Exposed.

It wasnt only Cotto's defense though, his survival tactics were poor and ablity to adjust was non exisitent. He did not hold not once until it was to late, all he did was retreat crouch into uppercuts and stand there and brawl with him even though he was getting the worst of it.

 

Exposed = Raul Marquez SD12 Giovanni Lorenzo. Now that was a situation where a particular fighter was truly, and very clearly exposed. Somehow this cat kept an unblemished record, and got a #1 ranking without ever fighting a top 30 guy, and then got beat by an old light middle who got sparked in 5 by AA.

 

agreed,
quite unfair to discredit the basic fundamentals of the OP by attacking the underlying deficiencies in the example...it does nothing to further the discussion and shows the individual as an, as you say, arrogant a-hole.

 

De La Hoya was exposed at the weighin for the Trinidad fight .

 

Well...that means the weakness was already exposed...

So...no matter what, a fighter who loses, was just being exposed...or...was exposed before (RECOGNIZED and DOCUMENTED weakness)

 

I think that fight was one of the few times you can actually say a fighter was "exposed" as a whole. I can't say Lorenzo lacked anything in particular, just that he was not good really in any capacity. "exposed" as mediocre - i guess.

 

you can't expose or try someone twice for the same offense (or lack of defense in this case).

 

I personally find it ridiculous to call proven world champions "exposed", when they lose one fight. Far too much of it happens, its ****ing ridiculous and nonsensical.

If an unproven prospect fights a journeyman/fringe contender and gets beaten up...we can talk about exposed.

Or if you want to talk about a certain area of a fighters game that was exposed as being inept, also fair enough.

Simply putting the label "exposed" on people is ******ed.

 

Yep, i read it. ANd i have a question about it. You wrote:

"ie: Prime Leonard lost to Duran simply because he fought someone who was better at the type of fight that transpired than he was. He wasn't exposed, he merely failed to handle the fight as well as Duran - no single aspect of his game was found wanting, he was superb on the night and could've beaten any other fighter in the world that night in his class. His brawling ability was excellent that night, but he lost to the better man."

Cotto didn't lose to the better man? Pavlik didn't lose to the better man?

WHat you dont seem to know is that by your definition, Leonard was kinda exposed that night. Yes. Because we discovered a weakness here: Not being able (or wanting (wich is a weakness too)) to adjust.

 

Agreed ! Basically what i said before in a much easier to read package :good

 

Look twit, if you STFU nobody will know how stupid you are. Conditioning had nothing to do with it. Some men are naturally tougher than others and can take more abuse. If you had ever put on a pair of gloves and done some boxing you would learn what it feels like to get hit. The constant pounding from a guy like Margarito sucks the energy right out of you. It's how you chop off a man's legs. It's is how you beat the fight out of him. If you don't believe me, ask Teddy Atlas or at least listen to him talk on Friday Night Fights. Do more listening and you might learn something.

Going into this fight the only question was could Margarito take a hit from Cotto? If he could then he had the fight won.

 

I did'Nt feel Cotto had a poor idea of defence in the first 6 rounds or so.

BUt at the end, he was so tired, he wasn't able to apply it. (hold his hands up and/or move out of the way. Wich he was doing well enough earlier).

 

This is a misleading thread title. I was looking forward to seeing exposed women:roll:

 

ahahha