Holy looked OK before he fought Lewis. He looked even better after he fought Lewis in the first fight: the 2nd fight. Provide an equation to calculate his level of relative capability. Make the equation universal please, as I want to use it for all fights. Cheers.
It's too complicated for something like that. Especially with someone as inconsistent as Holy. He may get decked by Bert Cooper (who hit real hard no doubt) but he'd come in at his best against someone like Lewis or Tyson. Obviously Lewis made Holy look worse than he was. Facing Lewis will do that to anyone. However, for Lewis specifically, Holy rose to the occasion and prepared extra hard to be at his best - he would not have done this for almost any other fighter.
Of course only if there is no other excuse in the works. Being shot is not the one time event, its getting repeatable. So in your example Holly was never shot, his excuse to his loses is that he had some health problems during that time. Now he is back and even he lose to Ibragimov it means he is not shot but at least aged. What is god example of being shot is Morales or Gatti. However there is always desputable when the shot period starts and the best definition would be it starts in the first lost of the long serie.
Holyfield is a very tough example. The guy has had injuries, heart trouble, etc...although i do believe him when he said he went untreated for hepatitis and that's why he had such massive fluctuations in energy during fights. I think overall, the defining characteristic of being "shot" is exhibiting a noticable depletion in some physical skill...reflexes, speed, chin, or power...over a period of fights. I don't think one fight allows you to call someone shot...for example, I don't think Hagler was "past-prime" in losing to Leonard (although i thought Hagler won, anyway). But I like to think I have a good ability to spot fighters who are shot. The biggest thing is probably in the legs...a lot of fighters lose that first, and it's very noticable.
You also have to take into account the "automatic shotness reversal" that any fighter goes through if he fights either WALDO or VITLAY. For instance Mercer looked all shot to **** to me when he fought Brian Scott on the Tyson/Neilsen undercard yet was automatically promoted to being 'at his very best' when he fought WALDO. Same thing with Sanders, although he was declared 'prime' at 38 for better reasons than Mercer was. This also works with Lennox Lewis too, he had never looked in better shape than when he cheated VITLAY with his dastardly dreadlock shennanigans.
I think it goes in stages. One of my projects is to fine-tune something like this: 1) Green 2) Pre-Prime 3) Prime 4) Post-Prime 5) Declined 6) Severely Declined 7) Shot 8. Decrepit The reason there are more lower categories is because most fighters hang in well past their used-by date. Examples: Green -- self-explanatory, pick your favorite untested prospect Pre-Prime -- Dawson, Berto, Julio Prime -- Cotto, Kessler, Wladimir K., Pavlik Post-Prime -- Pacquiao (?), Mayweather (?), Calzaghe, Mormeck Declined -- Winky, ODLH, MAB, Mosley Severely Declined -- Tarver, Trinidad, Rahman Shot -- Jones, Morales, Gatti, Toney Decrepit -- Bowe And some guys obviously are difficult to place, such as Hatton (prime or post-prime?) and Jermain Taylor (ditto). People also advance through the categories at different rates, as Bernard Hopkins was able to fight at a post-prime level for many years.
I agree with you about the legs being the No. 1 indicator. I do disagree, though, that Hagler was prime against Leonard. I thought he was "post-prime" against Mugabi, then outright declined against SRL, keeping in mind that SRL was past his best as well. But reasonable minds can view things differently.
It's hard for me to say whether he showed signs of losing it against Mugabi...it was such a tough, trenchy fight...All I know is that his chin was there, and probably his power too.
You've got quite a complicated system, but I can see how that could work. I think a problem is that some people, well, quite a lot of people (especially those that only have a passing interest in boxing) overstate a fighter being 'shot'. As soon as their level of performance slips, that's it - shot to hell. For me anyway, a shot fighter is one that is truly at the end of their abilities. Can't punch, can't avoid punches, poor movement, clearly can't capitalise on openings, doesn't even seem to be able to take shots as well as he used to. That's my level of 'shot' anyway. But Holyfield is a particularly difficult one to pin down, because he's always been inconsistant. Great in Bowe II, poor in Moorer I, good in Mercer but then poor in Bowe II and Czyz. Then great in beating Tyson...it goes on. I would say that even all the way up to the Byrd fight, Holyfield looked capable...he looked good against Rahman, and while comprehensively outboxed by Byrd it was never a style match that would favour him. But when he lost to Toney and especially Donald, he really looked gone then. Instead, he has recovered some form again...albeit against a lower level of opposition. So basically...I think Holyfield must have one of the longest past-prime but pre-shot periods in recent HW history!
It aint about who you lose to, its how the fighter looks in the ring...I dont get it.... If a guy is young in his prime and fights one way, then all of a sudden he cant put two punches together and gets hit by shots that you seen him slip before with ease. Or the biggest thing of shotness in a fighter are LEGS. If a fighter is on wobbly legs without even taking solid punishment or hit with a mean punch then he is shot. The legs dont lie.