_1661043183.jpg)
The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen “Breadman” Edwards tackling topics such as welterweights Jaron Ennis and Vergil Ortiz, Oleksandr Usyk’s huge win over Anthony Joshua, Terence Crawford vs. Errol Spence, Deontay Wilder, and much more.
Hey Mr Edwards,
Trust you and yours are in fine nick. I doubt if you would be this successful in your career and with the mailbag if those closest to you weren’t with you every step of the way. Just some random thoughts from me this time, really. There seems to be a narrative that Errol Spence Jr is the A-side and Terrence Crawford should tone down his financial demands if their long-anticipated fight is to make it over the line. The argument says Floyd Mayweather was prepared to be the B-side in order to get the opportunity against Oscar De La Hoya. Sugar Ray Leonard had to be the B-side to catch a sniff of the late Marvelous Marvin Hagler, and so the story goes. Let me show the flaw in this reasoning. Floyd WAS the B-side in the fight against Oscar. He did not have to compromise and accept being the B-Side. Oscar, despite a few losses, was still “the face of boxing” when he fought Floyd, a fictitious mantle he inherited from SRL. In fact, the story goes that SRL, when he retired in one of his numerous retirements, went up to Oscar and said, “I’m done now, it’s your time”, or words to that effect.
So, not only was Oscar physically bigger than Floyd, not only had he already faced a murderers row that included HOF’s and ATG’s in Shane Mosley, Julio Cesar Chavez Sr and Tito Trinidad, but he was also bigger, in boxing terms. Not to mention that he was a drawcard. SRL was ACTUALLY the B-side against Hagler. He did not have to compromise and accept that status. Hagler was, at the time, the best boxer, pound for pound, in the world who had ruled the division with an iron fist forever and a day while SRL, despite his status as a walking cash register, was coming of a long layoff, fighting for the first time at the weight (if I’m wrong, correct me) and there were still some lingering doubts about his eye. So, Hagler was not only physically bigger than SRL though shorter but was, in boxing terms, bigger than SRL at the time.
Yes, SRL had beaten the most significant fighters at 147 pounds who were cast-iron HOF’s on their way to ATG status in Wilfred Benitez, Thomas Hearns and Roberto Duran, but Hagler had cleaned out the entire 160 pound division. He might not have been the drawcard SRL was but there was also no guarantee that, after the long layoff, SRL would be the same drawcard he was in his heyday, much less the great fighter he had been. So, it seems to me that there should be more to defining a so-called A-side than mere income and viewership generation on the networks. Let’s come back to Spence and Crawford. Spence creditably won his first belt on the road against a tough but no HOF fighter in Kell Brook.
Then he collected other 147 pound silverware in a series of inhouse fights staged by a promotional team that believed in him. Crawford, on the other hand, won a title at 135, unified 140, won a title at 147 and has annihilated everyone at 147 in a manner Spence has failed to do, all this while he (Crawford) was being promoted by someone who didn’t have faith in him. So, while Spence may be physically bigger than Crawford and has a solid promotional team behind him, as well as a good resume at the weight, in boxing terms he can’t be bigger than Crawford because the latter’s accomplishments are equal if not better than his. In fact, while Spence fought inhouse opponents who understood that he was the promotional house’s flagship (who will forget Ugas’ apologetic attitude when he had Spence hurt?), Crawford has had to take on unpredictable and dangerous all comers who have not deferred to him because, given Bob Arum’s unguarded tirade against him (Crawford), they understood that he was not the flagship of Top Rank.
So, while Spence hunted in the zoo, so to say, Crawford hunted in the jungle. You don’t have a winner yet but I am aware from your mailbags that you consider Crawford-Spence to be a close, and maybe 50-50 fight in terms of the outcome. While I disagree with you, I then believe that it should be a 50-50 fight in the deal making. This narrative that Spence is the A-side is designed as nothing but a parachute out of the fight on allegations that Crawford is pricing himself out of the fight. This is so transparent it’s not funny. I’m not holding my breath until a deal is cut in this fight and even then, I’m only settling down when I see Spence duck through the ropes. If he doesn’t do that because he’s pushing this narrative, then it’s a duck.
On afterthoughts about Usyk and Joshua, let’s just accept that this is one of the poorest eras in the history of the heavyweight division. Billy Conn had it harder. Joe Louis was no joke. Bob Foster had it harder. Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier were nothing to play with. In later vintage, Michael Spinks and Evander Holyfield had it harder. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson were no soft touches. Usyk came along at the right time but he can’t be blamed for when he was born. But it’s a fact that the division currently is in the doldrums. Anthony Joshua, while having a certain level of skill, was always robotic and beatable. Take away Deontay Wilder’s right hand and he couldn’t box to save his life. Tyson Fury may be the best of a very poor lot. I have disagreed with you about what he could have done against Ali but, on the available evidence, we have to accept that he stands head and shoulders above everyone in this era. He said he’s an 18-wheeler truck who will run over Usyk, reverse and run him over again. I agree.
Fury is just a bridge too far for Usyk and the Ukrainian is only looking to cash out. Lastly, Mr Edwards, I’m also very skeptical of the narrative that Devin Haney may be better than Floyd was at similar stages of their careers. This is nonsense. Haney fights like Floyd fought AFTER his (Floyd’s) prime and Haney is supposed to be IN his prime. Let’s not insult Floyd. At roughly Haney’s age, Floyd was a killer. He had already been through guys like Genaro Hernandez who was 38-1; Angel Manfredy who was 25-2; the wonderful, late Diego Corrales who was 33-0; Carlos Hernandez who was 33-2; Jesus Chavez who was 35-1 and the competitive Jose Luis Castillo who was 45-4. I’m not disparaging Haney but compare his resume with that of Floyd at the same age. I don’t see names that stand out. As for Floyd, none of those guys, except maybe Castillo and Emmanuel Augustus who I didn’t mention, really gave Floyd any problems. Haney was on queer street against Jorge Linares and George Kambosos was nothing but a nine day wonder. He is not coming back to the elite level until he learns to punch properly. Maybe Haney will still prove this narrative right if between now and the end of 2023 he’s in there against Tank Davis and Ryan Garcia and prevails. But for now, let us not disrespect Floyd.
MM – I don’t know if you have ever been asked about Michael Spinks against Evander Holyfield. I know that they strictly didn’t fight in the same division until they reached heavyweight but because Holyfield did so much more at heavyweight, l would like you to predict the outcome if they fought pre-heavyweight, perhaps at a catchweight between light-heavyweight and junior heavyweight (I think that’s the title Holyfield held).I’m saying, given how Spinks was frightened at the start of his fight with Mike Tyson, Holyfield exuded so much menace at junior heavyweight that he would have petrified Spinks just as much. He wouldn’t blow Spinks out the way Tyson did but he would have beaten Spinks as badly as he beat Tyson in the first fight due to Spinks being frozen by fear.
Keep punching Mr Edwards.
Katlholo Johannesburg, South Africa.
Bread’s Response: Good comment but you have to shorten them up for future postings.
You can’t clump all negotiations in together when talking A side and B side. A side and B-side is bland term. For example some are 55/45, some are 80/20 but there is still is an A side and B side. You have to be specific. In Oscar vs Floyd, it was like 70/30ish. Floyd was just a great fighter in 2007. He was a star. But not a super star just yet. Oscar had already did countless PPVs including the huge one vs Tito Trinidad. The reason Floyd accepted the fight is because he knew what it meant to his career. He also accepted being the B side for last time in his career. Floyd and Errol share some of the same team members as far as negotiations.
Hagler vs Leonard was basically 50/50. Leonard did in fact take less money but he was a bigger star than Hagler, although Hagler was big by 1987. But Leonard allowed Hagler to take more money so he could have certain things, like a bigger ring and thumbless gloves. It wasn’t as if Leonard had no leverage. He had plenty. If you ask Hagler’s fans, Leonard had all of the negotiation leverage. Which is also untrue. Both fighters gave some and got some.
In the Spence vs Crawford negotiations, I believe Spence has a slight advantage because of how his team structured his career at 147. Spence has 3 belts and Crawford has 1. Spence has done bigger live gates and PPVs than Crawford. But Crawford is not some guy who has to accept 80/20. He’s more accomplished in other weight classes. He has 1 less title defense than Spence at 147lb. And Crawford represents the most highly thought of fighter that Spence has ever faced.
I actually don’t like to get into the negotiations because it’s just not worth it in my opinion. I want to just enjoy the fights. But you guys always ask me. Spence is the A side but it’s not a landslide. It’s close and without doing percentages, I believe both fighters will get their career high paydays.
Haney does have some Mayweather in his game but he isn’t a carbon copy. They’re both built very similar. Same height, same reach. When Floyd was in his jab and move mode they were very similar. But Floyd was more comfortable on the inside at a similar stage.
It’s a shame all people remember about Michael Spinks is the Tyson fight. Spinks was a terrific fighter. Pick any of his light heavyweight title defenses. If Spinks and Holyfield happened below 200lbs on their best days, it’s an even fight. Holyfield’s performances vs Tyson is not the end all. Holyfield was a strong puncher but he wasn’t a 1 punch overwhelming type of guy that Tyson was. Tyson has no bearing on how Spinks would have approached or fought Holyfield. I’m telling you Spinks would’ve given Holyfield fits with his jab, awkward movement and heavy fast hands.
Yo bread wassup, I have a question in response to recent events with athletes and their mental health. Why is that when a fighter or athlete is on their high horse winning and looking good they never mention mental health? When they take a loss or hit a rough patch in their careers, now they are experiencing mental health issues? I know sports and boxing are very emotional, but I have to question the validity of the claims when they only pop up when you ain’t on top no more. When AJ and Broner were at their peaks they never mentioned it now that they have been less than stellar they mention it. Danny spoke about it after a win the other guys do it after they fall off. Is it hard to accept your loses like your wins? They very well may be experiencing that but never speak about when they are on top.
Keep up the great work
Bread’s Response: I am going to answer this in general and not specific. But I think you may have a point. I have heard fighters talk about their mental health 5x in the last week. Each time it was in reference to a “bad night” or loss. It seems now that it’s hard to get over the “night” because of embarrassment, Social Media, family, friends and the treatment they get after loss seems too much to bear in this era. Where as before you dust yourself and keep fighting.
Now the anxiety seems too much and when a fighter attributes it to mental health issues, no one can challenge that. I feel like we are going to see more and more of it in boxing. I feel like huge fights will get cancelled. I feel like we have to be prepared to hear this more and more. And the fighters who can compartmentalize the PRESSURE, will be the fighters that can ascend in this new era.
Hey Bread,
Honestly, I couldn’t thank you enough for what you deliver EVERY Saturday 4pm for me (uk resident). I have learned more boxing reading your mailbags alone than anything else boxing related compiled. Thanks! When the fight was over I thought: this dude has not had a normal or good last 5-6 months. He is fighting a physical Adonis. Who was game, had made some good adjustments. In the 9th Josh has a tremendous round doing damage. Then this dude comes out in the 10th, with all the circumstances I stated above, and boxes and fights like he did. I mean just wow. To me that was an all time performance and POTY thus far. Would love to hear your thoughts on the fight and Usyk’s performance in particular.
All the best, Ash
Bread’s Response: POTY. Performance of the Year. I like that. Let me think on it though. I don’t want to give the award out in August and we have 4 more months to go. Usyk would be in the running but as I type I want to think about performances that made me feel like I was watching a special night. Bam Rodriguez had one and so did Jermell Charlo. So let’s just wait and see.
Back to Usyk. He’s a money fighter. He doesn’t always look GREAT, but he’s always GREAT when he has to be. He raises his game to every level he needs to go to. He looked meh vs Derick Chisora and Chazz Witherspoon. I didn’t like either performance. Then he goes and beats Anthony Joshua 2x. Pretty much the same way. Usyk not only has an elite IQ. He has elite toughness. I’m not suggesting Joshua is not tough. Joshua is a helluva fighter and he has the BEST resume in the division. Joshua has fought more undefeated and top 10 fighters than any of the other heavyweight stars. But Usyk overcomes Joshua competition level, size, strength, punching power, whatever. It just doesn’t matter to Usyk. He’s a unique fighter. He could have LIVED in any era. He would be a top 5 contender or champion in any era. He’s a great fighter. A HOF. Maybe an ATG.
Usyk throws this calm touch punches, that are very hard to counter because he never overcommits. They don’t seem hard, but again. ALL PUNCHES HURT. “Dropping Water on Concrete”. Because of this, Usyk’s stamina is directly connected to this. He basically skips rope and shadowboxes the entire fight on the balls of his feet and he throws these quick touch shots and every once in a while he puts a little more steam on a few just to command some more respect. Then he’s always probing with his lead hand to get to the outside or inside of the lead hand of the opponent, in this case Joshua. And heavyweights just aren’t skilled enough, vicious enough and quick enough to handle it. Joshua fought a very good fight.
Usyk was better defensively. He was consistent to the body. Usyk has been dropped as a pro and amateur with body shots. So Joshua stayed to the body. The fight was 5 rounds to 4 after the 9th round. Joshua had a huge 9th round. Usyk does what Usyk does and he wins the last 3 rounds to put the fight and controversy out of reach. The difference between a great fighter and a good fighter, is one round. A great fighter knows how to win 7 rounds CLEAN in the majority’s eyes. They may win more but they win 7 CLEAN. A good fighter may win 7. He may have a case for 7. But he doesn’t win them CLEAN so you get decisions that go either way consistently. Usyk wins 7 or 8 CLEAN no matter who it’s against. In this case I thought he won 8 rounds to 4.
AJ raised his game and Usyk still proved to be the better man. The special thing about special fighters is they become more than they were thought of in the moment. What I mean by that is Usyk is a superior boxer to Joshua. But when they fight, Usyk is the puncher also, even though Joshua is known as a bigger puncher. Ali and Holyfield had that way about them. Against Foreman, Ali is considered the boxer. But in that fight Ali was able to hurt Foreman more than Foreman could hurt him. In the Holyfield vs Tyon fights, Tyson is considered the puncher. But when they fight Holyfield is the puncher. When Usyk and AJ fight. Even though AJ can hurt Usyk. Usyk can hurt him more. That’s tough to overcome when you’re fighting a superior boxer.
For the record, Tyson Fury has this same way about him. He rises to the occasion. Fury should be the favorite. But Usyk has a way about him where no one will beat him easy barring hitting him with a BIG shot early and clipping him. After what I saw in Fury vs Wallin. No one can tell me Usyk does not have a chance.
Good Day Bread,
Hope all is good with you & yours. Just wanted to ask you about fighters you can think of who weren’t a waste of talent, achieved a lot BUT in your opinion could’ve achieved far more. I’m thinking of Prince Naseem Hamed. First time I saw the kid he fought for the European title. He was only 17 & the guy he fought was a v experienced former European champion. Naz just outclassed the man from 1-12, just utterly was too good from start to finish. I watched it & said, this kid is going to be better than Ted Kid Lewis, Randolph Turpin, Benny Lynch, John Conteh, Jim Watt, Lloyd Honeyghan, maybe even the great Ken Buchanan. This kid is going to be the best British boxer of all time. It didn’t quite end up like that. Naz had a good career & won world titles but he didn’t achieve more than the guys I mentioned above. He didn’t achieve as much as Lennox & you could argue he didn’t achieve as much as Calzaghe or Froch. He was FAR more talented but he hated roadwork & fell in love with his power & his image. I still think that just on ability Naz could’ve done almost anything. I remember reading somewhere that SRR knocked a guy out with a left hook/uppercut while walking backwards & thinking ‘surely that is impossible?’ but Naz did exactly that. Anyway, maybe I’m wrong, please enlighten me Bread because you speak more sense on boxing than anyone else.
Bread’s Response: I thought Naz had a great career. Not just a good one. I think he was a top 10ish level of featherweight ever. Featherweight is one of the original 8 divisions. So Naz did his thing. I’m not so sure he underachieved as much as you say. I think Naz ran into an ATG fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera who also had his number. That’s his only career loss. I wish he would’ve fought Marquez, Morales and Pac so we could get a better understanding of where he was All Time.
I never say a fighter retired too early. But Naz left some legacy on the table as far as where we rank him. But I don’t know if he underachieved. He won every belt at featherweight. He beat the who’s who of the division for 5-6 years which is a long prime run. For the record I think Naz started slipping much earlier than we realized. By around 1999 he was showing slippage. I can remember Ricky Hatton did the same thing. It’s bizarre but if you look at their careers. Both may have been better in their pre title run and when they first won their respective titles. By the time they got into the meat of their runs they actually started slipping.
I can think of a few great fighters who I feel underachieved but 2 stand out to me. Riddick Bowe and James Toney. I feel like Bowe was done by 1996-97. The 2 Andrew Golota fights ruined him. They count as wins for Bowe but Golota dominated Bowe 2x. Bowe was not even 30 yet. Bowe turned out to be a HOF and a great fighter. But to pretty much be done by 29 and not get a chance to keep ascending in one of the best eras in heavyweight history is a shame. Bowe had top 5 ATG potential.
James Toney is one of my favorite fighters. His run from 91-Nunn to 94-Prince Charles Williams was one of the best of the 90s. Toney had a real chance to be the fighter of the decade of the 90s. I get he ran into a prime Roy Jones. But Toney went in a career slump for almost a decade. Then in 2003 he wins the FOY beating Jirov at Cruiserweight and Holyfield at heavyweight. It was a great comeback but what happened in 1995,96,97,98,99,2000,01 and 02. Toney was 26 when he fought Jones. He wasn’t shot, he just lost a fight. It was great to see him come back in the 2000s but those of us that saw in the 90s , missed him. Then he beats John Ruiz but tested positive and is not recognized as a heavyweight champion. Imagine if Toney is the heavyweight champion of the world. I feel like he would be a top 40 fighter ever. So while he’s had a tremendous career I feel like one of my favorites James Toney could rate even higher if a few things were different. I don’t like the word underachieve, I would rather say left some legacy on the table.
Greetings Breadman!
Hope you’re having a good summer. You know Teofimo is back when the haters are out in full-force. He was that never that good, he’s friends with Rolly, he might not be big enough or fast enough or powerful enough for 140, if he loses Top Rank will drop him, how’s his mental health, his father is even crazier and shouldn’t train him, etc. Then, after he wins, getting hit once flush, oh well, that won’t work against Fighter X at 140lbs and did you see his father got in the way of post-fight picture?! I think the persona and antics are grating but it’s telling that nobody talked about how well he actually boxed and showed patience going for the knockout. None of the analysts discussed whether he could potentially outbox the rest of the 140s, to make my point. Is Teofimo Lopez the most hated fighter in boxing right now? Adrien Broner doesn’t seem relevant enough and Canelo shut all the haters up a few fights ago. And over the years, who are the most effective heels in boxing?
Thanks, Nick
Bread’s Response: I don’t think everyone hates Teofimo Lopez. He’s a good kid. I’ve met him, he’s cool.
The most effective heels in boxing. I think there are a few. Naseem Hamed, Floyd Mayweather and Hector Camacho played the heels as good as anyone since I have been watching boxing. I will also add that there have been some father trainers who have played it really well and because of the father trainers, the sons get the brunt of the animosity from the public.
Greetings Breadman!
We know as much as we ever will about Joshua and Wilder. If their fight comes together back in 2017/2018, who wins? Who do you think wins now? I will still watch if they fight next. The promotion’s narrative writes itself and it’s still a great fight to see who fights the winner of Usyk-Fury.PS – I don’t know what to make of the speech at the end. With Joshua, this is kind of a “Rorschach test” moment where the answer from the person tells you more about them than what they think of Joshua. The phrase that comes to mind is Larry Merchant’s description of boxing as “the theater of the unexpected.”
Thanks, Nick
Bread’s Response: Before Joshua was hurt by Wlad Klitschko he was super SERIOUS. I’m not suggesting he isn’t now but I feel like he was a better fighter then. Just watch him Pre Klitschko and Post Klitschko. There is a big difference in his approach. Then Post Ruiz, things have changed. He’s trying to overcome it but it’s tough on him. I don’t know who wins the AJ vs Wilder match up in 2017-18. I think it’s 50/50 because AJ would engage Wilder and AJ was brutal in the mid range with his uppercuts and hooks. The issue would be, would he kod before he got there. Who knows?
Post Klitschko you have to favor Wilder. It’s not a skill thing. It’s an overthinking issue which is worse. AJ is thinking, where as Wilder has never lost his animal instincts. Wilder just fights. People say he’s unskilled but his temperament is the kind you want in a fighter, especially getting over a loss.
I think Glenn Feldman is usually pretty good but his card in the Usyk-Joshua 2 was poor. There’s no way Joshua won 7 rounds. 5 rounds seemed a little generous in my mind honestly. It was a bad time to turn in that card considering everything happening in Ukraine. Luckily the other two judges overruled him.
Bread’s Response: Again, commissions need to allow judges to be interviewed. Or else we will keep going in the same circle. I thought Usyk won the fight 8 rounds to 4 without a pen and paper.
It’s pretty clear that Usyk won the last 3 rounds, 10,11 and 12. So to have Joshua winning 7 to 5, that means after 9 rounds you thought Joshua won 7 rounds and Usyk had won just 2. Scoring is subjective but that’s not the fight that the majority of people saw. Not sure what else to say.
Hello Breadman,
Big fan of your column. I have learned a lot. If you were not a boxing trainer it seems to me you could be a philosophy professor. Question: While watching the Usyk-Joshua fight it seemed to me Usyk was very good at “pitching” punches (there may be a better term so forgive me for my ignorance). Meaning he varied the speed and power of his punches very effectively. How much should a fighter pitch his punches? Is it more effective doing it on the inside? Any disadvantages on employing such a strategy? Is it something every fighter should work on? Which fighters are/were very good at pitching punches.
Thanks for your time. Keith
Bread’s Response: Um..you can use any term you would like. But I think the common term is Usyk throws change ups. He lands these touch shots without loading up or telegraphing them and these punches are energy efficient and very hard to counter because there is no load up on them. Joe Calzaghe Michael Nunn, Loma and Pacquioa have all mastered this. All southpaws hmmm….I don’t think it’s an exclusive southpaw thing but it is interesting…
I think you have to be fearless to apply this style because while the opponent may be trying to knock your head off, you’re comfortable enough to land touch shot after touch shot. Then without much notice, you put a little more oomph on the shots. All punches hurt. You don’t have to ko a fighter, in order to deplete him and/or ko him. The only downside to this style is if you aren’t responsible defensively, you are in range to be hit because you need a higher volume to employ this style. And if your defense is not in tact, then you will get hit a lot.
Sup Breadman,
I read your response about Philly producing the best fighters. No debate there past or present and I do respect the Philly hustle style fighting and sparring. My issue was you said it wasn’t even close. At least you admitted a bias. I think there may be a city or two that may be close. 1. New York. This is my bread and butter. Like Philly, New York has historically been a hotbed for producing champions and still is currently able to produce talent both professional and amateur.
Historically, NY has Mike Tyson, Mark Breland, Floyd Patterson, Riddick Bowe, Zab Judah, Paulie Malignaggi, Danny Jacobs, Rcky Graziano, Davey Moore, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Jake Lamotta, Saoul Mamby, and Iran Barkley. While NY seems to be going through a little funk, they are still in the game with Edgar Berlenga and Chris Colbert, whose career is still being written. 2. Washington DC. I include the full DMV area since it’s all metro DC. DC has SRL, Mark Too Sharp Johnson, Simon Brown, Lamont and Anthony Peterson, Shamba Mitchell, and William Joppy, Currently, they have Jarrett Hurd, Franchon Crews, the 3 Gary Russell brothers, and standouts Lamont Roach Troy Isley as the future.LA deserves a honorable mention gets overlooked as a hotbed from urban fighters because many of them are Latino halfway representing their heritage.
Along with this cities, there’s one urban city that seems to lag behind in terms of producing a lot of championship boxers and that’s Chicago. Why do you think that is? Chicago is an urban city comparable in size and population to LA and larger than cities like Houston, Philly, Dallas, and Detroit. Only NY is bigger. A city like The Chi would surely be a force
Bread’s Response: 1. New York has not been close to Philly in terms of producing top fighters for many years. The 90s was the last time NY consistently produced top fighters. And with New York being the largest city in the US in terms of population, then per capita, NY should have the most World Champions on a consistent basis, yet they don’t. Philly, DC, LA, Cleveland and Cincinatti consistently produce better pros and amateurs than NY.
2. Washington DC is the truth. They produce a plethora of excellent fighters. My favorite fighter Sugar Ray Leonard is from the DC area. I also love Mark “Too Sharp” Johnson. But the issue is often times it’s a DMV thing and not exactly a DC thing. Nevertheless, DC produces some studs in terms of boxing.
3. LA is also the truth. Oxnard and some surrounding cities produce loads of champions and championship level fighters. So does the Bay AREA.
I don’t understand why Chicago rarely produces elite level fighters and world champions. Chicago is a tough city. It’s the 3rd largest city in the US behind NY and LA. Lots of inner city kids. Violence. Warehouse industries. I don’t get it. Chicago has the same issues, Philly, DC, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Cleveland has. It’s larger than all of them. Yet it doesn’t produce many world class fighters. I have no idea why. I can’t remember the last time Chicago produced a world champion. Maybe Montell Griffin off the top of my head. I would have to ask a matchmaker or a top trainer from the area, why. Because I don’t know.
Bread, man I see what you see regarding Boots Ennis. I think he’s a tremendous talent. I also have seen tremendous talents get handled by men who are willing to take it there. Take it to that level where they would risk life and limb. I believe Ennis has the pedigree to become a multi world champion. However I believe Vergil Ortiz is that fighter who will take it there. For all of the intangibles that you speak of regarding Ennis. Vergil Ortiz is a fighter that will not only test your skills. He’s the type of fighter that would question wether you have the mettle to withstand his assault “pressure.” As we both know..pressure busts pipes. We don’t know if Boots can take it like he gives it. What we both know is that Vergil Ortiz will exchange with him once Boots commits. Even if Boots were not to initiate the exchange. Vergil definitely will. Pure savagery brother. I see an Ortiz stoppage. Even if Boots was to withstand the initial attacks. He will succumb later to the grind late in the fight. However I will say this …There is a strong possibility that neither fighter is ever the same after this encounter. Respectfully submitted
Bread’s Response: So you’re predicting that Vergil Ortiz kos Jaron Ennis. Ok I’m not going to argue. But I’m going to make note of your comment and I’m going to give you some info on Ennis. First off I think Vergil Ortiz is the real deal. In most eras he would be considered the next great thing at 147lbs. But the reason why he isn’t ascending faster and have fought for a title already is because of Ennis. If Ortiz were to leapfrog Ennis and fight for a title significantly before him, then there would be a clamor for Ortiz to fight Ennis. So therefore I strongly believe Ortiz has been slowed down somewhat so, that doesn’t happen. Again, there is a science to matchmaking.
As for Ennis. What if his dog and determination match his talent and skill? Then what? Just because he hasn’t shown it, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it. It could be IN him, NOT on him. Attribution to that quote for my guy Andre Ward.
Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com