In this week’s dose of Stephen “Breadman” Edwards, the long-serving trainer with the educated boxing brain discusses what makes a good trainer, his future pound-for-pound list, an evolution in the sport since the glamorous eighties, and more.
Enjoy!
Hey Breadman, hope you and your family are well. My brother got me into reading your mailbag and I now read it every week without exception so thank you for putting it out there every week. I have three questions but feel free to just answer the one(s) that interest you. I watch a lot of YSM Sports Media, particularly the interviews with Greg Hackett because he gives a lot of really good insight. My question is how do you rate Hackett as a trainer – does he have any prospects that you think will be really big (I’ve heard him mention Jibril Noble a few times)? – and how come some really good trainers (like Hackett) don’t necessarily have the best records as boxers themselves? Is there some kind of ability to be able to see things from an outsider’s/trainer’s perspective but not necessarily when you’re in there yourself? Two, who are your future top 10 pound-for-pounders? In no particular order mine are ‘Boots’, Shakur, Bam, Moses Itauma (I don’t know if he’s particularly known in the US but in the UK everyone who has sparred him or seen him in person is BIG on him), Abdullah Mason, Benavidez (if he’s not there already), Junto Nakatani, Keyshawn Davis, Stephen Fulton (if he can pick his momentum back up), Andy Cruz, Jai Opetaia. Three, why do you think Boots gets so much hate? Even if people disagree on how far Boots will go, all it takes is looking at him and seeing how he performs versus his current opposition (which is good but not GREAT) to see that he will go FAR without any significant doubt. I really don’t understand peoples’ need to pick him apart and get angry over people thinking he will be an all-time great rather than just politely saying they can see he’s good but aren’t yet convinced he’ll go all the way.Thanks for reading this and doing this every week – wish you all the best. Dean, London
Bread’s Response: I know Greg Hackett. We are real cool and I think he’s a good young trainer. Jabril Noble is an excellent undefeated prospect who has a chance to make some noise under Greg. I’m not sure if Greg has any other prospects at the moment but all you need is one. I would rather have just one, so I can put all of my time and ideas into him.
Let me just say this about trainers – the goal posts are always being moved as to who can coach and who can’t. Some people say you had to have been a fighter. Well, Greg was a fighter. A pro fighter with over 20 fights. But now people criticize him because he has a losing record. Well, are the qualifications you have to be a fighter or a winning fighter?
I think a person who loves boxing and who can articulate what he wants in a receivable way can be a good trainer, if they are dedicated. It definitely helps to have fight experience, but it’s not the end all, be all and it’s been proven several times. And it definitely doesn’t matter if you were a good fighter. I think a more common denominator that good trainers have in common are law enforcement/military backgrounds or business owners. More so than ex-fighters.
Buddy McGirt and Roger Mayweather are the best trainer-fighters that I can think of. McGirt is in the HOF but he’s not a Mt. Rushmore type of great fighter. I can’t think of a fighter on the level of say Ali, Robinson or Leonard who turned out to be a good trainer. At least not recently anyway. Maybe you can help me recollect…
I know many have tried, like, say Pernell Whitaker, but he didn’t have the success, one would assume. To my knowledge Whitaker never taught anyone his fantastic moves that he used in his career as a fighter. There are obstacles for all trainers. But I would suppose that an all-time-great fighter wouldn’t have the patience to go through the progressive steps of a developing fighter. Especially if the pupil is not a freak, skill-wise or athletic-wise.
I remember in the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman hired Archie Moore, and if you look closely, also Sandy Saddler. In 1974, Moore and Saddler were two of the top 15 fighters ever. Angelo Dundee, who never threw a punch in a sanctioned fight, was the winning trainer in that fight. I know Ali was special but he wasn’t supposed to win that fight as a huge underdog. Remember, Foreman was special also, and he’s seven years younger, which was a big deal in 1974. Foreman fired his whole team after that fight because he was upset they didn’t adjust to the rope-a-dope.
I have seen every level of trainer from all sorts of backgrounds. Ex-fighters who are excellent trainers. Ex-fighters who are terrible trainers. Good fighters who are excellent trainers. Good fighters who are terrible trainers. Non ex-fighters who are excellent and vice-versa.
I got all of my experience from sparring in the gym for years and being a hardcore fan since I was old enough to talk. I fought a fight in a show and I didn’t know that if you didn’t have an amateur book the bout didn’t count as a recorded fight. I was young and ignorant and I didn’t know years later that I would be a trainer or I would’ve just got a book so I could’ve had a sanctioned fight. But, nevertheless, I’m doing just fine.
The one thing I will say directly about your question is, the ability to do something and the ability to teach something are not always exclusive. And when a person is gifted they may not always be able to articulate their gifts because their gifts are instinctual and God given. And not all gifts are physical. Sometimes a person can be a gifted teacher. One more thing I will say about Greg Hackett – he doesn’t have a good record but he can fight. I’ve seen him give out work in the gym. Oftentimes things don’t go your way in life for whatever reason, and you can be undervalued by your career or lack thereof. I know lots of guys like Greg, who can fight, but their careers didn’t work out for several reasons. I know a guy personally who can fight and never had a sanctioned fight – me.
I don’t have any complaints about your future pound-for-pound list. But I will say I already have Boots, Bam and Benavidez on mine. People usually do two things with potential greatness. They overvalue it so they can say they were the first to recognize it. Or they undervalue it because of their own insecurities. Have you ever seen a great athlete who wasn’t criticized before they outperformed their hater’s hate?
Sup Breadman, hope you are doing well. I think we have all heard that athletes in sports have improved as time has gone by, and although I think this is true for other sports I’m not sure if it applies to boxing. At the end of the day it’s two guys throwing hands! From watching fights from the eighties it looks like a lot of fighters fought out of the bounce back then and fights were so much more violent and/or fast paced – why is this? Why do fighters opt to step nowadays? Is this a “advancement” of the sport? Certainly, it’s not an energy-conservation thing. Recovery, conditioning, and nutrition are seemingly so much better nowadays. Curious as to your thoughts.
Bread’s Response: Athletic advancement has evolved. But in a weight-based skill sport like boxing, the evolution comes more in the size of the heavyweights and big weight cuts than skill. Now, hear me out.
Because fighters focus so much on strength and conditioning and squeezing every pound out of a weight cut, you see fighters rely more an athleticism than they do skill because they simply don’t practice enough. Skill is built through repetition. So today we have fighters who walk around heavier for their respective weights. And they rehydrate bigger. And they do more plyometric and weight training. So they look different. I don’t think that’s evolution. I think it’s a change of approach.
Forty years ago endurance, callisthenics, sparring and floor drills made great fighters. Today they do more cross training. Preparation is different. You can tell what an athlete does in training by his looks. Sprinters have twitchy lean muscle. Endurance runners have supple muscles and aren’t as cut. Swimmers are strong and lean but not as cut as sprinters, etc, etc. Today we see a difference in training methods. Fighters, 40 years ago, did more endurance work than they did strength work, so their bodies weren’t as ripped. But the funny thing is, they did 15 rounds easier than today’s fighters do 12. So. go figure…
Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns and Roy Jones all fought more than 30 years ago. And they show up on film as good as anyone today, skill-wise. If evolution was so prevalent we would see more fighters of their level, and we don’t.
I will also disagree with you about something – fighters don’t fight on the bounce so much these days because they don’t want to get tired. They also don’t skip rope enough. And this era loves to fight off the step and pivot because some of the top guys of this era fight like that so they emulate it. But a good bounce can take you a long way. Usyk, Bivol and Lomachenko are going into the hall of fame on a nice rhythm bounce. Just like today, we don’t have enough pressure fighters, because today’s fighters don’t get into good enough shape to be true pressure fighters, because subconsciously the weight cuts are in the back of their heads.
Hey Breadman. I understand that at 27, “Bud” was a one-division champion. You missed the context of what I was getting at. [Terence] Crawford was never anointed as “The Next”, nor did he receive his belt via e-mail – he went on the road and won it in hostile territory (Think: Minte-Hagler in London). Also, Bud wasn’t fighting tooth and nail to remain at 135lbs after he won his belt. He was only there as long as he was because he had promised Ray Beltran a lightweight title shot, as I recall. It’s cute how you casually dismiss Yuriorkis Gamboa as a “talented underachiever”. Let’s not play that game. Gamboa was a top-10 pound-for-pounder; an elite, Olympic gold medalist many (not most) fans and pundits expected to beat Crawford. The odds were roughly in favor of Bud, so don’t act like the Cuban was someone Crawford was supposed to crush in three or four rounds. That’s called “revisionist history” – a game people play to alter facts to suit a particular narrative or agenda. A troll, to you, is anyone who doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with your weirdly-biased infatuation with some of your sacred cow fighters. It’s an intellectually-dishonest way of wriggling out of answering questions you’d rather not answer, because if you label someone a “troll” it marginalizes their opinions in the eyes of your fans and sycophants.
You resent me because I’m not one of your breathless sycophants. Shame on me! I asked you why you considered Crawford-Spence a “50/50 fight”. I know you’re more intelligent than to ever believe that Errol Spence Jnr stacked up well against a generational Swiss army knife like Terence Crawford. I told people back in 2018 that Crawford would destroy Spence. Why? Because they’re two completely different levels of fighter. Anyone with two good eyes who’s been following boxing for years could see that. But let’s put that aside. We both agree that “Boots” Ennis is an elite talent who checks most of the boxes. He’s 27; clearly in his prime; has been a pro for eight years and is 33-0 with 30 stoppages. My question to you is simple – why is a fighter with this profile still in a position to have to fight a rematch with a guy he beat 120-108 on all three scorecards in DC a year ago? Blaming poor management, the promoter, the network, etc, is getting stale, and even some of his fans are starting to become turned off by the career stagnation. If the purpose of signing with Matchroom was to open doors, why are those doors not opening yet? If he’s not careful, Boots’ career will trace almost exactly the career arc of Demetrius Andrade. And I wouldn’t want to see that for the young man, because he seems like a good kid with tremendous tools. I stand on the notion that signing with Eddie [Hearn] was foolish. Eddie is a compulsive liar who wouldn’t tell the truth if a Kalashnikov was pointed at his head. The only time he’s not lying is when his lips are not moving. But Eddie is quite an amusing character, in the same way a vacuum cleaner salesman is. No, I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the room. I simply see through BS, and I’m not afraid to call BS what it is. People like me make people like you uncomfortable because we ask legitimate questions that make certain folks uneasy. Instead of answering direct questions, you choose to deflect, name call and gaslight. That says more about you than it says about me. First I was a “dictator”, and now I’m a “troll”.
What exactly am I “dictating” on your platform? Please tell me. Julius Indongo won both of his belts at 140 on the road, by the way. One of them in Russia against a pretty good and undefeated Russian fighter. The other was against Ricky Burns in the UK. So while Indongo was never considered elite, he was indeed an accomplished and dangerous unified champion when Bud stopped him. I love how you consistently attempt to downgrade Crawford’s accomplishments and opposition just to embellish Boots. Then you accused me of hating Philly fighters, and are now attempting to make this a NYC-versus-Philly thing – something I find beyond laughable (we’re grown men, not 23 year old rappers). No one was a bigger fan of Tyrone Everett when he was robbed at the Spectrum against Alfredo ‘El Salsero’ [Escalera] for the WBC 130 belt – one of the five worst robberies I’ve seen in boxing. I admired “Bad” Bennie Briscoe during the Monzon-Valdez era, as well as Matt Franklin, aka Matthew Saad Muhammad, for his wars with Marvin Johnson at the Spectrum and Market Square Arena. Boxing Illustrated, KO Magazine, Boxing Digest, World Boxing, International Boxing – I read about these Philly greats regularly. So calling me a hater of Philly fighters is just plain weird and baseless. What are you going to reach into your bag for and call me next – an “old man”? I have a nephew your age, so that name might apply. Carl Hewitt Queens, NY
Bread’s Response: One thing I never do is wriggle my way out of anything. Don’t forget, I post your comments. I could easily silence you by simply erasing your emails and not posting them. But I play fair. I give you a platform to say what you want. Then I give you chance to reply when I answer you. So, you can save that nonsense.
You don’t offend me by calling out Boots. I don’t know you except through email. I just recognize you for what you are. I told you once before I had a relative like you. I don’t consider him family, although he’s my mom’s brother. But nevertheless I know your type – overly critical. Always see fault in everything. A grandiose bragger on making the correct call with Crawford-Spence that you’re still talking about it without being asked about it. But not very self-reflective when you’re wrong.
I am willing to bet you had great potential but didn’t reach a certain status in life so you’re bitter. You talk in a condescending way that I have heard before. So I decide to let you have it, like I did him, and it’s why we haven’t spoken in about 14 years.
Gamboa was a supreme talent but he was an underachiever, like I stated. That’s an excellent win for Bud, no doubt. But Gamboa was what he was. Are you saying Gamboa was not an underachiever? Top Rank did a Top Rank special. They were no longer promoting Gamboa. So in Crawford’s first title defense they sent Gamboa to Omaha after a year layoff and he got lit up as expected. Crawford delivered with the performance, but you know exactly what I’m saying…
This back and forth may seem like I’m criticizing Bud. But I know you read my mailbag every week. So you know I have him number one, pound for pound. I actually think Crawford’s resume is good, and his performances have been consistent. I don’t have an issue with his resume, like many, because I don’t hold him at fault for any of his so-called misses. I think he was boxed out because of his talent and skill. If he were a more vulnerable fighter he would’ve got the bigger fights much earlier in his career. Does that sound familiar?
I don’t care who you can name that fought from Philly. At heart, you’re a hater. Your knowledge of boxing doesn’t mean you aren’t one. It just means you’re a knowledgeable hater who has been around for many years.
I won’t be posting anymore of your emails unless you can make a new point about Boots or write in about someone else. Because we keep going round and round without a solution… His signing with Matchroom is too recent to say if it was good or bad. Their first fight together was a huge success and a step in the right direction. To do over 14,000 in attendance on a summer’s night at the Wells Fargo is a big deal.
I’m not championing for Eddie Hearn or making him out to be the best promoter in the world. I don’t know him. I’ve never met him. And I have never worked with him. But again, I think you’re jumping the gun with criticism. Your lack of patience shows your intent. You want them to fail, so you’re projecting failure, way too early. Give the kid a chance and let’s see if Hearn can deliver. If he can’t, then criticize him – but not after one fight.
Eddie Hearn has mentioned the possibility of a fight between Diego Pacheco and Jaime Munguia. What do you think of that fight and how do you think it would play out?
Bread’s Response: It’s a very evenly matched fight. I don’t know yet. Let me really study some video of both guys. Right this second I’m more comfortable leaning towards Munguia. But that’s not a pick. I have just seen more of Munguia, and I was impressed by his determination vs Canelo in May.
I just came across a Facebook post called “Rate These Legends”. This particular post was about Mexican boxing legends. The fighters listed are as follows: Erik Morales, Chiquita Gonzalez, Canelo Alvarez, Ruben Olivares, Julio Cesar Chavez, Salvador Sanchez. I was curious how you’d rank this particular batch of Mexican boxers? I don’t know much about Chiquita, and I’m biased toward Sanchez (he is my favorite fighter), so I wanna know who you think goes where?
Bread’s Response: Um… I would say…
1a. Salvador Sanchez
1b. Julio Cesar Chavez The top spot is interchangeable.
3. Canelo Alvarez
4. Ruben Olivares
5. Erik Morales
6. Chiquita Gonzalez
It seems like all kids around 135-140 have little interest in fighting each other without having some huge advantage. Meanwhile, it seems like fighters at 154 and 115 get in the ring and fight it out not only now, but for most of the last 10 years. I had an interesting thought – is that just an accidental consequence of where there is star-power leverage, or do guys around a weight get competitive enough that it creates a small culture? Does a guy taking big risks inspire other guys his size to step it up and/or a star with soft matchmaking inspire other guys to work the system? At a personal level do boxers act differently towards guys their size? Also, I wanted to get your take on a couple of little historical questions. I think it’s strange that Bob Foster was probably the hardest-punching light heavyweight of all time, with a lot of height and range, at a time when a lot of the heavyweights were modern cruisers, and he went something like 0-7 or so against ranked heavyweights. I would have thought he had the frame to move up more successfully. Do you have any thoughts as to why, and do you think he might have been more successful moving up today with some of the advances in science?
Bread’s Response: I think in certain weight divisions trends are set. Sometimes the trends are for everyone to fight each other. Sometimes the trends are to act like they want to fight each other and never do. Personally, when I see an over-abundance of trash talk, I know the fighters are not going to fight. Because it will be too embarrassing to whoever loses. It’s why it’s easier for fighters like Lomachenko and Chocalatito to fight everyone because they don’t trash talk. If you don’t believe me, look at the guys who are always going back and forth on social media. They rarely fight each other!
I’ve seen fighters who are the same weight become good friends. But if they are at the same stages of their careers, they usually limit their friendship because they may fight. But everyone handles that differently.
I think Bob Foster was a tremendous fighter. But I think he was slightly overrated – let me explain. Foster was 6ft 3ins with a tremendous reach. Very skilled, and a huge puncher. With his frame and skill set, he should’ve have been able to beat some of the heavyweights he lost to. I can see him losing to Ali and Frazier – two generational talents who are much bigger naturally.
But I feel like Foster could have beaten fighters like Zora Folley and Mauro Mina. Foster only lost to Ali and Frazier between 1965-1977. So maybe his other six losses came before or after his prime, which is highly possible. But Foster was often dominated in his losses above 175lbs.
He lost every round to Zora Folley. Elite, big light heavyweights can beat Zora Folley. Performance value means a lot to me – even more so than wins and losses. Billy Conn gave Joe Louis hell. Ezzard Charles gave Marciano hell. Archie Moore knocked Marciano down. Spinks beat Cooney and Holmes. Holyfield was never really a light heavyweight but he ruled the heavyweight division as a smaller guy. Roy Jones beat John Ruiz.
In many, many tries Foster does not have a significant win or performance above 175lbs. I would suppose he just had a mental yip against fighting bigger guys. Because he had the tools. I try to be fair with my assessments of fighters. And weight jumping is not everything. But compared to other great light heavyweights, Foster performed the poorest versus the big guys, and that’s why I have Charles, Conn, Moore, Tunney and Spinks rated over him at light heavyweight.
Bread, you really need a podcast. Your insight is by far the best in the game. I follow you on Twitter and I rarely disagree with any of your social or sports takes. Recently I saw you post about Sheryl Swoopes and Caitlin Clark. My question is, can you get a little more in depth about what happened and do you think this stuff happens in boxing?
Bread’s Response: Hell yes, it happens in boxing. Analysts and media make up lies all the time to discredit a fighter they don’t like, or to push their subjective preference with an untrue narrative. I have heard respected members of the media tell two lies that simply weren’t true and no one called them out or fact-checked their lie. I heard someone say that Sugar Ray Robinson never gave Charley Burley a title shot at middleweight. So I researched and saw that Burley retired in 1950. And Robinson didn’t win the middleweight title until 1951. Which would make that impossible.
I also heard someone say that Ray Leonard made Hagler fight a 12 rounder and all of Hagler’s title defenses were 15-round fights. Because Hagler had scored KOs in all of his title defenses, except his 15-round decision over Roberto Duran, this lie could almost pass as the truth. But upon further research, I found that Hagler’s title defenses against John Mugabi and Tommy Hearns were sanctioned for 12 rounds also. But the people saying that wanted to illustrate that somehow Leonard gained an unfair advantage by making the fight a 12-rounder and Hagler’s slow start was because he wasn’t used to 12-round fights. But Hagler started fast versus Hearns, and that fight was scheduled for 12 also. Hagler was certainly used to fighting 12-round fights in 1987; he fought in 12-rounders in 1985 and 1986.
Before I go into the Clark-Swoopes thing I want to say that Clark is handling this about as good as anyone can handle what’s going on. As a black person who has been discriminated against so many times I can’t tell you how many. I know first hand that there are media-pushed agendas that are prevalent today in sports and politics. But Caitlin Clark is no media creation. She can flat-out play. And her charisma is spellbinding. She captures the audience. She’s very similar to Steph Curry in that regard.
And although she is not the only reason the WNBA’s stock has risen, she’s a big part of it. The cocky gestures on the court are part of the game. I’m not mad at Clark or Angel Reese for talking trash and making gestures. I haven’t found any of that offensive. Players have innocent quirks that get them going.
But Swoopes, unfortunately, made a big mistake. She’s obviously not as high on Clark’s ability as most, and she has a right to feel that way. But you can’t come up with specific criticisms that are not facts to substantiate your opinion. If she said she just feels that Clark is good but not as good as everyone thinks, I wouldn’t agree, but I would respect her perspective. Swoopes may feel like she’s better than Clark – and again, she’s earned the right to feel that way.
But to say that Clark broke the scoring record because she had five years to do it, instead of four years, then to back that up with saying that Clark shoots 40 shots a game and suggesting that’s the reason why she scores so many points… Then to defend flagrant fouls committed against Clark, and to suggest Clark’s a bully herself? It’s just not good on so many layers.
I never try to be too judgmental. I know humans are imperfect. I am imperfect. I remember Swoopes as a player and she was terrific – one of the first true superstars of the WNBA. In this situation I really would like to extend Swoopes some grace. She made a huge mistake and she can fix it. It’s not so much she used incorrect facts to back up her opinion. But she’s been defensive about it. Either she did poor research, or she said things that she wanted to be true but were not. Either way, at this point, humility is the only thing that can fix it. You can’t have an ounce of arrogance when being this wrong. Swoopes was wrong by a mile, and that’s ok if she’s humble about the mistake. Anything less than 100 per cent humility will not come off well. You can’t give a false, detailed description devaluing an athlete, then be defensive about the response you get when people point out that you were wrong about your facts.
I wish this never happened. Black people have been through too much socially and athletically. And I hate to say it, but Swoopes is coming off as jealous and angry, which fits an unfortunate stereotype. When a person of high accomplishments like Swoopes puts their opinion out, people view it as an absolute perspective, and now that her explanation of her opinion has been proven to be false, her expert status has been totally devalued.
I actually agree with Charles Barkley and Shaquille O’Neal on this – I think WNBA has totally screwed up Clark’s emergence as a superstar. I hear “sports is a business” all the time. But the player who is at the focal point of the rise of the league is being attacked and disparaged by some of the same people who benefit off her popularity. From the flagrant fouls, to the unfounded criticism, to even being left off the Olympic team.
I won’t name players because that’s not fair to them. But there is no way that Clark should not have been on that team. She was not only good enough, it would have done wonders for the league in terms of awareness. The NBA was in a similar situation in 1992. Christian Laettner was the most popular and successful college player at the time. They put him on the dream team. O’Neal was better in terms of potential, but Laettner earned the spot because of his team’s success and his overall play.
In terms of who is better versus their contemporaries, Clark is superior to Laettner. I haven’t seen one college player better than Clark over the last two seasons, and I think she was better than about five women who made the Olympic team over her.
I live in the spirit of fairness. I see fairness before I see color, and this situation is unfortunate and it will set us all back if it’s not corrected soon, because people are now defending Clark in a venomous way – spewing racial insults the other way. This thing has taken a negative, domino effect.
If anyone should understand the amount of time that Caitlin put in to be where she is, it should be Swoopes, who I assume had to do the same thing to be as great as she was. And that alone should allow critics like Swoopes to give Caitlin grace if they don’t particularly care for her. Because, in essence Caitlin, is giving them grace by not saying anything about her treatment. Clark could play the victim like so many others. But all she did was get better each game and turn her team’s success around. The pressure she’s under is immense and she’s handling it!
Sometimes, if you don’t like a person, you just have to tip your hat and give them their props if they’re special. It says alot about your character when you can do that. That’s it. That’s all.
Send Questions & Comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
