By Stephen "Breadman" Edwards

The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards giving his thoughts on various topics such as the reputation of champions who experience a sudden drop off, what he would do if he was Ryan Garcia’s coach ahead of April 20 and what makes Beterbiev so effective.

Dear Breadman,

I really enjoy your column and appreciate all the time you take to answer questions in detail. Artur Beterbiev wins his fights through a slow methodical beat down of his opponent but his money shot seems to be a clubbing overhand right that he times perfectly over the opponent's left jab. It usually lands on the temple or side to the back of the head. I am confident he will land a couple of these in the eighth or later against Bivol as a precursor to a KO. What are your thoughts and can you analyse the punch that was so effective against Yarde, Joe Smith etc.?

All the best,

Aaron in Miami

Bread’s Response: Yes sometimes when a fighter has an avalanche type of style we miss the specific details of how they caused the avalanche. Artur Beterbiev has a very good jab and left hook. But that sneaky right hand he throws is devastating. 

Actually, I thought more opposing teams would complain because the clubbing blow you speak of, lands in a borderline spot. If you’re on Team Beterbiev you will say it lands on the SIDE of the head. If you’re an opposing team you will say it lands in the BACK of the head. Nevertheless Beterbiev has it down to a science and no one can stop it. Not only is it in a vital area, it often lands WHILE an opponent is attacking with a jab which makes the impact worse. Anytime you land in a spot that’s sensitive like the temple and the opponent is occupied trying to land his own punch it accentuates the effect. Once Beterbiev starts his fight ending volleys, it’s usually because of this punch. The timing of it is impeccable. It’s why I’ve never said Beterbiev is SLOW. Because his timing and execution is so good. 

Peace Breadman,

How great was Hector Camacho?

In terms of greatness, how high would you rate Joe Louis ? Do you think Tyson would have beat a prime Larry Holmes? 

Mythical Matchup Tyson Vs Joe Louis & Tyson Vs Shavers, Canelo vs Oscar 

Thank You for reading

Bread’s Response: Hector Camacho was a great fighter. One of the top Junior Lightweights I’ve seen. One of the best southpaws I’ve seen. Certainly a HOF. But not quite an ATG. Not on the level of peers Whitaker and Chavez. Not on the level of Puerto Rico's finest in Trinidad, Ortiz or Gomez. He's closer to Esteban De Jesus...

Joe Louis is an ATG which is a higher tier than being a HOF. Louis is no worse than top 3 at heavyweight. He had the most title defenses ever. He’s the greatest puncher ever in terms of his mix of power, speed, accuracy, precision, punch variation and actual knockouts. Punching power is not just power. It’s the ability to deliver the power accurately at every range. If you watch any fight of Louis from 1937-42, he gives a clinic on punching. His feet are always under him. His punches stay on one arc. He turns his hips into everything. And he snaps his shot as they land. On top of him being a great puncher, he was a great boxer. He doesn’t get credit for it because he was so economical with his approach. He “looked” slow but he had the same effect that Artur Beterbiev has today. Mt. Rushmore level fighter.

Larry Holmes is a greater fighter than Mike Tyson but I’ve always believed that Tyson would be live in a match up with Holmes at their best. Tyson’s right hand is devastating and he easily hit Holmes with right hands when they fought in 1988. That win was no fluke. Holmes beat an undefeated Ray Mercer in 1991. Renaldo Snipes and Earnie Shavers both were able to get consistent right hand homes on Holmes. So was Tim Witherspoon. Cus D’Amato told Tyson long before he did it, he could beat Holmes because Holmes didn’t defend right hands well. I can see two scenarios. One where Holmes has too much moxy and he overcomes the early onslaught. Holmes is an A+ version of Buster Douglas. But I can also see a scenario where Tyson locks in early and finds a home for that right hand and he keeps landing it to a point where he either KOs Holmes or wins a decision because of too many big rounds. 

Tyson has a shot to KO Louis early but he can always run into something. Today I say he runs into something and Louis scorches him early. Tyson stops Shavers in one round. No disrespect to Shavers but Tyson is levels above him.

Canelo vs Oscar is hard. Anything over 154 I take Canelo. But at 154 which is a fair weight, I’ve seen Canelo struggle vs Trout, Lara and Mayweather of course beat him. This fight would most likely go the distance and be controversial. But today I say Oscar edges it with his foot speed and jab. I think Canelo peaked out at 160-68. Whereas Oscar was older and more settled at 154. Oscar looked great when he first moved up to 154. If he didn’t get robbed in the Mosley rematch, his legacy would be better there. So the pick is Oscar by razor-close controversial decision.

There is a lot of talk about Ryan Garcia’s mental health and how it may impact him during his fight with Devin Haney. Do you think Garcia will be impacted by his mental health? If you were his trainer, would you let him fight in his state? Thank you!

Bread’s Response: I can’t say what I would do as his trainer because I don’t know what’s real and what’s an act. For all you know Ryan can be selling the fight. Or maybe he’s using skullduggery to ACT crazy to get in Devin’s head. I have no idea. 

I also don’t believe a trainer has the power to stop an event of this magnitude. Ryan is a mega star. There is lots of money to be made when he fights. And trainers who are the most important members of the team aren’t treated that way overall. If a trainer tried to stop Ryan from fighting and Ryan wanted to fight, that trainer would get replaced and someone else would make the money he was set to make. The only way I would have the power to pull Ryan out of the fight is if he was my son. At this point the trainer has to do his job and train. And let someone else make the type of decisions you’re speaking of.

I've been curious about this question for a while: What do you think are some of the worst drop offs in boxing history? Like, I'm thinking ones so bad they damaged the fighter's legacy? I feel like Ezzard Charles and Roy Jones Jr might both have a case for the worst but I wanted to know if you agree and who else you think might be up there? Before his third fight with Walcott, Ezzard Charles was 71-5. Then he went 24-20 the rest of his career. Then after his fight with John Ruiz and before dropping down for his first fight with Antonio Tarver, Roy Jones Jr was 48-1. Then he went 17-9 the rest of his career. I feel like Charles might still have done enough to be a top 10 greatest boxer ever, but I think Jones could've been top 5 or even top 3 if he'd retired after that Ruiz fight. What do you think? Am I off-base? Are there others I'm overlooking?

Greg K. 

Bread’s Response: You’re not off base. Ezzard Charles is every bit the equal to Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep. But he doesn’t get acknowledged as much as them because his record wasn’t as pretty and they were all in the same era turning pro the same year. Pep made it to 131-1 before the losses started piling up. And Robinson 128-1 before the same. After Charles get KOd by Walcott he was never the same and the losses started. So did the stoppages. I think Charles’s run from 1943-51 may be the best in history. The names are astonishing. Burley, Moore, Louis, Walcott……But you’re correct, his drop off was really bad and it has slightly affected his historical status.

Roy Jones was right on the doorstep of being considered the best fighter ever. And then the Antonio Tarver rematch happened. When a fighter slowly declines without losing, it seems as though his resume stays intact more. But when the drop off is sudden. Like one day we see him as SuperMan and the next just a guy, the evaluation of the fighter is more harsh. 

I’ve seen many drop offs but those two are two of history's more prolific drop offs. Another is Matthew Saad Muhammad. After his rematch with Dwight Qawi things got really bad for him. His punch resistance and instincts were just gone. He had become a name on up and coming fighter’s records after establishing himself as the legend. That hits home because he’s from my hometown. 

Hey Mr. Edwards,

I know you're an Oscar De La Hoya fan, and I am too, and when Oscar was at his peak/prime in his mid-twenties, in the '90s, I was in my teens, and I looked up to him. Boxing fans are always saying 'Oscar fought everyone - he never ducked anyone', but there were 2 great fighters from his era, fighting in his weight class whom he never fought - Vernon Forrest and Winky Wright.

Oscar held the WBA and WBC junior-middleweight titles, and Winky Wright held the IBF junior-middleweight title at the same time,in 2003. The WBO belt didn't start to be recognized with the same prestige as the other 3 major world titles for a couple more years.

So if Oscar and Winky Wright had contested the WBA, WBC and IBF titles, the winner of that fight would've been the undisputed champion in that weight class, and I remember Winky Wright saying he still wanted to fight Oscar, in his interview immediately after his 170-lb catchweight with Bernard Hopkins, and he would even be willing to go back down to 154 lbs to fight Oscar.

Oscar decided to try to avenge his loss to Shane Mosley in 2003, rather than fight Winky Wright for the undisputed championship. Did Oscar duck Winky Wright and Vernon Forrest, and how do you see those fights playing out? As much as I like Oscar, I think he ducked those fights because they were high-risk/low-reward fights against two excellent fighters who were never big names. I can't wait to get your opinion on this topic…

John

Bread’s Response: Heck NO Oscar didn’t duck Winky Wright and Vernon Forest. Oscar was a GUN and he fought almost everybody in his era. He missed those two but that’s not the same as a duck. Forrest was sort of a late bloomer. He was in the same weight divisions as Oscar from 97-00 but he was behind him in terms of development. Oscar was already a 4 division champion by the time Forest earned his first belt at 147. Oscar also moved up to 154 after his fight with Mosley in 2000 which is why Mosley fought Forrest in a unification a few years later in 2002. 

From my knowledge Forrest could’ve had the Oscar fight after he defeated Mosley for the second time. Forrest instead chose to fight Mayorga to get all of the belts and unfortunately he lost twice and the Oscar fight wasn’t viable anymore, they went in separate directions.

Winky is another great fighter who bloomed late. Winky was waiting for his big shot while being champion but Oscar had a right to want to avenge his loss to Mosley. He had just unified vs Fernando Vargas and as a great fighter you want to avenge your losses. If Oscar would have never fought Mosley again, then someone can nitpick and say he never tried to avenge his loss. But he tried to avenge the loss and in my opinion he got robbed. After that he moved up to 160 won a title and fought a unification with Bernard Hopkins. I certainly won’t call it a duck of Winky Wright when he lost to Mosley and moved up and fought Hopkins. 

After that Oscar was out for a couple of years. He came back, stopped Mayorga and fought Floyd Mayweather. Being able to make a fight. And ducking an opponent is not the same. And it’s hard to fight everyone. At no point on the timeline did Oscar fight someone instead of fighting Wright or Forrest that was less practical or made more sense. He just didn’t fight them for various reasons. 

As for an actual fight between Oscar and Winky it’s tough to call. Oscar threw fast punches and he had quick feet. By the time the fight would’ve been viable, Winky had sort of evolved into a pressure technician using a high guard. I suspect Winky’s physical strength would be hard for Oscar to deal with. Winky wasn’t a big puncher but he was very consistent and strong. But the judges weren’t crazy about his style….. I’m going to guess Winky wins because I think his jab and consistency would have an advantage over Oscar’s flashier style but it’s a tough fight to call.

What do you think about Fundora as a late replacement for Keith Thurman against Tim Tszyu? And where do you think Keith Thurman’s career goes from here?

I for one think it might be a better bout now.  

Fundora’s come forward style, even though it leaves him open defensively, will certainly make for an exciting bout as long as it lasts. Especially considering Fundora’s been more active than Thurman. And added to the fact that Thurman’s never fought at super welter. Keith Thurman was a great champion years ago. His bout against Shawn Porter was one of my favorite bouts from the early PBC days. I have nothing against him and he had a halfway decent career, but at 35 yrs old and being as inactive as he is, I think he’s done at the top level.  

Sustaining a biceps injury in camp makes me think he hasn’t been very active during his extended layoff. 

Bread’s Response: Anyone can be injured in camp. But it’s more likely to happen when you’re older and inactive. I think Thurman will try to come back but this is going to be tough. A torn bicep is a long rehab. But with today’s modern medicine maybe he can pull it off. Let’s see what happens.

Fundora is the polar opposite of Thurman. He’s about a foot taller and he’s a southpaw. He also fights more in a swarming style. But I don’t know if he’s harder. Just different. From my perspective, Fundora is more grinding physically. He makes you have to go through more in terms of physical stress and output. But Thurman in my opinion is harder to figure out because of his movement and he’s more skilled. I respect Tszyu for taking Fundora. Most would have taken a right handed fighter and one closer to Thurman’s height.

Hello Bread,

Some quick points I would like to see exactly where you stand on. First the Canelo is ducking Benavidez narrative. I hate to use the word "ducking or scared" when it comes to boxers. With Canelo I feel as if he knows deep down inside that a fight with Benavidez is an absolute WAR. At 33 or 34 years of age Canelo will leave something physically in the ring after fighting a man like Benavidez who is bigger, stronger, younger and throws a lot of punches per round. In my opinion the same thing happened to Roy Jones Jr. 

Roy went in against a much bigger and stronger Ruiz and clearly beat him but the FIGHT, what I call in the trenches Roy took punches from a much bigger stronger man and the result was Roy just was not the same afterwards. A lot of people talk about Roy moving up and then losing the weight as to why he was weakened against Tarver, although I’m sure it contributed, I feel the punches he took over 12 rounds from Ruiz took something out of Roy that night. 

Lastly I don’t feel as if Canelo not fighting Benavidez is the same as Bud not fighting Boots. I think Bud is nearing the end of the road and he wants legacy and the biggest payday, that’s why he was chasing Charlo at 154, and he has talked about fighting the winner of Tszyu vs Fundora. That would make him a 4 division champion. Your thoughts?

Quick mythical matchup. I can’t pick this winner:Bernard Hopkins vs Marvin Hagler

Bread’s Response: I sort of agree. I think Canelo will fight Benavidez. I just think he knows that he’s going to leave a piece of himself in the ring when they fight. So therefore if he’s going to fight him, I think it will be at the end…..

Canelo is prideful and he doesn’t like fighters challenging his manhood. But he’s also not stupid. He knows what Benavidez is and he knows what kind of effort it will take to beat him. Let’s see how both look in their upcoming fights. I still think it’s possible and I think it's a fight by fight basis type of thing..

Hopkins vs Hagler. So the best Hopkins from say 95-01 vs the best Hagler from 78-82. I’ve watched both extensively. Either could beat the other on any given day. They’re very similar in terms of ability, skill and conditioning. But if you force me to pick. I noticed that Hagler has a higher output and he hustles a little more in tight spots. 

Hopkins had a little trouble with Robert Allen in their first fight and Allen is the closest thing to Hagler that he ever fought but obviously Hagler is better. Hopkins’s lead right hand would be a major issue for Hagler, Hopkins has a case for the best lead right hand in history and that's a southpaw killer. As would Hagler’s shotgun southpaw jab for Hopkins that he beat taller fighters with. My guess would be in a fight with neither guy likely to be stopped. The fighter who is hustling more would get the edge. So Hagler by close decision.

Send Questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com