REMEMBER 'BIG' JOHN TATE?

[drunkenpiper36]

Well... He'd be competing with the likes of guys like Kubrat Pulev, Tyson Fury and Tomasz Adamek for that second place spot, so I suppose its not too far fetched.

[The Great John L]

Well... He'd be competing with the likes of guys like Kubrat Pulev, Tyson Fury and Tomasz Adamek for that second place spot, so I suppose its not too far fetched.

Yep, that was my thought. Fury wouldn't make it to the 5th round against Tate, Pulev would be a tough matchup for him, but I think Adamek has been in a slow decline. There might be others active today who are better than Tate, but since they as a division never fight each other it's pretty hard to tell.

[drunkenpiper36]

I don't know that much about john tate, but he was a big guy who might have had the type of size and style to take advantage of the current scene. His chin would always be a problem in any era of hard hitters though.

[The Great John L]

I don't know that much about john tate, but he was a big guy who might have had the type of size and style to take advantage of the current scene. His chin would always be a problem in any era of hard hitters though.

Well there aren't many current proven big punchers, so I think he'd be OK as along as he didn't fight Wlad. Since he survived Knoetze and Coetzee I don't think there are too many active now who would pose much of a problem.

[drunkenpiper36]

I don't know that much about john tate, but he was a big guy who might have had the type of size and style to take advantage of the current scene. His chin would always be a problem in any era of hard hitters though.

Well there aren't many current proven big punchers, so I think he'd be OK as along as he didn't fight Wlad. Since he survived Knoetze and Coetzee I don't think there are too many active now who would pose much of a problem.

ok.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I don't know that much about john tate, but he was a big guy who might have had the type of size and style to take advantage of the current scene. His chin would always be a problem in any era of hard hitters though.

His chin was fine. Better than Wlad's.

[drunkenpiper36]

Maybe. But Wlad at least knows how NOT to get hit. Kind of important.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Wlad's a better fighter. I just disagree that his chin would be an issue today. Even when he got brutalized by Stevenson in the Olympics he took a ton of right hands and I don't think he went down(might have).

Wlad also has the luxury of fighting woeful competition. He'd have his hands full with Mike Weaver.

[drunkenpiper36]

Wlad's a better fighter. I just disagree that his chin would be an issue today. Even when he got brutalized by Stevenson in the Olympics he took a ton of right hands and I don't think he went down(might have).

Wlad also has the luxury of fighting woeful competition. He'd have his hands full with Mike Weaver.

Tate fought a myriad of heavy hitters. But most of them didn't last long enough to land much clean on him. Coetzee was a big puncher later in his career after he had surgery on his right hand. Before that his power was average which was when Tate fought him. Weaver was a moderately hard hitter and KO'd john. Dito Trevor Berbick. I won't call John Tate's chin glass but nor was it proven to be granite. As for today's opposition, I'd pick him to beat Tony Thompson, Chris Areola, Alexander Povetkin and a few others. Adamek would be tricky. Fury is clumsy but also very big and powerful. Not sure about the rest.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Wlad's a better fighter. I just disagree that his chin would be an issue today. Even when he got brutalized by Stevenson in the Olympics he took a ton of right hands and I don't think he went down(might have).

Wlad also has the luxury of fighting woeful competition. He'd have his hands full with Mike Weaver.

Tate fought a myriad of heavy hitters. But most of them didn't last long enough to land much clean on him. Coetzee was a big puncher later in his career after he had surgery on his right hand. Before that his power was average which was when Tate fought him. Weaver was a moderately hard hitter and KO'd john. Dito Trevor Berbick. I won't call John Tate's chin glass but nor was it proven to be granite. As for today's opposition, I'd pick him to beat Tony Thompson, Chris Areola, Alexander Povetkin and a few others. Adamek would be tricky. Fury is clumsy but also very big and powerful. Not sure about the rest.

Tate fought Coetzee after his surgery and Weaver was a very big puncher, nothing moderate about it.

[drunkenpiper36]

Wlad's a better fighter. I just disagree that his chin would be an issue today. Even when he got brutalized by Stevenson in the Olympics he took a ton of right hands and I don't think he went down(might have).

Wlad also has the luxury of fighting woeful competition. He'd have his hands full with Mike Weaver.

Tate fought a myriad of heavy hitters. But most of them didn't last long enough to land much clean on him. Coetzee was a big puncher later in his career after he had surgery on his right hand. Before that his power was average which was when Tate fought him. Weaver was a moderately hard hitter and KO'd john. Dito Trevor Berbick. I won't call John Tate's chin glass but nor was it proven to be granite. As for today's opposition, I'd pick him to beat Tony Thompson, Chris Areola, Alexander Povetkin and a few others. Adamek would be tricky. Fury is clumsy but also very big and powerful. Not sure about the rest.

Tate fought Coetzee after his surgery and Weaver was a very big puncher, nothing moderate about it.

Weaver hit hard, but he was no knock out artist and neither was Coetzee. I don't think either of those guys hit harder than Purity, Sanders or Brewster. Wlad also took hard shots from Sam Peter and several others.

[The Great John L]

Tate fought Coetzee after his surgery and Weaver was a very big puncher, nothing moderate about it.

Absolutely. Probably as hard a hitter as any active HW, with the possible exception of the unproven Wilder.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Tate fought a myriad of heavy hitters. But most of them didn't last long enough to land much clean on him. Coetzee was a big puncher later in his career after he had surgery on his right hand. Before that his power was average which was when Tate fought him. Weaver was a moderately hard hitter and KO'd john. Dito Trevor Berbick. I won't call John Tate's chin glass but nor was it proven to be granite. As for today's opposition, I'd pick him to beat Tony Thompson, Chris Areola, Alexander Povetkin and a few others. Adamek would be tricky. Fury is clumsy but also very big and powerful. Not sure about the rest.

Tate fought Coetzee after his surgery and Weaver was a very big puncher, nothing moderate about it.

Weaver hit hard, but he was no knock out artist and neither was Coetzee. I don't think either of those guys hit harder than Purity, Sanders or Brewster. Wlad also took hard shots from Sam Peter and several others.

Weaver hit a lot harder than you're giving him credit for. Genuine one punch KO guy. As for Gerrie, he could also bang. You brought him up, I just corrected you on your surgery statement. So now that you were wrong about the timing he wasn't a big puncher?

Not sure what that has to do with anything involving today's crop. They were better fighters than anyone you listed, so was Tate.

[drunkenpiper36]

Weaver hit a lot harder than you're giving him credit for. Genuine one punch KO guy. As for Gerrie, he could also bang. You brought him up, I just corrected you on your surgery statement. So now that you were wrong about the timing he wasn't a big puncher?

Not sure what that has to do with anything involving today's crop. They were better fighters than anyone you listed, so was Tate.

I would describe Coetzee and Weaver as guys who could "crack." I wouldn't describe them as knockout artists. You seem to place every body on either one end of the spectrum or the other with no middle. As for my comment about comparing them to the fighters of today, I was responding to the other guy who said that Tate would beat everyone in the current top 10 except for Wlad. My reply to that is " maybe." And incidentally, Coetzee had surgery on his hand on at least three different occasions. Not sure when they all were in relation to the tate fight, or which surgery exactly led to his power improving..

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Weaver hit a lot harder than you're giving him credit for. Genuine one punch KO guy. As for Gerrie, he could also bang. You brought him up, I just corrected you on your surgery statement. So now that you were wrong about the timing he wasn't a big puncher?

Not sure what that has to do with anything involving today's crop. They were better fighters than anyone you listed, so was Tate.

I would describe Coetzee and Weaver as guys who could "crack." I wouldn't describe them as knockout artists. You seem to place every body on either one end of the spectrum or the other with no middle. As for my comment about comparing them to the fighters of today, I was responding to the other guy who said that Tate would beat everyone in the current top 10 except for Wlad. My reply to that is " maybe." And incidentally, Coetzee had surgery on his hand on at least three different occasions. Not sure when they all were in relation to the tate fight, or which surgery exactly led to his power improving..

You said Gerrie was a big puncher, that's a direct quote. When he stopped Spinks the fight before Tate was when the whole Bionic Hand stuff caught fire. As for my placing guys on either end of the spectrum, that's just silly. Weaver was a very big puncher. He wasn't Shavers or Foreman, but he definitely hit as hard, if not harder, and was more skilled than Purity, Sanders, Brewster & Peter.

[drunkenpiper36]

You said Gerrie was a big puncher, that's a direct quote.

Guy who can crack = big puncher.

When he stopped Spinks the fight before Tate was when the whole Bionic Hand stuff caught fire.

Fair enough

As for my placing guys on either end of the spectrum, that's just silly.

But you do.

Weaver was a very big puncher.

He could crack

He wasn't Shavers or Foreman,

Whom I classify as " very big punchers." Weaver doesn't make that fraternity.

but he definitely hit as hard, if not harder, and was more skilled than Purity, Sanders, Brewster & Peter.

I don't recall bringing skill into the argument and frankly I don't know what you'd use to validate that he hit as hard or harder. Those guys all had higher KO percentages and on average stopped larger men. Does that mean they hit harder? not necessarily. But looking at those things is at least a better attempt at forming a theory than just arbitrarily throwing the claim out there that Weaver " hit as hard or harder."

[SaadOffTheDeck]

KO% is the last thing I would look at to determine if a guy was a puncher. I use my eyes and knowledge of their opposition. Anybody with eyes that has watched them fight, knows that Mike Weaver was minimally in that category of a puncher.

Now we're going from big puncher to very big puncher? What is your point?

Edit: And that's the last time I'll bother reading a post broken down line by line.

[drunkenpiper36]

="SaadOffTheDeck"]KO% is the last thing I would look at to determine if a guy was a puncher. I use my eyes and knowledge of their opposition. Anybody with eyes that has watched them fight, knows that Mike Weaver was minimally in that category of a puncher.

I've seen those guys fight too. And well aware of their opposition. You have no special edge there. If you think that Carl Williams, John Tate, Bernardo Mercado, and johnny Duplooy had anything special in the durability department over a lot of the guys who the other mentioned fighters beat, then by all means share the wealth.. I stand by what I said. Weaver could crack.. That's it.

Now we're going from big puncher to very big puncher? What is your point?

You've already proved it for me. That for you, guys are either on one end of the spectrum or the other.

[drunkenpiper36]

Oh wait, I forgot to ad my emoticon.......

That seems to validate people's points around here.

[The Great John L]

I don't recall bringing skill into the argument and frankly I don't know what you'd use to validate that he hit as hard or harder. Those guys all had higher KO percentages and on average stopped larger men. Does that mean they hit harder? not necessarily. But looking at those things is at least a better attempt at forming a theory than just arbitrarily throwing the claim out there that Weaver " hit as hard or harder."

Certainly a reasonable way to look at it. However Weaver fought Bonecrusher, Holmes, Coetzee, Mercado, Tillis, Howard Smith (back to back to start his career), both Bobicks, Stan Ward, Leroy Jones, Tate, LeDoux, Dokes, Carl Williams, Ruddock, etc. Essentially he fought just about all the top HWs from two generations of fighters and many of them multiple times. While his KO % may not look like much, he fought more top HWs than "those guys" yoiu mentioned put together. And then some. In fact, it's probably safe to sat that Weaver fought more quality HWs than all but a few HWs of the past 50 years.

As you mentioned, there is no way to tell who hit harder, so it's possible those guys hit harder. I just have a hard time accepting it because it's hard to find many quality opponents on those guys resumes not named Wlad.

In my book, there is no substitute for facing the best. And while Weaver lost many of those fights against the top guys, he also delivered on more than a few occasions.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Oh wait, I forgot to ad my emoticon.......

That seems to validate people's points around here.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I don't recall bringing skill into the argument and frankly I don't know what you'd use to validate that he hit as hard or harder. Those guys all had higher KO percentages and on average stopped larger men. Does that mean they hit harder? not necessarily. But looking at those things is at least a better attempt at forming a theory than just arbitrarily throwing the claim out there that Weaver " hit as hard or harder."

Certainly a reasonable way to look at it. However Weaver fought Bonecrusher, Holmes, Coetzee, Mercado, Tillis, Howard Smith (back to back to start his career), both Bobicks, Stan Ward, Leroy Jones, Tate, LeDoux, Dokes, Carl Williams, Ruddock, etc. Essentially he fought just about all the top HWs from two generations of fighters and many of them multiple times. While his KO % may not look like much, he fought more top HWs than "those guys" yoiu mentioned put together. And then some. In fact, it's probably safe to sat that Weaver fought more quality HWs than all but a few HWs of the past 50 years.

As you mentioned, there is no way to tell who hit harder, so it's possible those guys hit harder. I just have a hard time accepting it because it's hard to find many quality opponents on those guys resumes not named Wlad.

In my book, there is no substitute for facing the best. And while Weaver lost many of those fights against the top guys, he also delivered on more than a few occasions.

Using KO% as a barometer could lead one to assume Hector Camacho punched harder than Ike Williams or that Vitali is a big puncher.

[drunkenpiper36]

I don't recall bringing skill into the argument and frankly I don't know what you'd use to validate that he hit as hard or harder. Those guys all had higher KO percentages and on average stopped larger men. Does that mean they hit harder? not necessarily. But looking at those things is at least a better attempt at forming a theory than just arbitrarily throwing the claim out there that Weaver " hit as hard or harder."

Certainly a reasonable way to look at it. However Weaver fought Bonecrusher, Holmes, Coetzee, Mercado, Tillis, Howard Smith (back to back to start his career), both Bobicks, Stan Ward, Leroy Jones, Tate, LeDoux, Dokes, Carl Williams, Ruddock, etc. Essentially he fought just about all the top HWs from two generations of fighters and many of them multiple times. While his KO % may not look like much, he fought more top HWs than "those guys" yoiu mentioned put together. And then some. In fact, it's probably safe to sat that Weaver fought more quality HWs than all but a few HWs of the past 50 years.

As you mentioned, there is no way to tell who hit harder, so it's possible those guys hit harder. I just have a hard time accepting it because it's hard to find many quality opponents on those guys resumes not named Wlad.

In my book, there is no substitute for facing the best. And while Weaver lost many of those fights against the top guys, he also delivered on more than a few occasions.

A reasonable response. He did fight better men. But then again, he didn't necessarily stop nor even beat a lot of the guys you mentioned, and some of the ones whom he DID beat were not all known for their durability. But a fair argument nonetheless.

[drunkenpiper36]

Using KO% as a barometer could lead one to assume Hector Camacho punched harder than Ike Williams or that Vitali is a big puncher.

Knowing you, Vitali is probably at the other end of the spectrum as a feather fisted pussy then, right?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Using KO% as a barometer could lead one to assume Hector Camacho punched harder than Ike Williams or that Vitali is a big puncher.

Knowing you, Vitali is probably at the other end of the spectrum as a feather fisted pussy then, right?