How good a fighter would Teofilo Stevenson have been if he had turned pro?

Question

THE REAL SMITTY IS LEVEL 7!!!

Answer 1

I have followed boxing for many years, and also remember Teo "destroy" any one he fought. While being an olympic champion is one thing, being a world professional champion is another. If he was handled right, trained right, he could of gone all the way to the top in today's ranks. But to be thrown in with Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, Larry Holmes, George Forman, or a few others of the seventies or early eighties era fighters, would of been a problem for Teo. He was born in a communist country (cuba), and was forever denied the chance to show his true skills. We will never know the answers, but my thoughts are because of his lack of good sparring partners, quality trainig and good management, he would of beaten all of them except for the ones I mentioned. He was never "tested", but what we do know was his inability to fight backing up, and his stamina was questionable. He didn't like training, so keep those things in mind.
"Look at it like this;" How would George Foreman or Muhammad Ali of done against those people he beat up in the Olympics? They were nobody's. But thank you for your question, it was a good one!

Answer 2

Smitty he was one hell of an amateur and perhaps the greatest amateur heavyweight champion in boxing history. He was a very large and muscular man with above average boxing skills and outstanding punching power, Had he turned pro and really trained hard he would have probably been at least an oustanding fighter and contender if not a champion. I remember seeing him make good heavyweight fighters look like babies during some of amateur matches so I developed a lot of respect for him as a fighter. I would have loved to have seen him go against the likes of Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Norton and some of the contenders of that era too. I actually believe he would have done quite well but of course it's really difficult to tell as there is quite a difference between a great amateur and a great professional.

Answer 3

It's really hard to say because amateur boxing and professional boxing are so different. But he had all the tools to develop into an excellent pro. Big, strong, good jab and right hand and he was a good fighter. It would've been interesting because he would've been fighting in the best Heavyweight era in the history of the sport in my mind. I think he may have done well with his size and strength, but again, amateur boxing is just not the same as pro. Remember Jorge Luis Gonzalez beat both Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis as an amateur, and was then slaughtered by Bowe as a professional in a fight that wasn't even close. But Stevenson was a better fighter than Gonzalez so he may have fared better as a pro.

Answer 4

Maybe at best average, I think Teo had the advantage of being a 24-25 year old against mostly 18-20 yr old men.I think most of the 70's crop of heavies would have dealt with him.The man couldn't even figure out Igor Vysotsky, so that should telll you something.

Answer 5

depends what yr. he turned pro. he would have beaten norton easily. between 77-79 ali was finished so i think teo would have edge him like leon did. around 73-76 he would have been destroyed by ali,foreman, or frazier. the best matchup would have been between 80-84 against larry holmes. in 85-88 against mike spinks or holyfield or tyson he might of been a little past his prime, but i still think he would give mike spinks and holyfiel troulbe stylewise

Answer 6

Amateur and pro is comparing apples to oranges. 3 rounds compared to 8, 10, 12, and at his time 15 round championship fights. In amateur fights you go all out for 3 rounds, professionally there's a pace to the fight, i.e. setting up your opponent, figuring out your opponent. I don't know how good he would have been.

Answer 7

Not bad, but he was no Larry Holmes