If both are in shape and motivated this could be good. I’m actually more curious about how the late 1980s contender version of Dokes would do against Moorer than the earlier one who was WBA champ. The Dokes who put up that incredible slugfest against Holyfield would make for fun evening versus Moorer.
Same, I was thinking about that whilst making the thread actually, I think that version was more durable, but not as light on his feet and would have less success boxing, but probably hit harder, that version would have a better chance of outlasting Moorer especially if Moorer starts fighting as he sometimes did and Dokes dod stipl have quick hands at that point. Each version of Dokes comes with its advantages and disadvantages, the earlier version has more success boxing, but may get stopped or put down, but the later version may have less success boxing, but would be able to hold his own more in a fight.
I'd say Dokes on points. He seemed to fight with more fire. Dokes hands were pretty quick and his chin was sturdy.
I think the Dokes of the Holyfield fight might actually stop Moorer. That Dokes was a dog man, volume, heart, accuracy.
Good fight, Dokes can catch and hurt him with the handspeed but I think Moorer decisions him in a close controversial match
As someone that watched him (and read everything on him) in real time, Dokes is a strange study to put it mildly. The man virtually did not have a peak and his prime was short. He had an impressive quick KO of Ossie Ocasio after disappointing drawing him the fight before and beat a fringe contender in Cobb in an average showing. Other than that he'd beaten trailhorse Jimmy Young who'd not long prior been beaten twice B2B by Ocasio. Going into his title fight against Weaver he'd beaten next to nobody. Sure, he had an excellent amateur career but for all the hype he'd never beaten anyone in the pro's. In an era where the top contenders fought each other surprisingly regularly he hadn't fought anyone. Talk about an easy run. His KO of Weaver was extremely impressive while also being controversial and seen by many as a fix. One can look at stoppages curently and say it was fine but back in those days the champ was given a helluva lot of leeway and many thought King has his fingerprints all over it. His best performance excepting Weaver 1 was actually Weaver II when he fought him to a draw in a competitive fight most scored for Weaver. Dokes stated after the fight that if they tried to force him to fight Weaver again he'd drop the title lol. Then he comes into the ring against Coetzee after a cocaine binge 48 hours before fight time. He looked ordinary and well off the pace and was brutally KO'd. He comes back a year later and wins a few low key fights before having 2 1/2 years off after being rolled for having a shyteload of coke. He has a bunch more low key fights and then fights his ass of against Holyfield. His only win over a top 5 Heavyweight in his life was Weaver. It's bizarre, no-one really talks about his lack of wins. The guy could fight tho, his performance (i had him down by 2 or 3 points) in the Weaver rematch was good, Weaver could still fight at that point. He looked very good against Holyfield too but was old man river from the waist down. Before the coke and Coetzee he could take a punch, he shipped some serious bombs from Weaver and Weaver was a puncher, no ifs or buts. One of his problems was that he was the fastest fighter in boxing......for three rounds. He slowed down pretty quick. I think he's a good chance against Moorer. Everyone thinks he can't punch but at a certain point of his career he started to fill out and sit down on his punches which gave him really decent power. Moorer packed some heat too, and he could box. I'd set this at close to even money, it's a head scratcher.
