Exposed.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

repsaccer's post to find someone who thinks like me. I don't need a million to be fine...

 

The thing is, hardly anyone but the hardcore Margarito fans thought this prior to the fight, therefore, in a way, Cotto did indeed get exposed for his short-comings. It's not as if he's at some massive stylistic disadvantage, he's just not good enough to compensate.

 

Sooner or later everybody who lost was exposed.
The more funny thing is that the winners are sometimes exposed too!

You KO guys in one round it means you don't have boxing skills and you
are one dimensional, you outbox everybody it means you don't have punching power.

 

Seems like they agree with you.

 

Before saying anything else, let me restate my initial post, which incidentally
you chose to ignore whlie saying you wanted to talk about the meaning of
the term "exposed".

From this let us continue; First of all I think I do understand exactly what
you are trying to say. You are trying to day that when a figher shows
weaknesses that weren't previously shown, some part of his game is exposed
which inadvertently, to your definition makes the figher "exposed".
You argue furthermore that this kind of exposure isn't per se a devastating
circumstance.

If I were to stick to this part of your understanding of the term "exposed", I
would agree with you wholeheartedly. A fighter of whose deficiencies, not
earlier percieved by the public, have been uncovered, is NOT necesarilly
doomed to be a second rate fighter.

On this point we agree wholeheartedly. However, my definition of exposed
would not extend to the fighter as a whole, merely to some of the fighters
assets/skills.

However. Your definition of exposure also states that any flaw in the fighters
arsenal that was not percieved earlier and has since become clear, makes
that fighter exposed. I think that was not exactly what you were trying to
say, but that is the way you formulated it, and that is what i had to go on.

So even IF i agree with you (and I do) on the notion that in NO WAY Leonard
was "exposed" in his fight with Duran, I was merely aguing that by your
definition he WAS exposed, merely because some part of his gamewas not
good enough, whether it was his gameplan, stamina strenght or whatever.
Some part of his game was not good enough to beat Duran.

I am sure you agree with this.

All I am saying is, that with your initial definition of a fighter being exposed,
he logically IS exposed, even if I Understand just as you do, that Leonard was
in fact NOT exposed.

So to summarize, I still firmly believe that your definition of a fighter being
exposed is fundamentallly flawed (To me you are saying that Janet Jackson
while exposing only her breast on primetime, exposed all of herself ). I
think that your feelings about when a fighter is exposed if we would
use the same definitions, arent far off from my own, but i am sure your
understanding of language and logic is a different understanding than mine.

I still believe in my notions, I understand your feelings, but i also see the
flaws in the formal logic you try to clarify to us.

If you believe any unpercieved flaw that is uncovered makes a fighter as a
whole "exposed" I will respect you for that, but also know you are part of a
minority.


Stricktly logically , that is what you are saying, even though I think I
understand what you are trying to say, which is different.Anyway. Calling me
childish must have been satifactory for you, therefor I will leave that alone.

Do with this whatever you want, I am looking forward to your reply and I
hope you understand I am not attacking your feelings but merely your flawed
reasoning.

You would do me a huge favor, by reviewing my earlier post on what I think
"exposed" truly means in the boxing world and give me your thoughts on it.

Conveniently you have refrained from this so far.

 

Like Cotto, Pavlik is a bona fide puncher. Cotto can takeout an average opponent with one bodyshot and so can Pavlik. I have to admit that I have not seen all Pavlik's fights, but of the one's I have seen, he threw relatively few body punches. There isn't a chance he would stop Hopkins with a perfect shot to the liver, but several of them would cut the legs from under him. Once Pavlik gets Hopkins right in from him, it is just a question of time before his firepower prevails. That is what Pavlik predicted he would do and that is why I didn't bet on Hopkins.

 

Have you considered the possibility that you cannot differentiate between the
actual semantic meaning of the word "exposed" as agreed upon by linguists
and your own personal feelings about what the word should mean? :good

Aside from this rather boring formal discussion, I think in the latter rounds it was
more Cotto's physique -resilience/durability/stamina- that broke down, rather than
his skills.

That however is completely beside the initial point of the discussion.

Addendum: Yes I do understand the way you use the word exposed.
And yes it is not per se a huge negative in the way you use it.

I do however think the term exposed should not be used here. If you want to
reinvent the word and get supporters be my guest but to me, if you expose
your ankle, that does not mean that you are naked.

Agree to disagree, but in my mind that makes you pretty gung ho muslim

 

Yes we agree to disagree and I am not convinced by your reasoning. You are still saying that if a boxer is beaten because of any attribute (lack of defense in your argument), he inadvertently is exposed as a boxer(see bold text).

Personally I feel losses in itself do not expose boxers, if they would, All ATG's would have clean slates.

You can dislike the rules of logic, but denying them doesnt make them disappear.

 

Whether he was exposed against Mosley or Margarito depends on the perception of the individual.

It became clear to me Cotto was not the phyical, well conditioned, tactically adept beat I thought he was when he fought Shane. I expected him to dominate. It wasn't due to my underestimating of Mosley, after what he has gone on and done.


I agree with the opening post, just replace Margarito with Mosley though.

 

Also Calzaghe did not expose Jeff Lacy, that happened way before when he struggled somewhat with mediocre opposition.

The Reid fight just made people forget Lacy had been exposed previously.

He was only exposed that night in the eyes of blind American reporters and fans.