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