Exposed.

AHHA DOn't give up! I know he does'nt have to! WHat i'm saying is that, by your definition, a fighter who had already lose, had necessarely been expose at some point (in the fight he lost or, in a previously documentented exposition of his weakness).

 

Cotto is not a quitter and he has had some tough fights in the past. He was beaten by a better man that night. As it happens Margarito proved to be a bad style match although on the surface it looked good.

Cotto was a great champion and a credit to boxing. Every competition has winners and losers. Losing one event doesn't make a man a bum. The bums are the people who condemn boxers for losing.

 

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.

 

TommyV is correct, You are wrong,
DINAMITE has been exposed.:good

 

I was never saying that Leonard was exposed...i'm saying that by your own theory (if you really understand it), that means Leonard was exposed.

 

Had all of that not been documented by you and many others before?
Nothing was unearthed about Pav's game, Bernard simply used what everybody could see, and executed.

 

I was talking to pipe wrench....You should see previous post and try to undersant correctly your own saying. ANyway, was nice discussing with you guys. We all stayed calm. ahah.

 

Those were the areas he was exposed in. And he was quite horribly exposed in them, to the extent they could be a problem against lesser fighters than Hopkins. How do you not take a round from a 43 year old man when you are supposed to be a guy that brings pressure?! That requires serious, serious flaws to achieve.

But as I said, I don't believe in calling proven guys that beat top fighters exposed as a whole. Most people have areas that can be exposed, but then improved further. That is definitely the case with Pavlik.

 

As I recall Hopkins was about a 4/1 underdog. I was thinking about betting on Hopkins until I saw a pre-fight interview where Pavlik said that what he needed to do was a body attack in the early rounds to cut off Hopkins's legs, then knock him out in the later rounds. Obviously that is the correct strategy, although Pavlik had never shown much interest in bodywork in the past. Did I bet? NO! I was stupid enough to believe Pavlik would do what he needed to do to win.

 

PLease...we disagree...doesn't mean i didnt read the post. I agree totally with:"I think a fighter being exposed is a pretty rare thing, it absolutely cannot be applied to every loss at all" And thats why i dont think Cotto was expose at all. Read Iceman's definition to know what i think of "expose".
Cheers.

 

:good Agree, this has been overall a good thread. Good talkin' with ya.:good