Its clear Roy was shot if after getting knocked out twice in succession once by Tarver then by Johnson, and any fight he had after that was a joke really. He should have retired after Ruiz, and if not then, then after getting smoked completely twice in a row, before embarking on his fight-a-year-till-i-reach-40.
He was not a shot fighter. Define being shot? I think his reflexes slowed a little then and then his habit of keepings his left low and moving to the ropes hurt him. He was not shot, just diminished. He is still a good enough fighter to beat most guys at 168. I just think the Tarver and Johnson fights happened when he slowed a little and didn't adjust well. Roy had such great reflexes, but fact is something is missing in his career when you compare it to other greats. He did not fight the legends and have wars like most great fighters do. He is a lot like Floyd, but he did beat better guys than Floyd. This fight does not affect his legacy that much, but it just shows how he might have been so good defensively because he really could not take big punches.
Agreed. People assume he must've been "shot" when he lost to Tarver simply because he was KO'd in a surprising and unexpected way, but the fact is he hadn't faded enough from his prime version to label him as outright "shot." Plenty of fighters have been way more faded than Roy was at that point and aren't considered shot. Roy had given one of his most impressive career performances only the year before being KO'd by Tarver and was probably the most highly touted he ever was then; and even going into the Tarver rematch, he was still generally rated as the #1 P4P fighter in the world. That's far from a shot fighter.
I am not sure Green is average. His skills are probably, but his punch is apparently above average and he throws without hesitation, which means he did not fall into Roy's rhythm off counterpunching. I am not sure a rematch would be a wise choice for Roy.
Yeah I agree. I think people should define what a shot fighter is. I think shot fighter means his old prime skills are all gone, not just diminished. Mike Tyson was looking shot when he lost to McBride. Duran actually never looked fully shot. Leonard did with Norris ,although with Norris he should not have come in so light which made him weak and then the beating diminished him. One thing leads to another. So sometimes some fighters become more shot than others. I think with Leonard, the Norris fight took a lot out of him. He took 12 rounds of a beating and he should not have fought after that. I was amazed he took it all for 12 rounds. Hearns was never fully shot either. Somehow guys like Duran and Hearns who are more warriors than Jones somehow keep thier skills more intact. I do not know why. Maybe they are used to being in wars and are more equipped. I know people will disagree with this next comment, but Hearns regardless of people saying he had a weak chin, was a stronger fighter than Jones as far as ability to absorb punishment and not be diminished. In retrospect, Hearns was a tough guy.
