BoxRec

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.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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

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..

Il Duce wrote: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?

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

Il Duce wrote: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.

Il Duce wrote: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.

Il Duce wrote: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.

Il Duce wrote: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.

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

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.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Weaver rocked him in, I believe, the 12th too. Not granite chinned, but certainly not glass. Amazing how many times you hear that term thrown around. To me a glass chin would mean as soon as you're caught on it the fight is done.

Yeah I remember Tate pretty much dominated the fight until that shot near the end of the 12th. Tate then fought much more cautiously until he got clocked with about 45 seconds left in the fight.

I'll never forget that night, Holmes/Weaver, Leonard/Green & I think it was Mustafa/Johnson. I was punished for something, so my Dad wouldn't let me watch it. I'm pretty sure it was a Monday night, and I had one of those radios with the 3 main TV channels on it so I put in my headphones and listened to the fights in bed.

I used to have one of those radios too, but I used to listen to wrestling, especially when I was going somehwere. Come to think of it, I did listen to the Michael Spinks-Jerry Celestine fight on mine back in the day.

Il Duce wrote: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

Still amazes me that he beat Michael Dokes, Greg Page, and Marvin Stinson en route to representing in the 1976 Olympics.

I've always agreed that the alphabet organizations were a tad shady when ranking fighters. but I don't know how the hell some of these guys got ranked so highly, especially in the late 70's. What was Kallie Knoetze doing with a #1 rating?

Il Duce wrote:August 1978

After Kallie Knoetze 'blitzed' Duane Bobick with 'one-punch' in Round 3 in February 1978.

The South African Publicity machine was in 'full mode'..............

They even offered Joe Frazier nearly $700,000 to come back and to fight Kallie in South Africa.

World Boxing Association + South African Cash = #1 Ranking

Yeah I figured it had to do with money. Probably the same reason why Coetzee received THREE title shots at the WBA belt, despite losing the first two, then was allowed to go 15 months defenseless without being stripped after winning it.

Coetzee earned his shots. There was much more hype behind Knoetzee and his allegedly chilling power. He was also an ex-cop that was firmly behind apartheid.

He earned his shot against Tate. Not sure about the other two.

He was a top guy for a long time. 3 shots was far from out of line. The public wanted more than that, they wanted to see him fight Holmes too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was a top guy for a long time. 3 shots was far from out of line. The public wanted more than that, they wanted to see him fight Holmes too.

I don't agree with the public, just as you don't always agree with ratings. Incidentally Holmes did sign to fight Coetzee, but Gerrie's people backed out of the deal.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was a top guy for a long time. 3 shots was far from out of line. The public wanted more than that, they wanted to see him fight Holmes too.

I don't agree with the public, just as you don't always agree with ratings. Incidentally Holmes did sign to fight Coetzee, but Gerrie's people backed out of the deal.

You don't have to agree. Nobody at the time thought Gerrie was getting too many opportunities and he certainly wasn't a cash cow.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was a top guy for a long time. 3 shots was far from out of line. The public wanted more than that, they wanted to see him fight Holmes too.

I don't agree with the public, just as you don't always agree with ratings. Incidentally Holmes did sign to fight Coetzee, but Gerrie's people backed out of the deal.

You don't have to agree. Nobody at the time thought Gerrie was getting too many opportunities and he certainly wasn't a cash cow.

He was definitely a cash cow in south Africa. And a lot of people in the US didn't think that our defending champions should have been doing business with an athlete who came from a country exercising aparthied. He deserved his shot at Tate and remained a decent contender for the remainder of the early to mid 80's

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:
I don't agree with the public, just as you don't always agree with ratings. Incidentally Holmes did sign to fight Coetzee, but Gerrie's people backed out of the deal.

You don't have to agree. Nobody at the time thought Gerrie was getting too many opportunities and he certainly wasn't a cash cow.

He was definitely a cash cow in south Africa. And a lot of people in the US didn't think that our defending champions should have been doing business with an athlete who came from a country exercising aparthied. He deserved his shot at Tate and remained a decent contender for the remainder of the early to mid 80's

He deserved all of his shots. The Weaver fight was excellent and he beat Dokes. You're obviously not overly familiar with the time frame. He definitely filled seats in South Africa, you're right about that.

I'm well aware of the fact that he beat Dokes and gave Weaver fits. That doesn't necessarily change the fact that he wasn't the most deserving challenger. The WBA is known for shit like that.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I'm well aware of the fact that he beat Dokes and gave Weaver fits. That doesn't necessarily change the fact that he wasn't the most deserving challenger. The WBA is known for poo like that.

Who was more "deserving"? I wasn't implying that you didn't know the results and it wasn't an insult. I can just tell you weren't around then and are playing catch up.