Stephen “Breadman” Edwards answers many of the questions that have surrounded the controversial fight between Gervonta "Tank" Davis and Lamont Roach Jnr, and others unrelated to it – including how good a fighter Japan's Junto Nakatani is.

 

Hey Bread,

In light of the intentional knee/missed knockdown on Tank I have a question. What, if anything, prevents a judge from scoring that a 10-8 round without the referee calling it a knockdown? A judge is well within their power to grant a 10-8 round without a knockdown, so what's the deal? Maybe they are trained or discouraged against such things, but it seems like a flaw. Scorecards have a column for deductions and explanations, but not all judges document knockdowns in the comments/explanations. So why does it truly matter if the referee formally calls a knockdown when it's not even marked on a judges’ scoring ledger?

Cheers, Brent from Canada.

 

Bread’s response: This is an interesting question and I will answer to the best of my ability. I don’t know if there is an exact tangible rule in place that prevents a judge from scoring a 10-8 round in which a knockdown was missed. But I believe it would open up pandora’s box if judges started scoring their own knockdowns that were not ruled.

I think it’s more reasonable for the commission to review missed calls and then make the correct ruling. But I don’t think it’s ok for judges to take it upon themselves to make those calls.

 

Hey Bread,

My brother and I read the mail bag every week. Really happy you liked my question so thought I'd write in again about another concept in "thinking fast and slow" that I think is relevant to boxing. Sorry in advance if this email is long but hopefully you find it interesting. The concept I am going to talk about is called "hindsight bias", which is best summed up with the quote "We cannot suppress the powerful intuition that what makes sense in hindsight today was predictable yesterday”. The book talks about how people like simple narratives and we adjust our view of the world to accommodate surprise. It also talks about how people have a bad ability to reconstruct past beliefs. What this means is that when we expect one thing to happen and something surprising happens instead, after the fact we start to look for ways to make the outcome fit the narrative and we underestimate how surprised we were, which is the hindsight bias. The author demonstrates this with a study in which a group of people predict the probabilities of outcomes to various (an example in the book is the OJ trial). After the events happened, the people were asked what probability they gave to the different outcomes. If the event had happened, people exaggerated the likelihood they gave to the event happening, and if the event didn't happen, people said they gave it a lower probability than they actually did. For example, if somebody said there was a 60 per cent chance OJ would be acquitted, after the fact they would say they thought there was a 70 per cent chance that he would be acquitted. If they said that there was a 80 per cent chance he would be convicted, after the fact they would say they only thought there was a 30 per cent chance he would be acquitted (I am making up the exact numbers).

I think this happens in boxing a lot. After big upsets, people are quick to come out of the woodwork and say that they always knew it was going to happen, but very few of them would produce proof they actually bet on the unlikely outcome. There are also people who would deny picking an upset if the favourite wins. I know you have a lot to say about these sorts of people. I think a bigger presence of this bias in boxing is that people come up with narratives to justify the outcome of a fight after the fact. When Bakole-Parker was announced, everybody said it was a good fight and a lot of people picked Bakole. After Parker destroyed him, Bakole was just taking the fight for the money and was never going to win because he had only just gotten to the country. People were split 50-50 on Crawford-Spence picks, but after Crawford dominated, Spence was always shot and hadn't recovered from the car crash (even though he looked great against Garcia and Ugas and the only incident he had after those fights was minor). Finally, Bivol vs Canelo was announced and people thought it was a mismatch. Canelo was a 5/1 favourite. After the fight people seemed to think that it was a stupid move for Canelo to make.

Another effect this bias has is people judge decisions based on the outcome, rather than if it was a good decision with the information available at the time. If somebody dies during a low-risk surgery, people will say it was a bad idea to get the surgery even if at the time it was the smart thing to do. Similarly, if you break down a fight in detail, and analyse what each person has to do to win but the fight plays out completely differently, people will say the breakdown was bad. If you told people you bet on AJ to knock out Ruiz people will say you are stupid but before the fight, that was what everybody thought would happen.

My question is, do you think I am right that boxing and boxing fans suffer from a lot of hindsight bias, and how can being aware of this help to make better picks/predictions?

Thanks, Sam

 

Bread’s response: You’re 100 per correct. Specifically in boxing, no one wants to be wrong. I openly admit I picked Canelo to beat Bivol and it was one of my worst picks ever. But you’re correct people will wait until after the fact, then construct a narrative to make themselves appear correct, instead of just admitting being wrong. This has literally happened to me with every single mishap I have ever had in boxing. Everyone had a gut feeling or everyone knew it would happen beforehand. I’m used to it. This is a prideful sport and if I don’t see a prediction or betting slip, I never believe it when someone tells me they knew an unlikely occurrence would happen. So again, you’re 100 per cent correct. Hindsight bias is a big issue in boxing. Thank you. But next time, shorten your comment.

 

Sup Bread,

I was looking at some walk outs.  Do you have a top three which caught your eye and what can you say about a fighter based on what they use? I watched some of Holyfield's and gospel songs seem to be effective for him while looking like they were luring the crowd to sleep. What songs do you think are great walkout songs that haven't been used yet? "You're Going Down" by Sick Puppies would make a great walk-out song that I haven't heard a boxer use.

Thanks, Deon

 

Bread’s response: Walk-out music is very important to me. It sets the tone for the type of fight a fighter needs to fight. There are two songs that I always see fighters fight their hearts out with if they use them for their ring walks.

Change Gonna Come by Sam Cooke and In the Air by Phil Collins. Every single time I see a fighter come down to those songs, they fight their butts off. I don’t know if I have a top three walk-out songs. But I will give you a few that moved me.

Riddick Bowe came down to In the Air by Phil Collins vs Evander Holyfield. As a Holyfield fan, I knew we were in trouble. It made me sick to hear that song. I looked in Bowe’s eyes and I couldn’t shake the feeling.

Errol Spence came down to Southside Da Realist when he fought Yordenis Ugas. I was there live and I had never heard that song before. I didn’t know it was a Dallas street anthem. I couldn’t believe how everyone went crazy for Spence. You would’ve had to be there.

I hate bringing this up but it happened. I don’t know the name of the song but Nigel Benn walked out vs Gerald McClellan like a man possessed. The arena was smoky and Benn was in the afterworld.

Freed From Desire by Gala, the song Carl Frampton came down to vs Leo Santa Cruz in their first fight at the Barclay Center in Brooklyn.

There have been many great ring walks that I have seen. But the ones I stated  stood out to me off the top of my head.

Great songs that I haven’t heard anyone use yet… Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall, I Aint Worried by One Republic, Blinding Lights The Weekend and The Boxer, by Editors.

 

Bread,

Best mailbag in the world. Bar none. Bakole is a pro boxer. Should be ready at a moment’s notice for any fight at or near his level, right? That would include a fight with someone like Joseph Parker. Everybody has a price for their services. Maybe his was met and that was that. Capitalism at work. Thanks again for doing the mailbag,

Dan Grabowski

 

Bread’s response: No, I don’t agree with you. Fighters should indeed keep themselves in shape. But being able to fight in a moment’s notice is not realistic. Bakole was on vacation. He does have a right to go on vacation in between fights. He left his vacation to fight. And you can see it. No one can be in 12-round shape, on one day’s notice.

The capitalism part is correct. Bakole was compensated for his services. He agreed to it, so he has to live with the results. But saying that because he’s a pro, so therefore he should be ready to fight at his level on a moment’s notice, is not just wrong but it’s disrespectful to the fighters and their teams because you’re devaluing the work and process of training camp.

 

Hi Breadman,

I pray God is blessing and continues to bless you and your family and the fans of your mailbag and their families. Breadman, I love you brother and am a huge fan of yours. Haven’t said that I feel that Hearns’ knockout of Duran is far greater than his knockout of James Shuler. I actually lost money on that fight because I thought Shuler would beat him but his knockout of Duran, who some people see as the Goat, is way more impressive to me. You and Doug Fischer are still the Goats of doing mailbags and your efforts are greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work.                                                                                                                                          

God bless and take care,                                                                                                                                                      

Blood and Guts, from Philly

 

Bread’s response: Hearns’s KO of Duran was a greater performance. But I was asked what was his best performance. James Shuler would have been an Olympian if the US didn’t boycott the 1980 Olympics. Shuler was a natural middleweight. He was undefeated and huge for the weight. Hearns was just KO’d by Hagler the year before. To see him perform so well vs a young, in his prime, natural middleweight was just awesome.

To be totally honest, Hearns has about 10 performances that were all just remarkable. He was an offensive dynamo. I could’ve easily picked Duran, Cuevas or many others. But something stood out to me about the Shuler performance.

 

Breadman,

I'm writing this immediately after J-Rock-Tellez. Almost everyone including the bookies were expecting Tellez to punch Julian’s head off his shoulders, but Julian didn't allow it. He showed everyone where Tellez is at, including Tellez himself, and we will see Tellez improve now off the back of how J-Rock took him those 12 rounds. If that is his last fight then I want to say that for a little while now I have thought that J-Rock pretty much maximised his career. Without slip-ups to Charlo and Rosario he could have gotten a few more big fights, but he more or less got the maximum out of his talent and his career. People forget that he was whooping Charlo until he got too aggressive and got caught. If Jermall comes back I have no doubt that teams will look at what J-Rock did against him early and try to implement some of the same things. Casual fans who've probably never set foot in a boxing gym do not understand this. Ignore any social media BS. For J-Rock to achieve what he did took a lot of work and he and you can be extremely proud of it. The way I have heard you talk about bringing him through from the beginning, and how he was never the one they talked about winning a title, only deepens my respect for the both of you.

 

Bread’s response: Thank you

 

In his fight against Lamont Roach Jnr, Gervonta Davis turned away after being struck by a punch. He then decided to pause the action himself and took a knee. When the referee started to count, Davis instructed the referee that it wasn’t a knockdown. Davis then sought a towel from his corner, despite the rules stating cornermen are to remain seated during the round. When Davis was ready, he let the referee know to start the fight again. I would love to know what you would have done as a referee in that scenario. Personally, I would have ruled it a knockdown. It’s worth noting that Lamont Roach Jnr would have won a majority decision if Davis’ knee was ruled as a knockdown.

 

Bread’s response: I don’t like to say what I would have done in any tough situation. Because none of us really know. Steve Willis is a very good referee. But what happened is something you can’t really practice for. And despite there being rules in place, often times when things like this happen, it causes decision anxiety.

So here is what I saw. I saw Lamont Roach try to land a right hand. It looked as if Tank rolled the punch but it may have grazed him. Then Roach threw two jabs and they seemed to glance Tank’s eyes. After one of the jabs, it appeared that one of Tank’s braids sort of flicked in his eye. It seemed to aggravate Tank’s eyes. At that moment, Tank backed away, took a knee and then walked to his corner. Steve Willis began to count. Then Willis stopped his count. Tank got his eye wiped then the fight continued. Tank opened up with his punches that round, and two of the judges awarded him the round.

What I would’ve done does not matter. People make mistakes and I have made plenty in my life. I believe Steve Willis is a great referee but he just made a mistake. As did the other officials ringside. The correct call should have been a knockdown. That’s it; that’s all. Although I think Willis made a mistake. Mistakes should be corrected. It’s the reason why there are erasers on the back of pencils. The commission can review it. Regardless of the mistake, what happened is on film. I also want to say that mistakes are better to be corrected in the moment. When you go back to correct a mistake, it opens up a can of worms of other obvious mistakes that weren’t corrected… Let’s see what happens during the appeal.

 

Dear Mr Edwards,

Sharing some thoughts on Davis-Roach.  Would love to hear yours. Definitely a lot of close rounds, and I appreciated the two or three high-action rounds. I personally scored the fight 7-5 for Roach, so technically 115-113 but really 115-112 with the deserved knockdown (taking a knee = knockdown). Best case for Davis, I can see people giving him six rounds. Give Lamont Roach and his team their flowers. I'll be the first to admit I did not see a route to victory for him, and I've personally met and have a lot of respect for him. I was not a fan of the heavy Davis-leaning commentary from the opening bell. The commentary crew's calves must still be sore from having to backtrack so hard once the championship rounds came around.  I get it's supposed to be the Gervonta Davis show, but call the action as it's happening and stop telling the audience over and over that none of it matters because Davis is going to score the KO any minute now. Can we get you, Al Bernstein, Jim Lampley, and a wildcard of your choosing on an alternate commentary stream? I'd pay for that. Saw some diva-esque behavior from Davis – looking to the referee multiple times for help, complaining to the referee multiple times, the ridiculous no knockdown taking of the knee, and also taking extra time coming out of the corner a couple times. Roach was more focused in my view.

In a potential rematch here are my main observations for each fighter. Roach has to make some sort of adjustment for Davis' lead left hand/straight power shot.  I don't know if it's a counter-punching type adjustment or just better head movement. It's a very athletic punch from Davis and obviously easier said than done. Davis needs to decide if he's willing to make more investments (jabs; more consistent body work) that either lead to a knockout or give him a chance at a clean points win. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond.

 

Bread’s response: I didn’t hear the commentary because there was so much chaos where I was watching the fight. So I can’t comment on that. But I do know many were expecting Tank to turn it on at a certain point and stop Roach. I picked Tank to win, but I thought Roach could be competitive and make it the distance. What I saw pleasantly surprised me. I saw Lamont Roach fight Tank Davis on even terms. I saw Lamont Roach display a skill set that I didn’t know he had. He’s improved at least 20 per cent from when he fought Jermel Herring. Lamont Roach and his team, including his father Lamont Roach Snr, definitely deserve their props. I think Roach’s calm confidence bothered Tank somewhat. It was almost as if Roach knew something. I know that look because I’ve had it. It reminded me of two fights. Tony Harrison vs Jermell Charlo and Antonio Tarver vs Roy Jones. Both times Harrison and Tarver both yelled from the top of the mountain that they could beat Charlo and Jones. No one listened until they did it. On paper it seemed as though Charlo and Jones were the superior fighters, but for whatever reasons, Harrison and Tarver have their numbers. I am curious to see if Roach has Tank’s number. I’m curious to see if Roach can display what he displayed vs Tank, vs the rest of the elite fighters in or around his weight division. As far as adjustments go, both teams will make them. From preparation to tactics used. Let’s see how this works out. Hopefully the rematch happens sooner than later.

 

Hello Breadman,

Just writing my thoughts on this week’s mailbag now before tonight’s UK main and co-main event and the US card later on, as I'm hoping to write in about other stuff afterwards and want to get my thoughts out of the way now. I might have a look at Serrano-Taylor and see if I pick up on anything. I did bet Serrano to win the second fight. I seem to remember having a problem with the way she was attacking Taylor. There is obviously no guidebook on what you can do in the ring to win (within the rules) – for example, who would have even thought of the strategy Ali came up with to lay on the ropes v. Foreman, let alone that it would work? I once said a long time ago that I felt the reason Marquez could fight Pacquiao so well when other guys couldn't contain him is because he bounced his lead leg in time with Pacquiao's rhythm, but haven't seen almost anybody make the same observation. I think sometimes you have to improvise and sometimes this is purely on the fighter's own natural instincts regardless of who the coach is, and there is probably never only one set adjustment a fighter could make. It's part of what makes Crawford so good he doesn't box you from a textbook, he free-form out-processes you with no regard to convention or style. I could go very deep with this – it is something Bruce Lee talked about. It is a little bit what in modern usage they call flow state. This is also why I don't personally hold that regression to the mean is a given. It does happen, but it's also down to the individual as I think I wrote to you once before. Some people simply have more capacity for improvement than others. Burnout is also a real thing. I have never once seen Crawford not able to enter a flow state or come back down to earth after a performance – part of it is how special he, in his mind, knows that he is and how angry he gets at others when they've talked him down. Madrimov was just a lot better than people's perception, along with Crawford looking slightly stiffer and less fluid in his movements to my eye for whatever the reason for that may be. As far as Chavez-Taylor and Whittaker, I believe Whittaker was robbed and probably also against De La Hoya. Whittaker is one of the best fighters I've ever seen – I liked how you gave him as an example of a complete fighter when I asked you a while back. I was going to follow up with, does it transfer to physical attributes, such as can a fighter with a bad chin be considered complete or not? I may write on this another time. 

Anyways, the thing is, when there is too much money involved in anything you often end up with people serving money instead of people serving people. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it's a similar thing where a lot of money can be made it takes strong people to still do the right and fair thing – assuming we can even agree on what the right thing is. Without going deep into philosophy and ethics, some people of course are completely amoral and only care about what is good for them. If they can make money by ripping other people off, why shouldn't they? Boxing is de facto a business of putting on money making events – not sporting contests – and has been since its inception. They say you don't play boxing, well, it's true. It's a fight. You play sports and boxing, for all its athletic component, isn't quite the same thing. I picked Zhang to clip Kabayel because I could see stylistically he was going to land, I just wasn't sure if Kabayel would be able to get up and weather the storm. Turns out he seems to have a very good chin – he's going to be a very hard to beat, very well-schooled fighter. People are disrespecting Josh Padley. I actually bet Shakur points and rounds 9-12 after watching tape on Padley. I could see that he's no mug – he can actually fight. He's solid. Another thing, there is a stereotype in the UK that people from the north (where I'm from) are tougher than people from the south. It's associated partly with the weather being worse the further north you go. I'm trying to think of the toughest British fighters and it might hold true – in general, most of the ones that come to mind are northern or have an immigrant background like Chisora who I think was born in Zimbabwe. Parker vs Bakole is just weird. It seems driven completely by Turki who wanted it, even though Okolie was apparently already in Saudi and offered to step in. No doubt we would have gotten a better fight if he did, if not a better drama. I do wonder if the event organisers are happy with the way it played out – probably a few promoters are as it sets Bakole back, who was maybe the most avoided heavyweight. I don't have a high opinion of the BBBofC. There have been so many ref/judges (officials work both roles over here) who have clearly been appointed as “jobs for the boys” as we say in the UK. Essentially their face fits and they won't rock the boat. For a while I was saying we had worse officials than even Germany, when Germany was notorious for bad decisions. 

I was a little surprised you have Boots stopping Stanionis. My impression of that fight is it's a distance fight either way. Partly based on how Stanionis conducts himself in interviews and what you said about Shelley Finkel. He seems to be a real one – he might go his whole career without getting stopped. I will watch tape closer to it but I will say this, if the IBF rehydration limit is in force Boots is in real danger in this fight. For as good as the style match-up is on paper Tank-Shakur will probably be a boring fight. Shakur will make Tank come to him – he ain't gonna risk getting clipped; he's fought safe against lesser punchers than Tank. I lean towards Shakur via a somewhat boring, nullifying decision.

 

Bread’s response: I don’t change comments or edit. But you have to shorten the length of your comments in the future.

I don’t want to seem all high and mighty when I say the game is to be sold, not to be told. But as a trainer, I don’t like to say what another team should or should not do. I also don’t want to put out public information for people who are making millions for a fight. Once you reach that status, you need to figure it out on your own. Last but not least, I don’t want to insult anyone because they may not agree with what I say. Still and all, I stand on my assessment. If Serrano makes one adjustment, she brutally stops Taylor.

Every athlete does not have a drop off or regression to a mean, after a great performance. Some keep ascending. But those are the special ones. Or the ones who are in a special zone for a time. As you can tell I am a big basketball guy. I saw Randolph Childress and Glen Rice have two of the better college post-season runs, ever. Their flow states lasted more than one game. It was a series of games where they played out of their minds. So everyone does not have to come back down to earth right away. As for Crawford, I believe he does out-process his opponents. I believe that’s his gift. I believe the most telling factor in greatness is consistency and Crawford displays consistency.

I ask myself when I see an elite performance, is the performance sustainable? And does the performance exhibit repeatable actions? What Crawford does great, he can repeat because it's a skill in his mind. It's almost like mental processing is his trade. You can put a barber anywhere and he's going to be a barber because that's skilful talent which is what you're given at birth, then it's enhanced through practice. Some guys can only do it for a night. Some can do it for a few years. Crawford seems to be able to do it whenever he fights. It’s why I believe he’s a generational talent and he’s special.

I have seen fighters who have shaky chins be complete. Plenty of them. Terry Norris had great legs and feet. He could box; he could punch. He had speed and athleticism. He could also fight on the inside and outside. He was just vulnerable but his chin didn’t stop him from displaying his entire game. Norris was a complete fighter. Being a complete fighter is different from being a perfect fighter. Norris wasn’t perfect but he was complete, because his chin didn’t stop him from fighting on the inside and being a killer when it was time to get a KO.

I thought Kabayel would beat Zhang. Composure is an important trait for an athlete. Kabayel is ice, whereas Zhang is fire. I also don’t trust the stamina of any man close to 300lbs in a boxing ring. Therefore I was confident in Kabayel.

I never heard the stereotype about UK fighters from the north being tougher. But you would know better than me.

The IBF rehydration rule is a concern, concerning Boots. It’s one of boxing’s rules that I wish were not in place. But that’s a story for another day. Hopefully Boots can make the weight properly and put it back on the correct way. But I want to state in unification fights, the ruling sanctioning body alternates. So I don’t know if the WBA or IBF is ruling over this fight. But yes I am picking Boots by late stoppage in a violent fight. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Boots just used his jab and outboxed Stanious.

Tank vs Shakur would not be boring to me. I love high-stakes chess matches. I may not watch it on video once a month, but because of their significance I enjoy those type of fights. I enjoyed Rigondeaux vs Donaire. I think it’s a very close fight, but Tank’s lack of use of his jab is an issue for him vs Shakur.

 

I have several questions. But first off, great job with Julian Williams. I always got the impression that you were squeezing everything out of him. I never thought he would win a world title. Let alone make the money he did. I know you guys had some tough nights but overall he had very good career considering his early potential. He made Tellez work for everything, despite not being able to pull the trigger, and his fragile skin. So props to both of you if his career is over. I think it was symbolic that J-Rock and Jarrett Hurd fought on the same night. If more-known fighters would have put on that same performance, I believe it would’ve been given a higher platform. I bring this up because I think they both left a part of themselves in the ring that night. There is no doubt in my mind that neither was the same. And although they fight different styles, neither could afford not to be 100 per cent at the championship level. On to the other bouts – I’m not going to make a big deal about it but Sandor Martin should be a world champion. Puello has been on the good side of too many disputed decisions. I didn’t see him beat Gary Russell and I didn’t see him beat Sandor Martin. Speaking of Russell, I know you were always high on him. What did you think of this performance? With the main event, I have so many thoughts. First, did you know that Lamont Roach could fight as well as he did? What do you think of the missed knockdown call? Can it be corrected with an appeal? Do you think Tank Davis is entitled? I know he came to the weigh-in several hours late. He yells at his trainers in the corner. And several times during the fight he did whatever he wanted. For example, he took a knee because grease was allegedly in his eyes and then he went to his corner to get his face wiped. What type of punishment does Steve Willis get? He literally cost Lamont Roach one of the biggest upset wins in recent years. Something has to be done about that.

 

Bread’s response: Thank you. Julian and I worked our butts off for 15 years. When I give something all I have, I can live with whatever way the chip falls.

I thought Sandor Martin was winning the fight. I was moving around and I had to leave the arena. So I was watching the fight on my phone. From what I saw, Martin won. He changed his style and he hustled more. I don’t know what else to say… Because of the confusion of the other fight, this Puello vs Martin got overlooked. But again Martin probably deserved the nod.

Gary Antuanne Russell put on his career-best performance when he needed it. I was very impressed. It was long overdue that he became a champion. And I’m glad that he got over that hump. If it weren’t for Lamont Roach, Russell would have had the performance of the night. I knew Lamont Roach was a solid fighter. But I did not know he could rise to the level that he displayed vs Tank Davis.

I think if it was a knockdown it would have been a correct call. Nothing more or less. I think the unusual circumstances caused confusion – therefore, so many things were missed in the moment. I don’t even know how the appeals process works in NYC. So I can’t say if it will be corrected or not. Let’s see.

I don’t know Tank Davis. So I can’t say what he is. I don’t know if you can punish Steve Willis for making a mistake because he has a history of being an excellent referee. I think addressing the mistake is the priority. Not punishing Willis.

 

Bread,

How good is Junto Nakatani?  He seems to get better with every outing. I believe he is the best bantamweight in the world and it looks like we will get a chance to prove it over the next year with fights against the other Japanese belt holders. This may sound crazy, but I can see him rise to 1st, pound for pound, over the next two-to-three years.  There are rumblings about future fights with Bam Rodriquez and Monster Inoue. Nakatani has the size, length, punching power and boxing IQ to win both of those bouts. How do you rate Nakatani? Not asking for a prediction, but would love for you to handicap possible fights with Bam and The Monster.

 

Thanks, Reid, Atlanta, GA

 

Bread’s response: I love that Junto comes from Japan to train with Rudy Hernandez. That shows a different type of dedication. He seems to have Hernandez’s eye. Junto is his prized pupil. When an elite trainer gives an elite fighter in his prime all he has, there is a chance something special could happen.

I think right now Junto is in the top 10 P4P. If he were to beat Bam and Monster, then he would have a strong case for #1 P4P. Let’s see where it goes.

 

Hey Mr Edwards,

 

Trust you and all you love are well. American boxing has traditionally had a focus from 147 to north of 200lbs. This explains why a truly great fighter like the late Aaron Pryor never really captured the imagination. In fact, 140lbs has been a waiting room for the glamorous 147lbs, much like 175lbs before it was a waiting room for the jewel in the crown of boxing – the 200-plus pounders. From 135lbs down, there has been an unspoken understanding that this is the undisputed territory of those south of the Texas border, and larger Latin America. Then along came Tank Davis and he stood on the brink of turning the American boxing tradition on its head. Suddenly, one little guy was making American audiences sit up and take notice. This was not Roberto Duran who, in any event, really, really catapulted himself into American folklore on a pulsating night in Montreal. This was not Alexis Arguello – perhaps the greatest gentleman the modern game ever knew, who endeared himself to American audiences with his ability to make sure his opponents remained hit. This was America's own Explosive Little Man. Then Lamont Roach happened over the weekend. I don't want to dwell on the fight. We all know what happened. "We wuz robbed" is just as legendary as "I am the greatest of all time" in the annals of boxing. Well, Lamont Roach was not exactly robbed on Saturday. Instead, he was the robber. Right before our very eyes, he robbed Tank Davis of his mystique, of his transcendental allure, and of all his claims to being the face of boxing. Canelo Alvarez , warts and all, is still the face of boxing. Davis has himself to blame. He's the one who told Roach to keep the women at home. He's the one who was supposed to annihilate the smaller man. He was the one who should have left no room for doubt. Yes, he earned a draw. But in the draw, he lost so much, and Roach won so much – Davis can only but be a loser. This was a cherry pick gone wrong. It goes to show what happens when fighters are in a stacked division but spend too much time fighting each other in the media rather than in the ring.

Of all the divisions, 135 was once poised to match and, perhaps, even exceed, the era of the Four Kings (five really, if you count Benitez, and perhaps six, if you include the much-avoided Bodysnatcher). But Tank, Teofimo Lopez, Devin Haney, Ryan Garcia all missed the plot entirely even when they had the perfect foil in Vasily Lomaschenko. At least Lopez tried. The question is, where does this leave Tank, legacy-wise, Mr Edwards? I think a lot of people will remember that every quality opponent Tank beat had a daunting rehydration clause and that the first guy in Roach who stepped up without a rehydration clause pretty much showed that Tank is good but not great. Honestly, I don't see how a rematch, if made, works out differently. Tank's entire team lied at the post-fight conference. He wasn't hurt by Roach? Of course he was hurt. How else does he lose count of the rounds? Roach is slow. Really? If he's slow, what's stopping a quick processor like Tank from taking advantage? He didn't know taking a knee and turning his back during the heat of battle is either a knockdown or DQ. Really, now? Is that a three-division world champion saying that? The trainer swap dynamic was not a problem. Really, now? How do you explain the sudden struggle against a 130 pounder? Suddenly, I don't like Tank's chances in a fight with Shakur Stevenson. There was a time I thought Tank could run the table in a stacked lightweight division. Not anymore. Step forward, Abdullah Mason. I think him and Keyshawn Davis can vie for Duran's lightweight kingdom. Everyone else was a mirage.

Keep punching, Mr Edwards.

Katlholo, Johannesburg, South Africa

 

Bread’s response: I always say when a top fighter loses or is pushed to the limit by an opponent he’s supposed to handle, then subsequently his fights become harder. His opponents now have more hope. They fight him with more determination. And they push past whatever points they normally would have stopped at.

Great fighters who continue to be great, and go to new heights after losing or having tough nights on the big stage, are truly great. For example, Marco Antonio Barrera was supposed to beat Junior Jones. He lost to Jones twice, back to back. Barrera reinvented himself and went to even higher heights and became an ATG. That’s special.

Oftentimes fighters, even great fighters, never reach the height they were, previous to the tough night. Donald Curry is the one who stands out the most to me. Tank Davis will now have everyone fight him harder. In their minds they will say if Lamont Roach can do that, so can I. It doesn’t mean Tank can’t still be special. He certainly can. But he will have his work cut out for him. For the moment Lamont Roach has slightly dimmed Tank’s light. But if Tank takes care of business in the rematch, all will be well. But that’s a big if, because we don’t know if Roach had a hot night. Or if he has Tank’s number like Antonio Tarver had Roy Jones’s number. We shall see…

Send questions and comments to dabreadman25@hotmail.com