In this week’s mailbag, trainer Stephen “Breadman” Edwards looks ahead to the huge February 22 card in Saudi Arabia, topped by Artur Beterbiev and Dmitry Bivol, discusses Tyson Fury’s place in history and he pits Tommy Hearns against some of the best 160-pounders in modern boxing history.
Breadman, you said that referees and judges can be negotiated if you have proof that they made questionable rulings. I am not sure I follow how that would work. What would such proof look like, as surely they can simply state that it is the qualified ref/judges subjective opinion?
Bread’s Response: If you have experience with an official that was not favorable to you and your fighter you can present it to the commission and get an official removed. You can also research the official and if they made a bad call with another fighter, you can also point it out and if the commission finds that they agree with you, they can remove the official. It’s a simple process, officials can be looked up on BoxRec just like fighters.
Yo, Breadman! It’s been an interesting past few mailbags. The usual Q&A and then some asinine statements here and there. I can’t breakdown a fight but I can spot racist sentiments in language, and I’ve never seen that from you. What I have seen is a man who doesn’t shy away from questions involving race, and who responds with honesty and respect. For that, you and BoxingScene deserve recognition. Since I last wrote in, Usyk beat Fury again. Unlike many boxing experts, I got the sense you didn’t consider Fury an ATG even before Fury-Usyk I. Not that you said anything disrespectful – you’ve mentioned several times that he’s a HOFer – I just got the sense you weren’t as high on him as most. In hindsight, you’re probably right. But as a fan of Fury, I’ll play devil’s advocate. From what I gather, Fury is incredibly skilled and athletic for a man of his size. Nobody who saw the Wilder trilogy questions either man’s toughness, mental or physical. And, of course, Fury’s recovery in that first fight is truly special. Altogether, that sounds like a heavyweight who would rival the greats of any era. Given that Usyk is now regarded as the best heavyweight of this era, and given that beating Fury is what earned him that recognition, isn’t it flawed to reason that Fury is not an ATG as well? Especially if Usyk’s style is just a bad matchup for Fury (like how those Giants teams had the Patriots’ number). I can’t help but wonder how Fury would’ve performed vs. Usyk before suffering wear and tear from the Wilder trilogy. Is it possible peak Fury fares better against Usyk (who’s seemingly peaking now?) Regarding Fury’s resume. It doesn’t seem he’s ever had the contemporaries to stack up good wins against, like how Ali had Liston, Frazier, Norton, Foreman, etc. I don’t think beating the likes of Joshua or Dubois would compare. So, realistically, is there anything he could’ve done – or still could do – to improve his standing? Finally, I don’t wanna jinx my team, so I won’t make a prediction for Rams-Eagles II this Sunday. I’ll just say you were right about Barkley having a special season, and I hope our defense is up to the task. They look young and hungry to me! Steve Stav, California
Bread’s Response: I rarely try to prove things that I know to be false. I’m not a racist but I could care less who believes that. I’m picking Terence Crawford to win and if that makes me a racist, oh well.
People ask me all the time why I post negative comments in my mailbag. Well, it’s simple. I can’t post 100% of the comments that agree and compliment me. As a man, it’s unethical to only show the good and never the bad. Besides that, “they” would criticize me for only showing the good stuff. So in a spirit of fairness I post the good and bad. But nevertheless, it’s all good. Let whoever, think whatever.
I think Tyson Fury is a HOF fighter clearly, but I don’t believe he’s an ATG. He squandered his chance at that because he doesn’t capitalize on his momentum from big wins. He beat Klitshcko in 2015. It’s now 2025. Instead of going on a historical run when he was in his 20s. He became inactive, had PED issues and self-sabotaged his career.
Then, after he beat Wilder in their rematches, he did it again. He never fought AJ, Dubois or Joyce who are all UK heavyweights. He never fought Zhang or Bakole. This is a very good era of heavyweights and he’s only fought Usyk and Wilder. He fought them a total of five times, but I feel like he needed more.
On top of that, he had the PED incident and the bizarre excuse of the wild boar meat. So, personally, I feel if a fighter is borderline on any tier, I put them in the lower tier. So while he’s a clear HOF, he’s not a clear top 10-12 heavyweight. Usyk may not even be one and Usyk beat him twice. I respect Fury. I think he’s a great fighter. I think he has ATG recovery and heart. But I don’t think he did quite enough to be an ATG.
1st installment: 122 lbs: Erik Morales vs. Naoya Inoue
2nd installment: 130 lbs: Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Vasyl Lomachenko
3rd installment 135 lbs: Pernell Whitaker vs. Tank Davis
4th installment: 140 lbs: Meldrick Taylor vs. Teofimo Lopez
5th installment: 147 lbs – Oscar De La Hoya vs. Jaron “Boots” Ennis)
6th installment: 154 lbs: Felix Trinidad vs.”Bud” Crawford Terence
BREADMAN VS. AI ANALYTICS: ( Felix Trinidad vs. Terence “Bud” Crawford at 154 lbs)Welcome back to the sixth installment of Breadman vs. AI Analytics, where boxing’s human intuition meets cutting-edge data analysis to explore dream matchups. This series has taken us across weight classes and eras, pitting some of the sport’s greatest legends against modern-day superstars in hypothetical battles that spark imagination and debate. As always, Stephen “Breadman” Edwards provides his unparalleled boxing expertise, while the AI delves deep into data and analytics to offer a contrasting perspective. Together, they dissect these hypothetical fights, blending the intangible art of boxing with the objective science of numbers.
Recap of the series so far
1. 122 lbs: Erik Morales vs. Naoya Inoue
Breadman: Morales’ resilience and heart win him a decision.
AI: Inoue’s power and precision lead to a late stoppage.
Verdict: Inoue emerges victorious by consensus.
2. 130 lbs: Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Vasyl Lomachenko
Breadman & AI: Mayweather’s adaptability and ring IQ secure a clear decision win.
3. 135 lbs: Pernell Whitaker vs. Gervonta Davis
Breadman: Whitaker’s defensive wizardry prevails.
AI: Davis’ explosiveness creates tense moments, but Whitaker edges it.
Verdict: Whitaker wins a close decision.
4. 140 lbs: Meldrick Taylor vs. Teofimo Lopez
Breadman: Taylor’s speed and volume overwhelm Lopez.
AI: Lopez’s timing and power make it competitive, but Taylor wins narrowly.
5. 147 lbs: Oscar De La Hoya vs. Jaron “Boots” Ennis
Breadman & AI: De La Hoya’s experience and fundamentals hold off Ennis’ raw talent in a thrilling contest.
Setting the Stage: 154 lbs – Felix Trinidad vs. Terence Crawford
This installment shifts to junior middleweight, where Felix “Tito” Trinidad, one of the most feared punchers of his era, faces Terence “Bud” Crawford, a generational talent known for his adaptability, technical prowess, and finishing ability.
At 154 lbs, Trinidad was at his peak, dismantling the likes of Fernando Vargas and David Reid with a relentless blend of power and precision. Crawford, however, brings a cerebral approach, capable of switch-hitting, neutralizing power punchers, and adapting mid-fight to any challenge.
Key Context:Felix Trinidad’s Prime: At 27, Trinidad was at his absolute peak as a junior middleweight, having moved up from welterweight and obliterated elite competition like Fernando Vargas and David Reid with his trademark power, pressure, and jab.
Terence Crawford’s Prime: Crawford’s prime can be considered at 33 years old during 2021, when he demonstrated elite adaptability, stopping Shawn Porter and remaining undefeated while showing mastery of distance, timing, and ring IQ.
Fight Breakdown; Early Rounds: Crawford would likely start cautiously, using lateral movement and feints to create angles and counter Trinidad’s pressure. Tito’s jab and bodywork would force Crawford to stay alert, but Bud’s ability to box off the back foot could frustrate the Puerto Rican star early. Mid-Rounds: Trinidad’s relentless attack might begin to pay dividends, with his pressure breaking through Crawford’s defense. Bud would need to rely on his clinching and counters to slow Tito’s momentum. Championship Rounds: Crawford’s adaptability and conditioning could shine late, as he adjusts to Trinidad’s rhythm. However, Tito’s volume and power might steal the key moments.
Historic Significance: 9/10 – Trinidad is an iconic figure in boxing history, while Crawford is widely regarded as one of the best pound-for-pound fighters of this era. This would be a legendary clash.
Fan-Generated Interest: 9/10 – Fans would be captivated by a battle between two elite boxers, representing different generations but both having undeniable skills.
Bread’s Response: I am not a big fan of AI on sports. But I have to admit, I really enjoy this breakdown and contrast between AI and myself. I find it intriguing. Ironically we have agreed on each one but I suspect we won’t agree on Crawford vs Tito. I edge Tito and I suspect AI will edge it to Bud. Great fight, however you think it would go.
Greetings Bread, I hope 2025 shapes up to be a great year for boxing, for you and for the guys you are training. I have one simple question: If Crawford beats Canelo, where does it rank for you in the pantheon of ‘great wins?’ Is it the best win of the 21st century so far? What other wins since 2000 contest it for top spot? Is it up there with Duran vs Leonard and Ali vs Foreman? Where would you rank it? Thank you, Giuseppe
Bread’s Response: This is a great question. If Crawford beats Canelo it would be one of the top wins of my lifetime. I was born in the 70s. I would compare it to Spinks over Holmes. It’s hard for me to put it in an exact spot because I have to see the performance first. Also I want to say…..I don’t just base great wins on weight. Sometimes weight is superficial. Sometimes a showdown between great fighters in their primes is all you need for a great win.
I won’t quite put it up there with Duran vs Leonard or Ali vs Foreman because I think Leonard and Foreman were on a higher tier in those fights than Canelo is now. It’s closer to Spinks vs Holmes. Holmes was 36, still great but a little past his peak.
Um… the best wins since 2000. I’m going to go off the top of my head so bear with me.
I’m sure I missed a few but you get the drift. Bud over Canelo would be a huge win. But let’s see the fight get announced first, then let’s see the performance before we get too ahead of ourselves.
What do you make of Crawford and Tank’s beef? They both claim they make more money. Do you know who has actually made the most in career earnings? Do you think a fight is possible at welterweight? Do you think Tank’s comment about Crawford’s wife was overboard or all it’s all fair in love and war?
Bread’s Response: I don’t even look at anything I consider gossip. So I didn’t pay attention to the beef between Tank and Crawford. I don’t know who made more money. Reported purses are usually not accurate. Both have been main event fighters to huge PPVs. Crawford vs Spence and Tank vs Garcia.
I don’t like to discuss purses because it’s not just about what you gross, it’s about what you net. I don’t know how they pay their teams.
When you’re a PPV main event fighter, there are so many places where revenue is generated. I don’t even want to get into them because many in boxing don’t even know and the game is sold, not to be told.
After the Spence and Garcia fights, both Tank and Crawford have had some nice paydays. It’s tough to say, to be honest. And I really don’t care. I just want to see them perform. I don’t want to see their bank statements.
No, I don’t think they would ever fight.
I don’t know what Tank said about Crawford’s wife and I don’t want to know. I won’t even discuss something like that publicly.
Hi Breadman, long time reader and fan here. I love your honest, unbiased, insightful opinions. I’m always so puzzled by the enraging racist and shortsighted belligerence of many boxing fans. Sure, we live in a divided still segregated world, in boxing people from tough backgrounds and neighborhoods from all over the world compete amongst each other. Sure there is room for different styles with distinct histories, schools and national origins to be compared to one another. But thanks to modern training methods and globalization, information is quickly shared today, well schooled boxers are fluent in many styles. In essence, the sport of boxing and anyone whoever sparred even one round knows this might be the most individual of all sports. Nobody is as alone as a boxer in the ring. Looking at competitors accomplishments purely from a a racial or national lens takes away from the amazing effort of the boxer and the team that prepared him. Of course as in any discipline there are time periods and weight classes dominated by a distinct group of people. The reasons for this are multifaceted and interesting to explore. Why do you think boxing attracts a particularly racist and idiotic type of fan. Everyone I met that had hands on experience was the pure opposite…. Is this a newer phenomenon?
Bread’s Response: Good question. And I will give you a simple answer. A fight is the most primal and decisive act of superiority in history. And it’s natural if you see two people fighting, to root for the person you have the most in common with if you don’t know the participants. Whatever is in you, will come out of you when you are passionate and you become triggered. So if you’re racist and a fighter you like is fighting a fighter of a race you dislike, your racism will show.
It’s actually no big deal to me, I’ve seen this my whole life at different levels. I went to a school with 3,500 kids and every race was prevalent. I saw everything. I grew up in a black neighborhood but one mile away was a tough white neighborhood. If we crossed the tracks at a certain time of night, a fight was almost guaranteed for one reason and one reason only. You can guess what that reason was.
I’m not a victim player either. I have seen white people show racism against black people. And I know and have seen many black athletes, who think they are more athletic than white guys, simply because they’re white. All of it is not even racism. Some of it is just harmless prejudice that contains stereotypes.
I played basketball. So if we saw a team full of white players, we would assume they would be good shooters and play half court basketball. If we saw a team full of black players, we assumed they would either be good ball handlers or high flying rim attackers. Most times we were right, sometimes wrong. It was what it was.
It’s not a big deal to me… Again, there is a difference between being harmlessly prejudiced and racist. Boxing is no different, except now people hide behind keyboards and agendas. It’s life.
Greetings Mr. Edwards,
I hope this finds you well. I think it’s fair to say that we have six fighters currently active who are unquestionably ATGs: Usyk, Beterbiev, Canelo, Crawford, Inoue, Chocolatito. You could make a case for one or two others – Loma, Golovkin, Estrada, or Bivol if he wins the Beterbiev rematch. And no doubt other fighters will rise in status as their careers play out, such as Bam Rodriguez. But I think these six are the cream of their generation’s crop at the moment. I have two questions. First, how would you rank these in terms of a historical p4p rating? Who would be highest on such a list? Would any of them break the top 20 all-time p4p? Second, which opponents from the past would be the particularly difficult for each of these, taking their styles, strengths and weaknesses into account?
I think it’s only fair to offer an answer my own question, I think it is Inoue who I would put highest of these six in historical terms on the basis of just how rounded he is. Inoue’s record has no gaps, no avoided fighters and no delays to age out a potential threat. He has elite level skills in all areas – defense, offence, strategic adjustments, movement, stamina and heart. Would he break the top 20 all-time p4p? A win over Nakatani puts him on the cusp, I would say. Worst opponents? Usyk – I think Holyfield is all wrong for him. He matches Usyk in heart and workrate but is too rough and too dirty, and his body attack is not one Usyk would enjoy. Beterbiev – Michael Spinks would be a horrible style match for Beterbiev. We’ve seen Beterbiev dropped before and I think Spinks would be too quick and too accurate for Beterbiev. Canelo – we saw him struggle against a late-career Golovkin. Marvelous Marvin would run over him in a brutal fight similar to his fight with Mugabi. Crawford – on the one hand this is a hard one because Bud is so versatile and adaptable… but on the other we have so many astonishing champions to choose from at Crawford’s weight(s). Crawford is great at almost everything but either of the Sugar Rays was just better all round. Inoue – We’ve seen Inoue dropped as he moves up in weight and I think Wilfredo Gomez would be a serious problem for him at super-bantam with his phenomenal power. Chocolatito – we don’t need to go back too far here, as the obvious choice is Srisaket Sor Rungvisai. Choc is a superior fighter but the style match up is just all wrong for him.
Wishing you a successful 2025, Peter M.As
Bread’s Response: Very good list. I agree totally. I don’t want to rank them yet because it’s so close, a win or loss can change the rankings. No, I don’t have any of them in the top 20 All Time. Top 20 ATG is a special place and it’s the Mason Dixon line of greatness. Honestly Floyd and Manny may not be firm in the top 20 all time and they are the best fighters since the turn of the century.
All Wrong opponents.
I think Lennox Lewis is all wrong for Usyk. Lewis is patient, he has an elite jab, with elite power and his pedigree matches Usyk’s. Lewis also has a vicious uppercut and Usyk holds his hands high over his ears.
I agree on Beterbiev and Michael Spinks.
A tougher style than Hagler’s for Canelo at 160 would be Roy Jones. I don’t think Canelo could win a round from RJ at 160. It’s a nightmare match up for him and I believe it would look like the Toney fight.
If you have to name the Sugar Rays as a tough style for Crawford, you think very high of Crawford. I agree but I also think Tommy Hearns is a very bad style for Bud.
Inoue, I think Marco Antonio Barrera’s elite jab would cause Inoue some serious problems. The same jab that disrupted and took Naseem Hamed’s 0.
I agree again in Choc vs SSR.
Happy New Year! Have you even spoken with Don Elbaum? I don’t want to get into the “duck” controversy but Elbaum, who was Pryor’s promoter, has always said and still says that there was an agreement in place for Leonard-Pryor. Elbaum says it was supposed to be in Cleveland Stadium with Art Modell backing it. For whatever reason, Leonard’s team decided to go with the Kalule fight instead. Elbaum never says it was a duck – and anyone who knew Ray in his peak can tell you he needed no protecting. But, just in case any readers were not familiar with that story, I thought it was worth sharing.
Bread’s Response: I don’t doubt Don Elbaum said that. But the one thing I know about boxing is everyone tells and sees the story from their perspective. I definitely think there were talks of Leonard vs Pryor. But I don’t believe Leonard ducked him. I’m sure there will be a different version of the story from Leonard’s team. It’s just how the game goes.
Hey Breadman, and a very Happy New Year from the UK. I grew up as a teenager in the 1980s in what I consider as the greatest time for boxing. We of course had Mike Tyson, I remember watching him with my friends as a 16 year old send Trevor Berbick falling around the ring like he had drunk 20 pints! But the best for me were the four kings or Hagler, Leonard, Duran and my favourite Tommy Hearns. Yeah, he started at welter, but watching Halger-Hearns with my grandad on repeat is something I will never forget. Tommy was so fast and vicious, with a better chin I would think he could be the greatest middle ever. I know we all look back with rose-tinted glasses on but how do you think Tommy does against the best middleweights of the past 30 years, GGG/Canelo and even Benn and Eubank?
How to do think he would do against Floyd and Bud at welter?
Happy new year dude.
Bread’s Response: The best middleweights of the last 30 years so starting in 1995…. That would be Bernard Hopkins. Benn and Eubank were super middleweights by 1995. Nevertheless Hearns is one of the more unique fighters in history. He can legitimately beat great welterweights and great light heavyweights. I don’t know of another fighter in history who could pull that off. I can see him beating the best middleweights of the last 30 years. But there are a few who would have shots at beating him.
GGG punches so hard, that’s anyone’s fight. Canelo could also clip Tommy, but I can see Tommy outboxing him. I think Tommy beats Taylor and Pavlik. I also think he beats Arthur Abraham. Guys like William Joppy, Keith Holmes, Danny Jacobs, Peter Quillin, Jermall Charlo, Demetrius Andrade couldn’t beat Hearns.
Nigel Benn is a tough fight. Tommy had trouble with wild sluggers, but I think he would clip Benn and outbox Eubank. Bernard Hopkins and Hearns is a 50/50 fight. On some days I lean Hopkins. But on more days the Jermain Taylor fights, lead me to believe that Hearns would win. Tommy Hearns is sort of underrated. He’s a rare fighter and head to head nightmare.
I would favor Tommy over Floyd Mayweather at 147. I just don’t see Floyd outboxing him and I have never seen Floyd go balls to the walls and attack an elite fighter. Zab’s sharpness gave Floyd some issues and Hearns is superior to Zab in every way. So I think Tommy wins.
Tommy is a bad style match up for Bud, but Bud can attack and he’s extremely physically strong. I’m still picking Hearns but I suspect Bud has a real shot down the stretch like Ray Leonard had. Because it’s almost impossible to outbox Hearns but you can outslug him.
What’s up Breadman, A lot of readers are coming in with guns blazing slinging words around. Hoping everyone can chill and just enjoy the amazing access/resource to get questions answered by a professional. There’s a way to disagree with you or others respectfully. Anyways! Want to get your thoughts on next month’s card, February 22 should be unbelievable. Really excited. Beterbiev vs Bivol, Dubois vs Parker, Adames vs Sheeraz, Ortiz vs Madrimov, Zhang vs Kabayel. I’m leaning Beterbiev, Dubois, Sheeraz, Madrimov and Kabayel.Beterbiev looks great still and coming off a recent win where it looked like Bivol brought all he could bring but felt like Beterbiev could have brought a little more aggression and pressure. I wondered why Bivol didn’t bounce in and out more like he normally does. Dubois is on an absolute tear with pressure and power that I feel will be too much for Parker. He has been in the ring with Usyk and was able to catch him with a shot (disputed low blow) but I get the sense that if he can catch Usyk (and AJ) he can catch Parker. And feel like Dubois will close it out where Zhang had the chance to. Sheeraz’s tricky reach and power being too much for Adames. Madrimov looked stellar vs Crawford and I think will pick his shots against Ortiz and avoid any punishment. Mostly worried about the judges bias towards Ortiz in this one. Kabayel, who looks like a more dangerous version of Parker, to beat Zhang. I think there’s a chance Zhang sees the canvas in this one (even though I think he’s a great fighter too.) Side note: two heavyweights that really excite me are Martin Bakole and Moses Itauma man – they seem ready for some higher level competition! What would you correct, add, or change to these predictions? You are the man! Alex
Bread’s Response: Thanks man, but I chalk it up as to being part of the game.
Beterbiev vs Bivol is a tough fight for me to call. I picked Beterbiev in their first fight, and while I thought he had a good case for winning. I thought Bivol fought a better fight. Similar to how I thought GGG beat Canelo in their first fight that was scored a draw. But Canelo fought a better fight. So this one is tough. Let me study some more film, but right now I say Bivol will be more aggressive and initiate more exchanges. I think he will be more violent in his approach because I think he will see in the film study that he was more successful when he was first in the exchanges. The issue with that is, he will put himself in harm’s way more. So I say Bivol will be winning more clearly this time, but he may get clipped around 8 or 9. I’m not as comfortable with this pick as I was, Beterbiev by decision in the first fight. But right now this is what I have.
I believe Dubois will beat Parker, but I have been wrong about Parker before.
Adames vs Sheeraz will be a shootout. I feel Adames front runs a little bit and he didn’t seem confident when he fought Terrell Gausha. He has recently switched trainers again and he didn’t switch hit much vs Terrell Gausha. Before the Gausha fight, he did much more work in the southpaw stance. Sheeraz is red hot right now, and most are anointing him the future of the division. I’m not ready to do that just yet but I do think he’s really good. Sheeraz has excellent offense. I love his punch selection. I love his jab. I love his calm demeanor. But what gives me pause, is he’s a big target and he’s not really hard to hit. Ammo Williams hit him often and he visibly hurt him a few times. Williams has some talent but he’s not the fighter that Adames is. I can see Adames stopping Sheeraz early. Adames is a fast starter, usually. He also is a physical guy, who has a deep offensive bag. Sheeraz can’t help his height. But sometimes being very tall can work against you. And with Sheeraz he sort of puts his hands up and shells up from punches as he tries to counter punch. It’s not a bad tactic, but again he does get hit pretty clean. On the other hand, I think Adames fades after four rounds. I think he can be counter punched. And I can’t get the Patrick Texeira fight out of my head.
So right now, I say, Sheeraz overcomes some tough moments early and scores a huge stoppage in the 10th. I think this fight may look similar to Pavlik vs Taylor.
I can’t call Madrimov vs Ortiz. Just because Madrimov gave Crawford a tussle it doesn’t mean he beats everyone else. We have seen fighters give great fighters tough fights or even win but then they fight someone else and not be so great. Ortiz on the other hand, looked to be in distress vs Bohachuk. If he can’t figure out what happened in that fight, he won’t have longevity in this sport. Right now, I see a controversial outcome where both fighters will believe they won.
I suspect I underrate Kayabel. He’s so subtle with his approach it gets underappreciated. But he’s a true bodysnatcher.
Zhang is a tough out for anyone but his issue is his stamina and endurance. If this fight goes late, Kayabel has a serious shot to win. I just don’t know if it goes late. Tough call. Let me study more film.
What’s Up Coach, I know that you sometimes receive basketball/boxing analogies. I often watch highlight films of one of my favorite basketball players Julius “Dr. J.” Erving, the court surgeon. I wonder why he never seems to be in the discussion of the “GOAT,” I know that he doesn’t have the numbers of Michael, Kareem nor LeBron. What boxer would you say is like the Dr. J of boxing? Blessings! Greg
Bread’s Response: Julius Erving would be in the GOAT debate if his numbers/accolades from the ABA were considered more strongly. If you look at his overall career numbers, he would have three titles instead of one, four MVPS instead of one, three scoring titles and he would be a member of the exclusive 30k point club. During his era, athletic, high flying players were past their prime by their late 20s. So we saw his prime in the ABA and in his first few years of the NBA.
I believe he was past his best when he won his NBA MVP 1981, and far past it when he won the championship in 1983. But if we put his ABA accolades with his NBA accolades he would rank much higher. Erving went to 4 championships in 6 years in the NBA (1977-83). He was part of maybe the greatest single season team in history, the 1982-83 Sixers. And they swept a prime Magic and Kareem Lakers for the title.
The media romanticized the Magic vs Bird rivalry as it should have. But Doc and the Sixers, met the Lakers in the finals the same amount of times that Bird’s Celtics did. In fact they met them three times in the finals before Bird’s Celtics met them once. So what does that tell you? The Sixers are in the Eastern Conference like the Celtics. So if the Sixers were meeting the Lakers in the finals, they were keeping the Celtics out.
Right now, Julius Erving is considered around a top 15ish ever ÛaQXlevel player. If his ABA numbers were more regarded, he would be in the top 7-10 or higher.
Stephen Fulton and Brandon Figueroa are scheduled to have a rematch in a few weeks. Fulton won the first fight by majority decision. It seemed obvious that Fulton won that fight to me. Despite that, Fulton is listed as a (very slight) betting underdog. Does that surprise you? What is your take on this fight?
Bread’s Response: It doesn’t surprise me that Fulton is the underdog. Although Fulton won the first fight, it was razor close and many felt Figueroa should’ve won. Also, since their first meeting, Fulton has lost by stoppage, was inactive, then dropped in his comeback fight. This fight will be at 126lbs which seems to favor Figueroa. So I get why Figueroa is the slight favorite. But fights aren’t won on paper, they are won in the ring. And people have to remember when they fought in the ring, Fulton won.
I think this is an evenly-contested match. I think it’s a good blend of styles. Similar to Choc vs Estrada, Pac vs Marquez, Ayala vs Tapia etc where, because of the styles, flaws and place they are. The fights always go down to the wire. I think it will come down to whoever is having their night, on that night.
Read the full article here
