Would Michael Grant have had a better career with a Steward or a Futch?

Anyone at all would've been significantly better than Teddy Atlas.

 

Just about anyone would go better with those two.

 

Improve maybe but grant was hype and no one would of made him a long term champ.

 

I imagine Steward would've been at least a little bit better than Turner. Steward wasn't a magician though. He had Tucker who had pretty much everything Grant had plus a legitimate am background and he still couldn't turn him into an elite heavyweight. If things went a little differently with his comeback, i could see Grant beating or at least being competitive with pretty much any of the lesser titlists of the early 2000s.

 

Not really, Grant after the losses to Lewis and McCline seemed to get very gunshy. I remember his fight against Dominick Guinn, he seemed very unsure of himself and timid. I don't think any trainer could help him overcome such a problem. Other guys like Hasim Rahman suffered devastating knockout losses, and it never damaged them from a mental standpoint.

 

He could have gone with any number of guys but there wouldn't have been a vast difference imo .Grant was a big OK heavy but up against top opposition I think he would always crumble.

 

I think a lot of that had to do with Atlas. Grant actually snapped out it eventually, but he was pretty old by that point.

 

Yes. Grant would've had a better career.

 

Michael Grant had numerous high profile trainers like Don Turner, Teddy Atlas,
Buddy McGirt and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad. MG had only 12 am fights and his
flaws and lack of exp was brutally exposed by Lennox Lewis.
So no Steward and Futch would have no extra success with MG as he had only
limited talent and even reaching a world title shot was quite a achievement.

 

This.