People love to use this term on here, some sort of absolute declaration that a fighter is shot to hell, virtually and permanently inept. But what about George Foreman and Larry Holmes, who both fought until approximately 50? I thought George was shot after the Stewart and Morrison fights, yet he came back to win the title and remain competitive with mid-level guys. And Holmes was slaughtered by Tyson, but went on to be competitive with Mercer, Holyfield, and McCall. So what would you guys say? Would you use the term "shot" to describe these two guys?
Good point, no they were not. Those were competitive fights for Foreman against World Class fighters. I wonder if Stewart had his hands of gloves at all loaded, since Foreman never sustained such damage before & took plenty of shots. I recall watching Foreman's last fight, & given the HBO reporting/feature before the bout, they wanted him to retire, so it seemed that there was almost a fix to deny him the decision he seemed to deserve. And Briggs was no pushover then, he achieved a great amount of first round KOs/ Holmes was past prime & ill-prepared against an ATG in Tyson.
Yes they were shot. Of course, anyone can argue that some old shot fighter isn't shot, using the reasoning that this old shot fighter can still beat x, y and z. But if that's true then no one is ever shot. You could say a 40 year old Muhammad Ali wasn't shot against Berbick because Berbick was a contender of sorts and Ali that night could have beaten guys a couple of levels below Berbick handily. But obviously Ali was shot. Larry Holmes was obviously shot to pieces for years and years. Put the 1990s Holmes in the ring with his 1978 to 1985 opponents and he'd be killed before he gets half way through. Old Holmes would probably be outworked and beaten up by Tex Cobb in a 15 rounder ! Foreman had a great comeback career but he just wasn't the same fighter. He was expected to be more shot than he was so that distorts the perception of how far he'd fallen.
Yes they were shot and they both knew they were. That’s why they were selective about whom they fought. Neither were ever running at 100%. They made compromises with what they had left but they knew their limitations.
Their abilities, say their chins and skill, were never completely compromised to the point where they had nothing left to offer. Both were also tremendously savvy and possessed plenty of skill, which helped when their physical abilities and attributes started to wane.
I think of shot fighters as guys who once were elite who simply can't compete anymore at even a pretty low level and went from one fight still being able to compete and the next fight being shadows of their former selves. Ali was the very definition of shot when he fought Holmes. Even though his performance was better against Berbick, he was a shell of the fighter he'd been four or five years earlier, when he was merely past his prime. Arturo Gatti, a guy who had amazing ability to recover from a beating during a fight had nothing left when he fought Carlos Baldomir. He was shot, plain and simple. Holmes was definitely way past his prime when he fought Tyson but I wouldn't describe him as shot. He just ran into a wrecking ball of a heavyweight in his prime. When he fought Ray Mercer, he showed he still had enough game to be competitive.
Shot is when you can not compete anymore at the elite level.So no they were not shot. but just past prime.The expression shot is often misused here,
I would say Foreman was shot when he fought Grimsley, Savarese and Briggs. While he arguably won them all, a peak Foreman would've wiped them all out in a round or three. Especially Grimsley and Savarese. This content is protected
Losing but getting a gift decision against Maurice Harris (Holmes) and going 12 hard rounds with Crawford Grimsley isn't competing with the "elite." It's competing on even terms with fringe guys at best. Which makes you a fringe guy and no longer elite.
