Alex Stewart vs. Evander Holyfield

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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....

 

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 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.

 

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..

 

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.

 

Sounds like a description of Frank Bruno

Sounds like a description of Shannon Briggs.

 

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.

 

Stewart also lacked a great chin.

 

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.