Alex Stewart vs. Evander Holyfield

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.

 

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.

 

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....

 

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

This content is protected

 

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.

 

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..

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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...

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..

 

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.

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...

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???

 

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!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.