, putting a younger stud in their place. Marquez was something.
Top-10 fights where a fighter broke another down over time: okay, again off the top of the dome, Duran vs DeJesus II, Chavez vs Rosario, Brown vs Trice I, Arguello vs Mancini, Pavlik vs Taylor I, Crawford vs Porter, Leonard vs Hearns I, Rios vs Alvarado I, and Sanchez vs Nelson.
Who do you like in the Jake Paul vs Chavez Jr match up? Also can you breakdown Schofield vs Farmer? I smell an upset there.
Bread’s response: I like Jake Paul by decision over Chavez Jr. I think Farmer has a real shot but I don’t want to make a pick until I see who the judges are. It matters. I will say that Farmer will have to slow Schofield down with body shots. Schofield is a hoppy type of fighter. And fighters like that don’t get hit to the body often. For example how many times have you see fighters go to Shawn Porter’s, Ollie Usyk’s or Manny Pacquiao’s body. Not too often. But whenever someone does, they have great success. If Farmer can get to Schofield’s body early and break even in the first six rounds, he has a real shot to win a decision. But he can’t be careless, Schofield is strong and explosive. Right now I will say Schofield vs Farmer ends in a controversial draw. Tough fight to assess.
What do you make of Turki claiming he doesn’t want any Tom and Jerry boxers and making the ring smaller? Do you feel he’s trying to have too much influence on how fighters should fight? I also heard him say that he has big plans for Hamza Sheeraz and Shakur Stevenson and he doesn’t want them to lose. Does this sway the judges in their favor or is it all part of the game? I wouldn’t want to be Edgar Berlanga and William Zepeda in those fights.
Bread’s response: I don’t know, but I assume Turki didn’t like the responses from the fights he put on in Times Square. So his way of ensuring more action is to make the ring smaller. I respect his perspective because he’s paying for the bouts. I also respect it if a fighter says, ‘No one can tell me how to fight and it’s up to my opponent to cut the ring off’. I respect both sides of that coin.
As for an actual small ring – elite boxers will be okay in 18x18 rings. Sometimes a bigger ring allows you to over-move. It gives a false sense of security and a fighter actually moves too much and wears himself out. Whereas in a smaller ring the circles will be tighter, and the “boxer” will do more fundamentally sound boxing and not over-move. I’m excited to see how it plays out.
I didn’t know Turki said that he wanted Shakur Stevenson and Hamza Sheeraz to win. I’m not saying it will sway the judges but I definitely won’t say it won’t. We will just have to wait and see. But I can only imagine that Team Berlanga and Team Zepeda are worried. It’s a tough spot to be in. But it’s boxing, and you have to overcome that and not play victim.
I saw your comments about Errol Spence being elite on. I couldn’t agree more. I can’t believe some of the ignorant comments that flooded your timeline. Errol Spence was the best fighter on the 2012 Olympics Team. He was a six-year and three-belt world champion. He was undefeated and in the top five of the pound-for-pound list. I really don’t understand how he can’t be elite. Just because he may have slipped doesn’t mean he wasn’t elite. If we start doing that, then Canelo’s resume drops down drastically.
Bread’s response: You said it better than I could. I just block weirdos on my timeline. I don’t even read their entire comments. As soon as I see something stupid, I block them. Saying that Spence was not elite is not only a slight to him but it’s a slight to Crawford. Spence was just a slight underdog going into the fight with the pound-for-pound, number one fighter in the world. He was ranked in the pound-for-pound top five. When someone says he wasn’t elite, I ask them did Errol rank himself or did the RING Magazine rank him? Spence was elite anyway you slice it, and if he wasn’t then Canelo’s resume gets torn to shreds.
I also don’t like it that the best performance of the decade gets devalued. What Crawford did that night was special. It was a performance for the ages. And if we devalue Spence, we devalue the performance. Just because Spence may have slipped some, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t elite. In his past fight before he fought Crawford he looked excellent in stopping Ugas. That performance made a lot of people pick Spence and/or think the fight would be very competitive. The energy and thoughts going into the fight is the most important context of how to assess a match up. There have been too many great performances against great fighters to say a fighter is not elite because he got dominated. I will close with this – was Sonny Liston not elite because Ali dominated him? Was Tito Trinidad not elite because Bernard Hopkins dominated him? Was James Toney not elite because Roy Jones dominated him? It’s a ridiculous notion if you actually think about it.
Send questions to [email protected]
