BoxRec

Would he have broken through in this era?

He lost whenever he stepped up: Holyfield (2), Tyson, Foreman and Moorer.

But those are HOFers (Moorer at LHW if not HW perhaps).

He lost to Holyfield the second time in 1993 and didn't start losing to bums until 1996-99.

Could the 24-0 Stewart break through today?

Get out your time machines...

I believe he'd definitely be a top-10 guy today -

The Stewert that was 24-0-0 (that is) - the one who fought Holyfield their first time -

Stewart would be a top 10 today, but I half way can persuade myself that I could be too, and look at my name. Stewart was a better boxer than puncher, but believed the opposite and was too nice overall.

I was never impressed with Alex Stewart. He was 24-0 with 24 KO's at one point, but that record was very deceptive. Stewart's opponents were of rather poor quality, and every time he fought a decent fighter he lost. He fought Oleg Maskaev when he was 33 and Lance Whitaker when he was 34 (hardly old by current standards) and they both knocked him out. Ironically Stewart's best performance as a pro was probably his bout with George Foreman, when he survived almost being stopped in the early rounds then rallied to give Foreman the worst pounding of his second career.

I was always a bit confused as to how he knocked people out because he wasn't a big puncher and he didn't really take one too well either. His career might have been different had he been a meaner fighter: in the 2nd round vs Moorer he landed a right that discombobulated Moorer, who stood stock still bent in half at the waist and Stewart let him recover