Michael Dokes is dead.

Nope. At the time of the Dokes fight, Holyfield was undefeated and hadn't come close to losing a fight since the first Qawi fight - in Holyfield's 11th pro fight. Dokes was supposed to just be another stepping stone on the way to a title shot with Tyson and was supposed to have been handled in the same way that Quick Tillis & Pinklon Thomas were. Dokes wasn't expected to be competitive, but he was...even at that stage of his career.

As usual, you are underrating Holyfield. No big surprise there. Anything to knock down other fighters for the benefit of the Klitshckos. Same old, same old.

 

Ugh. Double talk doesn't make Sanders any better.

 

It really isn't. But that won't stop the Klitschko faithful from doing so.

 

Yes, and prior to Holyfield being defeated, Qawi had given him all he could handle. And after he got more than he could handle, and found himself defeated, Moorer, Czyz, Bowe {again, twice in fact} and others besides went on to give him "all that he could handle", and then some.

The statement {that Evander had as many hard nights as he did easy ones,}stands alone, and speaks for itself. It should not require any further comment for me, nor would it require extra research on the behalf of anyone with even a passing knowledge of Evander's career.

 

Wlad Very Well May Have Beaten Dokes, but that DOESN'T Automatically Make Brewster BETTER Than Dokes...He WASN'T:nono:...

Perhaps McDogg Can Post in Some Type of Irish Jibberish, so that U'll Understand...



REED:dancingBaby:

 

Doubletalk? :dunno:

Just for what it is worth, I would regard Chris Byrd as a "More skillful boxer" than Dokes.

I can't see Byrd getting blasted out by Coetzee....and for that matter, the only version of Byrd that Ruddock blasts out early is the 175lb version. That's the 175lb version from 2007, not 1997.

 

Dokes was a flat-out better and more formidable heavyweight than Chris Byrd... as was Coetzee

 

I'd hate to have to be the guy who laundered Wald Pussy's trunks after a fight with Ruddock.

 

Good, then stop commenting because you surely are not making any sense. As usual, your lack of context is staggering.

 

Please stop. Dokes was a better fighter than Byrd. But...wait...Byrd lost to Wlad...now I get where you are going.

 

Clever use of the eye poking emoticon there. :bears: (although Brewster was only down one eye, not two)

 

here comes mikE to make some off the wall "point"

 

"poinT" :nono:

 

He was more formidable, he was not "flat-out better", let's distinguish between a "threat to a Klit" on one hand and a "better boxer" on the other.

In much the same way that Sam Peter was a more formidable opponent for Wlad but inferior in every way to Chris Byrd, whom he probably would have lost to.

Not saying Dokes would have lost to Byrd {and its not beyond the realms of possibility} but.....you see the point.

 

Dokes would have a field day with Sam Peter, Irish. Come on, man.

 

my baD

 

Cdogg said, indirectly, that the guy was a better boxer. He was not. Chris Byrd wouldn't get knocked out by Gerrie Coetzee and might even beat him.

 

:dunno:

As it happens, I don't agree, but.....that wasn't the point. My point was that Byrd was a better boxer than Dokes. Less formidable but more talented. That was the point, and I think its a fair one. Michael Watson was more talented than Chris Eubank but not as formidable. A bum with power, especially at 200+ is often more formidable than an underpowered but more-talented equivalent.

 

This.

As a person old enough to have watched Evander from his amateur days on, the Dokes fight was a scary, difficult, back-and-forth affair in what was supposed to be just another speed bump fight for Holy on his way to Tyson.

In some ways the Dokes fight was more tightly contested for Holyfield than the first Qawi fight. In my opinion, again as someone who watched the entire up and down and further down career of Dokes, the Holyfield fight was his absolute best moment. He showed heart, skill and that kind of reservoir of will that only comes from someone that's hit rock bottom before and is fighting to turn it all around.

Sad news and I thank him for that Holyfield fight. It was really an example of steel sharpening steel for the rest of Holyfield's career.

 

Oh I see. Holyfield had a hard night with him. He must have been legendary. I do wonder which of Evander's heart valves was malfunctioning that night, or what vitamin he had overdosed on, or what Prophet had given him a bump steer, or what prompted Victor to not answer his calls.

 

Fighters don't have to be legendary to participate in legendary fights.

Dokes-Holyfield is a great example. Buster Douglas-Tyson is another.

Dokes fought a great version of Holyfield and tested him in every way possible.

It doesn't mean much more or less than that.

 

Agreed.....Evander having a hard night with anyone usually boils down to three things

1. A styles issue.

2. Evander's not being that that naturally big, strong or powerful to begin with.

3. His decisions to trade where he ought not to.

Quite frankly, against the right fighter, Evander could dig himself a hole of Guatemalan proportions. They didn't have to be that good at all.

 

I believe he would, in fact, lose to Coetzee, and a KO is certainly possible

Chris Byrd's career highlights are a decision over a shot, old man fighting from memory and a fat, one-dimensional slug

 

I don't see how Byrd was more talented than Dokes at all

Byrd was a quick little garbage man who was cannon fodder for every solid heavyweight he ever faced

 

More than one point.

1. You're a dipshit who believes that everything related to boxing in the 80's was better than the 90's which in turn was better than the 00's which is in turn better than the 10's.

2. You have fellow dipshit supporters who also blindly follow this mantra.

3. Although this line of thinking would make boxing the only sport in the world where the participants have not only stopped improving, but regressed, that apparently provides no basis to you to reevaluate your dipshit beliefs. See point 1.

4. You've proven too many times that you are too fucking stupid to waste my time debating with.

5. There are reasons and ways to legitimately argue some of your views, but they aren't within your grasp. If someone other than you wishes to go for it, I might care.

6. Whenever a person calls someone an underachiever, it often means they have overrated the person in the first place.

7. Wlad and Vitali would have obliterated the best Dokes easily.

8. It's pretty obvious that Corrie Sanders punched significantly harder than Dokes. Who was better? Who cares.

 

Wlad Klitschko went all out against Byrd, had him down twice, threw a tonne of leather and got a decision win against Byrd. Now, you show me, offensively, where Coetzee trumps Wlad.

Speed, power, hooks, rights, the lot....Wlad has it.

Coetzee wouldn't stop Chris Byrd in a Month of Sundays. He's not Ibeabuchi and he's not Wlad.

 

It's mistaking speed for talent.

In all honesty, Byrd didn't do MANY things well. His jab was average. He had great foot speed but terrible foot work. His combinations typically ended up being arm punches. And he often kept his head up while defending.

The best version of Dokes walks right through the best version of Byrd in my opinion.

 

Broadwayjoe:

"Irish roots mythically for Black heavyweights only if it fosters Klitschko appreciation".

 

Hi Bert Cooper.

Holyfield has his pluses and minuses, but one clear minus is that rarely was able to win easy. A good losing performance against Holyfield must therefore be taken in context or Vaughn Bean is beating Mike Tyson.

 

Byrd had a chin. Let's not forget this. Of all the big, tall, right-handed guys he fought, only Wlad really teed off on him and that went the distance, and that was Safety-Last Wlad in 2000. Dokes....that's one thing. Coetzee? Since when did Coetzee get so much love?