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