How good is Bermane Stiverne?

[James9753]

How good is Bermane Stiverne? He's been currently inactive since the last Wilder fight, I was wondering if he's retired or just taking time out?

And how does he rate overall as a fighter looking at his performances against Arreola and Wilder?

Was he ever in the same bracket as other top contenders and champions like Povetkin, Ortiz and Pulev?

[bigjack]

Capable but lazy.

[keirw]

He was a pretty solid fighter a few years back and seen (rightfully) as a good win for Wilder at the time.

But hardly worth a mention now, has done nothing of note for a long, long time and his career is likely to fizzle out very soon.

[jamamb]

he was so so but not a serious player now

two solid wins over arreola to temporarily get a belt and ranking but really nothing much else. had already failed to beat 2 journeymen. was getting handily outboxed for almost 10 rounds and was down on all cards vs 40 year old ray austin. dropped vs rossy

also had less success vs wilder in terms of competitiveness then molina, szpilka, washington, duhaupas, and ortiz had. fatty.

[James9753]

he was so so but not a serious player now

two solid wins over arreola to temporarily get a belt and ranking but really nothing much else. had already failed to beat 2 journeymen. was getting handily outboxed for almost 10 rounds and was down on all cards vs 40 year old ray austin. dropped vs rossy

also had less success vs wilder in terms of competitiveness then molina, szpilka, washington, duhaupas, and ortiz had. fatty.

Do you think his claims of dehydration had a part to play in that lack of success compared to other fighters vs Wilder, or he just simply wasn't as good? Was that performance against wilder any different compared to how he boxed against the likes of Arreola and Austin?

[KiwiRider]

4 years ago he was plodding, and a little top heavy. Since then he has been fairly inactive and maybe a little slower.
Still a (very) fringe top 20 HW.

[DrDuke]

At his prime he was a top competitor. He had power, he could time good shots. Of course, if he faced Vitali for the belt, he won't be a champ. But he got the belt, so he is a somewhat of Chagaev, Brewster, Ibragimov, etc caliber. After the 1st Wilder fight he was done.

[Tony1244]

How good is he at what?

I didn't realize he did anything.

[Mexi-Box]

At his prime he was a top competitor. He had power, he could time good shots. Of course, if he faced Vitali for the belt, he won't be a champ. But he got the belt, so he is a somewhat of Chagaev, Brewster, Ibragimov, etc caliber. After the 1st Wilder fight he was done.

Wow, you must really like Stiverne. You give him way too much credit.

[tiny_acres]

It's funny now. But just before he faced Wilder the first time he was pretty much a consensus top 5.
Several people on here kept saying he needed to face Klitschko and forget Wilder.
But he did nothing after he lost to Wilder.
He was a solid contender before.

[Horse]

It's funny now. But just before he faced Wilder the first time he was pretty much a consensus top 5.
Several people on here kept saying he needed to face Klitschko and forget Wilder.
But he did nothing after he lost to Wilder.
He was a solid contender before.

I always thought that he sucked.

[gilgamesh]

Big right hand, decent jab...other than that nothing about him stands out. He's lazy, he's not very creative with his offense, he's fairly easy to outbox.

Nothing particularly special about him.

[Lackeos]

At his peak, I had him at #9-12ish. But right now, he's total dogsh*t. When he fought Wilder, he threw 4 punches and landed 0. I'm not exaggerating, these are actual punch stats. Threw 4, landed 0. Even a corpse could throw 8 punches and land 1.

His win over Derric Rossy 2.5 years ago was also relatively respectable. But I have to assume that he's declined the absolute max that a person possibly can decline in 2.5 years, and rate him according to that.

[jamamb]

It's funny now. But just before he faced Wilder the first time he was pretty much a consensus top 5.
Several people on here kept saying he needed to face Klitschko and forget Wilder.
But he did nothing after he lost to Wilder.
He was a solid contender before.

stivrrne was never that good. its not some anti wilder conspiracy (you also suggested this with ppl saying breazeale isnt good, give it a rest), just actually watch him fight. wilder was also a solid favorite for there fights so its not like everyone picked stiv then changed there tune. . wilder had mainly faced terrible comp before him, so even with those limitations he was still a clear step up, and i think thats what most ppl were saying , rather then really rating stiv.


go watch him vs 40 year old ray austin. looks awful and gets his head boxed off by an old, nothing special guy for almost 10 rounds. plodding, slow , and unable to deal with austins length. was massively outlanded and all judges had him behind in the 10th

and of course hed already been stopped by 1 journeyman then held to a draw by another. and then after wilder got put on his ass by another journeyman. also several wilders opponents did better vs deontay then he did

he had some decent power and got the arreola wins, but overall a very limited plodding fighter fortunate to get a belt.

[tiny_acres]

It's funny now. But just before he faced Wilder the first time he was pretty much a consensus top 5.
Several people on here kept saying he needed to face Klitschko and forget Wilder.
But he did nothing after he lost to Wilder.
He was a solid contender before.

stivrrne was never that good. its not some anti wilder conspiracy (you also suggested this with ppl saying breazeale isnt good, give it a rest), just actually watch him fight. wilder was also a solid favorite for there fights so its not like everyone picked stiv then changed there tune. . wilder had mainly faced terrible comp before him, so even with those limitations he was still a clear step up, and i think thats what most ppl were saying , rather then really rating stiv.


go watch him vs 40 year old ray austin. looks awful and gets his head boxed off by an old, nothing special guy for almost 10 rounds. plodding, slow , and unable to deal with austins length. was massively outlanded and all judges had him behind in the 10th

and of course hed already been stopped by 1 journeyman then held to a draw by another. and then after wilder got put on his ass by another journeyman

he had some decent power and got the arreola wins, but overall a very limited plodding fighter fortunate to get a belt.

Back when we all would vote on the Heavyweight ratings Stiverne was voted in at #3.
I never once called it an anti wilder conspiracy. I simply stated that once Stiverne lost to Wilder he has not had a single win besides a shop worn Derrick Rossy.
No conspiracy at all.
In fact directly after the Wilder loss in the first fight We as a forum still voted Stiverne as number 6
People thought highly of him at one point. Now in hindsight we all bash him for the level we see him now

[punchoutsb]

He was never very good, but was blessed to come around at the right time. He was a top HW when Wilder beat him. He earned that top HW position by drawing with a .500 fighter, losing to a journeyman, coming from behind to beat a shopworn Ray Austin, and beating overrated pretender Chris Arreola twice. He wouldn't have won a title had he been around 5-10 years earlier. He was a level below even some of the weaker champions like Brewster and Liakhovich when it comes to ability. As far as resume goes, if you ever actually sit down and look at his record it doesn't exactly read like a Who's Who, but rather just a Who? Robert Hawkins was almost 40 when they fought, and he is Stiverne's third or fourth best win. That tells you all you need to know.

[gilgamesh]

He was never very good, but was blessed to come around at the right time. He was a top HW when Wilder beat him. He earned that top HW position by drawing with a .500 fighter, losing to a journeyman, coming from behind to beat a shopworn Ray Austin, and beating overrated pretender Chris Arreola twice. He wouldn't have won a title had he been around 5-10 years earlier. He was a level below even some of the weaker champions like Brewster and Liakhovich when it comes to ability. As far as resume goes, if you ever actually sit down and look at his record it doesn't exactly read like a Who's Who, but rather just a Who? Robert Hawkins was almost 40 when they fought, and he is Stiverne's third or fourth best win. That tells you all you need to know.

Yep I agree his being a "Champion" was definitely a case of right place, right time.

[tiny_acres]

It's funny now. But just before he faced Wilder the first time he was pretty much a consensus top 5.
Several people on here kept saying he needed to face Klitschko and forget Wilder.
But he did nothing after he lost to Wilder.
He was a solid contender before.

stivrrne was never that good. its not some anti wilder conspiracy (you also suggested this with ppl saying breazeale isnt good, give it a rest), just actually watch him fight. wilder was also a solid favorite for there fights so its not like everyone picked stiv then changed there tune. . wilder had mainly faced terrible comp before him, so even with those limitations he was still a clear step up, and i think thats what most ppl were saying , rather then really rating stiv.


go watch him vs 40 year old ray austin. looks awful and gets his head boxed off by an old, nothing special guy for almost 10 rounds. plodding, slow , and unable to deal with austins length. was massively outlanded and all judges had him behind in the 10th

and of course hed already been stopped by 1 journeyman then held to a draw by another. and then after wilder got put on his ass by another journeyman. also several wilders opponents did better vs deontay then he did

he had some decent power and got the arreola wins, but overall a very limited plodding fighter fortunate to get a belt.

Oh and by the way I have always said Breazelle is not a worthy challenger. He's the mandatory so it's going to happen. But I can't see what he has done to deserve the high praise or rating.
And the Mandatory rematch with Stiverne was far from deserved also. I didn't agree with the WBC and I still don't

[jamamb]

okay but i remember you going on about ppl being hypocrites for saying breazeale isnt very good, under some assumption that they said otherwise for joshua, pretty sure brezeale wasnt exactly praised as an opponent for aj either

[tiny_acres]

okay but i remember you going on about ppl being hypocrites for saying breazeale isnt very good, under some assumption that they said otherwise for joshua, pretty sure brezeale wasnt exactly praised as an opponent for aj either

What I said was to the effect that Joshua was praised for taking on an undefeated Breazelle. Yet Wilder has to fight him as a mandatory and is bashed. It's a double standard.
I am not jazzed by any of Wilders opponents excluding Ortiz. He has fought borderline contenders for all but 1 title defense.
But having fought so many borderline contenders it still puts his resume at top 3 in the current division.
Which is very sad

[jamamb]

was there really all that much hype and praise for aj taking on brezeale?

[KiwiRider]

was there really all that much hype and praise for aj taking on brezeale?

At the time it seemed like a decent test for Joshua. I thought it would be close, given how Whyte had hurt AJ in the fight before.
The thing is, since Brazeale/Joshua- who has got better?
Obviously AJ is a way better and more complete fighter than he was Vs Brazeale. As for Brazeale- not so much, in fact I don't think he has advanced much since then.
So Wilder fighting Brazeale in his 41st fight doesn't really carry the same weight- no matter how he deals with Brazeale. If AJ rematched with Brazeale, I doubt it would go more than 3 rounds. Im slightly interested in how Wilder goes with him, but in the general scheme of things, it has little relevance.

[jamamb]

i didnt realize aj had only been a pro for 2.5 years when he fought breazeale, aj has been moved very quickly thats for sure

[candyslim]

I might be being a little unfair but it seems to me that both Stiverne and Arreola's reputation is built on the fights they had with each other : "Stiverne? awesome fighter. Twice beat ultra tough fellow contender Chris Arreola"

"Chris Arreola? awesome fighter. Real tough guy who twice fought Bermane Stiverne. He didn't win but Stiverne is a former world champion doncha know?".

If on the other hand you take the negative view "Stiverne looked awful against the ancient and mediocre Ray Austin, got KTFO by the less than stellar, Demetrice King and beat the rugged but extremely limited Chris Arreola to win a title neither deserved to be within a mile of. Like two drunks holding each other up, these two enhanced each others reputation".

Of course I've been deliberately harsh there, and effusive in the previous paragraph to illustrate how as boxing fans our perception of different fighters is largely dependent on our perception of who they have fought and how we interpret the outcome of those fights. It's not terribly scientific but it leads to some juicy arguments.

[Enlightened-One]

What impressive feat has Bermane Stiverne achieved within the last fifty months?

I don't feel that any fighter, regardless of resume, deserves to be regarded as "good" (in the context of their current status in the sport), if they have looked poor inside the ring, achieved very little and lost more often than they have won... over a period exceeding four years.