kubrat pulev vs donovan ruddock how does it go ???

Pulev isn't a bad fighter. But looking at the Thompson and Dimetrenko fights I can't see him being much more than fringe in the early 90's. If we want to size him up to fighter from that era, I think Pierre Coetzer would be a better place to start.

 

The book on Pulev is not done or at least not very complete. He only has 21 fights behind him. Ruddock didn't meet Tyson until about 26 fights. I think he is a very good, tho limited fighter. He doesn't have elite power but is tough and skilled. Judging him on the Wlad fight is pretty unfair because he got tagged with a monstrous game changer pretty early. I thought he did very well against Thompson, who at that point was still a difficult night for all but the very elite.

Given what I have seen thus far, I would say he's a bit better than Coetzer but not as proven yet as Ruddock turned out to be. Head to head, I would shade toward Ruddock but fully expect a competitive match-up. Ruddock was pretty predictable, did not have good feet and was sloppy on defense. You just had to watch out for that powershot.

 

Thompson at a broad 6'5" carried his weight a bit better than Dokes.

As far as age goes, Dokes like most fighters of the 80s was in the twilight of his career at 31. Now days we have fighters like Pulev and Thompson turning pro at 29.

Well, that's one way of looking at. Another is that Dokes was diminished and Thompson is still game.

 

He looks better than Coetzer on film. I say a genuine top 10 contender in the early 90s. The Truth, Tucker, Dokes, and Damiani were still hanging around the top 5.

 

I don't think so. Dokes was more muscular and in my opinion looked better. At best Dokes needed to drop maybe 10 lbs. Thompson gained 20 lbs in just 13 months since his meeting with Wlad. That can't be good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9aHVkbuAms

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+dokes+vs+razor+ruddock

Which doesn't always necessarily equate to being better in one's forties. The older a person waits to take on a competitive sport, the lower their potential sealing drops. And at least men like Dokes and Witherspoon had experience by the time they hit their early thirties. Pulev had some glaring flaws against Thompson and Klitschko.

I think Thompson losing in half the time to Klitscko in 2012 than he did in 2008, despite facing an also older Wlad is a sign of being diminished too. Not to mention gaining as much weight as he did which I doubt was intentional.

 

The only organization in the early 90's who was truly in love with the truth was the IBF. They had him ranked around #3 in early 1991 before he lost to Witherspoon, which was a bit too generous. Damiani wasn't ranked by any of the alpha organizations given that he was the WBO holder. But shortly after losing to Mercer he disappeared from even the Ring's ratings. Tucker was Don King promoted so that explains that. I think Dokes, Damiani, Tucker, Witherspoon, and yes even Coetzer were all even money with Pulev even though some of them were past prime. And I think a lot of them could have potentially beaten him.

 

I disagree. Thompson was never muscular and of an awkward build, he did however look lean and reasonably fit. Dokes still had big arms but his bloated belly was pretty worrisome.

Just modern boxing in general, guys turning pro later and staying at an elite level longer.

Fair, but I think Wlad was just more aggressive in the rematch, as he has been since Steward's passing. Thompson also had regressed since the very first fight but was still a dangerous fighter as evident by the Price knockouts.

 

RING still had Tucker, the Truth, and Damiani rated in the top 5 in the early 90s. I dismiss the notion Pulev could not enter the top 10 and challenge for a title.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree then.. Dokes at 31 years of age and at 240 looked better to me than Thompson at 42 and 264. Thomson may have looked thin, but he didn't have much muscle mass and his upper body looked sagging to me. Dokes was solid with the exception of a slight bit of flab around the mid section. Michael had battled life and death in one of the best heavyweight battles of the past 30 years with a prime holyfield just a year before facing ruddock and had stayed active fighting four times in the interim. Thompson lost easily to Wlad in a non competitive fight and happened to score two stoppages over a green prospect, then gained 20 lbs in just a year before fighting Pulev. Pulev's win over Thompson was a dull affair over 12 rounds in a workman like effort. Ruddock anialated Dokes with a perfectly placed left upper cut to the jaw knocking him out unconcious. Do we really have to debate in such depth as to who beat the better man or had the more impressive performance? Your statement about fighters turning pro later AND staying competitive longer doesn't make much sense. Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Wladimir Klitscko and Larry Holmes all turned pro in their early 20's and had long competitve careers.. Men Like Ray Mercer, Ron Lyle, Sultan Ibragimov, devaryll Williamson, etc turned pro late and weren't at or near the top very long by comparison. Those are just a few examples. BTW, Manny steward was still living for Klits rematch with Thompson, though due to his declining health Im not sure how heavily involved he was in his training camp.

 

During the Steve Farhood era of Ring Magazine, the ratings were a little shotty. But regardless of who was ranked and who wasn't, there were fringe guys that I would place on even terms with Pulev and even some that I'd pick to beat him.. I can't see Tony Thompson beating Tony Tucker in 1992 and the best Pulev would do is eek out a decision if even that much.. Pierre Coetzer was a busy contender staying active and gave good accounts of himself against Bowe and Bruno, both of whom I'd pick to kill Thompson and Pulev. Hell even Orlin Norris and Damiani weren't that bad. Thompson is a good fighter and I give him props for hanging around and fighting decent comp relative to this era. But honestly I couldn't see him fighting for a title in the early 90's the way he did against Wlad in 2012.

 

Yes, he turned out a great performance against Holyfield a year prior, but this happened in between...

just 3 months prior to Ruddock

So yes, I'm calling your claim that this pathetic version of Dokes was better than Thompson.

L.A. spies report Marty Cohen, the 92-year-old manager of Michael Dokes, was furious with an overweight Dokes' lethargic performance against Lionel Washington Monday night. Dokes, who weighed 253½, stopped Washington in the eighth, but was cut badly in two places and dropped in the seventh. According to earwitnesses, Cohen, whom Dokes calls "Popsy," told Dokes, "I won't let you fight again if you ever get this out of shape." Luckily for Dokes, his poor effort was seen only on L.A.'s Prime Ticket cable network

 

Dokes was 225 against Holyfield, 253 against Washington, and 240 against Ruddock.
If he was good against Holyfield, awful against Washington ... and weight is any indication of his dedication, he was probably entering the ring somewhere between the two extremes, in a mediocre condition. He certainly hadn't looked sharp in any of his fights after Holyfield.

I think the Holyfield fight probably took a lot out of him, physically and mentally, and he lost momentum in his comeback. He definitely put on weight and he probably started using cocaine again around this time.

Actually, when Dokes lost to Ruddock he said "If I can't beat Ruddock, I can't beat Douglas." kind of admitting he was no longer a true contender.

Having said that, not sure Pulev's beat anyone better than that.

 

My argument is that Thompson is at the very least on the level.

 

Yes I remember that fight. It was either on the under card or sometime right around Holyfield's fight with Rodriguez in the summer of 1989.. So? what does that have to do with the kind of shape he was in for Ruddock? Did he weigh 253 for Donoven? was he anywhere near 264 the way that Thompson was for Pulev? He had a bad performance against a journeyman who incidentally wasn't a cream puff either.. Dokes was still seen by many as a legit top five fighter and title challenger.. My opinion remains the same

 

What does the Holyfield fight have to do with the kind of shape he was in for Ruddock? This fight is closer to the Ruddock fight, than Holyfield. It shows us that he was struggling weight and struggling in general.

He also wasn't a 6'5" broad shouldered guy either. Thompson was lanky at 245, where as Dokes looked like a pudgy Buddha statue near that weight.

Ugh, so be it.