The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Canelo vs. David Benavidez and Jermall Charlo, Ryan Garcia vs. Luke Campbell, Andre Ward vs. Sergey Kovalev, Manny Pacquiao and more.
You mentioned Monzon but who had the best Decade Ali, Duran or Monzon? In a pound for pound sense I would say Duran as he had only one loss which he avenged twice and he had no misses in his lightweight reign...but Monzon had a really great middleweight run and Ali was the face of boxing. So who do you have as the pound for pound king of the 70’s? In that line here are my all time best fighter for each weight class...meaning on their best night at their weight almost no one could beat them ....and taking into some consideration how long they stayed at the division...otherwise And for example Roy Jones might have a case at middleweight Heavyweight - Ali Cruiser - Holyfield Light Heavy - Archie Moore Super Middle - Roy Jones, Middle - Monzón or Robinson...though best Robinson probably beats best Monzón.
Jr Middle - Tito, maybe Hearns? Welter - Sugar Ray Robinson though Sugar Ray Leonard seems a close second...Floyd might be third. Jr Welter - Pryor though I hold the “Bottle thing” against him. Lightweight - Duran, Jr Lightweight- Floyd. Arguello Close second. Featherweight - Sanchez or PacquiaoJr Featherweight - Gomez. Bantamweight - Olivares or Zarate, Flyweight - Finito. Don’t know enough about the other weight classes to have a good opinion. What would your list look like?
Bread’s Response: In a Pound for Pound sense the best fighter from 1970-79 was Roberto Duran. He was younger than both Ali and Monzon and the eyeball test said that Duran was the best fighter of the decade.Ali had the BIGGEST fights and arguably the best wins because his opponents were more famous in Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Foster and Patterson. Monzon had Benvenuti, Naploes, Griffin, Valdes and Briscoe. And Duran had Palomino, DeJesus and Buchanon. All had their shares of HOF but Duran was more peaky than Ali and Monzon who were both getting a little long in the tooth.
I agree with most of your list. With exceptions of Junior Middleweight. I think Hearns is harder to beat on his best night than Tito was. Featherweight is tough but I say best night, Willie Pep. Bantamweight I say Eder Jofre. You left out Junior Bantamweight, I would say Johnny Tapia. Flyweight is off. Finito fought at strawweight and junior flyweight. So Flyweight is Jimmy Wilde. Junior Flyweight Roman Gonzales. Straweight Ricardo Lopez.
Hey Bread, a belated Merry Christmas to you and yours and Happy New Year! Read your MB as usual very solid. Canelo beats Plant, Benavidez, Saunders and Charlo rather easily. Canelo has adapted many of Mayweathers tempo controlling techniques to control fights. When his opponent wants to speed up the action Canelo slows it down, when his opponent wants to slow down the action Canelo speeds it up. Tank Davis fights this way too.Canelo couples tempo control with distance control and most of his opponents can't comprehend what he's doing and why it's working.
These are things that a lot of coaches miss in training camps, because it's subtle.The only 2 fighters Canelo has problems with, Beterbiev at 175lbs and Boo Boo Andrade at 160lbs. Spence could give him a run for his money at 160lbs too, but Canelo is quicker. Beterbiev is a beast because of his long amateur career who naturally adapts very quickly to his opponents. Boo Boo doesn't over commit and is disciplined when using his length. If he doesn't let you inside you won't get inside.Spence just comes at you.Don't particularly like the matchmaking for Canelo because he should've fought some of these guys (Charlo, Boo Boo) already and when he eventually fights them the fight has lost its shine.I thought GGG won the first fight against Canelo.I thought the 2nd fight was a draw.
But to GGG's discredit they did nothing differently in the second fight tactically to separate themselves.A lot of times when a fighter feels he was robbed he won't make improvements/adjustments, he'll go into the 2nd fight with the same game as the first fight hoping that the judges will see it the second time around.Canelo made a few adjustments that allowed the judges to cleanly and clearly see what he was doing. He stayed off the ropes more but not totally, stepping to GGG in the middle of the ring landing first while there.Canelo has improved and GGG has digressed, there isn't much that Jonathan Banks can do to improve him other than getting him in better condition. The late Emmanuel Steward would've been able to help GGG, that was his forte as a trainer having raised the game of several fighters (Wladdy, Lewis, Chavez).GGG is now at the age where fighters hit the wall and don't feel like fighting anymore, its no longer new and exciting to them like it was 15 or 20 years earlier.That's why Floyd Mayweather doing what he's doing, because it excites him. And he knows people will still pay to see him lose!
Bread’s Response: You make some good points. But I don’t want to clump them all in so I will go one by one.I don’t believe Canelo beats them all easy. Although he would be the favorite in every fight. The totality of tough fights and other coaches being able to put together game plans will make things tougher fight by fight.I think stylistically Plant is the toughest fight for him. But I think all of them will give him a good fight.
I think Benavidez and Charlo are violent men and they are going to fight him to hurt him. Stylistically they may fall into Canelo’s hands but that doesn’t mean they can’t win like that. Sometimes in BIG fights it’s just best to be yourself and go with what go you to the dance.I agree to an extent with what you said about Canelo doing the opposite of what his opponent wants. But I think he can do it leisurely because his chin and defense are so good, he doesn’t put himself in danger anymore by stepping into the danger zone. On top of that his skillset with counter punching is extreme. It literally makes his opponents hesitant in spots they didn’t used to be hesitant in. So I think it’s more than just distance and pace. It’s his skillset when he decides to apply these things.
Tank Davis does not have Canelo’s defense and calm demeanor. So he does it with his fast hands and brutal power. But good eye, he does apply it. When Santa Cruz wanted to bump, he slowed him down. When Santa Cruz wanted to take his time, he pushed him and went to his body.Beterbiev is a really good call. Beterbiev also has BRUTE FORCE. I have watched his exercise program and he has strength in places most don’t carry it. In a fight a fighter can feel another fighter’s energy. They feel when a man is strong. They feel danger. So sometimes you see a fighter retreat in a way before the heat even gets put on him. Beterbiev gives off that type of heat. I was LIVE in Philadelphia when Beterbiev fought the NAIL. That was one of the more impressive performances I have seen. The Nail was in shape. He had a good gameplan. He came to fight. Beterbiev was literally too much of a human for him. That just wasn’t skill. It was an application of force. If I’m being fair to Canelo. If he didn’t fight Beterbiev I would not call it a duck. Beterbiev is a load for anybody who used to make 154lbs.
Andrade is tough for me to assess. At one time at 154 I thought he would give Canelo fits. But since then Canelo has had so many fights to improve his game and Andrade just hasn’t fought on that level. It’s not a talent thing, it’s a developmental thing. Canelo has morphed into an ATG fighter and Andrade has been a champion. He has went through training camps. But often times the level of the opponent forces you to do certain things. I just don’t know with Andrade’s development he can deal with Canelo at this moment. I also disagree with you about Andrade and distance. I see Andrade throw shots that a fighter like Canelo would most likely be able to counter. I don’t know for sure because no one has clipped Andrade as of yet. And maybe he’s one of those guys who looks like he can be clipped but never does. Aaron Pryor was like that. But I would just like to see Andrade in vs an elite. I still think his best opponent was Vanes Martyrosyan many years ago.
Bread, I was watching some fights from the 80s and I can't help but notice the type of dog shape those fighters were and how they were throwing some serious heat from the first round on until the end. They were definitely throwing a lot more combinations than fighters of today's era. What changed? How is it possible for fighters in the 80s to have better conditioning with the advancements of modern medicine and technology? What made fighters throw less punches and fight a different style? Is it the trainers having their fighters fight this way or what? A fairly significant fight for GBP this weekend in Garcia vs Campbell. I was at first thinking this is too much too soon for Garcia, but then I realized that GBP has some of the best matchmakers in the world. Some of their prospects get upset early, but usually when they make a fight of this significance, they know what they are doing. Kind of reminds me of Haymon sending the unproven Spence over to the UK to go grab the IBF belt when he could have made other fights with Matchroom to attempt to bring the belt over to their stable. Take care.
Bread’s Response: I think fighters of the last 20 years or so have figured out that they can walk around 25% higher than their weigh in weight. When a fighter loses that type of weight, he becomes stiff because he loses collagen, water and fluids in his body. The trade off is the smooth stamina. What he gets is a naturally bigger frame and more explosiveness. The fighter in this era who uses the modern recovery, modern conditioning and keeps his discipline of not getting more than 10%-12% higher than his weigh in weight, will have the best of both worlds. 95% of the fighters I know and am around, really suffer to make weight. They look stale in sparring the last week before they stop. And they drastically depend on rehydration to feel normal again. But it’s hard for them to give up the size they would give up if they moved up in weight. Technically I think fighters 40 years ago, didn’t try to punch as hard with every shot. They allowed their punches to flow smoother. Smoothness will always last longer than rigidness. But make no mistake there are still fighters of this era who can flow into the later rounds. Choc, Ioka, Estrada, Loma, Manny, Floyd, Spence, Crawford and now Canelo.
I like Ryan Garcia to defeat Luke Campbell. I think Campbell is very good but I think Garcia is better than “very good”. Garcia has what I call “CAT EYES”. He can fire his shots in the middle of the storm without BLINKING or closing his eyes. Legend has it that Muhammad Ali had them. You could flinch at allow very close to his face and he wouldn’t blink. Garcia is able to get this brutal kos because he SEES everything while the opponent is attacking. I have theory on orthodox vs southpaws fighting. If a GREAT LEFT HOOKER can make the southpaw LEAD, the southpaw doesn’t see the left hook. It’s why Nonito Donaire the best left hooker of this era, had a nightmare vs Rigo, but was able to clip Darchynian. It’s why Oscar De La Hoya was not able to clip Pernell Whitaker the way he wanted to. I think the fight comes down to this. I think Garcia who is super sharp, will do just enough to make Campbell lead and clip him. I don’t know if he stops him but he should be able to hurt and drop Campbell.Speaking of Golden Boy matchmakers I think it comes down to this. Luke Campbell lost to Jorge Linares. I think the Golden Boy braintrust feel as though Garcia is younger, stronger and a better puncher than Linares. Campbell did not hurt Linares and was dropped by him. They fought about 3 years ago. Campbell has also been inactive since he lost to Vasyl Lomachenko. So I believe they feel confident putting their young gun in there under these circumstances.
I think I’ll do what I did last week and just lump my questions into one drop again.One: You’ve talked in the past about aggressive pressure fighters and how stuff like boxing IQ and ring savvy tend to get overlooked in favor of aggression and toughness. But who are some fighters who are the opposite? Who are guys you would classify as pure boxers whose mental sharpness and craftsmanship overshadow meanness, physical strength and so on?Two: You’ve also mentioned how Aaron Pryor was a guy who had a lot of hard luck and was overlooked… but have dismissed the myth of him being criminally ducked? Who are some other fighters you would put in the category of overlooked but not necessarily ducked?Three: I asked you once about fighters who are borderline HOFs. Well now I’m curious who are some fighters you would label as “borderline ATG”? Like maybe they could a loss that would’ve put them into ATG status had it gone their way?Lastly, been sitting on some mythical matchups:
Joe Smith Jr vs Sergey Kovalev @175, Tyson Fury vs Riddick Bowe, Ray Leonard vs John Mugabi @160, Ray Leonard vs Felix Trinidad @154, Alexis Arguello vs Kostya Tszyu @140, Kostya Tszyu vs Carlos Ortiz @140, Salvador Sanchez vs Marco Antonio Barrera @126
Bread’s Response: Pernell Whitaker is one of the biggest misdirected fighters I have ever seen analyzed. The critics and even some historians labeled Whitaker as boring, non offensive, runner etc. In fact Whitaker would mostly stay in front of his opponents. Establish arguably the best jab in boxing history. Work the body. And he had enormous physical strength. The only thing Whitaker was NOT was a big concussive puncher. He was also one of the meanest fighters I have ever seen.
Muhammad Ali was one of the strongest fighters in history. He just didn’t APPLY his strength in an offensive way. He grappled his opponents. He held them. He twisted and squeezed them in clinches. He literally would VICE GRIP his opponents. He was also mean. He smiled a lot but he was a very mean man when you made him mad. Watch how he punishes Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson and Ernie Terrell. He would settle down on his right hand and try to hurt you when you pissed him off. Besides Ken Norton and Leon Spinks. Ali stopped all of his big name opponents.Borderline ATG: There are fighters who are ATG for their divisions but may not be ATG overall.
For example Kostya Tszyu. I think he’s easily an ATG at 140. But not overall as a fighter. He came up in the same era as Floyd, Oscar and Mosley. They all passed through or by 140lbs but he was never able to secure one of those fights. I think he needed one of those scalps to go from a division ATG to an ATG.
Miguel Cotto did everything you would want out of ATG. But I feel as though he needed to beat Pacman, Floyd or Canelo to be ATG. I rank him higher than I do Tszyu but I think he’s the closest fighter of this era to being an ATG and not quite being one.
I think Mike McCallum and Aaron Pryor fall into similar categories. I think they were both avoided but if you were watching boxing in their eras you know the timing was off. The media says Leonard, Hagler, Duran and Hearns all ducked McCallum. But the reality is McCallum is the similar to them in age but he turned pro much later and they all were established Superstars before he ever won a title.Leonard had the least chance to fight McCallum. To say Leonard ducked him was irresponsible. Leonard retired in 1982 and he was a welterweight. McCallum didn’t even turn pro until 1981 the same year Leonard had his Super fight with Tommy Hearns. Leonard fought a comeback fight in 1984 then another super fight in 1987 vs Marvin Hagler. There was no one in 1987 saying that Leonard should fight Mike McCallum and not Marvin Hagler. In fact McCallum fought for Hagler’s vacant middleweight title after Hagler retired and vacated.
McCallum was at Junior Middleweight when Hagler was at Middleweight. I’m not saying Hagler could not have called up McCallum and gave him a shot. But that’s not the same as ducking. Hagler became inactive after 1984. He only fought 3x after 1984. Hearns in a Super Fight in 1985. Mugabi in a huge Closed Circuit fight in 1986. Some can say he could’ve offered McCallum the Mugabi shot but again is that really ducking. Mugabi had great marketing. He wasn’t getting shots at 154. He was 26-0 with 26kos. He was an Olympian and he was the PART. So Hagler gave him a shot.
Then Hagler fought Leonard. Hagler and McCallum were never in the same division at the same time.Roberto Duran did vacate his title to fight Tommy Hearns instead of facing #1 contender Mike McCallum. I’m not making excuses but that’s not a duck. Hearns was a bigger fight. Duran was into big fights by that time in his career. If you notice he went from Davey Moore, to Hagler to Hearns. Hearns was a bigger fight.
The only real case if Tommy Hearns. Hearns and McCallum were champions for a few years at junior middleweight. Hearns was the WBC champion and McCallum was the WBA champion. Hearns was fighting tough fights and jumping weights etc but that fight could have and should have happened. I don’t think Tommy Hearns fears any man. I think Emanuel Steward boxed Mike McCallum out and didn’t give him a shot. Similar to what is happening to Demetrius Andrade in this era. But for critics to claim all 4 Kings ducked him again is irresponsible. There was only 1 King, Tommy Hearns who had viable opportunities to fight McCallum. Not all 4.
What's good Bread?
First off, I want to thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge and love of boxing with all of us. I was fortunate to be introduced to boxing by my father at a young age and it's something we connected on and bonded over. I truly think boxing is a unique pastime that connects generations and cultures around the world like no other sport.I'm continually struck by a comment made by one of my favorite fighters of all time, Andre Ward, after the 2nd Kovalev fight. He said that he knew he was going to win because after their 1st fight, Kovalev showed he lacked character with the way he complained about losing a tough decision. He then proceeded to thank his wife for being such a great part of his success. Class personified. But it got me thinking how much character and class can separate 2 fighters of comparable skills and talent. Are there any fights that you can think of where this may have been a distinguishing factor? A few that jumped out at me are Leonard-Duran 2 (after Duran made vile comments to Leonard's wife before the 1st fight), Ali-Foreman (no shade to big George, but he was young and immature) and Holyfield-Tyson. Thinking of current fighters, Loma's actions and words after losing to Lopez showed a complete lack of character in my opinion. The judges didn't make him go into a shell for the first 6 rounds, his opponent's jab and body work did. I contrast that to how Tyson Fury acted with class after the draw vs Wilder or even Canelo admitting Floyd schooled him. Is there anything to what Ward said or do skills and talent prevail over everything else?
Dan, New Jersey
Bread’s Response: Character is exactly what separates closely matched fighters. But Ward’s character goes far beyond Kovalev complaining about losing. Most fighters will complain about losing a razor close fight, where they lose their undefeated record and legacy defining fight. I am no Kovalev fan as a person. But most fighters in the history of boxing would complain about that particular loss. Ward’s character trumps Kovalev’s because of a lifetime of integrity. Ward is just more of a man than Kovalev is. He’s just harder. He’s more confident if things aren’t going his way. He handles fatigue and pressure more. Ward is confident but he’s not over confident. Andre Ward is not dismissive. Kovalev is known to be a drinker and lazy trainer. That shows a level of dismissiveness. In a closely skilled fight, those small things matter because they have been building over time for THAT moment. When Kovalev went to bite down vs Ward there was nothing to bite on. When Ward went to bite down, he had plenty to bite onto. Ward had no problem being the dog on the bottom. Kovalev didn’t respond the way Ward did at being the dog on the bottom.
Believe it or not every fighter has an EXCUSE or REASON why they lost. Character goes far beyond that. Loma has made some excuses but I don’t think he has bad character. I think he’s prideful and can’t come to terms on why he lost to a fighter he viewed as a little kid. It happens. Ali has more character than any human who has ever stepped in a boxing ring. And if you look at interviews after his 1st Frazier fight, he actually thought he won. It’s how fighters are WIRED.
Jermell Charlo continuously said that he was robbed in his 1st fight with Tony Harrison. If you view that as lack of character, then you would then have to rethink your terms because he still won the rematch. I think often times that’s a fighter compartmentalizing a LOSS. Charlo still went out and did his thing in the rematch. In fact he showed character because Harrison was landing some great shots and changed tactics and Charlo still stuck in there and won. I say this to say we have to give fighters some room to be HUMAN. Most make some type of excuses on why they lost. I’m not saying making excuses is ok but there has to be an acceptable limit. But giving your reasons on what you believed happened is normal. EVERY person in this world has a reason on why they succeeded or failed in certain spots. I think it becomes a lack of character when it goes deeper than a reasonable reason or when you overlook your own faults to the extent of Narcissism. And when you aren’t accountable for your own actions.
I’m not going to give Loma a pass for some of his comments I agree with you. They most likely went too far. But I won’t kill him for them either. George Foreman was worse. He claimed his poisoned. He fired his whole team. And was actually a worse fighter in the years directly after he lost to Ali. It took Foreman many years to humble himself and it’s why he did so well in his 2nd career. Let’s see how Loma moves going forward.
I don’t think Roberto Duran lacks character. I think he lacked character on the night he quit. He was a monster before and after that. But his character flaws surfaced that night. Having pride and being too prideful are not the same. Duran was too prideful in the rematch. Leonard was doing better and he was fighting differently. Duran wasn’t doing bad but Leonard was embarrassing him and he was hurting Duran with quick counters to the head and body. Duran didn’t have the motor that night to go 8 more rounds and be competitive. Duran’s window for being able to beat Leonard is smaller than Leonard’s window for being able to beat Duran. Because Duran is smaller, older and needs to implement a more high energy strategy. It’s the same as Pac vs Floyd but they didn’t fight until much later in their careers. Duran fought Leonard at his APEX. So on the night Leonard was getting revenge. Duran didn’t want to get stopped so he just packed it in. He just didn’t have it in him on that day. And what he did have in him, Leonard took it away. I think he definitely quit because of bad character. But it didn’t plague him throughout his career. In fact 3 years later he went the distance with a prime killer Hagler at middleweight and never once turned or acted as if surrender was on his mind. Sometimes our thoughts get the best of us.
With Tyson and Holyfield I think you have two great fighters but they became great for different reasons. Tyson became great for what he has physically. Holyfield became great for what he has mentally. The mind last longer than the body. Tyson is an impatient killer. Holyfield is a patient killer. Things don’t need to go Holyfield’s way for him to succeed. Things need to go Tyson’s way for him to succeed. Holyfield is the worst style matchup for Tyson as far as character. Because Tyson looks to be more dynamic than Holyfield because he scores kos early. But Holyfield is actually physically stronger, has better fundamentals and is the puncher when they fight because he takes Tyson’s punches better than Tyson takes his. Even in their rematch despite Tyson losing the 1st fight conclusively, Holyfield was still the underdog. So the expectations for Tyson to beat Holyfield is just overwhelming to Tyson. He can’t do what everyone is expecting him to do. It drives him crazy, he can’t bully, hurt or push around the supposedly smaller fighter, who had already been kod badly. But he just couldn’t. I think Holyfield beating Tyson definitely came down to character and I am a fan of both.
Tyson was able to overcome resistance before he fought Holyfield. The claim was if you fought him back he couldn’t overcome it. That wasn’t true. Razor Ruddock fought him back, hard. Bone Crusher Smith rocked him. Frank Bruno rocked him. Quick Tillis fought him back. Tyson’s problem was overcoming ADVERSITY. All elite fighters can have resistance. But not everyone can overcome ADVERSITY. Holyfield can overcome ADVERSITY. His character allows him to be comfortable in a losing a fight and still winning at the end. Tyson sort of panics or marches aimlessly into getting kod. I can talk about this all day. Boxing is deep and it’s a truth machine. A fighter’s performances reveals what they are, good and bad. I love Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Hard for me to say anything negative about either guy. But my character forces me to tell the truth. See how I did that.
Mr E, Reading this mailbag has become part of my weekly ritual. I spend a lot of time training for marathons and reading this mailbag in the bath is part of my essential recovery. Never stop! I'd love to hear you on a regular podcast, after enjoying your appearances on the Showtime podcast. Any plans for that kind of project? Anyway, I wondered... If Manny Pacquaio asked you to train him to do the (near) impossible for two final fights against Spence and Crawford... What would your strategy be? Who would you choose to fight first and why? What would you gameplan be for fights 1&2, based on the fighter Manny is now and the weaknesses you think could be exploited in his two foes in this hypothetical scenario?This may be a silly question but I am curious: would you 100% take the job? What would would give you pause for thought? And what would excite you about it? Do you think you could guide Pacquaio to one win out of those two fights? I'd love to hear your insights on that. One semi mythical... If Loma fought Lopez next, who wins and how? One actual mythical... Pac vs Canelo in 2014.Take it easy, stay safe.
Giuseppe, London
Bread’s Response: Thank you. Yes I am open to just broadening my horizons in boxing. They say if you love your job, you will never have to work. Pac vs Canelo in 2014 I think is an even fight. Canelo had just lost to Floyd in 2013 and struggled with Lara in 2014. Pac regained his title over Bradley in 2014 and beat Chris Algieri. Pac’s foot movement would always give that version of Canelo problems especially at 154. Canelo has to clip Pac, which he can but if he doesn’t he would tired out. Pac doesn’t sit on body shots well so Canelo can hurt him downstairs. Both have flaws that the other can exploit.
If Loma fights Lopez next I favor Lopez. Lopez will be better and Loma will be older. People say all Loma has to do is start earlier but it’s not so simple. Lopez can hurt him. Lopez has range to keep him outside. Loma is a dog but he’s calculated. He’s just not going to go balls to the wall. It’s not his way. Or should I say we haven’t seen that in him as of yet.
Ok this is one of the most unique questions I have ever had….I don’t like to say 100% if I would take any job because the chemistry you have with the fighter is the most important factor. I have never met Manny Pacquiao so I don’t know what chemistry we would have. My guess is we would get along. So most likely I would take the job. Manny seems like a great guy and hard worker. The only pause I would have is us getting along. If we got along I would take the job.
Yes I would be very excited. Manny Pacquiao is greater than we all realize. There may never be a fighter in history who was a flyweight champion who turns out to be a 3x welterweight champion and a top 10 or 15 fighter in the history of the welterweight division. Beating Spence or Crawford could make Manny the best fighter in the history of boxing. I believe in running towards the fire. Chasing greatness. This is the era of the businessman but that would be quite an accomplishment.
If I had to pick between fighting Spence and Crawford in order. I would pick Spence first because I think he has a harder time making 147 than Crawford does. At the top level small things count. All of these guys can beat the other on the right night so minutia matters. I think Spence is a beast but he doesn’t have the layers to his game that Crawford has. I also think Crawford is slightly faster and he varies his attack more. So if I’m training Manny I would go for the guy who is not as fast, and less variant on his attack. My game plan to beat Spence would disrupt his jab. Manny has to be careful with range in this fight because Spence is better than Manny on the inside and he has a great jab. Manny is short but he’s an in and out fighter. He kills you stepping in fast from long range. Or he clips you in the midrange because his eyes and trigger pull is usually sharper. Spence does not do a lot wrong. He’s very well rounded. So I would try to take away what he does best. Controlling the fight with that long hard jab and then working the body. Manny is so reflective and he has more natural twitch than both Danny and Mikey Garcia, we would drill on taking away Spence’s jab. I think Manny is a naturally better athlete than Spence. But Spence is so much bigger and longer that it evens things out a little but. After we went over taking away Spence’s jab with fast in out counters and movements. We would then try to overcome Spence’s punch sequence. Spence doesn’t punch in rapid combination. He punches in single timed shots. I would try to have Manny force Spence into extended exchanges in the midranges. I would challenge Spence’s reflexes of Manny firing his faster hands in the midrange inside of Spence’s long arms, then Manny getting out to regroup and not expend too much energy for the stretch.
As for Crawford, he’s harder for Manny stylistically. Crawford doesn’t RELY on his jab as much as Spence does but he does have a great one. Crawford is equally as good going forward and backwards. Again I would look at what Crawford does well and what he gets his most compliments on. How mean he is and how good of a finisher he is. After trying light up Crawford up early. In the first 3 rounds, Crawford needs to set his temperature. He’s adjusting during those rounds and quicker fighters like Brook, Lundy and Gamboa were all able to land eye catching shots in the first 3 rounds. To put some rounds in the bank I would have Manny trying to do the same. But Crawford usually adjust after the 3rd round and now he’s more of a hunter. At that point I would have Manny laser in on landing a money shot. You can’t get greedy with Crawford. Gamboa got greedy. Sometimes condensing the fight into landing your money punch allows you to have more success than over punching and putting yourself at risk. Manny can’t go punch for punch at this stage. But he can land his money on Crawford.
Crawford is hittable.I watched two fights in my lifetime where a fighter was not typically trying to win rounds. They weren’t over punching. I have watched a recent fighter win all of his fights like this except one. The fights were George Foreman vs Michael Moorer. And Randall bailey vs Mike Jones. The fighter is Deontay Wilder. George Foreman was more concerned with LINING Moorer up for his straight right hand. Instead of wasting energy trying over work. Foreman was CORRALING Moorer with a throwaway left hook to the body. He was throwing a blinding jab all night. He was hiding his right hand. Moorer was being busy winning rounds but he was losing AWARENESS to the right hand. Then BOOM! That was NOT luck. It also would not have happened if Foreman would have picked up his workrate. Moorer would have gauged the set up if Foreman would have over punched.
In Randall Bailey vs Mike Jones I was actually telling a pro fighter I was watching the fight with that Bailey was setting Jones up. Bailely wasn’t at the stage in his career where he could “work” with Jones. Jones was too big and too fast. But Baily was calm and he kept lining Jones up, round after round. He finally got Jones to high guard in front of him and not react to being hit by a jab. For the whole fight Jones was busy and he kept Bailey from setting. Jones would sort of fall in but the fall ins were throwing Bailey off because Jones was flurrying as he was rushing in and Bailey couldn’t set. But as the fight went on Jones tired slightly and his body and reactions weren’t twitchy anymore. So Bailey finally landed a good jab on Jone’s highguard and followed it through with a straight right hand and dropped Jones. Now Jones was disorganized and his rushes weren’t as fast. He was looking for a right hand over the top all night. So what did Baily do, he threw an uppercut as Jones was rushing in and he never saw it and the fight was over. Two older punchers doing the same thing to busier younger fighters. They were losing on points in both fights. They condensed the exchanges and gave themselves their best chance to win not outpoint.
Deontay Wilder’s right hand is so MONEY because he doesn’t throw it that often. He doesn’t give his opponents too much of chance to gauge the timing of it, so when he does throw it, it’s a sucker punch. You guys can say what you want but it’s worked for Wilder. I think Manny over punched with Marquez. And while he was able to hurt Marquez, he wasn’t able to concuss him because Marquez got used to that left hand. For one shot and one night. I would try to get Manny out to an early lead. Get the crowd on his side. Get Crawford all mean and crazy like he was vs Mean Machine. And tell Manny to stay in his set, feint and give the impression he’s going to attack but never fully commit and look for the ko kill shot on Crawford. I think that’s Manny’s best shot to beat Crawford at this point in his career. What do ya think?
"I think what beat Loma was the rounds he allowed Lopez to win were easy to score. They weren’t swing rounds. The rounds Loma won he had to really work for them. In fact some of the rounds he did better in were swing rounds. So one fighter had about 5 easy rounds to score. The other fighter only dominated maybe 2 rounds. The remaining 5 were swing rounds and in those rounds Lopez got the benefit of doubt." Bread,Cant believe you think rounds 8-10 had swing rounds. 9 was more contested but Loma still landed MORE of the effective shots more frequent. You say Loma dominated 2 rounds and Lopez had 5 rounds that were easy to score when Lopez never dominated ANY ROUNDS. Lopez was never in control in any of his rounds he won, he couldnt land at will. It was very obvious that Lomachenko won rd 2 (though landing 1 or 2 less) and 8-11... Neither 8 or 9 could have been swing rounds when one guy is landing 4-5 punch combinations AT WILL while the other is landing 1 punch at a time (when Lopez wasnt missing). The problem with your statement is that your not acknowledging Lopezs lack of defense in not nullifying Lomas combinations (in those rounds) by putting his hands up and lack of accuracy hitting Lomas chest, gloves and arms. Single shot styles arent effective when you dont have defense nor accurate with punch placement. Guys like mayweather, Andre Ward won rounds because they were accurate and nullified offenses. Simple math. If someone lands 4 punches (hard effective shots combo) to the opponents 1, how can you call it a swing round? Swing rounds are for closely contested rounds statistic wise. Did both land equal or close numbers in those rounds? Did Lopez land better harder more effective shots than Loma in rounds 8-9 that would sway you to believe Lomas higher connects (16 more in round 8 and 14 more in round 9) in those rounds didnt matter? And when you say Lopez rounds were EASY to score even though Lopez WAS NEVER IN CONTROL and was missing alot, do you mean because Loma didnt threw to few??Lopez:Rd 1: 1/4 Rd 2: 6/10 Rd 3: 4/10 Rd 4: 4/9 Rd 5: 7/10 Rd 6: 13/20 Rd 7: 10/25 Rd 8: 30/41 Rd 9: 24/38 Rd 10: 34/44 Rd 11: 56/69 Rd 12: 42/65 Lomachenko total = 231/345 (67%)Lopez:Rd 1: 6/44 Rd 2: 7/39 Rd 3: 5/45 Rd 4: 5/42 Rd 5: 7/41 Rd 6: 9/39 Rd 7: 11/45 Rd 8: 14/41 Rd 9: 15/45 Rd 10: 17/60 Rd 11: 15/56Rd 12: 40/61 Lopez Total = 150/558 (27%)
Bread’s Response: I can’t believe you guys are making this fight so controversial. And this is coming from a big Loma supporter. He didn’t WIN this fight. I don’t know if those are your personal punch stats or the official ones. But Loma’s best case in this fight was a DRAW. His best case is winning round 2 in which I thought he clearly won. Then sweeping rounds 7-11. He lost the 12th round. I don’t remember each round verbatim but while watching the fight I had the impression Loma needed the 12th and he didn’t get it. When I say dominated I mean Loma didn’t do much. There was rounds where Lopez sort of stalked Loma with a jab and a threat. And Loma just circled him and bought time until he slowed down. So no Loma wasn’t getting beat up but he literally wasn’t throwing punches. In my opinion unless a fighter lands a huge shot and doesn’t give up anything. It’s hard to win a round when you literally throw a handful of punches.For example the 1st round counts as far as being scored. Loma barely threw a punch. Well that round still has to be scored. So that’s an easy round to score for Lopez in my opinion. You guys have to objective and stop trying to micromanage a controversy.
Lopez controlled the early rounds with his sharpness. He may not have landed an overwhelming amount but he was controlling the action and he was limiting Loma’s scoring. Once Loma stepped on it, it’s not Lopez just went into shell. He stole some of the rounds that Loma was being more active in. Like the 12th. I’m not sure if it was the which round in the 2nd half other than the 12th that I thought Lopez won. But I can remember saying ooh that was a close round. Maybe the 7th. Maybe the 9th. Maybe the 11th. I can’t recall exactly. But I do know Lopez was not getting steamrolled when Loma made his push. This fight was very similar to Jermaine Taylor vs Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins and Loma may be more skilled. But for whatever the reasons, they can’t step on it and score early as effective as they can late. And those early rounds get scored also. Mathematically winning and being the superior fighter are different.
Did Ryan Garcia bite off more than he can chew vs Luke Campbell? I think he did. I think Garcia is a good puncher but he has limited defense and he’s never been a real fight. I like Campbell by stoppage.
Bread’s Response: If Campbell stops Garcia I will give you your props but I don’t see it. I like Garcia to win this fight. I just believe this is good matchmaking and Garcia is the better fighter.
Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
"bread" - Google News
January 02, 2021 at 02:24PM
https://ift.tt/3o6KSAU
Daily Bread Mailbag: Canelo, Garcia-Campbell, Ward, Loma, More - BoxingScene.com
"bread" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2pGzbrj
https://ift.tt/2Wle22m
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Daily Bread Mailbag: Canelo, Garcia-Campbell, Ward, Loma, More - BoxingScene.com"
Post a Comment