What/Who detemines if a fighter is shot, past prime,faded

Many resons.....
-ring wars
-age
-number of fights
-weak performances against fighters he would have toyed with in his prie etc.

 

Who dettermine who is more skill full ??? Common sense!

A fighter who has 38W - 2L and has fought good names wilL always be regarded as skillfull compared to a guy with 20W - 6L fighting medicore opponents.

Yes styles make fights if we're talking only of fighters of the same caliber.:deal

On the 70% performance . . . you don't base that on just one fight . . . it should be string of 3 to 5 fights. Look at the consistency.

 

:rofl

 

If a fighter you dislike beats a great fighter, then that great defeated fighter is rationalized to be incredibly faded, to help your biatch ass cope with the reality that a fighter you dislike is on top.

Pacquiao is the perfect example.

 

I agree its more of a combination of the choices but a boxer's last couple of performances shows definitively whether they have regressed.

 

co-sign pac has done this so many times, when will people start beleiving that pac is that good and not that all his opponents are washed up or bums.:good

 

the string of performances in the months before and after the fight.

I think a good example is Kostya Tszyu vs Hatton.

120-108 over Ben Tackie, KO6 Leija, KO3 Mitchell and then he loses to Hatton. So based on that indicator he is far from shot. But then he just retires, so based on that indicator you could assume that he doesn't have the hunger he used to anymore.

So its obviously never black and white. But i'd say KT was still relatively close to his prime when Hatton beat him.

Now the biased ref is another story

 

I did not vote on above, I go by reflexes, and how they react to punches that land on them. Reflexes are very underlooked when evaluating boxers, especially aging ones.

 

Don't be a tit.

And to answer the question - you actually have to WATCH the fighters and have seen large amounts of them to decipher a genuine decline in abilities. People decline at different rates, at different ages, and some decline at a young age having had few wars, as well as many. You just have to know the fighter. There's no simplifying it.

 

Pac-tards trying to turn a subject towards him again just to stir up some ****.

Come on, for once post on a subject without trying to make it about Manny, bet you can't can you?
After 10 minutes you'll be shaking like a crack addict without his fix.

'Must......... post......something..... bout.........Manny.......'

Cry me a river boys.

 

Bert Sugar. It's all him. He makes the call. :deal

 

Several ways: The ones you mentioned are great indicators, but AGE is not necessarily a good one.

 

The newspapers usually do a good job of reporting any shot person (including fighters).

 

Seeing a fighter struggle with guys that in his prime he would have outclassed or destroyed.