The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as the recent announced Vasiliy Lomachenko vs. Teofimo Lopez, boxers labeled as being basic, the level of Orlando Canizales, and more.
Greetings Breadman!
Hope you're staying safe this Summer. It's been one to forget.
Since the fight was announced, I must say, the lack of regard for Teofimo Lopez is baffling. I think it's fair to say at the worst, this is a 65-35 fight for Loma. I've not read any credible writer give Teofimo Lopez a shot, and the fans are acting like it's a tune-up.
I'm a big fan, but imo, Lomachenko at 135 has been a solid unified champ, but he doesn't look like that all-time great he was at 126/130, and I assume his amateur career.
Richard Commey might be as good as anybody Lomachenko has fought at 135. Teofimo blasted him out of the ring! I was shocked. Hey, after all? Every great has to win a fight like the one Teofimo Lopez has in front of him and the same goes for Lomachenko. Big win for boxing if this happens on ESPN.
What do you think about this fight?
Thanks,
Nick
Bread’s Response: I’ve never got the Loma criticism. He’s everything you want in a fighter. They say he can’t be the top P4P guy because he doesn’t have enough fights. But he had more championship fights than Pernell Whitaker had when he finally was recognized as the top fighter in the world. They keep bringing up the Salido fight. But Salido is a monster, who cheated and was overweight. Loma still took him to a SD. I get to a point where I can’t even discuss boxing with anyone. Then in his very next fight he takes on Gary Russell and wins. Russell is better than Salido.
Then Loma goes on a historic run and turns himself into a HOF and people keep bringing up Salido. Now a few younger uber talents start calling him out and he takes on the most accomplished one in Teofimo Lopez.
I know boxing is a racial and tribal sport it’s just something that people don’t want to admit. But I can’t get why anyone wouldn’t like Vasyl Lomachenko. I honestly can’t understand it. He’s GREAT.
This fight is 52/48 in my opinion. I am scared that Loma will get clipped and his legacy will be dumped on. Lopez has unique timing. He also has the ability to hit his opponents with his hardest shots. Not just a clean shot but his hardest shots. In my opinion Loma, Loma has slipped. The last time I saw APEX Loma was against Linares. It’s not just the weight. It’s the age and stress of being so great for so long. He’s 15 title fights in.
Loma has a real chance to lose this fight. So much so, that if he wins, I would hope to see him retire because there is no way he runs the table on Davis, Haney and Garcia. And one LOSS and these geniuses will crush his legacy. So if he may have to give ALL of himself just to get by Lopez. I think he left a piece of himself in the ring vs Linares. He really “went there” vs Linares. And you can only do that but so many times.
This is a real fight. I can see both winning. I think Loma has a stylistic advantage because Lopez fights in a shoulder roll and he doesn’t have a great jab. But Lopez has more advantages. Loma is bruising up big time these days. He’s smaller. He’s been inactive and injured. I think he’s lost a step.
As I type I realize how tough a fight this is for Loma. But I want to point something out. Loma is a DOG. He has guts and physical strength that critics don’t talk about. He’s dead game. He’s a pit bull. He may have to win this fight on will not skill. Great fight.
Wanted your take on boxers who get categorized or labelled as “basic”. It seems to me like this term is being thrown around a lot in a negative connotation. What gives?
Do I think there are boxers who could be considered basic? If you mean they have great fundamentals and a thorough understanding of their approach to the game, then absolutely. If we’re going by that definition, then I consider Mikey Garcia “basic”. He’s a contemporary boxer who I think personifies the idea that “less is more”.
Now, on to a fighter who I think people call “basic” with an insulting tone: Joe Louis. Is he the flashiest fighter to ever lace up gloves? Absolutely not. Does he have a great deal of range? Compared to a Sugar Ray Robinson or Salvador Sanchez, no. But for me, when I look at clips… I see a guy who makes up for RANGE with DEPTH. Watch any highlight reel of Louis’s, and you see a guy with great fundamentals who also knows punching mechanics forwards, backwards, and inside out. He was a master of the craft of punching. It’s like people call Louis “basic” with a tone that says, “If he were fighting today, he wouldn’t stand a chance!” Which is nonsense!
What are your thoughts on “BASIC” boxers? Who are some you would call “basic”, but not use it as an insult?
Greg K.
Bread’s Response: Only a fool takes the word basic as an insult. I’ve heard that term in boxing, intended to be an insult but I don’t get it. If it means sticking within the fundamentals, then that’s a good thing.
Joe Louis was basic. Alexis Arguello was basic. Sonny Liston was basic. Carlos Monzon was basic. Mikey Garcia is basic. Errol Spence is basic. That’s a great thing when you do it right. It’s nothing wrong with mastering the fundamentals.
If you notice all of those fighters have great stamina and they score big kos. The reason being is they don’t try to do too much and they’re always in position to land punches. This is insane that this has become an insult. It’s not.
A fighters natural profile and data base is acquired through time. Fighters who can do less and get the same results are gems. Just like I wouldn’t knock a fighter like Naseem Hamed. If you told him to land a jab, keep both hands up and make small movements he wouldn’t be who he is. A fighter has to fight the style best for him to succeed. Sometimes fighters can be hybrids and fight any style. Sometimes they have to stay contained. It’s ridiculous to insult fighters because they fight within the basics.
Hello Bread,
God bless hope all is well with you and the family.
I have a question for you regarding the state of boxing. due to this pandemic . I hear that some local promoters might go out of business or Bankrupt due to not being able to put on boxing shows without fans if a vaccine is not developed soon.
This is very concerning if this virus prolongs. Usually we see up incoming prospects on these shows to allow them to develop as contenders and get experience.
Without these shows I'm afraid it would be very difficult for these fighters to get fights during these unfortunate times.
The big promoters for example PBC, Golden boy and Top rank can survive due to their TV contracts for the time being, but promoters like Lou DiBella and Joe DeGuardia don't have this luxury and have mentioned they can be out of business within the next 4 to 6 months.
I am sure Russell Peltz who I'm sure you know very well from your area in Philly is probably going through the same dilemma.
Your thoughts?
PR MM
Hector Camacho VS Carlos Ortiz @ 135 Lightweight
Ossie Ocasio VS Carlos sugar De Leon @ cruiserweight
Miguel Cotto VS Wilfredo Benitez @ welterweight 147
Angel Tito Acosta VS Ivan Calderon @ Flyweight 108
Edwin Do Chapo Rosario VS Esteban DeJesus @ 135 Lightweight
Felix Trinidad VS Wilfredo Benitez @ 154 Jr. Middleweight
Alfredo Escapees VS Samuel Serrano 130 Jr. Lightweight
Andy Gonzalez
Staten Island,Ny
Bread’s Response: This pandemic won’t be easy for smaller promoters or unsigned fighters. But attrition is something that we all have to overcome in anything.
Speaking of Russell Peltz. He’s been around forever. Over 50 years in boxing. I don’t speak with him about his finances but 5 months will not put him out of business. He’s too smart and resourceful for that.
However I do think this pandemic will set back 30% of the boxing world. Too many negative variables to overcome and everyone won’t overcome.
Hi Bread,
First time writer, long time reader.
I just wanted to ask a question about primes/apex performances in the current era. Given the current focus on weight cutting and the reduced amount of actual fights for modern fighters compared to previous eras – how does this impact the primes and apex performances of modern fighters? In this sense, and maybe putting the issue of PEDs to one side, are we actually seeing the highest ceilings for modern fighters in terms of their primes and/or apex performances? Are there any modern fighters who you think would have actually achieved much higher ceilings in previous eras and the demands (e.g. more regular fights, fighting nearer natural weight) they placed on fighters?
Finally, playing the hypothetical card once more, what are the greatest ‘ghost’ primes we never actually got to see in the ring e.g. How good would Ali had been in the years he was forced to sit out for his politics? Are there any other primes or apex performances we were robbed of one way or the other?
Hope all is good with you and yours.
J
Bread’s Response: I think in this era, the prime last longer as far as actual time. Because of the low work load, matchmaking and once or twice a year schedule where a fighter can brag about being a champion for 6 years and it be true. Where as in the 80s if you were a champion for 6 years, most likely you were a HOF. So that’s the issue.
As far as APEX and eye ball test. I don’t think the primes are as high as they were going back to the 2000s on back. The 2000s were a Golden Era. Look at Tito in 2000. Bhop in 2001. Floyd in 2001. Barrera in 2000. Those were some crazy peaks. We don’t see that today. We just don’t.
Roman Gonzalez, Vasyl Lomachenko, Terence Crawford and Monster Inoue and maybe Canelo Alvarez are the only fighters of this era where I’ve seen APEX performance where I KNOW they can go in any era vs anybody for a 3 or 4 year run. There are others I suspect but those guys I know. 20 years ago you had 15 guys who could do it. Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Shane Mosley, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Oscar De La Hoya, Juan Marquez, Rafael Marquez, Mark Johnson…….I could go on all day.
I think it’s the lack of number of fights and weight cutting. This weight cutting causes more harm than good. And the fighters in this era start fighting less too early. It’s not that they aren’t good enough, they are. The circumstances don’t allow them to reach their full potential.
Hey Bread,
Hope you and your family are safe and well.
I have watched a few fights and videos of Orlando Canizales after being put on to him recently.
I was amazed and in awe at his footwork and angles that he used whilst fighting, however he seems to be a name that is never really mentioned that frequently. I must admit I was not aware of him until very recently.
Why do you think this is? Is it the fact he fought at the lower weights and was overshadowed by more prominent names in the higher weight classes at his time, because to my untrained eye he looked the real deal!
Many Thanks for your time.
Bread’s Response: Sometimes great fighters slip through the cracks. Orlando Canizales definitely did. He’s a mix of Loma and a baby Duran. Canizales had it all and he’s every bit as good as the Monster and Nonito.
Sometimes the stars line up for a fighter to be great but not a superstar. That’s what happened with Canizales. Juan Estrada from this era is similar. Eder Jofre from the 60s is also similar. It’s just the way it is sometimes.
Greetings, Bread!
When I was introduced to boxing I was fascinated by the history and did a deep dive into it almost immediately. My initial resource was Cyber Boxing Zone, and while they were a treasure trove of information, they also gave the distinct impression that the fighters of the very early days-not just Louis and Robinson but the Jim Jeffries and Bob Fitzsimmons and Joe Gans, etc., represented the peak and it was all downhill from there.
But then when YouTube came out and all of a sudden we could now watch almost all the extent film of that generation it was very hard for me to square the eye test with the legends. The guys from the 30’s/40’s were obviously as good as advertised, you can see it on the film if you’re not biased, but I had a hard time seeing the Jim Corbett’s of the world as real contenders....and yet it’s hard to evaluate the pace of a scheduled 45-rounder when you only have a few minutes of surviving highlights. The thought of guys like Ad Wolfgast and Battling Nelson doing what they did to each other over that distance at that pace seems literally impossible to me. Especially considering the mind-boggling numbers of fights on short turnarounds. And as great as modern sports science obviously is, the reality was those turn of the century guys lived in an era where almost everywhere there were just tougher MEN. No air conditioning, hard farm and factory labor, all that.
So my question is, how should we evaluate those pre-Walker Law cats? Obviously Sam Langford and Benny Leonard and Joe Gans are top-shelf all-timers by any measure but how do handle trying to rank a guy like Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, McAullife against current guys? I tend to favor guys from 1935-1985 over guys from before or after. Is that the right approach? Tell me if I’m missing something. Sorry if this went too long.
Luke
South Carolina
Bread’s Response: I think overall there is a distinct difference in technique from pre WWII and post WWII. So let’s just say the 40s. I also don’t think there is a coincidence the 40s is the best decade ever as far as fighters. No decade has produced so many ATG as the 40s. No decade ever had so many greats close to their primes at one time. It’s insane. Louis, Robinson, Charles, Pep, Saddler, Williams, Black Muderers Row, Conn etc etc.
Here is the thing about who’s tougher. Everyone adapts to their environments. Fighters today would adapt if they fought 100 years ago. Just like fighters 100 years ago would adapt if they fought today.
I think we have to use context and common sense as far as who can beat who. And as far as greatness just look to see who beat the best available fighters of their day. I don’t like going back further than WWII as far as head to head match ups personally but resumes are resumes.
Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com
