What determines when a boxer is "shot"?

shot fighters is a term thrown around too much here on ESB. a shot fighter is wen someone drops from world class to gatekeeper journeyman status by losing too people they shouldnt have lost to. tyson was a prime example. wen he was shot every1 knew

 

What's so hard to figure out here? A fighter is "shot" when their skills degrade to the point where what was once physically easy/possible for them becomes difficult. Different fighters describe it in different ways, because different fighters tend to rely on a combination of different elements. For some fighters, it's the ability to take a punch (Erik Morales) that is the warning sign. For some fighters, it is agility and ring generalship or call it the ability to make your opponent miss and to make them pay (Chris Byrd). Some report that they see punches coming, and where once they could get out of the way, they no longer can (Sugar Ray Leonard). Some just can't get off combinations where it used to be natural for them and find their legs aren't there (Roy Jones). Being "shot" is easy to hide against lower level opposition, but becomes more obvious when fighting world class level opponents, and even starts to show vs mid-tier competition. I think Arturo Gatti was a great example of this.

 

When they lose their first fight :-(

 

NOT when the guys here say he is

 

If they lose to a fighter you don't like.

 

When a fighter has fallen drastically from where they were in there prime. Fighters like

RJJ vs Johnson, Ajamu ect
Tyson vs Williams and McBride
Ali vs Spinks, Holmes, Berbick
Vargas vs Mayorga, Mosley 2
Holyfield vs Byrd, Toney ect ect
Byrd vs Povetkin, George
Morales vs Diaz
Larios vs Pacquiao, Linares
Johnson vs Gonzalez

The word shot does get throw around far too much.

 

Had me laughing. That's basically how so many perceive it.

A fight is shot when they simply cannot perform at a level even remotely close to their peak. There's a lot of grey area.

 

It would be a combination of a few things I would say, nearly all relating to general deterioration in a boxer's skill-set.

This can include a marked erosion in their previous ability to "take" a punch (ie: punch resistance), slowing of the reflexes, a loss of balance, a deterioration in their work-rate, the accuracy of their punch is not quite there, the speed of delivery of a punch is not what it once was, head/body movement and footwork are not as smooth (ie: more forced).


All of this can be brought down to the general human ageing process, but that ageing process can be accelerated in boxing, and that is when a fighter can be considered "shot".

A lot of this has to do with the erosion of the fighters original big plus points in their skill set:

eg (1): Wayne McCullough never had a big one-punch KO finish, and always relied on his workrate and ability to take punishment to get him through. His workrate has deteriorated and although he isn't being clean KO'd he's been buzzed more easily as the years have gone by; combine this with the loss of reflexes and accuracy of punch (never Wayne's strongest suit, but they are not what they once were all the same) and you have a prime candidate for a shot fighter.

eg (2): Roy Jones Jr always played a lot off his footwork, reflexes and speed of punch. He still has well above average speed, but the other two have deteriorated dramatically; combine this with a lacklustre workrate and decreased head and upper body movement and you have a shadow of the great he previously was. Roy can still mix it at quite a high level, but he is a long long way from what he once was. I would hesitate to call him outright "shot", but he is definetly getting there.

Also, don't discount the "loss of hunger for the game" factor, which can also play a part sometimes.

A fighter does not always become shot after just one defeat, but a former world-level operator who falls out of contention and into the mix behind the divisional elite, and for a prolonged period of time without recapturing his former glory, is a good case for being considered a "shot fighter (Wayne McCullough and Evander Holyfield are good candidates for this - wheeled out for title fights they generally don't deserve, lose those fights, slip back into the mix and the process starts over again). This is all to do with current level of a fighter as opposed to the former level of a fighter.

People sometimes have knee-jerk reactions when considering these things (we all know about that in this forum), but you can read the signs sometimes.

 

Being "shot" means you have little or nothing left of your ability. It's not something that's determined merely by winning or losing (contrary to what many people try to make it out to be), it's based more on what you actually have. For example, people just assumed Barrera was shot when he got his ass kicked by Pacquiao, or Roy Jones when he got beat by Johnson, but neither of those fighters had lost enough of their ability to claim that they were "shot" IMO. At the same time, I've seen fighters that were genuinely shot (Junior Jones against Morales, Holyfield against Rahman, Casamayor in his last 6 or 7 fights) still be difficult/competitive opponents, usually by using their toughness and/or experience.

 

The bullet hole.........

 

Fighters get called shot to often, when sometimes its nothing more than just a dip in form, or an unexpected style that causes them to be off their game! Its a shame that so many get classed like that, but it does make for a good showing when they come back swinging! ie hopkins v pavlik,

 

Beat me to it :good

 

David Reid... despues Trinidad

 

Perfecto :good