Larry Holmes .vs. John Tate unification match.

Holmes uses his jab and superior boxing ability to take a hardfought 15 round decision.He probably was at least a step and a half above Tate.If the bout happened around late 80, or early 81, provided Tate had remained champion up until that time, it would be a fight.

 

A very good bout, and one that unfortunately never happened, due to Tate dropping in the closing seconds of a fight that he was winning handedly. A unification between an undefeated John Tate and a reigning Holmes would have enhanced the legacy of the winner to astronomic proportions.

As for who would have won? I'd go with Holmes by late stoppage or wide decision.. In 1980, nobody was beating Holmes, and few could take him to the cards... Tate had good athleticism and reasonably good boxing ability, but Holmes surpassed him in these areas, as well as in the durability department.. Tate might have taken a few of the early rounds, and maybe a few in between, but by round 9, Larry would be in control... Shame this fight never happened, because a unification match against a prime undefeated titlist, would have boosted Holme's legacy....

 

It did not take a huge slugger to stop Tate as proved by Berbick ... While his collaspe after Weaver was swift Tate was never in Holmes League ... Larry was much faster and simply much better .. Larry would have stopped him in eight or so ...

 

Tate got ruined in the Weaver fight but this was a on-high Weaver in all fairness and a better version Weaver than the 19-8 Weaver that lost to Holmes. Fights can make you and break you. Big John was coming off some big wins and Holmes did not have the punch to crack Big John...Tate may have been my favorite to win at this point in time but he was a shot-confidence fighter by the time he got to Berbick.....This could go either way IMO

 

John had stamina, skills, and tremendous strength, with the ability to box or slug. But he never fought anybody with the kind of speed Larry brought to the table. Not being gifted with extraordinary speed himself, therein lies the difference.

Holmes UD 15 Tate

 

The Weaver that fought Tate was no better than the Weaver that fought Holmes. He was properly trained for both fights ... he fought the fight of his life against a flu ridden Holmes that night in the Garden and was still flattened.

Which of Tate's big wins qualify him in your book to be favored over a prime Holmes ? It's a huge jump in class from Duane Bobick and Gerrie Coetzee to a prime Holmes. In addition, I disagree about Holmes not hitting hard enough. Tate had a questionable chin as Berbick proved. AS far as Tate being shot by the Berbick fight, nonsense. Louis came back from Schmeling. Dempsey came back from Flynn. Lewis came back from McCall and Rockman. Hearns came back from Barkley. Tate actually fought gamely v.s. Berbick, rallying several times ... he simply got beat because his ability to take punishment was always his weak link.

 

This fight would be a draw.Big John would be tremendously hyped up, given the stakes, and makes the fight of his life.Larry would be effective in spurts, but after the sixth round, his speed and jab wouldn't be making too much of a difference.Tate UD Holmes, by 9-6, or 8-7 in rounds.

 

Holmes wins easily by wide decision or late round stoppage. He did everything better than tate and was much faster. I think that the ali of 1980 would have had a much better chance of beating tate than he did of beatng holmes.

 

Like Bummy said, Weaver ruined Tate. So you can throw out the Berbick fight. I think it was only 3 months after the Weaver fight that Ace Miller put Tate in with Berbick, possibly the most moronic move ever in heavyweight boxing history.

If Tate would have gotten past Weaver unscathed he would have given Larry hell.

 

Holmes would have chopped him apart and stopped him in seven or eight rounds ... mismatch. (But you never know, Holmes was vulnerable to the right and Tate was rumored to have a right arm ... )

 

I always viewed Tate as the kind of fighter who was impressive at the lower levels, but was then increasingly "exposed" as he stepped up in competition. To his credit, he expanded his style as much as his moderate talents would allow, and that enabled him to get by Knoetze and Coetzee in the WBC tourney. With his win over Coetzee, he'd basically hit a "wall" as far as what he could accomplish at the world class level, and he never won another meaningful fight after that.

I don't agree with the poster who said the Berbick loss should just be "thrown out." Tate's performance in that fight was typical of the declining intensity and lack of resolve that were his fatal weaknesses at the world class level.

 

Bummy, you're funny. Weaver lost almost every minute of the entire fight until he landed a Hail Mary. He was outboxed and out classed the whole fight. He was no better or worse than he was for Holmes ... the difference was that Tate saw what he was capable of v.s. Holmes and did not take him lightly. In addition, he did not have the flu when he fought him.

Tate was a decent fighter but did not have the chin. Berbick did not hit any harder than Holmes and he flattened him. Holmes would have chopped him to pieces and stopped him similar to Leroy Jones.... Larry was way too fast and way too good for Big John.

Perhaps you can tell me who John Tate ever defeated that lends your statement that he would defeat a prime Holmes any credibility ...

 

So Weaver ruined him but getting destroyed by Stevenson in the Olympics didn't ? Love these revisionists ... the reality was Tate got hit too much and lacked the ability to absorb big shots ... a single one from Stevenson or Weaver or a multitude from a clubbing Berbick or a sharp shooting Holmes , it does nto matter .. Big John was courageous but limited. He could deal with a plodding Knoetze or Bobick or even a limited Coetzee but fast guys like Stevenson of a Holmes would have destroyed him ... with Mike it simply took one shot but Weaver was a tremendous puncher.