How Many Losess Make A Fighter Shot?

just one is enough ... point proved and closed

 

Last time I checked no one thought JMM ( before)or PAC (after) were shot. They realised that JMM has superior boxing skills to PAC

 

Lacy was never any good:deal

Hatton, lost to the two best fighters of this era.

 

I am not taking about my opinion and I am not trying to be an ass... just telling what I read on this board.... After JMM beat Juan Diaz the first time, some posters were saying that JMM was not the same..... they did not say that he was shot, but they were suggesting that was pretty much in decline....and that he should try to cash in before (retiring) was too late, eventhough he won the fight...

Regarding Pac, some posters are asking (you can check the threads yourself) if Pac is shot...(eventhough he won the fight as well) whether those kinds of threads are just to give a hard time to some posters or not I couldn't tell you, but those threads exist...

Now, my remarks, you quoted me on, are as an answer to the fact that many people in here, they just give their opinion many times based of thin air....nothing more, nothing less...

 

he's still prime!

 

This content is protected

 

Someone in the forum once posted, and i agree, that a fighter is shot when he starts losing to fighters he would have easily defeated in his prime.

 

you cannot tell if someone is shot by a loss . . . its more about how a fighter loses. Some fighters perform very well past their physical prime because they have the skills to compensate. I consider a fighter shot when they lose a fighter to a fighter that the would have beaten with ease at their peak and worse if they get embarrassed or KOed.

Being shot can be both a physical and/or mental thing. RJJ was shot (physical) when he dropped back down from Heavyweight and LOST to Tarver in their first fight. Tyson was shot (mental) when he lost to Douglas (death of Cus, legal troubles with Don King, divorce with givens). Neither fighter was the same after those loses. Jones fell of a cliff and tyson started to clear up some is personal issues but was never able to put his demons to rest.

 

Every fighter is different. Some fighters recover better physically and mentally from beatings, or simply age better. Styles also play a factor in a fighter's performance at older ages.

Meldrick Taylor was pretty much a shot fighter after his 2nd loss, before he turned 26. Larry Holmes wasn't really a "shot" fighter, old and declined yes, but not shot, until what, his mid 40s?

 

here we ara too quick with that label. one or two losses or one bad performance. But in boxing, ITS NEVER TOO LATE, YOU CAN BE "SHOT" and beat a few ranked contenders and a undeafeated fighter by ko and your back to the top again !!

 

When a fighter, who usually excel in his fights but either won or lost in a great "war" (barerra-morales type, marquez-vazquez type of fights) then at his next fights seem to be sluggish and/or has struggled to fight even on lesser opponents, and age catches up on him, ans most likely loses against a top-level fighter. Then we consider him "over the hill" or shot. Example: RJJ. But there are some unusual exception like JMM, Hopkins.

 

It's fewer as time goes on. in 2012 if your unbeaten
your a "bum" "hypjob".

In 2000's 1 loss.

In the 90's, 4 losses.

In the 80's 8 looses.

In the 70's 15 losses.

In the 60's 20 looses.

In the 50's 25 looses.

 

i domt think the # of defeats matters 2 much however wit thats said imho i think regardless of the # of defeates a particular fighter has the only thing that matters is the quailty of oposition that said fighter lost to

 

And the opposite side of the coin suggests that for as long as you haven't lost yet, regardless if your wins were against bums or B class fighters, you are a top class athlete.

 

This is what I don't get when a certain fighter loses, the excuses always he was past his best or is shot, but did anyone take the time to think that this said fighter may just have got beat by the better man that day?