Larry Holmes vs. John Tate WBC/WBA unification.

Actually, Tate was training to take on Larry in '83, despite being long past it an he didn't deserve a shot. He got hurt in training and pulled out. It wouldn't have mattered much anyway though. If they had fought in '83 Larry still had enough left, would have dominated Tate, who was overweight and stopped him by the 8th. Had they fought in '79 or '80 I'm sure it would be a close boxing match but with Larry ultimately coming out with a decision.

 

It didn't happen for a couple of reasons. The first of course was Mike Weaver's left hook. Tate and Holmes were going to take some "easy" defenses and hopefully unify in the fall. The second was Muhammad Ali's comeback. A bout against Ali would bring in far bigger purses, I'd guess, than a unification fight. If Tate had beaten Weaver, Tate-Ali was on for a few months down the line. Assuming Tate wins, I'd bet that Tate-Holmes would be fast-tracked for the first half of 1981.

 

I think the April 6, 1984 Reno Holmes fight falling through did irreversible damage to Tate's psyche. He didn't fight for two years, and in the few remaining fights of his career his heart didn't seem to be in it.

 

I think Mike permanently ruined Tate, but Berbick applied the coup-de-grace. Just cuz Tate lost to Weaver, there was still a belief that Tate would be a good fighter still, but Berbick ensured that he would never make it big ever again.

 

Tate fought so many wasted years after the two KO losses to Weaver and Berbick, fighing 8 more and facing nobody. He should have retired in '83 imo. Better to be a fading but decent memory rather than a guy who spends yrs. fighting in a division, probably hoping to get the title back when it's obvious he never will. Just like Saad, Tate wasted a lot of yrs. fighting.

 

Definitely. But at least in 81-83 Tate was still trying. He wasn't impressive but he was trying. After the Holmes fight was cancelled he stopped trying.

 

Tate's management gets a lot of flack. But people don't remember that, going in, Berbick was a safe opponent who didn't have an impressive record - losing by KO to Bernardo Mercado, drawing with Leroy Caldwell, and pulling out a split decision against a 5-13 opponent in March. Tate's management thought it best to get Tate back on the horse against a safe opponent right away. Seems reasonable.

That didn't work, so they took several months off, then took on several safe opponents, who all had winning records, some in cable TV fights, including Caldwell and the regarded Donnie Long (13-1 going in). They worked Tate into a title shot in early 1984. Perhaps there should have been one or two bigger names, but management did keep him active, winning, and got him that shot. When the title shot fell through, Tate stopped caring. When he stopped caring, yes, he should have retired.

 

If a mega fight would have happened, Larry Holmes would have been the odds on favorite to unify the belts. Larry was in peak form. he had absorbed the bombs of Earnie Shavers in 1979, and those of Mike Hercules Weaver, that same year. Big John Tate did have that impressive win over Coetzee but that was it. his management would have arranged some soft touches leading up to a big fight against Larry. Larry would box Tate from a distance using mobility, a very stiff left jab, and a crisp right hand counter. John Tate worn from absorbing such punishment would try to rally but gets caught in round 9 by a Holmes right hand that seals the deal, putting Tate on the seat of his pants, thus ending the contest.

 

I believe it’s in Four Kings as a side note, Don King tried to sign John Tate and was rebuffed. So when he signed to fight Trevor Berbick on the undercard of Leonard-Duran I in Montreal, King signed Berbick and set up a world-class training camp, brought in world-class sparring and the result was Tate getting taken out.

 

As how the fight goes, I think you nailed it.

But I think Tate was brought up pretty well. Prior to 1979 he fought undefeated Walter Santemore, undefeated future contender Eddie Lopez, undefeated undefeated future contender Bernardo Mercado, and former contender Johnny Boudreaux before facing Duane Bobick. Also, most of his opponents throughout his career had winning records. And that Bobick win made a statement. Kallie Knoetze was a good test, too.

No, I don't think, going in, that Larry Holmes would've been a big favorite in a unification against Tate (assuming he scored a convincing win against Mike Weaver, which was a certainty until the last minute.). I think the odds would've been close to even. Undefeated Tate, with his streak of top-ten competition? Or undefeated Holmes, who really had no wins of note to that point except for a close call against Norton and a trial by fire bout that shouldn't have been against Earnie Shavers? Tate-Holmes could've been a big fight.

 

That's about it, though I think it's possible Tate MIGHT have gotten up, Larry would have just unleashed his usual rain-of-right-hands in the corner until the ref stopped it. No way Tate makes it to the 10th round.

 

Mike Weaver doing the coldcock business to John Tate made this fight never happen. If they had fought like early 1981, I think Larry would pull out a close decision, 9-6, or 8-7. Larry's definitely the better boxer, but John is not a slouch, and would have his moments. Can't see Larry stopping John, maybe stunning him a couple of times, but that's it.

 

Though Larry didn't hit as hard as Weaver, he would have been just too good overall for Tate. Larry would have taken a few rounds to find the mark, but be in total control in 5, and then overwhelmed John with multiple right hands, stopping the bigger man in the 10th.

I just can't see Tate going the distance with prime Holmes. Just me.

 

Pretty much what I said lol.