Does Andrew Tate's performance reflect poorly on kickboxing?

I didn't heard about Tate before his internet fame, but since I am watching all glory events, I have seen Sahak before knowing about his fight with Tate. Sahak for me was the elite performer - Artem is my of favourite kickboxers AT and everyone, who could force him into extra time is elite performer. And if Tate could win rounds against Sahak, he is therefore elite performer.
Maybe the problem is the definition. For me every true UFC fighter is elite performer, every top challanger of KSW, RIZIN or Octagon.
Tate probably was the best kickboxers of England in some point, and for me it is pretty good accomplishment in terms of sport and good enough to call him elite. The best sprinter in my country is elite performer for me, even if he doesn't even qualify for Olympic.
It seems we just have different uses for the word "elite". I use it very sparingly, personally -- only to describe someone who has reached or is near the zenith of their discipline, one of the best of the best. I get where you're coming from now, though.

In the context of humanity as a whole, yes Andrew Tate was an elite performer. I personally don't find that view useful, so for me I usually frame it within the context of that sport and its history. Some random guy fighting on KSW could likely beat up 99% of people in a street fight, but that doesn't tell me much. Looking at that same guy within the context of his sport will tell you much more about his actual skill relative to other practitioners. This sort of disagreement over the meanings of words like "elite" / judgements of skill is one of the many reasons the Elo rating system was developed, funny enough.
 
It seems we just have different uses for the word "elite". I use it very sparingly, personally -- only to describe someone who has reached or is near the zenith of their discipline, one of the best of the best. I get where you're coming from now, though.

In the context of humanity as a whole, yes Andrew Tate was an elite performer. I personally don't find that view useful, so for me I usually frame it within the context of that sport and its history. Some random guy fighting on KSW could likely beat up 99% of people in a street fight, but that doesn't tell me much. Looking at that same guy within the context of his sport will tell you much more about his actual skill relative to other practitioners. This sort of disagreement over the meanings of words like "elite" / judgements of skill is one of the many reasons the Elo rating system was developed, funny enough.
So question is if somebody in the Chess with elo over 2500 is elite for you or no. For me - yeah, very much
 
I would call super GMs (2700+) the elites
For me being GM means being absolute elite, you are the grande scene. 1800-2000 means you have put quite an effort into sport and you are good at amateur level,.
And Tate was there. If there would be a politician, who is GM, i wouldnt say - no he is scrub, he never became world champ. I would count being elite chess player as a fact in his biography.
And same about Tate - for me he was elite kickboxer, one of the very best in the world. Doesn't matter if it is top10, top20 or top50.
For me stars of my national basketball league are still elite players, even if noone of them is in top1000 of the world and never ever as even close.
 
For me being GM means being absolute elite, you are the grande scene. 1800-2000 means you have put quite an effort into sport and you are good at amateur level,.
And Tate was there. If there would be a politician, who is GM, i wouldnt say - no he is scrub, he never became world champ. I would count being elite chess player as a fact in his biography.
And same about Tate - for me he was elite kickboxer, one of the very best in the world. Doesn't matter if it is top10, top20 or top50.
For me stars of my national basketball league are still elite players, even if noone of them is in top1000 of the world and never ever as even close.
Erm...being a basketball player in the UK would not make you elite. I mean that is great they are elite to you, but the wider basketball community would not consider them elite.

Being a professional doesn't mean you are elite. It would be weird to call the worst player on the worst NBA team an elite, people would think you are silly, even though playing in the NBA does mean you are an incredible basketball player (far above that of a UK player for example).

Kickboxing, which has way less levels than basketball has something similar. Andrew Tate was very good at amateur kickboxing. He has solid accomplishments in Full Contact.

In prize fighting, K1 style kickboxing, the most mainstream form that most kickboxing and prizefighting fans associate with, he is not elite. Enfusion is a mid tier promotion (as in, at the very least a full tier below the top promotions in KB), and he fought there in its infancy when it had just started.

He was not much of an alumni for Showtime, he only had one fight there (which he lost). He was pretty much brought in on his accomplishments in enfusion and ISKA (which is not even the best amateur body). It's not like he fought up the rankings of Showtime, he was given a title shot because they needed guys around that size to fight for their belt.


Tate came at a time when weight classes were starting to organize and stabilize off of the ashes of the original K1's death which revolved too heavily around heavyweights. Tate was not a serious threat to the best fighters in the world at any point.


If you just call any fighter that has some ranked success elite, then you are essentially saying they are the same level as the very best guys. Kevin Holland and GSP can both be called elite (using your standard), but using that terminology you would think they are the same level.


And again, most of his accomplishments are in Full-Contact. While that is colloquially called kickboxing, it is basically a different sport from K1. He has not done much in K1 style at all.


Tate has close to no fights in any elite org, and no wins in any elite org (unless you want to count his win in K1 vs China which he did not fight someone even in K1). He is an amateur kickboxer.
 
Last edited:
Also Tate's record on wikipedia is 76-9 is pretty dubious. Probably based on his own word. His recorded record is 32-8. So according to him he only lost once in his other 44 fights of which there are no records.
When you combine this with losing to nearly every good fighter he fought and obvious flaws in his kickboxing fundamentals. I.e bad head positioning, pulling out of exchanges with his head held high.
Its pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about combat sports that he was not elite.
The sorts of fundamental mistakes Tate makes multiple times in a round. Someone like Marat Grigorian wouldn't make once in hours of footage.
 
Bottom line is this is about conditioning, without that you cant do much good, whats that quote about fatigue makes cowards of us all, I suppose in Tate's case you cant say he didnt at least test himself which is more than most men could say. Pretty much the only redeeming thing you can say about the performance was that he did show the warrior spirit in taking a beating at the end.
 
Last edited:
Being a professional doesn't mean you are elite. It would be weird to call the worst player on the worst NBA team an elite, people would think you are silly, even though playing in the NBA does mean you are an incredible basketball player (far above that of a UK player for example).


Kickboxing, which has way less levels than basketball has something similar. Andrew Tate was very good at amateur kickboxing. He has solid accomplishments in Full Contact.

In prize fighting, K1 style kickboxing, the most mainstream form that most kickboxing and prizefighting fans associate with, he is not elite. Enfusion is a mid tier promotion (as in, at the very least a full tier below the top promotions in KB), and he fought there in its infancy when it had just started.

He was not much of an alumni for Showtime, he only had one fight there (which he lost). He was pretty much brought in on his accomplishments in enfusion and ISKA (which is not even the best amateur body). It's not like he fought up the rankings of Showtime, he was given a title shot because they needed guys around that size to fight for their belt.


Tate came at a time when weight classes were starting to organize and stabilize off of the ashes of the original K1's death which revolved too heavily around heavyweights. Tate was not a serious threat to the best fighters in the world at any point.


If you just call any fighter that has some ranked success elite, then you are essentially saying they are the same level as the very best guys. Kevin Holland and GSP can both be called elite (using your standard), but using that terminology you would think they are the same level.


And again, most of his accomplishments are in Full-Contact. While that is colloquially called kickboxing, it is basically a different sport from K1. He has not done much in K1 style at all.


Tate has close to no fights in any elite org, and no wins in any elite org (unless you want to count his win in K1 vs China which he did not fight someone even in K1). He is an amateur kickboxer.
I follow KB and I realise how much more niche is than any mainstream sport. Still, it is definitely sport with worldwide recognition, trained all over the globe, with multinational events. I realise, that Tate wasn't never serious top1, WC or anything like it. Still, he was profilic fighter, who fought at venues all over the world, as a fighter as close to being pro, as it is possible in sport like this.
I call GSP and Holland many words, that put them on that same level. Like human. Both of them are humans. Both of them lives in NA, so both of them I can call inhibatans of NA. They are both men. And they are both elite fighters as both of them competed at the highest level as a prizefighters in the best MMA organisation. Still I can use other words to differ them - only one of GOAT candidate, other is mediocre for the standard of UFC eventfiller. Just because I use one words, that covers both of them, doesn't mean I can't use other to differ. Both of them are elite. Only of them was one of the best.

And back to the topic - as I don't follow much Tate and I have only seen his fight with Sahak, the difference between this and the terrible fight with Demoor is bemusing and begs to ask what happened, because someone with ~25 years background in combat sports, still fit and muscled and quite young(Usyk is one month younger) shouldn't be so bad. I mean - it was shitty like white collar boxing or first step.
 
Back
Top