REMEMBER 'BIG' JOHN TATE?

[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?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not sure why you're so upset. You called Weaver a moderately big puncher and I disagreed. Vitali is a solid puncher, right in with the guys we have been discussing.

[drunkenpiper36]

I'm not sure why you're so upset. You called Weaver a moderately big puncher and I disagreed. Vitali is a solid puncher, right in with the guys we have been discussing.

Ok

[drunkenpiper36]

if Tate were in his prime now he would be the second best active HW.

Giving this a second thought.. I'm not sure that I'm ready to agree with the notion that if Wladimir Klitschko retired tomorrow, that a prime John Tate would be undisputed heavyweight champ of the world, which is a different way of putting what you just said. from what I can see of John Tate both on film and via record, he was a decent big man with good potential and achieved a few things including getting a bronze medal and capturing an alphabet strap. But whatever prime he had was very short and his resume slim. Gerrie Coetzee was the only real fighter of note whom he beat, given that Mercado and Bobick weren't really that good. And as far as top heavys of that generation go, Coetzee was probably on the lower end of the list. Getting KO'd by Weaver and a very Green Trevor Berbick, then fading into anonymity doesn't help his case much. Furthermore after studying his record, his weight was constantly all over the place, suggesting possible inconsistencies in his training and dietary regimens. I won't get into a debate with premonitions on who he'd beat or lose to. I just don't think the man was built for the long haul..

[drunkenpiper36]

Bob Arum

Saturday Night - August 26, 1978

Bob Arum got 'Big' John Tate a Television Bout at 'The Summit' in Houston, Texas against one-time Heavyweight
Prospect - 26 year-old Johnny Boudreaux of Houston.

John at 14-0-0 {12 KO's} was expected to steam-roll 'Johnny B' who was 21-4-1 {7 KO's}. Johnny Boudreaux
was fading fast after losing '4 of 6', after going 19-0-1 thru June 1976.

23 1/2 year-old Tate {228 lbs.} looked lethargic in this bout, and fought disinterested against a smaller and
weaker {215 lbs.} Boudreaux.

Duce, was Boudreaux any good?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He wasn't anything special. About a Kevin Johnson level guy.

[drunkenpiper36]

Johnny 'Johnny B' Boudreaux'

Was a 'Hell' of a Texas Amateur Light-Heavyweight. Won a bunch of Regional Titles, and had a record of
116-4 as an Amateur thru 1972.

* Started boxing in 1965 {Age; 13}.
* Extremely fast-hands, and very smart.
* As an Amateur Light-Heavyweight, was tall at 6' 2" and 178 lbs.
* Grew into a Heavyweight during 1972.

* Was backed by Robert Bish {An Executive with Sears Roebuck, Inc.}.
* At {Age; 20 years, 7 months} ~ Turned Professional in February 1973.

Was 'highly-regarded' when he got started, and was expected to make a 'mark' in the Heavyweight Division
by the end of 1975, primarily because of his 'lightning hand speed'.

Biggest problem as a Heavyweight. He was small {200 lbs.}, and did not pack any power.

Interesting stuff thanks.

[drunkenpiper36]

You are welcome 'DP 36'........

On the John Tate - Johnny Boudreaux -------'10-Round Bout'.

'Dull and Boring'

'Big John' plodded, and was way too mechanical. ~ Just a 'going-thru-the-motions' type of bout.

Minimal action, and 'Big John' showed absolutely 'nothing' in the power department.

Bob Arum provided commentary on Television, and was doing his best to build up both fighters as
Top Heavyweights.

Though the 10-Round Decision was 'Split'....... 97-94 / 95-96 / 97-95

John Tate was the clear winner by......... 97-95 {5-3-2 in Rounds Score}.

So what is your opinion of John Tate overrall? I've seen some youtube footage and have reviewed his record, but I really don't know what to make of how good or bad he was. My assumption is that he's "decent" after what I've seen and read about.

[drunkenpiper36]

DP-36

I really liked John Tate, as he was nice humble guy.

* A good boxer-puncher, but he really wasn't 'a fighter' in the true sense.
* He didn't like fighting by his own admission. But it was easier than working as a 'Garbage Man'.
* John worked for the Philadelphia Sanitation Department.

Before he fought Mike Weaver, it was a Pick-Em bout between 'Big John' and Larry Holmes
on who was better.

Bob Arum tried to build-up John Tate as a cross between 'Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali', which was
one hell of a stretch.

John Tate was a Good Heavyweight, that just got caught 'twice' in 1980.

He never fully recovered from the Mike Weaver 'one-punch' 15th Round Knockout. He had that fight in
his pocket after 12 Rounds, but he just ran out of gas.

I never knew that about Tate's past. Thanks for the info. Its true that he was winning comfortably against Weaver before the KO. He might have given Holmes a decent fight.

[drunkenpiper36]

Big John Tate

* Would have probably beaten either WBA Champion's - Leon Spinks or Muhammad Ali in 1978.
* In October 1979 > Following his win over Gerrie Coetzee, was equal to WBC Champion - Larry Holmes.

* Was beating Mike Weaver, and was handling him much better than Larry Holmes did, until,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Article from July 20, 1976

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ZkOkpUcZZA

In truth I think there were a few top heavys in 1978 who would have likely beaten both Leon Spinks and Muhammad Ali - Ken Norton, Larry Holmes, John Tate and perhaps even Coetzee to name a few. Tate had talent and some useful physical tools. He just seemed to lack the mental staying power. But then again, I'm not an expert on Big John.

[Dubblechin]

John Tate vs. Johnny Boudreaux
Aug. 26, 1978
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIEK_J87Lro

[Cap]

John Tate was a pretty decent heavyweight. I recall watching his battle with Coetzee. It was outside and it started raining. Everytime Coetzee nailed Tate with a good shot and tried to follow up, he slipped on the wet canvas. Tate eventually won on points. As for the Weaver fight, he had it in the bag but started to tire and left himself open to a hail-mary punch from Weaver that probably would have starched anyone but the very best. After that I only remember his kayo loss in Montreal to the big bull Trevor Berbick. Trev just kept crowding Tate and finally got to him in the 9th round.

I think fighting today, Tate would probably do pretty well. Likely a top ten ranking at least.