BoxRec

What was Dokes's reach?
He always seem to have fast short punches.
I think Corrie Sanders may have had faster hands then Dokes.

hhaehre wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: The potential was all there. Everyone who faced Dokes said he had the fastest hands in the business. Only Dokes, got in the way of Dokes. Period. If an older, slower, off the drugs version gave Holyfield the greatest heavyweight fight of the 1980s... could you imagine what the prime, not on the drugs, version would of done? We wouldnt be talking Holyfield probably today. Maybe even Tyson for that matter.

I guess we differ greatly on Dokes. Holyfield was better than Dokes at pretty much everything and Tyson would have knocked him out. In which fight do you think Dokes was at his best?

In my view, if Tyson could go the distance with James 'Not So Quick' Tillis... I dont know how we would of been able to hurt Dokes enough, to of stopped him. Because in my view, Dokes was far and away better than Tillis.

As for Holyfield being better than Dokes at "everything"... again, if one looks at their fight, this was an older, slower, just kicked the drug habit (for the upteenth time) version of Dokes... and it was very, very competitive. I'd argue, not until Bowe came around did Holyfield really face such a challenge as Dokes (in the heavyweight division). Considering how close it was, until the stoppage, I come to the conclusion if Dokes was younger, all in his prime, and never touched the sugar (pardon the pun) he would of boxed Holyfield's head off.

If dokes fought any holyfieldesque opponents in the early 80's I must have missed it. He barely got past tex Cobb, drew with ocasio, was arguably gifted in the rematch with Weaver and got KTFO by Coetzee. In their actual 1989 meeting Holy was only in his third fight above 200 lbs and perhaps in the 20th of his whole career. Meanwhile dokes was still maybe 30 years of age which is hardly "old" by heavyweight standards. He was drug free for the first time in years, working under new management, keeping a busy schedule and had gained a lot of upper body strength. A lot of people feel that his galant losing effort to Evander was quite possibly the best performance of his career... And using Tyson's outing against Tillis to justify why Dokes might trouble him his laughable. How old was he, maybe 19 and been fighting pro perhaps 16 months ? By that logic you might as well use Muhammad Ali's fight with Doug jones to justify dokes beating him prime for prime too.

HomicideHenry wrote:if Dokes was younger, all in his prime, and never touched the sugar (pardon the pun) he would of boxed Holyfield's head off.

Hilarious stuff Rufus.

This sh-t about Holyfield losing to early 80's contenders is getting out of hand. How these guys went from being average forgettables to beating all time greats is beyond my comprehension.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:If dokes fought any holyfieldesque opponents in the early 80's I must have missed it. He barely got past tex Cobb, drew with ocasio, was arguably gifted in the rematch with Weaver and got KTFO by Coetzee. In their actual 1989 meeting Holy was only in his third fight above 200 lbs and perhaps in the 20th of his whole career. Meanwhile dokes was still maybe 30 years of age which is hardly "old" by heavyweight standards. He was drug free for the first time in years, working under new management, keeping a busy schedule and had gained a lot of upper body strength. A lot of people feel that his galant losing effort to Evander was quite possibly the best performance of his career... And using Tyson's outing against Tillis to justify why Dokes might trouble him his laughable. How old was he, maybe 19 and been fighting pro perhaps 16 months ? By that logic you might as well use Muhammad Ali's fight with Doug jones to justify dokes beating him prime for prime too.

The problem with boxing fans is that they assume, that "Because fighter A defeated fighter B, who defeated fighter C, then fighter A could also beat fighter C"... that isn't the case. That kind of thinking takes the human element out of the fight game. Styles make fights. Circumstances make fights. There are over a hundred variables to consider in boxing. And in my view, the older and slower Dokes--- gave Holyfield one of his toughest fights. I can only assume, then, that the younger version of Dokes would of won against the prime Holyfield. That isnt disrespectful against Evander, or a slam against him--- it's a presumption that probably is closer to the truth than the opposite opinion that if Holyfield defeated the old Dokes, he would of also beaten the young Dokes.

After all, by that logic, then, should we assume Holyfield would of beaten Foreman and Holmes in their primes, because he defeated (rather comfortably) the older, slower versions? The consensus of many would be "No", you cant go by that logic because prime Foreman and prime Holmes were excellent. The argument, then, is, Dokes wasn't excellent. Dokes' drug problem was the only factor that held him back from reaching his full potential and worth. When he was at his best--- he was lightning fast, very skillful, very tough, etc. And because of his drug problem, we never did see the best Dokes there could have been.

But, knowing just how good he really could of been--- that has to be taken into consideration, when pitting a "prime" Dokes against anyone in these hypothetical matches. The prime Dokes that we did see, could have beaten Evander--- but it would of been close. The prime Dokes, who we never got to see, who never made it to a complete potential--- that version, would of beaten Holyfield and it would of been unaminous. Call me crazy, but that's just the way I see it. Mind you--- we aint talking the same Holyfield who beat the likes of Cooper, Foreman, Holmes, etc. we're talking about the pumped up Cruiserweight who made the jump to heavyweight.

HomicideHenry wrote: The problem with boxing fans is that they assume, that "Because fighter A defeated fighter B, who defeated fighter C, then fighter A could also beat fighter C"... that isn't the case. That kind of thinking takes the human element out of the fight game. Styles make fights. Circumstances make fights. There are over a hundred variables to consider in boxing. And in my view, the older and slower Dokes--- gave Holyfield one of his toughest fights. I can only assume, then, that the younger version of Dokes would of won against the prime Holyfield.

Exactly which pre-drug version of Dokes looked significantly better that the Dokes who fought Evander? Against A-level opposition I don't think I saw a better Dokes than the one who turned up for Holyfield.

HomicideHenry wrote:But, knowing just how good he really could of been--- that has to be taken into consideration, when pitting a "prime" Dokes against anyone in these hypothetical matches. The prime Dokes that we did see, could have beaten Evander--- but it would of been close.

The prime Dokes who could not outbox Cobb, Weaver or Ocasio?

HomicideHenry wrote:The prime Dokes, who we never got to see, who never made it to a complete potential--- that version, would of beaten Holyfield and it would of been unaminous.

Yes, the fabled Dokes with a different personality. But why stop there? Let's also give him the power of Joe Louis and let's make him a bit bigger. Imagine a Wlad sized Dokes with the power of Joe Louis and the mentality Marciano. He'd be the best ever, too bad he didn't possess any of those qualities.

hhaehre wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: The problem with boxing fans is that they assume, that "Because fighter A defeated fighter B, who defeated fighter C, then fighter A could also beat fighter C"... that isn't the case. That kind of thinking takes the human element out of the fight game. Styles make fights. Circumstances make fights. There are over a hundred variables to consider in boxing. And in my view, the older and slower Dokes--- gave Holyfield one of his toughest fights. I can only assume, then, that the younger version of Dokes would of won against the prime Holyfield.

Exactly which pre-drug version of Dokes looked significantly better that the Dokes who fought Evander? Against A-level opposition I don't think I saw a better Dokes than the one who turned up for Holyfield.

HomicideHenry wrote:But, knowing just how good he really could of been--- that has to be taken into consideration, when pitting a "prime" Dokes against anyone in these hypothetical matches. The prime Dokes that we did see, could have beaten Evander--- but it would of been close.

The prime Dokes who could not outbox Cobb, Weaver or Ocasio?

HomicideHenry wrote:The prime Dokes, who we never got to see, who never made it to a complete potential--- that version, would of beaten Holyfield and it would of been unaminous.

Yes, the fabled Dokes with a different personality. But why stop there? Let's also give him the power of Joe Louis and let's make him a bit bigger. Imagine a Wlad sized Dokes with the power of Joe Louis and the mentality Marciano. He'd be the best ever, to bad he didn't possess any of those qualities.

Exactly. I was going to respond to the other guy directly, but you covered the major points. Michael Dokes was different kind of fighter in the late 80's from the one we saw at the dawn of the decade and better suited for facing Evander, who incidentally had not fully acclimated to the division yet anyway. The Dokes who fought Coetzee, Ocasio, Cobb and Weaver was skittish, undisciplined, often careless and didn't set down on his punches to cause as much damage. It was widely known that he was regularly using drugs in those days and working with a management team that wasn't in his best interest. Michael Dokes had potential. But as the dice fell we can only chalk him up to a " coulda been" and not try and morph him into a man who was capable of beating ATG's.

hhaehre wrote: Exactly which pre-drug version of Dokes looked significantly better that the Dokes who fought Evander? Against A-level opposition I don't think I saw a better Dokes than the one who turned up for Holyfield.

The prime Dokes who could not outbox Cobb, Weaver or Ocasio?

Yes, the fabled Dokes with a different personality. But why stop there? Let's also give him the power of Joe Louis and let's make him a bit bigger. Imagine a Wlad sized Dokes with the power of Joe Louis and the mentality Marciano. He'd be the best ever, too bad he didn't possess any of those qualities.

I suppose one could make the argument that Dokes was alot like Floyd Patterson, in the sense that, Dokes became a superior fighter AFTER his title reign and after his drug addiction.

As for the other points--- Dokes did indeed outbox Cobb, Weaver, and Ocasio as he has wins against them. So you're argument, really then is, because Dokes "struggled" with those men he therefore couldn't of been a good boxer. For me, boxing isnt a simple science to figure out--- styles make fights, personalities and inner strengths vary, etc. so you cant really say "Dokes had a hard time with Weaver, therefore he couldn't beat Holyfield," because its two different styles and persons and circumstances, etc.

Take for instance... Oleg Maskaev. Here was a man who could get knocked out on national television to T-Rex Sanders, but at the same time was the perfect foil for Hasim Rahman, who kayoed Lennox Lewis. Not just once, but twice. Or for another example, Ross Purrity... here was a man who could make Tommy Morrison and Vladimir Klitschko look like crap, but at the same time lose to someone like Larry Donald. Boxing is an odd sport. You can't just assume and make blanket statements.

Dokes, for all his faults, had wins over Jimmy Young, Lucian Rodriguez, Osie Ocasio, Randall Cobb, John L. Gardner, George Chaplin, Mike Weaver. The consensus of the public was that he was a better fighter than Coetzee (who dethroned him) and this was all because of drugs. In his "comeback" he defeated lesser opposition than those he fought in the early-mid 80's and he was being written off, and then gave Holyfield one of the toughest fights of his career. He loses to Evander, ends up back on drugs, and the cycle repeats--- where in the 90's he's facing complete stiffs and manages to get fights with Ruddock and Bowe (which in my view was licensed murder) and then Dokes faded away into a life of crime, more drugs, domestic abuses, professional wrestling and prison. His story, at the end of the day, is just as heart breaking as Joe Louis's or the fictional Mountain Rivera's.

In his prime, he beat a mixed bag of guys with all kinds of styles and abilities--- but it is true he didn't beat anyone who could be considered 'near-great' or 'great'. Still, I dont think that doesnt mean Dokes wasn't capable of beating near greats or greats. What it means is, he never got the chance to really do so. By the time he did he was a recovering drug addict or was old, washed up and an echo of who he once was.