In this week’s mailbag, trainer Stephen “Breadman” Edwards discusses Saul "Canelo" Alvarez, Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston, Timothy Bradley, Naoya Inoue and Manny Pacquiao.
Rolando Romero is not seen as a technical boxer at all, yet he completely outclassed Ryan Garcia. Ismael Salas got that effort out of Romero in a very short period of time and helped create one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. So, my question is this: is Ismael Salas the front runner for trainer of the year?
Bread’s response: I don’t know who’s the front runner as the trainer of the year. But Ismael Salas is my guy and he’s an excellent trainer. One of the best in the world in my opinion. The candidate for trainer of the year is usually the trainer whose fighter won the biggest fight. The trainer of the fighter who scores the biggest upset. Or the trainer of the fighter who had the best performance. So Rolly winning a fight, no one expected him to win, is definitely a feather in Salas’s hat. Good for him, I hope he wins it.
Hi Breadman. Canelo vs Scull, wow. Scull sold out big time! I've never seen someone so happy to lose! The strange thing is that there's an argument there for Scull winning that fight. From what I saw Scull had the ability to make it an easy win. His timing, ability and quality were greater than Canelo's, but his choices/actions were shocking. Canelo, unfortunately, appears a shadow of his former self, which is a serious shame. Based on what we just saw Bud takes him apart and wins comfortably, by stoppage if he wants to. It's a shame because people will inevitably say Canelo was shot, but I believe Bud would have beaten Canelo clean at any time during his career with correct preparation and judges. As with the Spence fight, it sadly seems like Bud will never receive the adulation he deserves, when we are witnessing an ATG before us, that few seem willing to recognise.
Bread’s response: I don’t ever want to talk about William Scull again. I don’t care what anyone says, that was not boxing, that was running. The crazy part about it is, Canelo was there for the taking that night. You can tell he didn’t train that hard and he wasn’t engaged. He didn’t even feel like putting forth the effort to chase Scull. If Scull would’ve just settled down in the second half of the fight, and let his hands go, he could’ve won. But now, no one will care or even make a case for him to have won, because of how poorly he fought.
Personally I will give Canelo and Bud full credit for a win or performance. Just because a man is smaller than you, or fought at a lower weight, doesn’t mean he’s an easier fight than opponents your size. For example, Bud is a tougher fight for Canelo than Rocky Fielding. But Fielding is bigger. A smaller fighter that can take a good punch, is very difficult for a bigger fighter if the smaller fighter is more agile and has better conditioning.
The style of both fighters also has to be considered. For example, Bob Foster and Michael Spinks had no shots vs Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson because of the frenetic pressure Frazier and Tyson applied. But Michael Spinks and Ray Leonard did well vs Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler because Holmes boxed and Hagler’s pressure was methodical and not frenetic.
Canelo is methodical at this point of his career. He’s also shorter than Bud with less length and stamina. This is a very difficult fight for Canelo style wise. I also will give Bud credit for winning. Bud is 37 years old and he’s jumping two weight divisions to fight an ATG super middleweight in Canelo, who is undefeated at the weight. If Bud wins, he deserves his props. Especially if the betting lines have him as an underdog. You can’t discredit a win a fighter gets as an underdog.
Mr Edwards, I appreciate your response to my question about Liston vs Clay/Ali. Your explanation about Liston being a plodder leading with his shoulder blade was really great!!! Thank you for that!!! What I did not appreciate was you saying my opinion was “asinine”. I’m not sure it’s good business to insult your loyal readers. But what is “asinine” is you saying Liston “could have gotten up”. Liston DID get up. And it wasn’t the timekeeper who called Walcott over to stop the fight, it was Nat Fleischer, a journalist. And I’ve heard of “quick counts” before but never a “no count”. Was Liston supposed to be counting while on the canvas? It’s obvious you think Ali was “the greatest”. That’s fine. I don’t. But if you repeat something often enough it suddenly becomes “true”. As far as “mental gymnastics”, it always amazed me that Ali referred to many of his opponents as “bums”. How does somebody become “the greatest” by beating, by his own admission, “bums”? Ali was the “A list” before it became a thing. The hotly disputed Doug Jones decision, the “split glove” in the Cooper fight, the statement by Foreman a few years ago, “Ali still hasn’t beat Ken Norton”, the loose ropes in Zaire, the Shavers decision, etc. You said Ali had “character”. I assume you meant in the ring, which I admit I have no idea what you mean by that. But I’m not sure there is a lot of character involved when he referred to opponents as “the washerwoman”, the “rabbit”, an “Uncle Tom”, and Frazier as a “gorilla”, especially after Frazier went to bat for Ali with President Nixon to give Ali a chance to fight again. You and I must have a different definition of “character”. Last point: I think Ali was a great fighter, just not “the greatest”. That is my opinion. And I, nor your loyal readers, need to be insulted for having an opinion different than yours. Oh, and your prediction that Garcia would knock Rolly out “within 3 rounds” was “asinine”. Curt Omaha
Bread’s response: My pick about Garcia knocking out Rolly was wrong. It wasn’t asinine. Learn the definition before you try to insult me about a wrong pick, that I’m actually happy I was wrong about. You’re way too sensitive to write into a boxing mailbag. But ok, let's go… I didn’t call your opinion asinine. I answered your question and gave a detailed explanation. I said all of the mental gymnastics of trying to get Sonny Liston a hypothetical win over a fighter who stopped him twice in Muhammad Ali was asinine.
If I remember correctly, you wanted to take the Liston that beat Cleveland Williams in 1960 and match him vs Cassius Clay, the young Ali of 1964. And you favored that Liston over Ali. But you favored the Ali who beat Cleveland Williams in 1966 to beat Liston. Well, In my opinion you had to do too much to get Liston a win.
Liston was not old or shot when he fought Ali. He was on his best career run. He was a 7 to 1 favorite to beat a gold medalist in Ali so somebody thought really highly of Sonny's chances when they fought. And Ali made him quit. I was being respectful towards you by even answering the question. But again you did too much. I understand it’s a hypothetical scenario but come on bro.
As far as where I rank Ali, I can see you’re not the biggest Ali fan. And you have a right to feel that way. But again you’re a sensitive dude. Ali called his opponents bums. So what! They can fight him and show him that they aren’t bums. He didn’t call them bums and ducked them. He called them bums and fought them. Big difference. Ali is the epitome of character. If I need to explain that to you, you won’t get an explanation today. But fighting the killers he fought, in the era he fought them in, going through what he went through, is character.
Remember something: Ali took way more punishment in certain fights in his career than Liston took vs him and he never quit or laid on the canvas to exaggerate being hurt more than he was. That's character! Liston was a bad dude but he wasn't willing to give as much of himself as Ali was. And you know it! That's why you have to do all of these time machine scenarios to get Liston an imaginary win.
Oh and one more thing. If you could do anything in life, as well as Ali could fight, some people may call you the greatest also. And they would talk about you 50 years after your career was over, like you’re talking about him 50 years after his career was over. Peace!
What's good Bread. Thank you for taking your time out to answer questions. Hopefully they're compensating you well lol. There’s few people whose boxing opinion I value. You aka Black Bert Sugar, Greg Hackett, Tarver and Sean Zittel. Y'all are able to articulate what you see to the casual fan and add context which a lot of people lack. Greg has become one of my favorites. He knows the game. Haney rarely seems rooted in himself unless it's vs guys smaller & the over movement is off-putting. Teo is a great athlete that's a boxer & not the other way around. He does a lot of stuff that's flash but no substance. Once he realized Barboza was not on his level, he should've hurt him or got him outta there. That's what truly sets the elite from the very good. Usyk, Bud, Inoue, Bivol let you know they're a level above and they got that "DAWG IN THEM!". That's my issue with this new Four Kings. We bestow these honors way too early, but it's human nature so I get it. I thought Ryan would become like an Oscar Jr with Derrick James improving his stance, jab & adding some Errol/Charlo to his game. A big problem with this era is low punch output/not adjusting at the moment (IQ). Either these fighters are one hand/one punch dominant or get the deer in headlights look & don't know how to adjust mid-fight. Boxing is a substance sport. The P4P guys I mentioned above aren't the most popular on social media or took a while for them to get recognition, but they're the real deal. Meat & veggies vs junk food. Right now the torch to be carried is down to Boots, Tank, Keyshawn & Shakur. Shakur just has to find that offense/defense balance. Teo is really solid, but something tells me he will struggle vs another technician or a steady workman ala Naseem/Barerra. Side note who are some people who's boxing opinion you value.
Bread’s response: There a few people whose opinion I really respect in boxing. But I’m sure I will forget a few. As far as people who are alive… I like to try to categorize this stuff. Because there are plenty of people who are sharp at observing boxing but they don’t have the media platform… So, out of the people who have a platform, Max Kellerman is sharp. I don’t know why he doesn’t have a boxing platform. But Kellerman knows what he’s talking about and what he’s looking at.
Roy Jones is also very good as well as Andre Ward.
There is a guy named Dwyer that is really good. He does betting propositions on YouTube.
Out of the new social media boxing people, Sean Zittell is very good. He’s another guy you can tell knows what he’s looking at. I’m sure there are a few others but I can't name them all off the top of my head.
Hi Breadman. I pray God is blessing and continues to bless you and your family and the fans of your mailbag and their families. What do you think is worse, Breadman, a fighter losing by KO or him quitting? I think quitting is worse. Getting KO’d means you just got caught by a good punch which can happen to anyone but to quit to me means that you have been broken and submitted. Quitting to me diminishes you more than being knocked out. I never heard who you thought won the Davis vs Roach fight result. Who do you think won and why?
Bread’s response: Quitting is worse than being KO’d in my opinion.
I still haven’t seen an HD good version of Tank vs Roach. That’s why I haven’t come out with my official scorecard.
Good day Bread. Hope all is well. Inoue is fantastic, but this just highlights further how great Pacquiao was. To be his size and reach the heights he did will never be duplicated. Plus he was more defensively responsible than Donaire. His wins vs Margarito and Thurman will always be the most impressive wins to me due to the size & timing of them. If Inoue fights at 126 it should be straight for the belts like Canelo did at 175. But a sustained run at 126 may not be in his best interest. You were right about Crawford-Canelo all along. Canelo has been fighting at the same rhythm & pace for years & no one challenges him on it except the obvious 3 greats he lost/drew with. So long as Bud grows into the weight correctly & doesn't get too sluggish he should win, based off of speed and activity/scoring shots. I saw Haney training with Nate Campbell & was alarmed by his skinny legs; no calves or definition at all. Until he solidifies his base/lower half this will continue to be a problem. Ryan Garcia… no comment. But just gonna say Teo, as gifted as he is, I'd like to see him put the punches together more & chill on the styling & drunken master stuff (Emmanuel Augustus). Anyways, thanks for your time.
Bread’s response: We will probably never see another Manny Pacquiao again. He started at 108lbs and made it up to 150lbs as an elite fighter. Sometimes everything can line up at the same time and that's what we got in Pacquiao. The timing lined up for a special athlete to do something special.
Inoue is also special. He just doesn’t have the body type of Pacquiao. Pacquiao has a bigger head, legs and he’s taller. Inoue is almost equally as great but his weight rise won’t be the same and that’s ok.
I wasn’t proven right about Bud vs Canelo yet. It hasn’t happened yet. I don’t want credit for something that hasn’t happened yet. Canelo will show up better vs Bud than he did vs Scull. But I still like Bud to pull it out.
Sup Breadman. How do you mentally prepare a fighter that's a heavy underdog? In the ring I’m sure it’s a lot of game plan, exploit your opponents weaknesses, take away their best weapon etc, but psychologically, how do you prepare your fighter? I'd like to believe most fighters think they can win, but as a trainer do you acknowledge that they’re an underdog? Do you train them as if they weren’t outmatched or do you keep it real with them? Does this vary from fighter to fighter? In the Inoue/Cardenas fight there was a clear talent gap but Cardenas fought his heart out and had some success. Just an observation/example, no disrespect, but I had never heard of Cardenas and Inoue is who he is. How do you mentally prepare for that type of matchup? Thanks for the time. Hope you and yours are doing well.
Bread’s response: I like training fighters who are the underdog more so than I do fighters who are the favorites. A real fighter will get on his A game if he’s the underdog. Fighters are human and although they say every fight is the same, they know every threat is not the same. Some threats are bigger than others. When a fighter is the big favorite, physically he may train hard, but mentally he may not be as engaged because he doesn’t feel the threat level. When a fighter feels a threat, he trains harder for the most part. So honestly as far as getting the most of them in camp, I would rather train a big underdog. I keep it real with them and tell them everyone will expect them to lose but it doesn’t matter what everyone thinks or expects.
Cardenas fought his butt off. I love how he showed up and did everything he could to win the fight. That’s how you take the challenge of a great fighter. Cardenas actually had more left to give at the time of the stoppage. But that’s a story for another day.
Sup Breadman. My question is about Tim Bradley. Did he overachieve in his career? Can you break down his style? He seemed very physically strong but lacked punching power, but didn’t seem like an uber talented technician either? Curious as to your thoughts.
Bread’s response: Good question. I don’t know if Tim overachieved but I will say he got “everything” out of his ability which is all you can ask for. I think the boxing world gets lazy when we label a style. We use the term boxer/puncher or slick way too much without context or detail. Tim Bradley’s style is interesting. I saw him live when he unified against Devon Alexander in Michigan. I feel like Bradley was a hybrid, athletic, boxer/fighter. Notice I said boxer/fighter and not boxer/puncher. Tim could be whatever he needed to be in the boxing ring except a big puncher but punching power is overrated if you had what Tim had.
I saw him attack fighters like Alexander. I saw him box fighters like Juan Marquez. I saw him fight on the inside like he did vs Brandon Rios. I saw him box on the outside like he did vs Luis Abrego. He earned his HOF status. He was a terrific fighter. One of the best of his generation.
Tim may not have been the most aesthetically pleasing in terms of his style. He didn’t do one thing special but he did do many things very good. But he did have one thing that was special and that was his fighting spirit. The dude never stopped trying. Manny Pacquiao was a little more talented than Tim. He was a little faster. A better puncher. Just more dynamic. And regardless of who you thought won their first fight, Tim made Manny earn every second of success he had. You can’t control what the judges will do, but you can control what you do. Tim never stopped trying. He gave himself a case for winning. Tim did that throughout his career. Tim’s effort was next level. He seemed to be knocked out on his feet vs Ruslan Provodnikov but he was throwing punches the whole time. That type of fighting spirit got him in the HOF and it should be noted. That’s a special quality that often gets overlooked when analyzing fighters.
What’s up Bread? How do you think “Monster” Inuoe stacks up against the following fighters at 122? 1. Erik Morales. 2. Marco Antonio Barrera. 3. Guillermo Rigondeaux. 4. Israel Vasquez (RIP). 5. Rafael Marquez. 6. Mark “Too Sharp” Johnson. Who do you think would be his most and least difficult style matchup out of that list? Peace, William in West Palm (W. Hollis Boxing)
Bread’s response: You know the Monster is real when he’s compared to this group. Ok…
Monster vs Morales is a pick em fight in my opinion.
Monster vs Barrera, give me Barrera on a close decision.
Monster vs Rigondeaux, flip a coin. I can’t call it. I can see them both KO’ing each other.
Monster vs Vasquez, Monster by late stoppage.
Monster vs Rafael Maquez, Monster by stoppage.
Monster vs Too Sharp wouldn’t be at 122. Too Sharp wasn’t a 122lber. Too Sharp was past his best at anything above 115lbs. Not a fair fight at 122lbs.
Send Questions and comments to [email protected]