Exposed.

Symphenyceo · Jan 8, 2009

TFFP said: ↑

I wouldn't agree with that. Pavlik's lack of any kind of speed let him down. His punches were far too slow to even semi-land on Bernard Hopkins, as Calzaghe and Taylor achieved with regularity. His footwork was beyond slow, and he showed no ability to cut off the ring effectively when Hopkins circled.

Overall, there was a lack of know how or adaptability to his gameplan and his athletic ability blows.

Not exposed as a poor fighter or anything, he's still good, but expectations are reigned back in and his weaknesses were highlighted.
Click to expand...

This is what was getting at:good

san rafael · Jan 8, 2009

DINAMITA said: ↑

I want to make a thread about the ESB usage of the term "exposed". This has come up in threads about overused phrases recently and it is an issue which does irritate me a bit, so here is my explanation of what "exposed" means and why it is a legitimate term to use in certain situations:

On those threads, people were lining up to slate the use of "exposed" and one of the examples of wrong usage was said to be Miguel Cotto being exposed in the Margarito fight.

Now I am a Miguel Cotto fan, I think he has a good chance of beating Margo in a rematch, and for the first half of the fight I thought he was brilliant against Margo. I was also very proud of Cotto for his heart that night.

However, I think he was exposed. For me, Miguel that night was a dictionary definition of "exposed".

I and many others thought that Cotto, before the Margo fight, was approaching the finished article. He had already shown in his career that he was strong, could brawl etc, then in the Mosley fight I think he showed some excellent boxing skills.

I was unsure of whether he would be strong enough to beat Margo at 147, but I thought he was a well-rounded fighter approaching the finished article.

In the Margarito fight, I believe Cotto was exposed as having very very little idea of how to defend himself. For me, to be "exposed" means to be shown up, to be shown to be deficient in a way that was not anticipated. I did not believe that Cotto had no idea how to defend. He never held once despite Margo standing 1 foot away from him, his slipping and rolling were dire, he simply feebly and lazily covered his face and ate uppercut after uppercut all night. I was shocked. Had he ever watched a Bernard Hopkins fight, he would've known that he didn't need to take those punches. When Margo gets that close, hold him, spin away, get punches off, when he closes the space hold again then move again. It's doesn't make for quite as exciting a fight as Cotto-Margo I was, but it stops you getting busted up and losing!!

Cotto never did this though. He was exposed as a fighter severely deficient in the art of defence.

His conditioning and stamina were also exposed. Before the fight, I thought of Cotto as a top of the line fighter like Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez - ie the type of fighter whose conditioning is so good that they never visibly tire and their stamina can be banked on, absolutely relied on, to hold up no matter how the fight transpires. It was apparent that Cotto has not reached that level yet.

I think the disparity in our perceptions of "exposed" lies in the fact that most seem to believe it to be inherently worse or more negative than to say someone loses, whereas I believe it is merely a more particular type of loss and the term is more descriptive than damning.

I think Cotto was exposed, but for me that's a far better thing than simply being "dominated" or "outclassed" To be exposed is a one-off or a temporary blip. Now that Miguel can see his defence and conditioning were exposed, he can address these problems for the rematch.

IMO

:bbb
Click to expand...

Thank goodness we have some talented posters here. ^ Good stuff by DINAMITA.

imp4pdabest · Jan 8, 2009

Khan's chin = Exposed

sst · Jan 8, 2009

DINAMITA said: ↑

What an arrogant a-hole.

This content is protected

was never a defensive virtuoso, but I never realized he didn't know how to defend on such a basic level, nor didn't have the ability to hold strategically. If you knew beforehand that his survival skills would fail so dramatically against Margarito, you're a smarter man than I.

I suppose you knew his conditioning and stamina would fail him too then?
Click to expand...

Get realistic.

This content is protected

could have done all strategic holding in the world but he still had to win the fight. Margo was throwing hundred punches per round and

This content is protected

could not hurt him. Holding would have kept him off the canvas but he still had to win the fight. Lets not forget

This content is protected

hat transpired.was getting hurt in rounds he was winning. Bad

This content is protected

for

This content is protected

. Exposed would not be the best word to

This content is protected

wtf

sst · Jan 8, 2009

DINAMITA said: ↑

What an arrogant a-hole.

Cotto was never a defensive virtuoso, but I never realized he didn't know how to defend on such a basic level, nor didn't have the ability to hold strategically. If you knew beforehand that his survival skills would fail so dramatically against Margarito, you're a smarter man than I.

I suppose you knew his conditioning and stamina would fail him too then?
Click to expand...

Get realistic. Cotto could have done all strategic holding in the world but he still had to win the fight. Margo was throwing hundred punches per round and Cotto could not hurt him. Holding would have kept him off the canvas but he still had to win the fight. Lets not forget Cotto was getting hurt in rounds he was winning. Bad match up for Cotto. Exposed would not be the best word to describe what transpired. Thats better.

Otodat · Jan 8, 2009

repsaccer said: ↑

If you insist on hanging on to your own personal definitions, it's easy to be
right in every discussion.

You might want to consider the fact that if your own personal definition is
clearly different from the majority, you are speaking your own personal
language. In that personal language, you are right, if you argue correctly.In
the majorities language, you are wrong.For any meaningful discussion to be
held, definitions should be the same.

To me it seems that your definition of exposed, is a different one than the
majorities definition. If you truly started this thread to discuss the definition
of exposed, then you must at least be open to the opinions of others. You
cannot defend yourself in a discussion about the definition of exposed, by
using your own personal definition of that very word.

If you adamantly want to stand by your own definition,and therefor be right
in any argument by default because your own definition is the only right one,
then the entire thread is utterly pointless.

Also your definition seems to change as the discussion goes on, I do not
believe you want a serious discussion. By your own definition a fighter is
exposed when he was to be shown to be deficient in a way that was not
anticipated. Leonard was not perceived to be unable to find the right gameplan
to beat Duran, however he was unable. Therefor he was exposed by
your own definition.

Then you proceed to deny this by limiting the aspects of boxing that can
"expose" someone in your view. This is an ad hoc adjustment to your initial
definition merely for the sake of "proving" your definition right. The
adjustment in itself however changes your initial definition and renders your
previous statement blatantly false.

I think you either just want to argue a pointless discussion here or you really
do not understand what you yourself are trying to say.
Click to expand...

Well, if this is anything, it is definitely concise, well written, and right to the points.

san rafael · Jan 8, 2009

Chert said: ↑

cotto was beaten by a much bigger fighter, not necessarily better. margo weighs around 162-164 during fights. cotto probably weights about 156-158. that's a weight difference of around 7 pounds.
Click to expand...

Crap, not to mention utter speculation. Cotto and Margarito come in at almost exactly the same weight - from what I've seen Margarito came in lighter against Paul Williams (157), than Cotto did against Oktay Urkal.

Carlos Primera · Jan 8, 2009

Jack Presscot said: ↑

When a new member of the Laker Girls gets pushed (As if they have to force her) into the Laker's Locker room after a game, and she sees them in the shower, she is exposed to the truth. Once she is over the initial shock, like a Scottish Tourist on the Loch, seeing an enormous monster rising from the depths, she will usually join them...

2 days later, when she is too sore to rehearse the new dance moves, and she has to call her coach and come up with a lame excuse, and all the other girls laugh knowingly, she has now been "Exposed" and can never go back to dating guys like Ben Affleck and Eminem, because she will laugh (uncontrollably) at them, once things get "exposed" in the bedroom.
Click to expand...

this.

DINAMITA · Jan 9, 2009

Titomahawk said: ↑

Listen buddy. I have just look back at previous post and to everybody who disagree with you you said: Have you read my post.

Just because people disagree with you does'nt mean they didn't read your post...Everybody would agree if we only have to read others post to agree...
eheh

Now, citing you again "You can't say that we disagree when you don't know what I mean! Your view conflicts with what you think I mean, but that isn't what I mean."

This is exactly where we disagree!! You think i did'nt understand what you meant. ANd, I think YOU didn't even understand what YOU mean.
Click to expand...

Yawn. You're just stubbornly trying to win an argument that isn't even happening. You think my concept of the word 'exposed' means that every fighter is exposed in every loss. It doesn't mean anything like that. My definition is clear-cut. If you disagree with it, fine. But disagree with the actual definition I have proposed and not some distorted notion that you have cooked up in your head somewhere along the line.

DINAMITA · Jan 9, 2009

repsaccer said: ↑

If you insist on hanging on to your own personal definitions, it's easy to be
right in every discussion.
Click to expand...

Does everything have to be a tit-for-tat childish sniping session on here? I don't want to "be right", if people disagree with me then fine, I merely proposed and explained what I believe the term "exposed" means, or should mean. I have only been dragged into a dispute and have had to keep replying and explaining/disputing because people such as Titomahawk have been twisting what I proposed into something it was not.

repsaccer said: ↑

Also your definition seems to change as the discussion goes on, I do not
believe you want a serious discussion. By your own definition a fighter is
exposed when he was to be shown to be deficient in a way that was not
anticipated. Leonard was not perceived to be unable to find the right gameplan
to beat Duran, however he was unable. Therefor he was exposed by
your own definition.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense whatsoever. I believe you are fishing for an argument with this sort of bollocks. Leonard was not known as a great brawler/infighter before the Duran fight, yet in the Duran fight he pushed the world's greatest brawler every step of the way in a thrilling fight. IMO Leonard was unable to find the right gameplan only because Duran didn't let him. He had one of the greatest fighters in history chasing him round the ring right on top of his chest not letting him breath - there was no option available to Leonard except to stand and fight, and he did amazingly well.

By no definition in the world was he exposed, unless you go by this bizarre definition that Titomahawk seems to have attributed to me, that every fighter is in some way exposed by every loss.

repsaccer said: ↑

I think you either just want to argue a pointless discussion here or you really
do not understand what you yourself are trying to say.
Click to expand...

Nope. pipe wrench, booradley, Marnoff, Cobbler, San Rafael, and others know exactly what I'm saying, read their posts and others on this thread. If you yourself are failing to grasp it, that's not my problem. If you believe this is a pointless discussion, then there's no reason for you to waste your time by re-joining it :good

DINAMITA · Jan 9, 2009

san rafael said: ↑

Thank goodness we have some talented posters here. ^ Good stuff by DINAMITA.
Click to expand...

Much appreciated amigo :good

Little Pea · Jan 9, 2009

DINAMITA said: ↑

Yawn. You're just stubbornly trying to win an argument that isn't even happening. You think my concept of the word 'exposed' means that every fighter is exposed in every loss. It doesn't mean anything like that. My definition is clear-cut. If you disagree with it, fine. But disagree with the actual definition I have proposed and not some distorted notion that you have cooked up in your head somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

Yawn....we disagree. Why am i more stuborn than you? I don't think Cotto was exposed. You think he was because some weaknesses were expose. Everytime a fighter loses, its because of a weakness (compared to his opponent). So logically, if you understand what YOU are saying, every fighter that have a lost have been exposed. Now, if you don't understand the mecanics of your own thoughts, i can't help you.

ANd don't reply saying i'm stuborn. I am yes. As much as you.

PH|LLA · Jan 9, 2009

Cotto was not exposed. The only thing that was exposed in that fight was Margarito's unbelievable chin, his incredible stamina, and Cotto's not so superhuman power at 147.

Mijares, he was exposed. From A to Z

Guy · Jan 9, 2009

p4pdabest said: ↑

Khan's chin = Exposed
Click to expand...

Everyone knew he had a glass chin Prescott just shattered it..

DINAMITA · Jan 9, 2009

Titomahawk said: ↑

Yawn....we disagree. Why am i more stuborn than you? I don't think Cotto was exposed. You think he was because some weaknesses were expose. Everytime a fighter loses, its because of a weakness (compared to his opponent). So logically, if you understand what YOU are saying, every fighter that have a lost have been exposed. Now, if you don't understand the mecanics of your own thoughts, i can't help you.

ANd don't reply saying i'm stuborn. I am yes. As much as you.
Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Log in or Sign up

Exposed.

Symphenyceo Boxing Junkie Full Member

san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

imp4pdabest Guest

sst Active Member Full Member

sst Active Member Full Member

Otodat Active Member Full Member

san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

Carlos Primera Boxing Addict Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

DINAMITA Guest

DINAMITA Guest

Little Pea 'A' grade boxing fan Full Member

PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

Guy Boxing Junkie Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Exposed.

Symphenyceo Boxing Junkie Full Member

san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

imp4pdabest Guest

sst Active Member Full Member

sst Active Member Full Member

Otodat Active Member Full Member

san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

Carlos Primera Boxing Addict Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

DINAMITA Guest

DINAMITA Guest

Little Pea 'A' grade boxing fan Full Member

PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

Guy Boxing Junkie Full Member

DINAMITA Guest