To me its someone, whether it be psychological or physical, cannot do the things he used to in his prime.banjo wrote:Define "shot"
To me a "shot" fighter is somebody who no longer has the dedication, confidence and determination which you need to succeed, none of which Kessler seemed to be missing on saturday.
Mike Tyson v Kevin McBride is the perfect example of a "shot" fighter IMO, a pathetic, passionless display against a man who he would have wiped the floor with in his prime.
Physically it might be all be there (or might not be) but somehow the fighter doesn't apply it.
Maybe thats too harsh, cause then you could say Ali post his excile (pre Frazier, Foreman etc) was shot and I am one who often says "oh so and so is being written off too soon".When really who I call "properly" shot is like Michael Ayers vs Jon Honney, Michael Brodie since his return, Ali vs Holmes etc.
However, I don't think Kessler is the fighter he once was. Irrespective of it being arguably his greatest win. The speed wasn't what it was, the balance wasn't what it was. I have the feeling his relying too much on weights in his training.
or a TV executive - the problem is I think there must have been many occasions when Mick was being forthright with the TV Execs he was completely right - however even when he was right I suppose the criticism I have of Mick was that he didnt treat anyone with kid gloves and I suppose you have to with these TV men. I can distinctly remember a couple of occasions the Boxing man at the BBC being on the end of some tongue lashings from Mick and deservedly so - the problem is it didnt do Mick any favours.