Prime Michael Dokes vs the Holyfield that he fought

I'd rather talk about the non fix, the immediate rematch. What did you think of Dokes stating they could take his title away if they liked, there was no way he was going to fight Weaver again. Which relistically should have happened, after 16 rounds they still didn't have a genuine winner, tho the majority at ringside scored a narrow win for Weaver in the second fight.

 

Dumbo calls it a fix.

for definition of fix see hagler-leonard.

 

If not a fix it sure was an overreaction from Curtis.

Didn't see you answer the rest of the post, facts too hard to dispute?

Does a bear **** in the woods?

Does a snake **** close to the ground?

:yep

 

Dokes would win on a UD in 12, 15 maybe.

 

You say that prime Dokes destroys Weaver and Coetzee. Well, when exactly do you think he fought them? Was there a different Dokes, perhaps during the 70's that none of us know about? Dokes was certainly on drugs when he fought those guys, but I don't think that there were very long periods at any point in his career when he wasn't using coke. In fact, the Holyfield fight may very well have been one of the few matches in which he was clean for any length of time. He was also more mentally motivated and fighting actively. We also have to consider that this was perhaps Holyfield's 2nd or 3rd fight at 200 Lbs.

 

:good

 

yes, I agree. The Gardner fight was just a small sample of what Mike could do to a man if he chose to fight in agressive fashion. The level of class didn't matter either as we saw when he mopped the floor with WBA champion Mike Hercules Weaver who could but for mere seconds withstand the fury of Dokes' non-stop attack. Even though Mike took 13 rounds of it from slugger Gerrie Coetzee!!!!!

Although I admire the efforts from the workman like Holyfield, I feel his best efforts came as a cruiserweight. at 200+ pounds was just good enough to get himself creamed by my main man Bowe and also Moorer, another cruiserweight.

Holy just couldn't handle young talent.


Is it any wonder he held his title defending against old men like Foreman and Larry Holmes, relics from the 70's??

I'm not trying to discredit the man but only pointing out that he was only able to hold onto his title unitil he faced his first big test against young talent the first against Bowe and the second against young Micheal Moorer, neither of which he could keep up with. So my question is, how could he possibly hold off the threat of young Micheal Dokes whose hand speed was unlimited?

 

Well, I personally think that Holyfield showed he could wrestle with young talent by winning rematches against those guys, not to mention going through the whole 3 fight series with Bowe. He also did a pretty good number on guys like Stewart and Douglas, although they weren't quite as good as the other two. As we already covered, Dokes was probably in better shape both physically and mentally for Holyfield than he was against Cotzee, Weaver and some of the others. If Dokes defeated any Holyfieldesque opponents during the early 80's, then I must have missed it. The first win over Weaver was deemed by many as an early stoppage ( I didn't see it myself ). If you go back any earlier than 1982, then you start getting into his performances like the draw with Ocasio and the close decisions over Young, Rodriguez, and Cobb. Not especially good enough to decern that he'd beat Holyfield.

 

Stewart and Douglas, what next?

Moorer was hardly a hot and upcoming fighter at that point--having lost by KO to foreman at 45 years which was Moorer's distinction. That's why Holy won, not because Holy improved.

Stewart was no threat-never was and his record proved it. You were joking right?

Douglas was reported the morning of the fight to be 245 pounds. Who hadn't picked Holy to win?? I think the whole planet was putting their money on Holy.

Bowe-Holy 2 wasn't what you'd call a convincing 'win'. For a real win, see Norris-Leonard, Bowe-Holyfield 1 & 3, hearns-Duran, Hagler-Hearns with no controversy. I like my fighters to win big, not have to rely on the judges during a close contest.

 

Laughs the man who may quite possibly be the only person I've heard call the first Dokes-Weaver fight a legit win.

You claim that Moorer was damaged goods after Foreman, but you make no concession for the fact that Holyfield was coming into the first fight with an injured shoulder and would later be diagnosed with a heart problem. Nevertheless, he still fought galantly, flooring Moorer and taking him the distance, and by the way this fight was well before the Foreman match. You're being a bit inconsistant in your debate tactics.

No I wasn't joking. I clearly added the sentence that Stewart and Douglas were not the fighters that Bowe or Moorer were. But they were big strong natural heavyweights, with a fair number of fights, and at a reasonable age, yet Holy destroyed them without a struggle.

I'm well aware of this, but if you're going to make excuses for Douglas being out of shape, then why don't you take a look at some of the slugs Dokes fought during what you call his "prime".

Ok so an aging Holyfield coming back from defeat to beat a young Bowe was less impressive than Norris knocking the crap out of a shot Leonard. Now we're really making some sense here. And by the way, why was Holyfield's rematch against Bowe so much less convincing than Bowe's first win over Holyfield. Oh, I forgot, you stated earlier that Bowe's your man.

 

Weaver was on his way out. The question is, how many seconds did he have left?

He was damage goods. His shoulder wasn't responsible for him losing. His heart wasn't responsible for him losing-He was knocked out with a blow to the head. Damaged mentally and thus no longer a marketable fighter. Neither the public nor the press saw him that way. He was a piece of meat for the remtach.

So? They weren't what any would call "the man to beat". They weren't hot fighters either because they weren't considered high caliber challengers and Buster at 245-well, we all knew what was coming.

First of all, I wouldn't call that a win. If you're perfectly honest with yourself you'll admit that fight two could just have easily gone to Bowe. Bowe was the clear winner in two of three contests. The second fight was inconclusive.

Second, you see that man in my avatar? That there is a real fighter-the genuine article. Yes, he kicked the crap out of a legend that I wasn't aware was shot until after the fight when the press suddenly dubbed him as "shot".

Before the contest started however, there was no such talk and in fact, was a clear favorite and who showed no sign of slowing in previous uno mas which we all know was passed off as a big event. After the fight I saw Leonard's picture on the cover of KO titled "can sugar ray actually lose?" and on top of that, Steve Farthood wrote an article congradulating Leonard saying that "Leonard fought the perfect fight". He just couldn't fight that way against Terry because Terry had his fist in Leonard's face all night.

believe me, you don't want to dispute this. And Bowe IS my man as all ultimate winners I've come to recognize. :smoke

 

Why don't you tell me? You seem to have seen the fight, whereas I already claim that I haven't. Everything that I've ever read or heard about that fight over the years, points to the notion that it was a horrible stoppage, and a shallow win for Dokes. Given that Weaver wasn't exactly an icon in 1982, I'm not exactly sure why the public would feel compelled to exercising revisionism.

Are we talking about the same thing? I clearly said that Holyfield entered his first meeting with Moorer with a bum shoulder and heart problems, yet you make no concession for him losing, but give allowence for the fact that Moorer was supposedly shot after Foreman. You also forget that Holyfield was 5 years older than Moorer, and following their first fight took a temporary leave from the sport.

Well, for whatever its worth, Douglas was heavyweight champion of the world, and he had in fact " beat the man " to get the title. Stewart was a former olympian, undefeated in 24 fights and ranked #2 by the WBA in November of 1989, when he fought Evander. Furthermore, Holyfield beat them in what you of all people should consider " convincing fashion", ( if the same rule applies to Holyfield in your book ).

In 1993, my friends and I ordered the fight at one of our homes, and we also saw the under card which consisted of Hearns vs Maynard and Snipes vs Gonzalez. Before the cards were read at the end of the fight, we all agreed that Evander had won. Most of the follow-up media that I read after the fight concurred. Did you see this fight?

I have read some of your disputes with other posters, and frankly, I find it remarkably unusual that you feel Leonard was in top or near top form for that fight. It's also interesting that you claim the notion of Leonard being past his prime was all news to you at the time, given that many analysts and experts felt it was an ill move for him to come out and fight Hagler in 1987, let alone challenging Norris in 1991. Plus most fans and experts concurred that he had shown the tell tale signs of deterioration in the Hearns rematch of 1989, which I also saw and agreed with.

 

I don't know if Leonard was at the top of his game as he was in 81 when Tommy was giving him the same treatment but I also know there was nothing wrong with him either. That, I do know. I also know that was a sizable favorite to whip Norris. They said "ray won't work up a sweat" "should rid the ring of Norris by the third". That was the talk, not "ray shouldn't fight him".

Everybody was saying it. So when you say "let alone Norris" makes me wonder are you aware of Noriss' rep at the time? He was a newly crowned champion (spelled green) going up against a legend with far more experience. Of course I'm going to give Terry credit for winnning it. He won big! And the best part is that it wasn't controversial like your typical leonard win.

So when you speak of "signs of deterioration", what signs are you talking about that I missed in his next fight with Duran which he won all 12 rounds, danced all 12 rounds, mugged as usual?

If anyone was showing signs of decline it was Tommy Hearns who came within an inch of getting ko'd by Roldan two years before, then was ko'd in his next fight and nearly ko'd again in his next fight by Kinchen and in fact, was his worst career performance.

But you don't label a fighter like Leonard shot because he struggled to a draw with Hearns. Ray did better on the scorecards the second time than he did the first time! So what gorunds do you have for telling me that Ray was showing signs of deterioration? he looked like **** after his first comeback with Howard and even before, losing to Duran, hurt 3 times by Geraldo, not to mention how terrible he looked in the first Hearns fight.

Leonard wasn't winning on the scorecards with Tommy. He was almost hopelessly behind with his own trainer yelling that he was blowing it.

I have more respect for Holyfield as a fighter of course but still, he'd be no match for prime Dokes. Take my word for it, Dokes in a ten rounds wins this 6-3-1 with Holy coming on strong in the later rounds.

 

I'm going to sum this up and make it easy for you.

1. Leonard was well past his prime when he fought Norris, and his win over a 37 year old Duran does not in any way strengthen your argument that he was even close to being at his best, ( besides that fight was 14 months earlier, and Sugar did nothing in the interim ).

2. The prime Dokes that you speak of, drew with Ossie Ocasio, barely beat Tex Cobb via split decision, was arguably gifted a draw against Weaver, and was KO'd by Gerrie Coetzee. This version of Dokes does not beat a 1989 Holyfield, and would Lose even Quicker to the Holyfield who became champ nearly two years later.

Let's try to stop using obscure angles and half truths to change the facts.

 

Thanks for the summary but that didnt tell me what I wanted to know. I asked you to give me grounds for what you said being that leonard was shot. Hagler was shot. That's why Leonard beat him.

Yet you still have the same problem which is how to prove that someone's past their prime if their last performance shows they're not? Before you go down to your final defeat, just tell me do I just take your word as proof he was shot because you said so?

Bernard Hopkins was in his prime at 36 according to many when he started to get his career going and Archie Moore performed well into his 40's not to mention Jersey Joe Walcott when he won the title. So age doesn't necessarily prove a man got no fight left in him or at least it isn't as convincing as a shitty performance.

But you can't say that about Leonard's last performance because he was always up on his toes and so much speed it bedazzled Duran. Duran didn't win a round. The moves of Leonard, the fluidity and such incredible confidence. Every expert I've talked to on the subject confirms what I said which is no shot fighter has ever showed the kind of moves, the speed, the footwork, the mobility that Ray leonard showed Duran that night-probably his most convincing win over a name fighter since Benitez.

Maybe Duran was a little slow but hadn't he just beaten Barkley, one of the top middleweights out there? Regardless of how Duran looked, Leonard's legs were in top form which means he couldn't have been shot.

And the 14 month layoff? Leonard's had onger layoffs against bigger name competition and still pulled it out. What was it Gil Clancy called him, the miracle man?

That 14 month layoff shouldn't be nearly enough for a legend like Ray Leonard, the 4th greatest p4p fighter according to boxing illustrated, to suffer that kind of defeat to a 3-1 underdog with inferior experience. With ONLY 14 months inactivity? That's nothing unless you're just looking for any old excuse. This is why all praise must given to the underrated Norris who won his first big fight so convincingly and against the biggest name out there (outside of Mike Tyson)

On the subject of Dokes vs. 89 Holyfield. You have it backwards. Unlike Ray Leonard who did not put up a fight against a young Norris, Dokes DID put up a fight. he gave Evander all he could handle so it only goes to say that a 1981 or 82 version would most likely win on points with Evander still trying to catch up on points at the final bell. What you said about Dokes losing quickly to Champ Evander makes no sense at all when Larry Holmes and Foreman, two men in their 40's and at least 10-15 years past their prime took him the distance. You must like losers for some reason.