Were they shot? Yes/No

[oliverfennell]

Boxing fans love to do an about face when someone scores an unexpected or at least unexpectedly impressive win, and perhaps more so in British boxing than elsewhere. So let's look at the following big recent wins by British boxers and answer, in a nutshell, were the losers shot? Yes or no?

(I'm only including examples where there was not a common consensus that the losing boxer was shot, for example Calzaghe-Jones, only ones where the boxer was either not generally considered past-it, or at least the jury was out - and may still be)

Tyson against Lewis - YES
Holyfield against Lewis - NO
Hopkins against Calzaghe - NO
Taylor against Froch - NO
Tzyu against Hatton - NO
Castillo against Hatton - YES
Corley against Witter - YES
Harris against Witter - NO
Barrera against Khan - YES

[DavidPayne]

Tyson against Lewis - YES
Holyfield against Lewis - NO
Hopkins against Calzaghe - NO
Taylor against Froch - NO
Tzyu against Hatton - NO
Castillo against Hatton - YES
Corley against Witter - YES
Harris against Witter - NO
Barrera against Khan - NO

Shot is an emotive term...some were on the slide but only Catillo and Tyson were genuinely shot to shit.

[oliverfennell]

Tyson against Lewis - YES
Holyfield against Lewis - NO
Hopkins against Calzaghe - NO
Taylor against Froch - NO
Tzyu against Hatton - NO
Castillo against Hatton - YES
Corley against Witter - YES
Harris against Witter - NO
Barrera against Khan - NO

Shot is an emotive term...some were on the slide but only Catillo and Tyson were genuinely shot to shit.

Tyson was, and I can admit that now, but the lead-up to the fight DID have the fans and critics split right down the middle. A lot of people forget THAT (to hear it now, of course EVERYBODY knew Lewis was going to win easily)

[DavidPayne]

I was on the edge of my seat. Which tells it all really. However, I DID say Lewis would beat him down but as you say, plenty said Tyson.

[Lenny]

I suppose people have different meanings of shot. All of those fighters had declined but for me shot is Juuko v Gomez or Thompson v Serrat where the balance has completely gone.

In all of those fights the "shot" fighter still had enough to make it interesting (even if it was for only 1 round in the case of Tyson who was probably the most shot, but who still had enough to batter Williams around for a few rounds some time later til he gave up)

[oliverfennell]

Of course I realise "shot" is an emotive and even at times inappropriate word, but people have no problems throwing it around when it supports their argument. (No way a "shot" Tszyu goes 11 hard rounds with a prime Hatton, but for some people he was a walking dead man, FFS)

[Carbo]

Tyson was, and I can admit that now, but the lead-up to the fight DID have the fans and critics split right down the middle. A lot of people forget THAT (to hear it now, of course EVERYBODY knew Lewis was going to win easily)

You say that, but I layed off 4 bets on Tyson for GBP50, 30, 20 and 20. Four different people, all willing to take evens on Tyson, GBP120 for Carbo (back at a time when that was really quite alot of money to me...

Anyway:

Tyson against Lewis - YES
Holyfield against Lewis - NO
Hopkins against Calzaghe - NO
Taylor against Froch - NO
Tszyu against Hatton - NO
Castillo against Hatton - YES
Corley against Witter - YES
Harris against Witter - NO
Barrera against Khan - NO

Really, on the decline or not at peak is different from shot.

Barrera was clearly past his best and far too high in weight. But shot?? No.

Holyfield was several years removed from his best against Lewis, but shot? Again, no.

Corely was only a couple of years removed from Mayweather and Cotto, but, he probably was, looking to what's happened after. It WAS a credible match, because few would have said he was shot at the time, if that makes sense -- that's another mistake fans often make.

Now I'm just waiting for DG's nine yeses.

[oliverfennell]

Indeed, a lot of it is hindsight and I deliberately used those examples because they were/are borderline calls. And while I'm often a critic of the revisionist theorists, I do think hindsight CAN be valid. For example, as you say, at the time Corley-Witter WAS a fine match, but what's happened since does suggest Corley had tipped over by then.

[banjo]

Tyson against Lewis - Yes
Holyfield against Lewis - No
Hopkins against Calzaghe - No
Taylor against Froch - No
Tzyu against Hatton - No
Castillo against Hatton - No
Corley against Witter - No
Harris against Witter - No
Barrera against Khan - No

[stujones]

Tyson against Lewis - Faded but not shot, but came in at a rediculous weight.
Holyfield against Lewis - Faded
Hopkins against Calzaghe - Faded
Taylor against Froch - No
Tzyu against Hatton - No
Castillo against Hatton - Not shot, but not at good weight.
Corley against Witter - Faded
Harris against Witter - No
Barrera against Khan - Faded and at a rediculous weight

[forcefraser]

Tyson against Lewis - YES
Holyfield against Lewis - NO
Hopkins against Calzaghe - NO
Taylor against Froch - NO
Tszyu against Hatton - YES
Castillo against Hatton - YES
Corley against Witter - NO
Harris against Witter - YES
Barrera against Khan - YES

Barrerra and Tsyu were shot. If not they would have wiped with floor with Hatton and Khan (the cut maybe denied us ever really finding out)

[stujones]

Forecaster - you are right on the Barrera one, we will never know - thats why we cannot say he was shot. Last meaningful fight he had, he put up a credible show.

On Tszyu, people do seem to forget that for 4/5 rounds Kostya was beating him to the punch and winning the rounds big.... just Hatton was inspired that night, could walk through Tszyu's bombs, untill he eventually gassed - Kostya has never fought against that kind of pressure before, never know how he would have reacted in his 20's.

[forcefraser]

Forecaster - you are right on the Barrera one, we will never know - thats why we cannot say he was shot. Last meaningful fight he had, he put up a credible show.

On Tszyu, people do seem to forget that for 4/5 rounds Kostya was beating him to the punch and winning the rounds big.... just Hatton was inspired that night, could walk through Tszyu's bombs, untill he eventually gassed - Kostya has never fought against that kind of pressure before, never know how he would have reacted in his 20's.

Tszyu in his prime would have been too much for Hatton, even on the form Hatton was in that night. At his best he was pure good oil.

Again the term shot is misleading. I would prefer to call it "on the slide" rather than shot for a number of the ones above. For example Harris against Witter. He wasn`t exactly shot, but he was nowehre near his peak.

As for Barrera, out of the two optios, shot or not, I would have to go with Shot. Remember that in his day, he was an elite warrior who would have smashed someone like Khan to pieces.

[gb]

Castillo against Hatton - Not shot, but not at good weight.

But JLC couldn't make 135, so he didn't have much of an option.

I suppose it raises an interesting question.
If a guy is no longer able to get down to a weight where he is effective, does that automatically mean he is shot. e.g. Hatton looks like he can't be effective at 147 (Mayweather, Collazo), so if he can't make 140 ( hypothetical I know) does that make him shot?

[stujones]

tough one, I guess yes... Gatti was kind of in that situation when he fought Baldomir. Although maybe the time has come and hatton will be able to do 147 more comfortably and better now. That can also happen.

With Castillo, it wasn't a good weight for him to be fighting someone as strong as Hatton. I am sure he could have won versions of the world title at 140 when he initially moved up.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

I won a fortune on Evander against Tyson, 1st time round.


I say a fortune but it was about 120 quid. It was my 1st time in a betting shop and before i went in my mate Paul said "careful you don't get raped!"




What did he know about betting shops that i didn't (don't)



Taylor wasnt shot, he just isnt very good

[Poncey]

Taylor wasnt shot, he just isnt very good

Cue Dooley frothing at the mouth.

[dazzler]

To me shot means someone is usually 2 of the following 3:
1. Getting on in age
2. Had recent hard fights and losses
3. Would have been expected to be very competetive in their prime (but lost)

As such:

Tyson against Lewis - YES
Holyfield against Lewis - NO
Hopkins against Calzaghe - NO
Taylor against Froch - NO (his corner should be shot for telling him to press in the last 2)
Tszyu against Hatton - NO (at the start) / YES (by the end of the fight)
Castillo against Hatton - YES
Corley against Witter - NO
Harris against Witter - YES
Barrera against Khan - YES

[forcefraser]

I won a fortune on Evander against Tyson, 1st time round.


I say a fortune but it was about 120 quid. It was my 1st time in a betting shop and before i went in my mate Paul said "careful you don't get raped!"




What did he know about betting shops that i didn't (don't)



Taylor wasnt shot, he just isnt very good

Taylor is a quality boxer, just not a very good finisher. He should have had Pavlik out of there in their first fight.

Against Froch it was different, I don`t believe Froch was badly hurt, more stunned than anything else. Taylor should still have made more of it though.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Taylor wasnt shot, he just isnt very good

Cue Dooley frothing at the mouth.

why, is he gonna give me a blowjob, mai?

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Taylor wasnt shot, he just isnt very good

Cue Dooley frothing at the mouth.

why, is he gonna give me a blowjob, mai?

Behave, I am trying to shake this whole 'gay' thing off ('shaking it off' is not slang for, well you know what).

Taylor was good, sometimes very good but...ah F it. Taylor was one of those cases of a fighter not being as good as he should have been, in my mind he was awesome, in fights less so.

"fighters that were great in your own mind" would be a pretty good topic

Anthony Mundine was always good in my mind, as was Vaseline Jirov

as it was, there were both 'shite'


Tim Bresnan was probably a pretty good bowler, in some people's mind.....

[tonyevs]

Tyson against Lewis - YES.
Holyfield against Lewis - Not shot - but well worn.
Hopkins against Calzaghe - No - like vintage wine, different style when new, but improves with age
Taylor against Froch - No - but similar limitations at middleweight were more highlighted at the heavier weight.
Tszyu against Hatton - No - but well worn.
Castillo against Hatton - Yes.
Corley against Witter - No - but well worn.
Harris against Witter - No.
Barrera against Khan - Yes.

[Old bones Ian]

Shot for me was Chavez when fighting Kostya Tszyu, just a shadow of his former self.

[gb]

I wonder how many of the people who declare Castillo to be shot against Hatton actually watched the fight.
Ok, Castillo had a lot taken out of him in the Corrales wars and had looked unconvincing at 140lbs going in, but a lot of people conveniently forget (or more likely, haven't actualy seen the fight) that he was holding his own in the fight before getting counted out as the result of a terrific body shot. I remember watching it and thinking that Hatton had thrown a lot of leather to win the first two rounds and had gotten caught quite a few times in a really good third.
Others who've seen the fight may have seen it diffeerently, but Castillo certainly didn't look shot to me.

[Poncey]

[

Often thought Taylor had the best jab I'd ever seen. Then Steward came along and stole it. Shipped it to Kiev. Installed it on Wlad. Although it somehow got damaged in transit. I fell out of love with him after I'd stayed up until 5.30am for Hopkins v Taylor 2 after seeing Wayne getting battered around by Larios. It was also the first time I saw John Murray fight if memory serves.

Anyways, felt Bobby Czyz could've been better than he was. Maybe it was the 'tach.