Tweet
I don't recall a fighter I considered shot ever coming back from it. In recent years, I've called Roy Jones, Castillo and Holyfield shot as well, and none of them have come back from it since I said it.
-
-
People are confusing shotness with "not being that good in the first place" so lets stick this matter to 100% proved fighters, leave out the Calzaghes, the Lacys and lets stick to fighters who were "unbeatable" in their primes like Jones. Jones in particular is a very good example because he primed fast and became shot faster than he should. There is no way to gain your attributes back. The Jones who beat prime Toney couldn't have beat him (PRIME Toney) in 05 and on. He could still beat lesser opponents but he would lose to the same Toney he beat in 94. The opposite case is Bernard Hopkins who has aged slowly and is still game. But he can't no longer fight for 12 rounds like he once fought and you can see his age if you look closer. However Bernard compensates with good fundamentals whereas Jones can't and even if he could he's just too shot, it's like he doesn't control his body fully anymore, he went from driving a superbike to driving a trash truck.Comment
-
-
-
Once you're shot, you are shot permanently. The problem with people being "unshot" is that they were never shot in the first place; such is the case with Evander Holyfield going into the first fight with Mike Tyson. Virtually everybody gave him no shot whatsoever but he won. Consquently, they all labeled him shot.
Here lies the problem: the loads of people who picked against him based their predictions off Holy's fight with Czyz. Never mind Czyz fights completely different from Tyson. So everybody thought he was shot when he really wasn't in the first place, he just had a bad style match up before Tyson.Comment
-
EM turned back the clock and now the great debate has ANOTHER chapter
Comment
Comment