Is losing...

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • McFearless
    Don't Believe the Hype.
    • Dec 2009
    • 968
    • 35
    • 109
    • 7,184

    #11
    Originally posted by intoccabile
    You can only be exposed as a prospect/contender; someone who is untested or someone who has avoided a certain style throughout his career.

    To hear people say "Mayweather" would be exposed for example is ludicrous. There is a much bigger case for a Pacman 'exposure' than a mayweather one since mayweather HAS come across several styles in his career whereas Pac has avoided slick fighters. Against a slick fighter, if he were to lose handily ala Morales/Raheem. Morales was quoted for saying " I've never fought a SLICK fighter before, I want to test myself " and we saw the outcome. Raheem is in no way shape or form a better fighter than Morales BUT the style made the fight - Morales had been fighting the type of opponents Pacman had been fighting his entire career. HE was exposed that night.

    You can only be exposed when you test yourself, really. I still think the logic of a possible "pacman" exposure is sound; he's never fought that type of fighter before. It happens often, but doesn't make or break a fighter. You also don't have to LOSE a fight to be exposed. Exposure is just seeing what bothers a fighter. People overuse the term.

    Examples:
    Cotto was exposed against Torrez, for example. Sure, he won the fight. But what was exposed to us there was that as competition gets tougher Cotto isn't at all a pressure fighter. Cotto actually has problems with people who bring the fight to him and is better against guys who don't (allowing him to do so instead). Hence the rough fights with foward moving fights like Margi, Clottey and Pacman. He's proven to use his legs and boxing ability more at the elite level.

    Pacmans "exposure" was against Marquez a long time ago. Sure Marquez squares up and looks to engage just as all of pacmans previous opponents but the difference is he would counter punch. You got the sense that pacman, because of his high workrate and being "off the ground" a lot of times whilst bouncing/throwing at the same time would always struggle with counter punchers. The fact that a disengaging Mosley was able to make that fight as dreadful as he did by only moving backwards and not making Pacman pay when he missed also pointed at something a lot of us have always known - That whole style just seems wrong for pacman.

    Same thing goes for Floyd. Undefeated, but was "exposed" a long time ago. It's no secret he does noticeably "worse" against Southpaws. he gets the job done, but he gets it done a certain way. It's way pac fans believe Floyd struggles in a fight against Pac. In all of Floyds victories.. there is 1 fact - He's never used his legs against a southpaw. He's high guarded and looked to beat them in the inside. An exposure? Meh, he's never lost to them but he's struggled against a few...

    Mosley doesn't like Jabs
    Pavlik doesn't like Laterl Movement
    Berto doesn't like pressure/fast paced fights
    Dawson doesn't like lateral movement
    Wright doesn't like high outputs
    Abraham doesn't like movement
    Kessler doesn't like lateral movement
    Alexander doesn't like Jabs/Fighting inside
    Judah doesn't like the opening bell of any round past 5, and getting hit ( Lol )
    Toney doesn't like counter punchers/lateral movement
    Margarito doesn't like the Clinch, doesn't let him get off
    Williams doesn't like fellow southpaws
    Ortiz Doesn't like Rios
    Rios doesn't like Ortiz.
    They need to fight.


    -.-;
    lol @ the bold

    that was pretty good.
    green k

    Comment

    Working...
    TOP