In this week’s mailbag, coach Stephen “Breadman” Edwards discusses hall-of-fame credentials, ring-entrance music, the previously proposed fight between Jaron “Boots” Ennis and Vergil Ortiz Jnr, the great, Andre Word, and makes a prediction for the outcome of Oleksandr Usyk-Tyson Fury II.
Great response to the asshole who brought up race. And just like clockwork in the same week the mailbag comes out, another white fighter in Vinny Pazienza makes the Hall of Fame. While several black fighters who had better careers can’t get on the ballot. You keep fighting the good fight brother. Some of us appreciate you. On to my question – how does one qualify as a voter to the IBHOF? And do you know the demographics of the voters? It’s becoming frustrating as a lifelong fan of boxing that most of the guys who don’t deserve to be in are white.
Bread’s response: Congrats to the new inductees in the IBHOF. I don’t like to personally criticize a fighter who gets awarded for an honor because even if I don’t agree, it’s not their fault. They don’t vote themselves in.
I have no idea what the demographics are of the HOF voters. I have no idea how one qualifies to vote. I would like to go another route. Instead of criticizing fighters who have been elected, I would raise awareness for fighters who deserve to at least be on the ballot. And others who deserve to be inducted. Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn are on the ballot and both deserve very strong consideration to go in. Eubank was undefeated until he had over 40 fights. He’s a two-division champion. And he fought a killer schedule.
Nigel Benn is also a two-division champion and his best wins are stoppages over Iran Barkley and Gerald McClellan. Benn has close to double-digit title defenses at super middleweight.
Now for the guys who aren’t on the ballot. Marlon Starling is arguably a top five or six welterweight of the 80s. He has wins over Lloyd Honeyghan, Simon Brown and Mark Breland. And he held a prime Michael Nunn to a majority decision at middleweight! There is no justifiable reason Starling is not on the ballot.
Simon Brown has eight defenses of the welterweight title. He unified. He won one of the best title fights in welterweight history over Tyrone Trice. And he moved up and stopped an all-time-great 154 in his prime in Terry Norris for one of the best wins of the 90s.
Junior Jones won a title at 118. Then he beat two HOFs for huge wins at 122 in Orlando Canizales and Marco Antonio Barrera. Enough said.
Steve Collins won a title at 160. Then moved up and went on a huge win streak to finish out his career defeating both Benn and Eubank twice at 168. Collins finished his career in style and again he deserves HOF consideration.
Jose Luis Castillo was a great fighter in the early 2000s. He beat Joel Casamayor, Stevie Johnston and Diego Corrales. And I know more than a few people who think he defeated Floyd Mayweather in their first fight. I’m actually confused that Castillo is not on the ballot.
Roger Mayweather has a claim to be on the ballot as a fighter and a coach. As a coach he trained the best fighter of this generation. As a fighter he won two world titles. Defended each of those titles multiple times. And he dominated Pazienza, who was just voted in, in their primes. I saw their fight and Pazienza won maybe two rounds max and was knocked down.
I’m not saying that the guys I named are locks to get in. But them not being on the ballot is criminal when they’re better than fighters who have actually been voted in.
Hope all is well in Philly. I was intrigued to read that you have selected the walk-out music for your fighters. What was the selection criteria for a good walk-out tune? Do different fighters require different songs? What does a great walk-out tune accomplish for the fighter? Happy holidays to you and yours and your readers!
Bread’s response: Great question. Each camp has a different feel and theme, because each opponent represents a different challenge. I suggest music based on what type of fight we need to fight, where we are, and what type of mindset I think my fighter should be in. I honestly can’t remember each song that I have picked. It’s been too many. But a couple stand out. Once I had a fighter who had a tough 50-50 prospect fight. He was talented but he was always too wound up and he didn’t fight relaxed enough for me. His opponent was a puncher, and I didn’t want him to trade so I got him to walk out to “I Gotta Feeling” by the Black Eyed Peas. I wanted him to have fun.
In another fight we were fighting in Boston. I knew Mickey Ward would be in the crowd. So I got the fighter to walk out to “Here We Go Again” by Whitesnake. A song that Ward came out to against Arturo Gatti. I wanted the crowd on our side. Ward loved the song suggestion.
There is definitely a method to the madness.
I’m a big fan of you as trainer, writer or speaker – you know the game of boxing. I read your responses about the “Boots” vs Ortiz fight and if this one is not a duck, can you explain why this one is different? Because the fighter who ducks will always find some excuses. And I give more credits because I remember you never said Bud ducks Boots! Excuse my English – it’s my fourth language
Bread’s response: Good memory. You’re correct, I never once said Bud ducked Boots. Instead of naming fighters who ducked other fighters I will give you an example of what would have been a duck if the fighter didn’t take the challenge and you can form your own opinion.
If Sugar Ray Leonard, who was the A side, didn’t fight Tommy Hearns, it would’ve been a duck. Leonard was the WBC champion; Hearns was the WBA champion. They were in the same division at the same stage of their careers. There were no other big fights to make. So Leonard fought him within two years of both winning their titles.
If Evander Holyfield didn’t fight Riddick Bowe in 1992, it would’ve been a duck. Bowe was ascending. He was the number-one contender. He had all of the credentials, plus a perfect record. Holyfield needed to fight him and he did.
If Oscar De La Hoya didn’t fight Felix Trinidad it would’ve been a duck. The match-up had everything you wanted. Perfect records. The Mexico versus Puerto Rico angle. And they were both in the same division for about two years. It was time to fight and they did.
If Errol Spence didn’t fight Terence Crawford it would’ve been a duck, and Spence deserves major props for taking that fight. Spence had three belts. Crawford had one. And they were fighting for the title of best welterweight of their era. So they fought.
So take these examples and look closely at fighters who were in these same situations and decided not to fight. My criteria for a duck is simple. You can’t duck a fighter who is not in your division. You can avoid the fight or you can choose to fight them, but you can’t duck a fighter that is not in your division. If a fighter is your mandatory or presents a logical challenge for over a year, and you choose not to fight him without an injury, mandatory or better challenge/money then it’s a duck.
Look, I hate to rain on anyone’s parade because Vinny Pazienza was a good fighter who worked hard to come back and I know he had a great day last week, but how the hell does he make the hall of fame ahead of Meldrick Taylor? Jose Luis Castillo? Simon Brown? Gilberto Roman? Sumbu Kalambay? The late Israel Vasquez? It’s strange to me. I understand if you wanted to draw the line for the hall above some of those guys. But there are 50 guys who would have been better choices than Pazienza. I was ok with Gatti because there’s a relevance to boxing history that transcends his achievements (which are kind of underrated anyway). But you can’t make the hall when your best win is Greg Haugen and you’re sub-500 against top-10 opponents. He may have taken Ingemar Johannson’s crown as the worst guy in. I was actually perplexed by the names on and off the ballot. Sven Ottke is on the ballot for getting a run of lucky decisions against European also-rans; meanwhile I didn’t see Kalambay who beat Mike McCallum?
And it is a travesty that Castillo is not inducted – let alone that he’s not on the ballot! The majority of observers believe they watched him hang a loss on a prime Floyd Mayweather Jnr. He went 1-1 with Diego Corrales and the loss was arguably the greatest fight in the 140-year history of boxing (maybe Chacon-Limon IV?). He beat Stevie Johnston, Juan Lazcano, Joel Casamayor, Cesar Bazan and Julio Diaz and was clearly the lightweight of the decade for the 2000s. I understand that industry people are mad at him about the weight-making issues and hold a grudge because he cost them money with event cancellations, and that reporters who voted had to get flights and hotels for nothing, so if you don’t like him I get it. But it’s been 15-20 years – let it go and accurately reflect the history. Last piece – what do you think about Pongsaklek Wonjongkam? He had great longevity but terrible challengers. He was the last great little guy before they started to get on TV more, so I haven’t seen much. If you were to compare his level to a welterweight or lightweight, who would be a good comparison?
Bread’s response: I can’t say anything bad about Pazienza. He had a solid career and his comeback was amazing. So congrats to him. But in no world did he have a better career or was a better fighter than Meldrick Taylor, Jose Luis Castillo, Israel Vasquez, Simon Brown, Jose Luis Castillo or Sambu Kalambay. I really don’t know what else to say. But I feel for those men. Everyone wants attributions for their achievements and things like this can make you extremely bitter.
Wonjongkam deserves to be in. He won the WBC title in 2001, and defended it almost 20 times, stopping his biggest rival Daisuke Naito. In 2007 he loses to Naito, then in their trilogy fight he earns a hard-fought draw. But Wonjongkam rebounds, wins the interim title, gets elevated a few more defenses, and beats an undefeated Koki Kameda. Wonjongkam should have been in if we are being objective and fair.
I just read your mailbox and you rambled on about a whole lot of bullshit and a whole lot of nothing. I said there was NOTHING WRONG with you wanting black fighters to succeed and you brought up some bullshit about fighters who fought over 100 years ago. What do they have to do with Boots ducking Vergil? But I knew you was gonna spin it in some type of way to make people believe Boots not ducking Vergil. It’s a duck man, no other way about it.
As far as Boots fighting in November and only having three months to prepare for Ortiz, well you’re a fucking clown for even using that excuse. Unless a fighter takes severe punishment in a fight, then there’s no reason why he can’t be ready to fight in three months. Not wanting to fight is a whole different matter. Being a fighter of Boots’ caliber is a full-time job. YOU STAY READY SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO GET READY! And I believe that Boots stays disciplined year round so he shouldn’t have a problem fighting in February. No doubt in my mind that if PBC had called Boots for a unification fight with Barrios for the same date with the same amount of money he got offered to fight Vergil he would have took the fight. That’s because Barrios is easy work for Boots. Vergil’s not so easy. And I have Boots-Vergil 51-49 in favor of Boots, but he still has to perform. But like I said, I smell pussy coming from him. So next time just stick to the topic, man. No need to bring up fighters from the past and no need to bring up how your favourite black fighter was robbed against Chavez. I also believe both Taylor and Whitaker were robbed against Chavez but that has nothing to do with Boots ducking Vergil. But you know your boxing and you the type of guy I would love to sit back at a bar and drink a beer with and debate boxing. But one thing that can’t be debated is Boots ducking Vergil. You can spin it any which way you want but your boy Boots ducked Vergil. Don’t take it personal, man. Black fighters duck hispanic fighters and vice versa. Sometimes it’s the money. Sometimes it’s the boxing politics. But in the case of Boots, well his pussy was quivering. No other way about it. Email me back if you still don’t agree and wanna set me straight. Stay up Bread. Have a great weekend.
Bread’s response: I brought those fighters up to illustrate how I don’t have to WANT anything. Black fighters simultaneously have been the most discriminated against and successful throughout the history of the sport. So I don’t have to want or wish for them to be. It’s just how it is and has been. The fighters I brought up had nothing to do with Boots and Vergil. I brought them up because you made it sound like I was hoping for an inferior product to be successful in this sport. Their talent seems to aggravate certain people like you, but you’re going to have to get over it.
I never said that Boots couldn’t be ready by February. What I said was that was a fast turnaround and without knowing what his plans were, it’s possible he wasn’t planning on being back in camp so soon. Similar to how Ortiz, who fought in August, wasn’t ready to fight in December. I don’t see the difference in the time spans. The only difference was when Ortiz wanted a new date it was ok, but when Boots was undecided it became a duck.
I don’t know the details of the offer. But I do know when it was reported. And I can reasonably assume, most seven-figure world champions will not accept a fast deadline on them moving up to fight for an interim belt. When you rush, you make mistakes. And that can be a career-altering decision Boots was being asked to make in a short period of time.
I bet Boots would take the Mario Barrios fight also. Especially since Barrios is in the SAME division and he wants to unify. That would make sense. But I would also bet that Barrios would take the Conor Benn fight before he takes the Boots fight. For a very simple reason. Boots is better…
I try to play fair and give assholes like yourself a chance to reply. I know reading your comment in my mailbag will raise that dopamine. But this will be your last time getting any light in this mailbag. You’re too disrespectful with the cursing and name calling. And no we can’t have a drink and talk boxing. As you say, you think you know my type – well, I know yours also…
I just finished reading Andre Ward’s new book Killing the Image, and I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I might be a bit biased since I’m also originally from the Bay Area and am a Christian, but I’ve always liked the way Ward carries himself. He’s articulate and seems genuinely humble. While I didn’t follow his career that much, I did watch all of his significant fights, including the Super Six tournament and the Kovalev matches. Being Mexican-American, I’ve always preferred the aggressive boxer-puncher or pressure style; my two favorite fighters are Chavez and De La Hoya. However, after reading the book, I went back to watch some of Ward’s other fights and gained a new-found respect for him. He was such a cerebral boxer with so many nuances to his game. Could you break down Andre Ward’s style ? I remember reading in your mailbag that you consider him one of the best, if not the best, shadow boxer you’ve seen. Mythical match-ups: 1) Prime Ward vs Canelo at 168 lbs, 2) Prime Ward vs Benavidez at 168 lbs. Thanks for sharing your boxing knowledge!
Bread’s response: I haven’t a had a chance to read Ward’s book, but I definitely would like to. Ward is 100 per cent the best shadow-boxer I have ever seen. His shawdow-boxing should be a tutorial for young fighters. It’s remarkable. People in boxing get lazy when they describe a style. Often times you hear pressure fighter. Or boxer puncher. When there is so much more. So for Ward I would say a physically imposing, neutralizing, adaptable boxer. I like Ward to beat both Canelo and Benavidez, with Benavidez being the more difficult fight.
What is your prediction for Usyk-Fury 2? The first fight was incredibly close and the betting odds on the second fight reflect that. What do you expect to see?
Bread’s response: I wouldn’t be surprised if this fight ended in a draw. The first fight basically came down to a punch that hurt Fury. And Usyk was able to carry that momentum down the stretch. If he doesn’t land that punch it may have been a draw. I have my concerns for both fighters to be able to reach the height they reached in their first fight. I have concerns about Fury’s punch resistance. He hasn’t been stopped yet, but he gets hurt quite often.
I have concerns if Usyk can put forth the type of effort he needs to get the win over such a big skilful fighter in back to back fights. If you twist my arm, I’m going to go with the more consistent fighter. Consistency is a skill and gift wrapped in one. To be able to replicate great nights and recall the skill you executed and then be able to execute again is a gift. So because of that I’m taking Usyk. He seems to just find a way to get it done. I don’t know how but I have to take Usyk because of his clutch gene.
In your opinion, who are the best underdog trainers ever in boxing? I don’t mean on just one night, but consistently being in the corner of the underdog on the championship level and coming out on top (and doing so multiple times not just one night). My question derives from watching Manny Robles in the corner of the upset winner so often. We know how good of a trainer Mr Robles is, but what does he do that gets his guys to get to that next level and be that much better as an underdog so often? I am so impressed with his training abilities and how he gets everything out of his fighters.
Bread’s response: Manny Robles is good – really good. That win with Andy Ruiz over Anthony Joshua was HUGE. I felt for Robles after he lost the Ruiz job, because he took him to his highest heights. But I can’t say in a definitive manner what he does. What I will assume is a simple quote. Coming in as the underdog he looks at the opponent in “Flaw of, not in awe of”.
As I type I will think of the biggest upsets of all time. What head trainer has won the biggest fights as the underdog? So, my selection would be either Angelo Dundee with his upsets wins in Ali vs Liston and Ali vs Foreman, Basilio vs Robinson, Leonard vs Hearns, Leonard vs Hagler and Foreman vs Moorer.
I also believe Eddie Futch could be the best underdog trainer. Norton vs Ali, Bowe vs Holyfield, among others.
That was a great analysis of Hitchins vs Paro. I can see why you wanted to know who the judges were before you made a prediction. Sometimes I can tell what you’re trying to say without saying it. Those scorecards were way too far off. I wanted your opinion on a few things. How does Hitchins stack up against the rest of the division? I read your comment on X about his style and his fundamentals. But do you think he could win a fight, fighting like he fights as the B side? What do you make of Hitchins’ interaction in the corner with his coach? His coach was telling him to go right and shoot lead right hands. But he was going left, looking outside of the ring listening to Edgar Berlanga and others. His coach wasn’t as confident that he was winning, and they seem to be arguing. I’ve also noticed this with Shakur Stevenson. What are your thoughts on this type of communication in the corner? What do you think of Boots vs Teofimo? Do you think the negotiations are real? What do you make of so many of Matchroom’s prospects losing? I’ve counted at least seven of their prospects losing over the last year. They also went zero for five in the 5 V 5. Do you think they care more about putting on good fights or keeping their prospects undefeated?Jalil Hackett, for example, fought a Puerto Rican in Puerto Rico with all Puerto Rican judges. I just started watching boxing about 20 years ago, so I definitely don’t know everything, but I can’t understand stuff like that – plus I’m from DC, and I was hoping Jalil could be another champion from our area.
Bread’s response: I was very confident that Hitchins vs Paro would go the distance. The fight was in an odd place for a New Yorker and an Australian. And there were talks of Paro vs Kambosos. I also know that Hitchins’ style is not for everybody. Because there is no way Paro won that fight 117-111. That’s a criminal scorecard. So yes, I needed to know who the judges were. But props to Richardson Hitchins. His performance was excellent. He has one of the best stances in boxing. His hand placement and feet are perfect. People call him boring, but I enjoyed the performance. I think Hitchins would be trouble for the top guys at 140lbs. The reason being, most of these guys are talented fighters, but they aren’t bruising fighters – they’re boxers. And Hitchins is not going to change his style. He’s going to box. So it’s tough for a boxer to fight another boxer if they have to turn into a pressure guy. Especially if the other boxer is taller, longer and sharper.
So again, I think he’s competitive with the entire division. Congrats to Hitchins and his coach. They just won a world title, and that’s a very big deal. It’s a historical accomplishment that can never be taken away from them.That being said, I saw and heard their interaction. And I will say, I’m not a fan of fighters talking back to their coaches. Or looking around outside of the ring. Or taking instructions from anyone but their coach. But I don’t know their relationship. Maybe that’s how they function and maybe it doesn’t bother his coach. I really can’t say, and I definitely won’t criticize them after winning a world title.
I saw that Hitchins called Teofimo out after he won. Then I heard that Teofimo called Boots out. I’m not sure what’s going on, but that’s what negotiations are for. Let’s see what happens. Both are big fights that I wouldn’t mind seeing.
You have to be specific when you tell me seven Matchroom prospects have lost over the last year. The devil is in the detail and I don’t like to hear critical comments without specifics. I did see that Khalil Coe, Marc Castro and Jalil Hackett have recently lost. But you said seven, not three. Specifically, I thought Hackett may have won a close fight, but the judges didn’t see it his way. I didn’t know that all of the judges were Puerto Rican. So I can’t comment on that until I research it. But if it is true, that’s a tough situation for Hackett to be in – but again, I don’t know who is responsible on his team for checking that type of stuff. Sometimes you have the power to change judges; sometimes you don’t.
I see that you’re a fan of Jalil Hackett’s. It’s not over for him. He lost a split decision that could’ve went his way. He can come back from this. Stay positive.
Marc Castro lost fair and square. Castro has never knocked my socks off and when I heard the comparisons and what some people in the business thought his upside was, I’m not saying I disagreed, but I haven’t seen it yet. So I was still waiting on Castro to turn the corner.
Khalil Coe had a rough fight in Philly. I can’t say what happened with him.
I also remember Mathroom losing the 5 on 5. But I really can’t say too much because I don’t know how each fight was made. I don’t know what went into making the fights, etc. That was a big card and everybody who fought for Matchroom was not a Matchroom fighter. I will look closer now that you brought it up. Sometimes fighters lose fights they are supposed to win. Sometimes they are put in over their head. So you have to assess this on a fight-by-fight basis. And not an overall thing. Other than that, Matchroom is a relatively new company compared to Top Rank and Golden Boy. So let’s see their work over a longer period before we judge too harshly.
I have a spirit of objectivity and fairness. And it’s why I never rush to criticize before I know the facts. I have seen prospects ask for tough fights and then get what they want and lose. You can’t blame the promoter or matchmaker for that.
For example, from my knowledge, Joey Spencer picked Jesus Ramos. Props to Spencer for wanting a tough fight but he got what he wanted. If someone criticized his matchmaking they would be wrong without knowing the facts.
I have also seen prospects say they were ready for the step-up fights. And not call out anyone specifically but ask to be ranked, etc. Then they find out they weren’t exactly ready. Then on the other hand I have seen prospects be humble and allow their team to do the work and still get pushed too fast.
So until I know what happened, I’m very careful. That’s a slippery slope to criticize, without knowing facts.
My name is Lisa. I saw you at Caleb Plant’s last fight week. I have to say you’re the best dressed and most handsome trainer in boxing. I wanted to say hello but my husband knows I think you’re handsome and I don’t think it would have went over well with him. My question is – does looks matter in boxing as far as fighters and trainers? Like does a handsome fighter get promoted different than an average looking fighter? And who is the best dressed fighter that you have seen?
Bread’s response: This is a different question. But ok let me take a shot. So first off I want to say you have great taste! I 100 per cent agree with you that I’m the most handsome trainer in boxing. And I also want to give you your props for not disrespecting your husband. If he’s not going to like you talking to me, then don’t talk to me. An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.
I don’t think looks matter as far as a trainer. But I do think a trainer’s personality and the way he carries himself matters.
As for fighters, looks 100 per cent matter. Promoters have to find something to promote and a handsome fighter comes across easier to the masses. Let’s look at some of the most iconic fighters. Joe Louis was a handsome dude. Muhammad Ali was a handsome dude. Sugar Ray Robinson was a handsome dude. Sugar Ray Leonard was a handsome dude. Roy Jones was a handsome dude. Oscar De La Hoya was a handsome dude. Floyd Mayweather was a handsome dude.
Best dressed fighter, let me think. This is a subjective question. Most times you see fighters they are in sweats, etc. But I would say out of the guys I have personally seen, Bernard Hopkins or Floyd Mayweather probably dress the best. But this is off the top of my head, and I only went by current eras because everyone wore suits back in the day.
Read the full article here
