Alex Stewart vs. Evander Holyfield

[ironchamp]

I was watching thier first bout the other night, He really fought his heart out and it got me thinking:

Does anyone think Stewart could have emerged as a perennial title contender in the mold of Tua, Mercer or Morrison if he had more time to develop or was he always bound for failure?

He clearly was rushed in to face Holyfield after facing a bunch of tomato cans, gave a good account of himself considering the circumstances, loses faces another two journey men and then faces Mike Tyson who demolished him.

I'm not calling him the next great champion. But was there alot more to him than what he ultimately become or was he rushed early and failed as a result.

[Unforgiven]

He would have been better had he not been rushed.
I thought he performed at a decent level in the early-mid-90s, apart from the sad showing against Tyson, and was a capable fringe contender.
I thought he beat Foreman. He certainly beat him up ! :shock:

Mercer was getting schooled by old Holmes around this time, and dropped a decision to Jesse Ferguson. Morrison got KTFO by Mercer and KO'd in 1 by Bentt, so Stewart's losses to Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer and Foreman (disputed) aren't too shabby at all. He gave Moorer a rough time too, if I remember rightly.

[lefthook31]

Funny was just discussing Mr Stewart in another thread. I likened him on a skill and style level to Shannon Briggs. A fighter who wasnt the most skilled technician, but could bang pretty good.
The all knowing master of eastside boxing Classic section Mr. Magoo, thinks Im nuts, even with Briggs loss against Darroll "doing no damage Wilson", in three rounds, and their comparable performance against George Foreman.
He certainly competed pretty well until the mid 90's and could very well have been a title holder had his prime come in the latter part of the 90's.

[mr. magoo]

I was watching thier first bout the other night, He really fought his heart out and it got me thinking:

Does anyone think Stewart could have emerged as a perennial title contender in the mold of Tua, Mercer or Morrison if he had more time to develop or was he always bound for failure?

He clearly was rushed in to face Holyfield after facing a bunch of tomato cans, gave a good account of himself considering the circumstances, loses faces another two journey men and then faces Mike Tyson who demolished him.

I'm not calling him the next great champion. But was there alot more to him than what he ultimately become or was he rushed early and failed as a result.

Though I think Alex Stewart could possibly have been better under different managerial circumstance, I don't think that his potential was enough to take him very far.

I was 15 years old when Alex Stewart fought Evander Holyfield on Showtime championship boxing. I had been following his record in the ring magazine updates, as well as seeing him face the likes of various journeyman. Not knowing much about the game in those days, I was thinking that he'd have a good chance to end Holyfield's race to the title, but soon found out differently. Stewart had no defense, limited mobility, no knowledge of how to tie a man up, and the uncanny tendency to cut and bleed. He had a brief moment in the 5th round where he landed a barage of big shots to the head of Holy, but most of that was Evander show boating his chin, and not anything that Stewart had initiated himself. The fight was basically a mismatch, and had it not been for Stewart's corner forcefully keeping the ringside doctor away from Alex, the fight probably would have been stopped at the end of round 6 rather than 8...

I'm also not sure that I agree with the notion that he was " rushed " early in his career. He was afterall an olympian who represented Jamaica in the 84' olympics, and had been fighting over 3 years with some 24 bouts by the time he fought Evander.. I think " overly protected " was more the term.. My guess is that his management did not have the connections to get him the sort of " build up " matches that he needed. His manager was interviewed before the fight, and said that they tried to get him bouts with Tillis, Berbick, Spoon, etc. But the deals never came through.. What this tells me, as that Alex was working with very poor business people. When you have a hot ticket item like an undefeated heavyweight prospect who is a former olympian, and can't get him good fights, you're doing something wrong....

[mr. magoo]

The all knowing master of eastside boxing Classic section Mr. Magoo



Correct you are.... A fighter like Briggs, Stewart is not......

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Unforgiven]

I thought Alex Stewart was robbed against George Foreman, whereas Shannon Briggs was awarded a gift. Stewart definitely beat Foreman up whether you think he beat him or not ! :shock:
They were fairly similar fighters.

Stewart performed at a decent level in the early-to-mid 90s and was a very good fringe contender. He only lost to the best - Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman (disputed). He gave them all a lot to handle, apart from Tyson, where he froze severely.

"Perennial contenders" Mercer and Morrison were losing to lesser fighters than the ones Stewart failed against in the same period : 1990-'95.

[lefthook31]

And like Yoda you live in a dream world, and still dont know anything.

Briggs lost to Darrol Wilson in three rounds, Lennox Lewis in 5, and had highly disputed fights (not in his favor), against Foreman and Francois Botha, lost to Sedrick Fields and Jameel Mcline.
In basically the same time period Stewart lost to Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer and a disputed loss (in his favor),to Foreman.

That certainly elevates Briggs to far higher level than Stewart doesnt it? I dont think so..

[Unforgiven]

If Shannon Briggs was in a higher category than Alex Stewart you can bet your house Foreman would never have fought him ! :lol:

Briggs was on old Foreman's farewell bum-of-the-month tour. And I swear he didn't beat him. A draw would have been generous.

[Unforgiven]

Oh, sorry, excuse me, you said Shannon Briggs ? Oh yeah, he was a BONA FIDE KILLER. He must've been, Lennox Lewis fought him. :lol:

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;5280405]And like Yoda you live in a dream world, and still dont know anything.


Oh boy, considering that you can't keep basic facts and time frames strait, I seriously doubt your ability to dicern the extent of another's knowledge...


Briggs lost to Darrol Wilson in three rounds, Lennox Lewis in 5, and had highly disputed fights (not in his favor), against Foreman and Francois Botha, lost to Sedrick Fields and Jameel Mcline.
In basically the same time period Stewart lost to Tyson, Holyfield, Moorer and a disputed loss (in his favor),to Foreman.

That certainly elevates Briggs to far higher level than Stewart doesnt it?[


Shannon Briggs was lineal world champion with the all time record for most first round KO's, plus lost only 5 times in 54 pro fights and was stopped only twice, as opposed to Stewart who lost 10 times in only 53 fights and was stopped on 7 occasions.. Briggs never fought what I would call stellar opposition, but at least his wins over guys like Lyakovich, Foreman, and Zolyone beat the crap out of anything Stewart ever did.. Who did he beat, other than the dug up remains of Jesse Ferguson and Dave Jaco??? Nobody...

You make big potatoes over Brigg's losses to Wilson, Fields and McCline... Big deal. This is miniscule to Stewart's embarresing defeats to Craig Peterson and a 10 fight Oleg Maskaev... See how selection bias works?

Alex Stewart was a respectable opponent, but an opponent was all he was, nothing more.........

Now, go polish up your boxing knowledge and come back when you're ready for this discussion..

[mr. magoo]

=Unforgiven;5280369] Stewart definitely beat Foreman up whether you think he beat him or not ! :shock:
They were fairly similar fighters.


Regardless of who you think was robbed or gifted against Foreman, a single comparison to one common opponent doesn't make for a total career evaluation of two men who fought in a combined 108 fights.


Stewart performed at a decent level in the early-to-mid 90s and was a very good fringe contender. He only lost to the best - Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman (disputed). He gave them all a lot to handle, apart from Tyson, where he froze severely


Tyson was on the rebound from the Douglas loss and beat him in one round... Moorer had barely been a heavyweight for a year and handed his ass to him...Dito Evander Holyfield.. Foreman was 45 years old, and decked him twice in the first round.. Now, outside of these losing efforts ( most of which are being blown to the stars ), what else did he accomplish? Hell, prior to facing Holyfield, Stewart's best opponent may very well have been Bobby Crabtree...


"Perennial contenders" Mercer and Morrison were losing to lesser fighters than the ones Stewart failed against in the same period : 1990-'95


Ray Mercer began his career late, brought home a gold medal from Sol, and by the time he had but 18 pro bouts had beaten Cooper, Morrison and Damiani.. Care to tell me what Stewart did in his whole 53 fight career that trumped what Mercer did within his first 2 years as a pro???

[lefthook31]

:lol: Not when its at the end of his career. Briggs lost to crap fighters in his prime.
He won the linear title from old George, but a highly disputed decision which I, and everyone else but you, thought he lost!!

[divac]

I dont think it was about rushing Stewart. Imo he had exellent tools but lacked the passion and commitment that it takes to reach that elite level.

.....it just seems to me from looking at him fight, that Stewart seemed hesitant and afraid to go for it. He looked almost afraid in most of his fights and seemed terrified and went into a complete mental shell vs Tyson.

[Russell]

I don't know how Briggs can be ranked above Stewart.

Briggs is widely considered one of if not the very weakest "lineal" champion of all time, and he wasn't a rightful champion to begin with.

Stewart gave a much fresher Foreman far more problems then Briggs managed against a older George.

The roles are reversed, most feel Stewart beat George as opposed to just about everyone feeling Foreman was screwed against Briggs. What clearer test of a worth of a fighter is there then that when so many other things are similar between the two?

Both had dismal early career records before "stepping up" but at least Stewart got in there with Holyfield twice, Tyson, Moorer, Lance Whitaker, Gonzalez, Ezra Sellers, Maskaev, and Jesse Ferguson among others.

Briggs hasn't taken half as many risks as Stewart did.

[Unforgiven]

Regardless of who you think was robbed or gifted against Foreman, a single comparison to one common opponent doesn't make for a total career evaluation of two men who fought in a combined 108 fights.

True.
But then again, I dont have much need to go into any depth in career evaluation because I know both these fighters have little depth to compare. Neither of them was a world-beater or even a particularly convincing contender, ever.



Tyson was on the rebound from the Douglas loss and beat him in one round... Moorer had barely been a heavyweight for a year and handed his ass to him...Dito Evander Holyfield.. Foreman was 45 years old, and decked him twice in the first round.. Now, outside of these losing efforts ( most of which are being blown to the stars ), what else did he accomplish? Hell, prior to facing Holyfield, Stewart's best opponent may very well have been Bobby Crabtree...


All true. Factual. Well done. :good
You know me, I'm not one to inflate the worth of any 90s heavyweights. I say it how it is too.
And for me, the same standard gets applied to Shannon Briggs.
What did Shannon Briggs ever accomplish outside of being gifted a decision over Foreman in the old man's farewell bum-of-the-month tour ?

Oh, I know about 2006 and someone called Segei Liakovich. Sorry, but that doesn't impress me. It's sheer fluke and circumstance that those guys somehow ranked so high. Liakovich was ranked number 1 in the world by some if you want to use that ! And that stands as the best example of why we should discriminate between some ranked contenders and others.



Ray Mercer began his career late, brought home a gold medal from Sol, and by the time he had but 18 pro bouts had beaten Cooper, Morrison and Damiani.. Care to tell me what Stewart did in his whole 53 fight career that trumped what Mercer did within his first 2 years as a pro???


I never said Mercer ranks below Stewart, just underlining the fact that Stewart was losing to some of the best around and only got totally outclassed once in the period (v. Tyson) while better, more accomplished contenders (eg.Mercer) were losing to similar or lesser fighters too. It's not a major point.

I dont think Mercer was much of a contender really, and on a bad day he wasn't even that - and he had a few too many bad days in his prime, IMO. But Stewart was even less than Mercer, by a clear degree.
Alex Stewart was in the Shannon Briggs category.

[klompton]

I always liked Stewart. I thought he had potential but he just never polished it. The guy was big and could punch and was a decent boxer. I certainly think he is better than Briggs ever was. Briggs is garbage and most of his career can be attributed to the media's early love affair with him. Stewarts first fight with Holy was a mini-classic and he beat the bejabbers out of Foreman. I was terribly dissappointed by his second fight with Holy which was absolutely boring.

[TBooze]

I think Briggs gets short changed here. At his best Briggs was a level above Stewart, and this comes from a fellow Brit.

Hindsight shows Stewart over performed in the first Holyfield fight, and then could not handle the pressure put on him, because of that brave performance.

Briggs gets a ton of grief because he made us so called hardcore fans look stupid. Briggs was pencilled in to the new superstar, I know I fell for it, and I doubt I was alone. But just because he never lived up to the hype he was supposed to, Briggs at his best, beats all but the very best of his and Alex's era.

[klompton]

I think Briggs gets short changed here. At his best Briggs was a level above Stewart, and this comes from a fellow Brit.

Hindsight shows Stewart over performed in the first Holyfield fight, and then could not handle the pressure put on him, because of that brave performance.

Briggs gets a ton of grief because he made us so called hardcore fans look stupid. Briggs was pencilled in to the new superstar, I know I fell for it, and I doubt I was alone. But just because he never lived up to the hype he was supposed to, Briggs at his best, beat all but the very best of his and Alex's era.

Like who? Do you consider Sedrick Fields, Franz Botha, and Darroll Wilson the very best of his era? The only guy who Briggs ever fought who was a real legitimate threat was Lewis and Briggs was stopped in five in that fight. He beat Foreman in a fight he lost easily and Foreman was on his way to social security when that fight took place. Put Briggs in with Holyfield, Tyson, a younger Foreman, etc and you would have never heard of Briggs. The difference is Briggs wasnt interested in being a fighter and as such wasnt going to a risk possible modeling contract on losing to those guys.

[lefthook31]

Its true, Teddy Atlas left Briggs because of the monumental amount of ass kissers he surrounded himself with. He was more concerned with being a moviestar than a fighter.
It was kind of funny Briggs using the whole asthma excuse for his loss to Wilson, who was subsequently knocked out quickly by David Tua in his next fight.
I wouldnt say Stewart was a real world beater either, just two guys who were technically about the same, but could punch, and good enough to compete in their respective top ten. Overall Stewart faced better fighters, lost to less fringe level contenders during his prime, but both were never top notch.

[rekcutnevets]

I really don't see where all this Briggs and Stewart discussion is headed. To argue a victory over one is as credible as a victory over the other is one thing. To say that defeating one is the same as beating the other, is another.

Briggs has a couple of title claims, but I don't think his career is much more impressive than Stewart's. Briggs and Stewart are similar in caliber of opponent.

However, Briggs was a far more dangerous opponent. Briggs is a big man, and an impressive athlete. Briggs is more powerful than Stewart, and usually more willing to impose his power on his opponents. Briggs' stamina was his biggest downfall, and some of that can be attributed to asthma.

The only place Stewart can truly trump Briggs is stamina. Stewart also seemed to suffer from a lack of confidence. Stewart was very willing against people his power was on par with, like Holyfield and Moorer. Against Tyson, Stewart was overwhelmed from the start. Stewart was almost overwhelmed by Foreman, until he realized he could give as good as he was getting in that fight.

I believe the Briggs that faced Lewis would dispose of the Stewart that faced Foreman in 1 or 2 rounds. I don't think Stewart would have lost to Darroll Wilson.

[mr. magoo]

:lol: Not when its at the end of his career. Briggs lost to crap fighters in his prime.
He won the linear title from old George, but a highly disputed decision which I, and everyone else but you, thought he lost!!


Again you selectively picked a small portion of my post while ignoring the rest, because it clearly refuted everything that you had to say. Frankly, I'm not convinced that Alex Stewart would have beaten Darroll Wilson on that evening either, especially given that I can't find a single win that even amounts to Wilson's calibur, despite his mediocrity....

[mr. magoo]

=Russell;5280852]I don't know how Briggs can be ranked above Stewart.

Briggs is widely considered one of if not the very weakest "lineal" champion of all time, and he wasn't a rightful champion to begin with.

Stewart gave a much fresher Foreman far more problems then Briggs managed against a older George.

The roles are reversed, most feel Stewart beat George as opposed to just about everyone feeling Foreman was screwed against Briggs. What clearer test of a worth of a fighter is there then that when so many other things are similar between the two?


Here is the problem with Stewart's resume.. It is almost exclusively bolstered on the shoulders of a losing effort to a much older opponent, albeit a galant one. That's it...... While Briggs may not have deserved his decision against Foreman, neither did Stewart, so outside of the blood show, I can't give the effort much more merit... Now moving forward. Both men had severely padded records, but if we were to break down each man's "W" column I am convinced that the men who Briggs fought were a notch or two higher than that of what Stewart faced..


Both had dismal early career records before "stepping up" but at least Stewart got in there with Holyfield twice, Tyson, Moorer, Lance Whitaker, Gonzalez, Ezra Sellers, Maskaev, and Jesse Ferguson among others.

Briggs hasn't taken half as many risks as Stewart did.

I think you're giving some of those fighters a bit more credit than deserved.. Ferguson was shot to pieces when Stewart fought him, yet may be the best opponent that Alex ever beat.. Ezra Sellers was nothng special, and Maskaev had 10 pro fights and stopped Stewart in 7 rounds.. Jorge Luis Gonzalez wasn't anything to right home about.... Tyson and Holyfield were huge paydays back in the early 90's, and a necessary evil to get both to the top as well as get rich...

[AnthonyJ74]

I think Briggs gets short changed here. At his best Briggs was a level above Stewart, and this comes from a fellow Brit.

Hindsight shows Stewart over performed in the first Holyfield fight, and then could not handle the pressure put on him, because of that brave performance.

Briggs gets a ton of grief because he made us so called hardcore fans look stupid. Briggs was pencilled in to the new superstar, I know I fell for it, and I doubt I was alone. But just because he never lived up to the hype he was supposed to, Briggs at his best, beats all but the very best of his and Alex's era.

I agree. I think Briggs was a level above Stewart in almost every category. Briggs was faster, hit harder, had a little better mobility, and thre better combinations. As high a knockout ratio as Stewart had, I never really considered him a big puncher. Briggs wasn't great, but I think he was better than Stewart, in terms of pure skill and talent.

[AnthonyJ74]

Here is the problem with Stewart's resume.. It is almost exclusively bolstered on the shoulders of a losing effort to a much older opponent, albeit a galant one. That's it...... While Briggs may not have deserved his decision against Foreman, neither did Stewart, so outside of the blood show, I can't give the effort much more merit... Now moving forward. Both men had severely padded records, but if we were to break down each man's "W" column I am convinced that the men who Briggs fought were a notch or two higher than that of what Stewart faced..




I think you're giving some of those fighters a bit more credit than deserved.. Ferguson was shot to pieces when Stewart fought him, yet may be the best opponent that Alex ever beat.. Ezra Sellers was nothng special, and Maskaev had 10 pro fights and stopped Stewart in 7 rounds.. Jorge Luis Gonzalez wasn't anything to right home about.... Tyson and Holyfield were huge paydays back in the early 90's, and a necessary evil to get both to the top as well as get rich...

I think Foreman simply undertrained for Stewart. Foreman looked better against Savarese and Briggs in '97 than he did against Stewart in '92. Just from a physical standpoint Foreman looked simply out of shape against Stewart. His punches were slower than normal, were sloppier, and he tired very early. If he was indeed out of shape, shame on Foreman. At that level, and at his age, he couldn't afford to slack off in preparation for a fight.

[mr. magoo]

I think Foreman simply undertrained for Stewart. Foreman looked better against Savarese and Briggs in '97 than he did against Stewart in '92. Just from a physical standpoint Foreman looked simply out of shape against Stewart. His punches were slower than normal, were sloppier, and he tired very early. If he was indeed out of shape, shame on Foreman. At that level, and at his age, he couldn't afford to slack off in preparation for a fight.


Agreed,

As discussed many times before, you and I were the same age watching these guys regularly in the late 80's and early 90's, and I don't know about you, but I was never impressed with Stewart.. His win/KO percentage was nothing more than a mere reflection of what he was stepping in the ring with, and even as late as 10 years into his career, still didn't know how to tie a man up or cover his face.... He showed heart on a few occasions, but in truth, he has become an over glorified fringe contender....To this day, I still don't know why the f*ck the WBA had him ranked at #2 against Holyfield in 1989, when I can think of at least 6 guys who could have easily been ranked higher..

[Unforgiven]

I must have missed all the hype surrounding Shannon Briggs, and that might well explain why I'm no more impressed with him as a fighter or for his career accomplishments that I'm impressed with Alex Stewart.

Stewart received his fair share of coverage early on too, but I have noticed that from mid-90s onwards the PPV television companies have gone way overboard in promoting certain fighters. Sometimes people mistake publicity for quality.

I dont see much to seperate the two at all. Not a single convincing argument has been put forward to show where Briggs is a category above Stewart. If Briggs had fought the guys Stewart fought in 1989 (prime Holyfield), 1990 (Tyson), 1991 (prime Moorer) and 1992 (Foreman), I think he'd have been beaten down to the same level.

Briggs losing to Darroll Wilson and Sedreck Fields seems to be brushed off quite easily. In these fights, he was aged 24 and 28 repectively, and both losses occured within his first 36 fights.
Stewart didn't slipped up against any journeymen or also-rans until he was 32 and engaging in his 45th fight. Over-the-hill, washed-up, shot and war-torn could easily be excuses with at least some credibility in Stewart's case, but not so with Briggs.
Overall though, it's levelled up because Briggs might have one victory that ranks above any of Stewart's, for a WBO title when he's 34, ranking him high on longevity too.
But Stewart was used as an opponent for good fighters often during most of his career, and if Briggs had been matched the same he would not have lasted those couple of years extra.

[Unforgiven]

His win/KO percentage was nothing more than a mere reflection of what he was stepping in the ring with, and even as late as 10 years into his career, still didn't know how to tie a man up or cover his face....

Sounds like a description of Frank Bruno


His win/KO percentage was nothing more than a mere reflection of what he was stepping in the ring with, ..... .... He showed heart on a few occasions, but in truth, he has become an over glorified fringe contender....


Sounds like a description of Shannon Briggs.

[lefthook31]

Again you selectively picked a small portion of my post while ignoring the rest, because it clearly refuted everything that you had to say. Frankly, I'm not convinced that Alex Stewart would have beaten Darroll Wilson on that evening either, especially given that I can't find a single win that even amounts to Wilson's calibur, despite his mediocrity....
:lol: And what was Wilsons caliber? Glorified club fighter? I think he has plenty of those guys on his resume. Stop beating a dead horse. It doesnt really matter as both guys were never anything special, Briggs the "luckier" of the two because of his looks and ability to manipulate the media into believing he was something because he came from the same hood as Tyson and Bowe.

[he grant]

Stewart also lacked a great chin.

[Genesis]

Briggs was better than Stewart despite his lack of credentials.

Briggs gave Lennox Lewis a good argument for a few rounds because of his speed at 228

Yes Stewart looked better v Foreman, but he did get dropped twice.

Stewart gave a good showing v Holyfield but Evander was classed as a blown-up Heavyweight at that time period, not long out of the Cruiserweight ranks. Lewis was a 245 pound WBC champion in 1997 and today by most was considered in his prime, he just destroyed a favoured Golota.

Plus i believe Briggs would KO any version of Stewart.

[lefthook31]

Briggs was better than Stewart despite his lack of credentials.

Briggs gave Lennox Lewis a good argument for a few rounds because of his speed at 228

Yes Stewart looked better v Foreman, but he did get dropped twice.

Stewart gave a good showing v Holyfield but Evander was classed as a blown-up Heavyweight at that time period, not long out of the Cruiserweight ranks. Lewis was a 245 pound WBC champion in 1997 and today by most was considered in his prime, he just destroyed a favoured Golota.

Plus i believe Briggs would KO any version of Stewart.

He fought Evander twice once when Evander WAS an established heavyweight which really means little anyway.
Briggs looked good against Lewis because Lewis had no respect for him, its not like Briggs was outboxing him just managed to land a good righthand. Lewis tried to pull a Golota on Briggs, it just took a little longer.
Briggs never looked good against another world class fighter including his come from behind win over lyahovich.

[Unforgiven]

Stewart gave a good showing v Holyfield but Evander was classed as a blown-up Heavyweight at that time period, not long out of the Cruiserweight ranks.

Holyfield was in his absolute prime, or not far off it at all. A solid 212 pounds.

He was universally recognized as the top contender for Mike Tyson's undisputed championship and had already beaten a very good version of Mike Dokes, and crushed another marginal contender Adilson Rodrigues with a single punch - both guys had been lined up as prospective Tyson challengers.

Don King was steering Tyson around Holyfield at the time, not ducking but attempting to milk the title with an easy defence or two before taking on Holyfield.

Holyfield was a heavyweight for real. It was only his 5th fight weighing 200 pounds or more, but the same is true of Cassius Clay when he faced Sonny Liston !

[ChrisPontius]

I'm also not sure that I agree with the notion that he was " rushed " early in his career. He was afterall an olympian who represented Jamaica in the 84' olympics, and had been fighting over 3 years with some 24 bouts by the time he fought Evander.. I think " overly protected " was more the term.. My guess is that his management did not have the connections to get him the sort of " build up " matches that he needed. His manager was interviewed before the fight, and said that they tried to get him bouts with Tillis, Berbick, Spoon, etc. But the deals never came through.. What this tells me, as that Alex was working with very poor business people. When you have a hot ticket item like an undefeated heavyweight prospect who is a former olympian, and can't get him good fights, you're doing something wrong....

I don't really see how he was rushed, either. For his first ten pro fights, his opponents had losing records... and this is after an extensive - and succesful - amateur career. I'm not saying that this is being overprotected, but it hardly fits "getting rushed".

Also, Holyfield was not that highly regarded as a heavyweight in '89. In fact, even in 1992, after a three year string of pretty good wins, he still didn't get the respect he earned or had fought for. But my point is that Stewart's management probably didn't plan on setting him up with a championship level opponent in his first step-up fight, which in hindsight they did...

[Unforgiven]

I don't really see how he was rushed, either. For his first ten pro fights, his opponents had losing records... and this is after an extensive - and succesful - amateur career. I'm not saying that this is being overprotected, but it hardly fits "getting rushed".

He was rushed in the sense that he stepped up from unranked journeymen fighters and tomato cans to fighting a young, undefeated, number 1 contender to the undisputed title, a man who'd won RING magazine fighter of the year and had rated high in the pound-for-pound polls and ratings at cruiser and was 4-0 (4 KOs) as a heavyweight, and one of boxing's biggest stars.


Also, Holyfield was not that highly regarded as a heavyweight in '89. In fact, even in 1992, after a three year string of pretty good wins, he still didn't get the respect he earned or had fought for.

He had some detractors, for sure. Especially those who compared him disfavourably to Tyson. But that's become a bit of a myth too. I look at old magazines from 1989-'91 and some real knowledgeable people were singing Holyfield's praises as a quality heavyweight, and a quality heavyweight champion. Eddie Futch figured Holyfield to beat Tyson in 1991, and he wasn't the only one. The majority of Tyson backers plainly saw that Holyfield represented the best quality opponent Tyson had ever been scheduled to deal with too.
When I went back and looked at the articles of the time, I figured it's funny how we remember the most outlandish and negative opinions and forget the middle-ground and positivity.

But my point is that Stewart's management probably didn't plan on setting him up with a championship level opponent in his first step-up fight, which in hindsight they did...

How can it need hindsight when Holyfield was the number contender and the most exciting challenger to come along to Tyson's dominance since Tyson's reign began ?
Holyfield's quality was evident, the Tyson-Holyfield clash was being projected to break the box office records set by Tyson-Spinks, and Holyfield was a former undisputed cruiserweight champion and looking strong and muscular at 210 pounds. I wont list his accolades again, but this guy was a massively-acclaimed number 1 contender to a very dominant undisputed champion.
You write it up as if Holyfield moved up to heavyweight and suddenly everyone assumed him a fake and a failure. It wasn't like that at all.

(Correct me, and apologies, if I misintepreted your post.)

[lefthook31]

I dont really think he was rushed. I do think he took a monumental step up in class, but maybe they felt Holyfield wouldnt be as good as he was. Doesnt really matter though, with exception to Tyson he did manage to go some rounds with some decent fighters, and realistically he would have never beaten Tyson or Holyfield. Maybe Moorer.

[ChrisPontius]

He was rushed in the sense that he stepped up from unranked journeymen fighters and tomato cans to fighting a young, undefeated, number 1 contender to the undisputed title, a man who'd won RING magazine fighter of the year and had rated high in the pound-for-pound polls and ratings at cruiser and was 4-0 (4 KOs) as a heavyweight, and one of boxing's biggest stars.


He had some detractors, for sure. Especially those who compared him disfavourably to Tyson. But that's become a bit of a myth too. I look at old magazines from 1989-'91 and some real knowledgeable people were singing Holyfield's praises as a quality heavyweight, and a quality heavyweight champion. Eddie Futch figured Holyfield to beat Tyson in 1991, and he wasn't the only one. The majority of Tyson backers plainly saw that Holyfield represented the best quality opponent Tyson had ever been scheduled to deal with too.
When I went back and looked at the articles of the time, I figured it's funny how we remember the most outlandish and negative opinions and forget the middle-ground and positivity.


You are right, i remembered the sequence of his bouts wrong. I was under the impression that his impressive fights with Thomas and Dokes came after Stewart, but it was before that. Then i take back part of my words.

Still, it should be said that Thomas looked absolutely horrible and couldn't get a single right hand off during the entire fight, which actually leaves me with a sad feeling every time i watch it, despite Holyfield's impressive performance. Dokes, although on a winning streak, had not fought or beat anyone of note since he got knocked out by Coetzee five years earlier. In addition to that, this was a very close fight and a pretty hard struggle for Holyfield.

In other words: Evander had good credentials for sure, but no one knew he really was the real deal.... instead, he was commander back then. :yep Plus, let's not forget that on the other hand you have an Olympic boxer whose is 24-0-0 with 24(!) KO's. Hardly what you'd call a mismatch.


How can it need hindsight when Holyfield was the number contender and the most exciting challenger to come along to Tyson's dominance since Tyson's reign began ?


I said it was hindsight that Holyfield was championship level (in the heavyweight division).

[Unforgiven]

Still, it should be said that Thomas looked absolutely horrible and couldn't get a single right hand off during the entire fight, which actually leaves me with a sad feeling every time i watch it, despite Holyfield's impressive performance.

I agree.
Thomas was "shot", in a very real sense. I sometimes try to make sense of how shot Thomas became, starting in that fight and then onwards. I reason that he was always a guy with a mediocre defense and a rock solid chin and when he lost his reflexes and speed - with an accelerated decline through drug abuse - he just became a sitting duck, defenseless, and couldn't pull the trigger either. But the actual viewing of it is always so sad and severe that those reasons (probably accurate) can never really sum up or explain it satisfactorily.
The Morrison loss is crazy bad too (he's fallen further by then), and I've been told the Bowe loss is actually worse than Morrison and Holyfield !

As far as I'm aware though, Thomas is in decent shape to this day, with his wits about him.

[zadfrak]

That Bowe loss is terrible. By that point in time, Pinklon had about 50% of the tools he had for that Holyfield fight.

Very few boxers lost their skills faster than Pinklon Thomas did. That Weaver fight was tougher than expected and it went downhill rapidly from there. Those pre-Tyson bouts were pretty dreary and he had no chance going in against Tyson. His big heart and competitive nature kept him in there. He sure did have an incredible rise to the top though thru insurmountable odds & it's the stuff Hollywood likes to make movies about.

[ChrisPontius]

I agree.
Thomas was "shot", in a very real sense. I sometimes try to make sense of how shot Thomas became, starting in that fight and then onwards. I reason that he was always a guy with a mediocre defense and a rock solid chin and when he lost his reflexes and speed - with an accelerated decline through drug abuse - he just became a sitting duck, defenseless, and couldn't pull the trigger either. But the actual viewing of it is always so sad and severe that those reasons (probably accurate) can never really sum up or explain it satisfactorily.
The Morrison loss is crazy bad too (he's fallen further by then), and I've been told the Bowe loss is actually worse than Morrison and Holyfield !

As far as I'm aware though, Thomas is in decent shape to this day, with his wits about him.

It really is crazy. He was past his best against Tyson - but still a capable boxer with a rock hard chin and a good jab. I can't really think of anyone who has had almost their ability flushed down the drain in a years time. Perhaps De la Hoya, who went from an excellent boxer against Mayweather to a shot fighter against Pacquiao, but that might have been due to weight draining.

I used to consider Thomas one of Tyson's best wins, but the more i look at it, the more he seems to have declined during that match. Even during his peak, against Weaver, he seemed to fall asleep for entire rounds. He should've gotten his shot against Holmes though, and should not have been allowed to fight top contenders after the Holyfield debacle.

[zadfrak]

Go watch those bouts of his between the Berbick loss and Tyson fight if you want to see deterioration.

[Unforgiven]

That Bowe loss is terrible. By that point in time, Pinklon had about 50% of the tools he had for that Holyfield fight.

Very few boxers lost their skills faster than Pinklon Thomas did. That Weaver fight was tougher than expected and it went downhill rapidly from there. Those pre-Tyson bouts were pretty dreary and he had no chance going in against Tyson. His big heart and competitive nature kept him in there. He sure did have an incredible rise to the top though thru insurmountable odds & it's the stuff Hollywood likes to make movies about.


Go watch those bouts of his between the Berbick loss and Tyson fight if you want to see deterioration.


Yeah, I remember reading the reports on a couple of those. "Sluggish", "faded" and even "washed-up" were already being used about Thomas, and that's before the Tyson loss.

[Unforgiven]

I used to consider Thomas one of Tyson's best wins, but the more i look at it, the more he seems to have declined during that match. Even during his peak, against Weaver, he seemed to fall asleep for entire rounds. He should've gotten his shot against Holmes though, and should not have been allowed to fight top contenders after the Holyfield debacle.

It was a good win for Tyson because he showed great finishing skills against a truly granite-chinned fighter.
But Thomas was certainly already in decline.
But like I said before, Thomas was never particularly elusive or sharp in the defense department. I do think the Thomas who beat Witherspoon was a lot better than the one who lost to Berbick though, and the Weaver fight - or out-of-ring problems during his brief WBC reign - may well have taken a lot out of him too.

Still, even if his decline started that early, considering the level he arrived at in 1988 - '90, that's still rapid and dramatic.

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;5284635] It doesnt really matter as both guys were never anything special


Agreed, but Briggs was better.


, Briggs the "luckier" of the two because of his looks and ability to manipulate the media into believing he was something because he came from the same hood as Tyson and Bowe.


No, he went further because he was better.

[lefthook31]

Agreed, but Briggs was better.




No, he went further because he was better.

You cant go much further than fighting Holyfield twice, Tyson, Moorer and Foreman.

[lefthook31]

And I would add both were fed a steady feast of bums before stepping up to their stiffest competition, only difference is Briggs lost to one of those bums, badly, by third round KO.
I dont like to do on paper comparisons, but using Foreman as the common opponent, and based on how they performed in their respective fights, given they box somewhat similarly, prime for prime Stewart was better.:yep

[mr. magoo]

You cant go much further than fighting Holyfield twice, Tyson, Moorer and Foreman.

Name one that he actually defeated. If losing efforts are what you're giving out awards for, then I guess Everett Martin was better than both....

[mr. magoo]

And I would add both were fed a steady feast of bums before stepping up to their stiffest competition, only difference is Briggs lost to one of those bums, badly, by third round KO.
I dont like to do on paper comparisons, but using Foreman as the common opponent, and based on how they performed in their respective fights, given they box somewhat similarly, prime for prime Stewart was better.:yep

Why don't you tell everyone who Stewart's best win was against?

[zadfrak]

Exactly.

Stewart brings to mind that great Mickey Duff quote about a similar caliber guy Pierre Coetzer. " I love Pierre Coetzer as a fighter. He fights just good enough to lose".

That golden nugget applies to a lot of guys---I just wish Mickey had said it 30 years earlier.

[Genesis]

Unforgiven.

You say Holyfield was a heavyweight for real in in 89 because he weighed near what Ali weighed v Liston?

There was no Crusierweight division in Ali's time. A 22 year old Ali at 6'3" 210 pounds, 82 inch reach was not a blown up Crusierweight or considered blown up.

Was Bert Cooper considered a Heavyweight for real in 1991 when he fought Evander despite weighing 215 in their bout? (Cooper was heavier). No, he was a blown up Crusierweight, who was destroyed by genuine heavyweights like Foreman (2 rounds) and Bowe (2 rounds) but troubled blown up guys like Evander and Moorer.

Evander won his first titles at 190, he later became a gym rat with roids or whatever to get to 210-215. He weighed 205 v Bowe in 1992, he weighed 209 v Bobby Cysz in 1996. Evander needed all this modern nutriton to become a Heavyweight, while Ali weighed more than a Crusierweight when he turned pro at 18. The heaviest Evander weighed prior to 1997 was 217 in bowe II in 1993 after intensive training and protein shakes galore. Even today at 46 he still weighs under 217.

[lefthook31]

Why don't you tell everyone who Stewart's best win was against?
Thats the point, like Briggs, NOONE!!

[Genesis]

Briggs has better wins than Stewart

[lefthook31]

Briggs has better wins than Stewart
Possibly, but hardly anything to set them leagues apart.

[Genesis]

They are not leagues apart, but as i have already stated, Briggs has better wins than Stewart ain't no 2, 3 ways about it.

[lefthook31]

They are not leagues apart, but as i have already stated, Briggs has better wins than Stewart ain't no 2, 3 ways about it.
Well thats been my point all along, your first sentence. They were comparable type fighters.

[Unforgiven]

Unforgiven.

You say Holyfield was a heavyweight for real in in 89 because he weighed near what Ali weighed v Liston?

There was no Crusierweight division in Ali's time. A 22 year old Ali at 6'3" 210 pounds, 82 inch reach was not a blown up Crusierweight or considered blown up.

Was Bert Cooper considered a Heavyweight for real in 1991 when he fought Evander despite weighing 215 in their bout? (Cooper was heavier). No, he was a blown up Crusierweight, who was destroyed by genuine heavyweights like Foreman (2 rounds) and Bowe (2 rounds) but troubled blown up guys like Evander and Moorer.

Evander won his first titles at 190, he later became a gym rat with roids or whatever to get to 210-215. He weighed 205 v Bowe in 1992, he weighed 209 v Bobby Cysz in 1996. Evander needed all this modern nutriton to become a Heavyweight, while Ali weighed more than a Crusierweight when he turned pro at 18. The heaviest Evander weighed prior to 1997 was 217 in bowe II in 1993 after intensive training and protein shakes galore. Even today at 46 he still weighs under 217.

Who gives a shit how he got to 210 pounds, he was a strong 210 hard lean pounds.
Yeah, call him a "blown up cruiser" if you like. Razor Ruddock started out as a cruiserweight too.
Bert Cooper fought almost every fight he had over the old cruiser limit of 190 pounds, and mostly over 195 too, and was rated as a heavyweight AND a cruiserweight early in his career. His big victory over Willie DeWit he was in-shape at 209. He weights correspond quite closely with Ali's career weights !

Actually, Ali was considered a "blown-up" light-heavyweight by many commentators early in his career, up to and including the Liston fights. I've read enough old articles to know this.
Obviously, the more sensible people saw a solid strong 208 pound heavyweight and accepted that for what it is ! :deal

[mr. magoo]

Briggs has better wins than Stewart


Thread closed.

[lefthook31]

I thought Alex Stewart was robbed against George Foreman, whereas Shannon Briggs was awarded a gift. Stewart definitely beat Foreman up whether you think he beat him or not ! :shock:
They were fairly similar fighters.

Stewart performed at a decent level in the early-to-mid 90s and was a very good fringe contender. He only lost to the best - Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman (disputed). He gave them all a lot to handle, apart from Tyson, where he froze severely.

"Perennial contenders" Mercer and Morrison were losing to lesser fighters than the ones Stewart failed against in the same period : 1990-'95.
Thread closed. It least it has some factual analysis behind it.

[Unforgiven]

Stewart beat no one of note. Unless you count Foreman !
Briggs beat no one of note. Unless you count Foreman !

[Genesis]

Unforgiven.

Do not compare a 209 Ali to a 209 Bert cooper. I don't know why you even brought up Ali in the first place to validate Evander's artificial weight gain.

Ali is bigger than Cooper. Holmes weighed 209 when he fought Norton, so what, both were lean at that weight while Cooper looked better as Crusierweight physically.

Evander was a blown-up Crusierweight in 1989 despite what he weighed. You say Ruddock started at Crusierweight too, but Ruddock is bigger than Evander to fill out without the artifical weight training.

David Haye weighed 215 v Barrett, and has had only a couple of Heavyweight bouts, so i guess because his weight is the same as Ali's means he is not a blown-up Crusierweight, who was world champion at Crusierweight.

[lefthook31]

Stewart beat no one of note. Unless you count Foreman !
Briggs beat no one of note. Unless you count Foreman !
:lol: Its so ridiculous its getting funny.

[Genesis]

From Unforgiven, "Briggs beat no one of note, unless you count Foreman!"

As what has already been stated, Briggs has better wins than Stewart dispite his lack of credibility. Officially Stewart has lost every name fight he has had by KO apart from the Foreman fight (he was dropped twice).

Briggs "win" over Foreman or his title belt win, however souless they may be is better than anything Stewart achieved end of story.

I would rather have Briggs career than Stewarts.

[Unforgiven]

Unforgiven.

Do not compare a 209 Ali to a 209 Bert cooper. I don't know why you even brought up Ali in the first place to validate Evander's artificial weight gain.

Well, you could have asked me to clarify, instead of just jumping on what I said with counter-points.
To clarify, I was just pointing out that Ali was under 200 pounds in most of his fights prior to Liston, but that's not important because we all accept he was a legit 210 pounds and what he weighed five fights earlier is irrelevant.

I dont recognize the concept "articial weight gain", certainly not in the case of Holyfield, who isn't fat and held legit muscular pounds well on a 6'2 frame. He gained weight through training, (or nutrition or drugs or whatever), he gained REAL SOLID LEAN WEIGHT, and he was quick and able with it. That's what counts in the ring - he was an actual real life 210 pound 6'2 heavyweight regardless of how he got there, so what's the problem ?


Ali is bigger than Cooper. Holmes weighed 209 when he fought Norton, so what, both were lean at that weight while Cooper looked better as Crusierweight physically.


I dont disagree. But several career-long "natural heavyweights" could shed down and look better at cruiser too.

Evander was a blown-up Crusierweight in 1989 despite what he weighed. You say Ruddock started at Crusierweight too, but Ruddock is bigger than Evander to fill out without the artifical weight training.

The "articial weight training" works, and whatever you say, Holyfield held 210 pounds well, 210 good pounds, and was strong at the weight. So what's your point ?
Ruddock might have filled out with weight training and drugs too, but it's the end product that matters. If the frame holds the weight then it's all good.
If Holyfield was a "blown-up cruiser" in 1989, he's still one now. I dont see the relevance.

David Haye weighed 215 v Barrett, and has had only a couple of Heavyweight bouts, so i guess because his weight is the same as Ali's means he is not a blown-up Crusierweight, who was world champion at Crusierweight

He's a former cruiserweight, yes. And now he's a heavyweight.
Ok, they are all "blown-up", so what's your point ?

I only thing I object to is the idea that anyone coming from cruiserweight is somehow a "fake" or "weak" heavyweight, regardless of how big and strong they are at heavyweight. I think those assumptions are bullshit.

[Unforgiven]

From Unforgiven, "Briggs beat no one of note, unless you count Foreman!"

As what has already been stated, Briggs has better wins than Stewart dispite his lack of credibility. Officially Stewart has lost every name fight he has had by KO apart from the Foreman fight (he was dropped twice).

Briggs "win" over Foreman or his title belt win, however souless they may be is better than anything Stewart achieved end of story.

I would rather have Briggs career than Stewarts.

Yes, but all I've ever argued is that Briggs is not clearly in a "higher category" than Stewart.
They both dont make the grade, and sit around the same level.
That's all I'm been saying.

If you want to say Briggs edges it or was "slightly better", fine.
But anyone says he's a in a higher league completely is talking crap, IMO.
Both were mediocre, unconvincing, fringe contenders. Prospects who never really made the grade with the big boys of the division.

[lefthook31]

Yes, but all I've ever argued is that Briggs is not clearly in a "higher category" than Stewart.
They both dont make the grade, and sit around the same level.
That's all I'm been saying.

If you want to say Briggs edges it or was "slightly better", fine.
But anyone says he's a in a higher league completely is talking crap, IMO.
Both were mediocre, unconvincing, fringe contenders. Prospects who never really made the grade with the big boys of the division.
And you're right! Five pages. :)

[Genesis]

Unforgiven.

Some blown-up Crusierweights were "fake" or "weak" (depends on the fighter). I am just stating that Evander was "blown-up" up 1989. Ali is bigger than Evander anyway (in natural weight). Evander at 210 was very bulky and very muscular, while Ali at 210 was lean, didn't need weights to get to 210 at 22 years old. A 22 year old Ali is bigger naturally than Evander was when he became a heavyweight at 25-26.

[Genesis]

Evander is an ATG, he is a freak of nature in the modern game. The fact he was "blown-up" makes him greater, it does not take anything away from his achievements, it heightens them.

[ChrisPontius]

Evander is an ATG, he is a freak of nature in the modern game. The fact he was "blown-up" makes him greater, it does not take anything away from his achievements, it heightens them.

It doesn't make him a greater heavyweight.

[Genesis]

"It doesn't make him a greater heavyweight."

What does that mean? Do you agree that Evander is a ATG or not? He was always mostly the naturally smaller man in an era of super-Heavyweights and achieved all he could with what was given to him. He was/is a freak of nature when he you consider a 215 pound 46 year old (15 years past his prime) Holyfield went 12 with a 7,2 323 pound Nikolai who alot think will KO Haye

[ChrisPontius]

I'm saying that how high you rank AS A HEAVYWEIGHT does not depend on how big you are.

The heavyweight division is the only unlimited weight class. If you're bigger than this is an ADVANTAGE, not a disadvantage. In a pound-for-pound sense it does elevate Holyfield's ranking, but that's something else than his ranking as a heavyweight.

By the way, a 6'2 212lbs he's hardly a small guy. In fact, he's exactly as big as Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes, give or take an inch in height!

[lefthook31]

I'm saying that how high you rank AS A HEAVYWEIGHT does not depend on how big you are.

The heavyweight division is the only unlimited weight class. If you're bigger than this is an ADVANTAGE, not a disadvantage. In a pound-for-pound sense it does elevate Holyfield's ranking, but that's something else than his ranking as a heavyweight.

By the way, a 6'2 212lbs he's hardly a small guy. In fact, he's exactly as big as Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes, give or take an inch in height!
Thats right.