DAILY BREAD TUESDAY EDITION: (8-27-14)
By Stephen "Breadman" Edwards
Brook vs. Porter, Bread's pound-for-pound list and more
I have only one question for you my brother and that is...who stops my man Kell Brook [IBF welterweight champion who just defeated Shawn Porter]? Nobody that will face him willingly I suggest, but then thats why I'm here and not there. Keep it real brother bread and lets look forward to Kell bangin them oot! Independence for Scotland! Bread’s Response: Brook is a tremendous fighter but I’m not going to suggest he’s unstoppable. Keith Thurman……………..
I missed your prediction of the Kell Brook/Shawn Porter clash but I read it after the fight and was still impressed with your insight. If I am honest I felt Porter had the momentum going into the fight but still felt it was a 50/50 affair even though I haven't seen much of Brook.
I think you called it right with the "sloppy" style of Porter, I think he is still too raw an wild and clearly Brook was the bigger man in the ring so Shawn's freakish strength was nullified. My question for you is, since you have had worked with Porter in some capacity, would you throw him back in the mix with the top welters, or would you try to regroup and work on some more techniques, give him some more seasoning? I'm not sure if he can improve much (with his technique) at this stage of his career, I really think he cannot relax properly and remain composed. Or maybe he just got too excited and had a poor game plan.
That being said, Kell Brook impressed me with his poise under pressure so my hat's off to him. I think both fighters deserve serious props or putting it all on the line in a very even match that could have been scored either way depending on what you like.
What do you think of Kell Brook now? I think his size and skill give anybody at welter fits. Scream back if you can and thanks again for all the mailbag insight!!!
Bread’s Response: I honestly didn’t know Kell Brook was that good. He turned me off with the constant posturing for a big fight. The injuries, the rematch with Carson Jones.....But I am a believer now. Brook can go. He’s a really good fighter.
Shawn is at the point where he doesn’t need a bunch of tune up fights. I would actually let Shawn fight Robert Guerrero. I think that is a fan friendly fight and Shawn sparks Guerrero up. Then after that back to Brook. Listen man, competitive fighters want to get , get back. Brook didn’t dominate Shawn, he outsmarted him.
If Shawn can do two things he can change the outcome of a close fight. One is changing his rhythm. Brook was timing Shawn from the get go. Shawn has a unique bounce to his attack. It’s unique but it’s monotonous. Elite fighters will time it and hit Shawn with straight reactive punches. Brook “broke Up” Shawn’s attack with a counter right hand or “stuff” jab. He kept it very simple and he saved energy by keeping it simple. So Shawn has to change his rhythm. Some rounds he has to slide in, instead of jumping in. Shawn also has to get a better jab. The reason why Brook was so comfortable countering Shawn was because he didn’t have to defend against a good jab. If Shawn improves in these areas he can win the rematch.
I need you to drop some knowledge on me if I'm wrong about what I'm going to say. Shawn Porter really made me sick on Saturday night! The fact that Porter thought he'd somehow won was ridiculous. Porter didn't even look like a good amateur against Brook! He had no technique at all and Brook was catching him with the cleaner shots and had better defense. The Porter team even complained on BoxingScene that Brook held too much which I agree with. However, nobody brings up the reason that Brook was holding. I would hold just as much if not more if I'm in a boxing match and my opponent keeps coming in with the top of his head down and continues to try to just lean on me and rabbit punch me. If you look at a couple of replays from the fight, you can clearly see Porter intentionally trying to head butt Brook which is unacceptable. I thought Brook fought a good game plan. Brook held when he needed to (which was a lot), lead with the jab,
countered with the jab, countered and lead with both left hooks and straight rights, and looked just as strong if not stronger than Porter which surprised me. I had Brook winning 117-111. What are your thoughts Breadman? Keep up the Great work Bread!
Randy from NC!!
Bread’s Response: I talked with Shawn after the fight. Shawn is a great kid and I was 100% honest with him. I thought he lost the fight. But I can see why he thought he won. In the heat of the moment, when you are IN the fight, and you know you have thrown more punches than your opponent and there are many close rounds, it’s reasonable to think you have won.
That being said Kell Brook fought a great fight. He was calm and poise and he didn’t try to match Shawn from an athletic standpoint. He matched him with smarts. He condensed his attack to one or two punches. He didn’t hold he clinched and clinching is legal. He timed Shawn’s attacks and he won a close but clear decision.
If Shawn gets his technical skills and IQ up to where he is physically he can win a rematch. We shall see…
I don’t remember if it was you that predicted that the 50 Cent/ Floyd Mayweather relationship would have a bad fallout a few years ago but I remember reading somewhere during the TMT promotion fallout that their relationship would not end well. What 50 cent recently did…that’s wrong on a lot of levels man. To make matters worse, you have Charlamagne from the Breakfast Club releasing a promo that Mayweather struggled badly to read. I wanted to get your thoughts on this. Another question I had for you was about Mike Tyson. I have a few of my friends that feel that all he fought was bums and when he finally fought “someone” (Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, etc) he always came up short. Do you feel that Mike Tyson is hall of fame worthy? My personal viewpoint on Mike Tyson is that he is hall of fame worthy based off of the impact that he made on the sport. The only thing that me and my buddies are able to agree on with him is that the Mike Tyson that fought Buster Douglas was not “prime” Mike Tyson from a MENTAL standpoint. I saw his fight with Buster Douglas again on Youtube (it’s great we are in an era where we can find practically ANYTHING on youtube) over this past weekend and his body language during the ref instructions was really telling to me. He didn’t want to be there that night. Don’t get me wrong, Buster Douglas had a great gameplan and fought a great fight and I’m not taking anything away from him. But at the same time, Mike Tyson didn’t seem to set up anything that night and had no head movement at all and made himself extremely easy to hit with the jab. What are your thoughts? Keep up the great work as always!
Bread’s Response: I did predict that 50 and Floyd would blow up. I have no real stance on this ridiculous situation. I’m not into the “gossip” of boxing. Like who’s sleeping with whom, who can’t read, who spends their purses on what…. That’s corny to me.
This will be the first and last time I address the 50 and Floyd beef because this is not boxing. This is disgusting. In my opinion if you are friends with someone and you have a falling out, you don’t go around telling personal information that you have acquired about them when you were friends. That’s a no no. It’s slimy behavior to say the least.
On the other hand a person of Floyd’s stature has to be able to eat the criticism and all we have to do is not pay attention. Floyd is a big boy he can handle what 50 says. On top of that Floyd has said and done some not so nice things in the past. The sonogram, the [racist] remarks about Manny Pacquiao, sayuing bad things about Diego Corrales etc etc…so…….I'm not up and arms about it either way.
The climate of this generation perpetuates this sort of foolery. I purposely ignore the Floyd vs 50 beef, Ms. Jackson dating saga, who’s buying a yacht and all of that crap. Let’s talk about boxing bro and no more of this nonsense.
Mike Tyson is easily a HOF fighter. Whoever says he isn’t does not know shit about boxing. He’s a great fighter, he just wasn’t the greatest of his era but that doesn’t mean he’s not HOF worthy.
I have heard people criticizing Gennady Golovkin's level of opposition and I don't understand why. You have called him a great fighter in waiting and a quick examination of the top 10 (excluding GGG himself of course) at 160 validates that:
1. Miguel Cotto fights on December 13 and doesn't seem too eager to make a fight
2. Peter Quillin has a mandatory on November 8 and will probably fight Daniel Jacobs at Barclays Center after that
3. Sam Soliman passed on a Golovkin fight to face Jermain Taylor October 8 (depending on Taylor's legal situation)
4. Sergio Martinez is currently on the shelf and wasn't overly interested in facing Golovkin when he was healthy
5. Daniel Geale got destroyed via TKO in 3
6. Felix Sturm avoided Golovkin like the plague when GGG was his mandatory
7. Martin Murray would be a legit challenge at 160
8. Matthew Macklin also got destroyed via TKO in 3
9. Marco Antonio Rubio will be facing GGG on October 18th.
It seems to me that GGG has been facing the best available opponents so am I missing something? What do you think about his resume thus far?
William in West Palm
Bread’s Response: Golovkin’s resume is ok. It’s not stellar. The reason it’s not stellar is because he has to move up to fight an elite fighter or an elite fighter has to move up to fight him. Marvin Hagler had Leonard, Hearns, Duran and Mugabi. Bernard Hopkins had Felix Trinidad and Oscar De La Hoya. Carlos Monzon had Emille Griffith and Jose Naploes.
Golovkin does not have a great fighter in the divisions below who is eager to challenge him as of now. He doesn’t have a top guy in his division who “really” wants to fight him which is the biggest problem. Some say they are willing but it’s all smoke and mirrors. They don’t want to mess with the “good boy.” So the critics who attack his level of competition should take note, he’s fighting the best available guy. In actuality the level of fighter he has been facing in his defenses has been the same as Sergio Martinez for the exception of Paul Williams. Think about who Sergio defended his title against and think about who GGG defended his title against. Very similar….I personally think GGG beats everyone at 160 and 168 except Andre Ward.
Real quick Bread give me your pound-for-pound top 10. If there is any surprises in there let us know why.
Bread’s Response: 1)Floyd Mayweather 2)Andre Ward 3)Guillermo Rigondeaux 4) Gennady Golovkin 5)Manny Pacquiao 6)Tim Bradley 7)Juan Manuel Marquez 8)Wladimir Klitschko 9)Carl Froch 10)Roman Gonzales
I know I’m going to get some flack for GGG but if we are honest with ourselves and imagined everyone was the same size and same weight with relative proportions, how many guys would we favor over GGG in a real fight. Think about that before you comment.
Send questions and comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org