Hello, I'm shot.

You will confuse many people if you ask questions like this.

According to the majority of ESB, you are either Shot or not.

I once made a thread asking members to justify their theories.

It was not a large thread.

 

If you watch the first fight, you will see Eric Morales taking bombs throughout, including the 12th round in which he chose to trade with Pac while in a southpaw stance.

In the 3rd fight, his balance is noticably absent, and he is able to take very little punishment in comparison.

By confusing correlation and causation, I assume your asking me if you can just as soon attribute the quiker KO of Morales to an improved Pac, rather than make a correlation between his being shot and not being able to take a punch anymore. My answer is no, given the fact that:

A) Morales could always take a punch (see the Barerra wars)
B) He lost to Barrera, beat Pac, then lost to Raheem, and Pac 2 times (highlight his subsequent losses and especialy his loss to Raheem here).
C) His affect in the 3rd fight. I know a shot fighter when I see one. Your first sign is a lack of balance and equilibrium, and Morales was no exeption.

Thats my take, anyways.

 

Good to have you on board:good

 

Welcome to ESB. :good

 

Could he have taken that shot in his prime? No of course he couldn't. Would Hatton have landed that punch when Castillo was in his prime? Probably not, but the way Castillo's right arm was high leaving his body completely exposed was not because he was shot. It was simply a bad mistake

 

Fair post.

 

Its a well recognised fact that when a fighter is shot, that their abilty to evade punches and to take punches diminishes.

I think that you may be right