Most incorrectly and overused terms in boxing (by fans)

Let's start with "ruined".

With all due respect to my friend Brock, but....... Maidana didn't ruin anybody.
He gave Floyd a hell of a fight, probably more than Floyd expected. But ruined??
No.

To me, ruined is where the other fighter is never the same after that.
Usually a grueling, punishing fight, where the fighter suffers irreversible wear and tear.

Another is "cherry-picking".

It's overused for sure. Cherry picking occurs... but not every soft touch a fighter intermixes in between tough fights should be considered cherry-picking. Once a cherry-picker, always a cherry-picker. Meaning that fighters that become known for that tend to do so more often than everybody else. But not everybody is a cherry-picker.

How about "exposed"?

That's a really overused term. What is exposed, anyway? To me is where the fighter's record was built with smoke and mirrors (parade of tomato cans, for example). A bogus record just waiting to be exposed by the first good opponent a fighter faces. That is exposed. But it's overused. Every time a fighter loses, he's been exposed. B.S.



I'm as guilty of using these terms as anybody else, but usually try to reserve them for cases that truly merit their use.

People are too quick to use those terms for sure.

I find it amazing how people use terms like "cherry picking" without doing the research. People accuse GGG of cherry picking, when nobody worth a shit is willing to fight him. People accuse guys like RJJ, Floyd, ect of cherry picking without researching why certain fights never happened, too. It's amazing.

The word GREAT is used all to often in the world of sport.

Yeah Bean... we're too quick to throw out these words as a convenient way to pigeon-hole fighter descriptions, without a second thought as to whether they really apply. Those are just three of the more common ones. I'm sure there are other popular terms out there that people use out of sheer laziness. Again, I'm not claiming I've never done it, but I try to be realistic when using one of those canned descriptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

The word GREAT is used all to often in the world of sport.

---

Definitely.
Along with it are the ATG, GOAT, etc.
Some of us are just too lenient with those terms.

He's a bum
He is game
What a great chin
p4p one of the best ever
Great
Huge/devastating/tremendous/massive/explosive/ puncher
"World championship boxing"
He has fought "no one"
Dominant
It could have gone either way

the, a, he, was, will, has, should, can

Robbery :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by La Cucaracha

Robbery :D

---

Agreed. Unless you feel the guy who lost won AT LEAST 8 out of 12 rounds, shut the fuck up about robberies. You can disagree with a decision, but if a fight is close enough to be decided on a round or two, it's not a robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by La Cucaracha

Robbery :D

---

That is a top one for sure. Good call. One of the ones that cannot afford to lose its impact or be watered down because unlike most, fighters are talking paychecks and immediate career effect with shit judges and a true robbery.

the belt for sure, "tonight they fighting for the world championship featherwelt supergoldstar 2 belt which was hand made in the United states by some famous guy" it's a frickin' belt no use for it, and pride to hold it? I hate those belts when they hold up 10 belts in the ring before a fight,. Just a bunch of drama; like saying, look what I got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xwetie

the belt for sure, "tonight they fighting for the world championship featherwelt supergoldstar 2 belt which was hand made in the United states by some famous guy" it's a frickin' belt no use for it, and pride to hold it? I hate those belts when they hold up 10 belts in the ring before a fight,. Just a bunch of drama; like saying, look what I got.

---

I know a lot of people will disagree as its kinda a tradition but after all it's just a belt.

running

people act like if you arent fight on the inside and trading punches, you are running. it made me mad when vanes said that about charlo. he wasnt running. he was boxing. i dont know how staying on the outside and using a jab can be considered running especially when you land some big shots.

The division will be worse off when wlad retires

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

The division will be worse off when wlad retires

---

or Floyd retires when in fact the world of boxing will be in a better place. :)

^that's another good one. People thinking that boxing will be better off when it's superstars who bring in MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars to boxing along with legit mainstream exposure all retire... ;D I'd love to hear a breakdown of that one....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

The division will be worse off when wlad retires

---

or Floyd retires when in fact the world of boxing will be in a better place. :)

---

The whole world will be a better place when floyd fucks off

"Robbery" and "bum" are the worst by miles.

I feel that this thread has been ruined by cherry-picking the topic, and just running and stating things which are pure robberies.

@brocktonblockbust is a bum.

@brocktonblockbust has been cherry picking his opponents on SB for years, always been overrated as a poster

I exposed all of you supposedly GOATs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Let's start with "ruined".

With all due respect to my friend Brock, but....... Maidana didn't ruin anybody.
He gave Floyd a hell of a fight, probably more than Floyd expected. But ruined??
No.

To me, ruined is where the other fighter is never the same after that.
Usually a grueling, punishing fight, where the fighter suffers irreversible wear and tear.

Another is "cherry-picking".

It's overused for sure. Cherry picking occurs... but not every soft touch a fighter intermixes in between tough fights should be considered cherry-picking. Once a cherry-picker, always a cherry-picker. Meaning that fighters that become known for that tend to do so more often than everybody else. But not everybody is a cherry-picker.

How about "exposed"?

That's a really overused term. What is exposed, anyway? To me is where the fighter's record was built with smoke and mirrors (parade of tomato cans, for example). A bogus record just waiting to be exposed by the first good opponent a fighter faces. That is exposed. But it's overused. Every time a fighter loses, he's been exposed. B.S.



I'm as guilty of using these terms as anybody else, but usually try to reserve them for cases that truly merit their use.

---

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

'Ruined'

Would lead everyone to assume that a fighter was never the same again, usually after absorbing
a frightful beating, and incapable of performing on a good level again.

See; Dwight Muhammad Qawi over Matthew Saad Muhammad
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

'Cherry-Picking'

Yes, selecting an opponent who has absolutely 'no chance' of defeating you. Typically a
Champion selecting a 'safe opponent' to defend his Title against.

See; Ray Leonard ........Opponent List > Davey 'Boy Green, Larry Bonds, Bruce Finch
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

'Exposed'

A fighter who had previously dominated, suddenly gets 'exposed' when he takes on a
somewhat unknown opponent who has his 'so-called' number.

See........... Carlos Monzon over Nino Benvenuti
See........... Pedro Flores over Yoko Gushiken
See........... Vernon Forest over Shane Mosely

I think the exposed thing gets blown out of proportion because, to me, it's supposed to mean that a guy was SUPPOSEDLY A-level, fought another A-level guy and was beaten to the point where he was "exposed" as not truly elite.

But the fact is, A-level fighters lose to A-level fighters all the time, it doesn't in itself mean that the guy who lost was not A-level and was "exposed". I think a guy who unfairly gets that criticism is Prince Naseem, who was a world champ at featherweight for 7 or 8 years before losing to MAB. I never understood why losing to one of the greatest fighters in boxing history meant you were "exposed".

Shane Mosley is an all time great, I don't see why he was "exposed" because Forrest and Winky Wright had his number.

Piss on all y'all, I say say it the way I see it or feel it, and I don't plan to change any time soon!

Just what a boxing forum needs, the word police. Go fuck yourselves!

Kid Thunder is a professional boxer.

Good topic, with alot of great insight offered. I’ll use these examples for correct vs incorrect

Ruined Meldrick Taylor was ruined by JCC
Incorrect usage of Ruined: PBF -Maidana (Brock was just being Brock with his thread:)-)

Cherry picking (correct) After 16-0 Anthony Peterson defeated an unknown Jermaine White who was 13-0; White got beat from pillar to post round after round until White said to his corner “say man throw the towel in, I’m through.” :-\ So JCC jr 26-0 chose to fight him. Nothing at all for Jr to have gained from this extremely light arm puncher.

Cherry picking incorrect (PBF- cherry picked Guerrero – who hadnt lost a fight since 2005 (18 fights ago).
Cherry picked Canelo 42-0-1? Really? Cherry picked Maidana claiming because he wasn’t a boxer- then after the fight- Floyd got troubled by his cherry picked opponent because of that exact style. Cherry picked Cotto because he was supposedly (ruined) by Pac & Rito, yet he was coming off 3 wins. Cherry picked Ortiz because he isnt great-Not that he was fighting the WBC champ. Cherry Picked Shane-who was coming off 4 KO wins out of his last 5 victories- his only loss since Forrest in 2005 was Cotto in 2007-

Bum-most who get this term deserve it imo.

game- affixed to guys who aren’t that skilled, but find ways to stay in the fight: Sam Soliman vs Winky Wright (sam was game) Jermain White vs Anthony Peterson was game. He got hit with everything-yet didn’t get stopped: before he quit-White was “game”

Incorrect: Robbery- Hopkins vs Pascal I I didn’t call it a robbery- IMO-I did have Hop winning, but it could have went either way.

Correct-Robbery: Forman vs Briggs. Only thing missing in this robbery was the ski mask.

Running Incorrect: PBF did not run against Castillo 2, he positioned himself and used ring generalship.
Correct- Ray Leonard at times ran as fast as he could from Haglar.

Exposed- can also mean the same thing as (set the blueprint) him another overused term?:) So & so set the blueprint.

Incorrect: Castillo set the blue print for beating PBF. Maidana set the blueprint- yet PBF is still undefeated.

correct- Hopkins stated DLH showed the blueprint on how to beat Tito. In this case Tito had a chink in his armour that was (exposed).

Exposed outright? A fighter who has been protected with padded fights.
Lennox Lewis exposed Michael Grant & Jorge Gonzalez as big dudes with a little ass game.

Lennox Lewis exposed David Tua’s arsenal aint shit without his right hand.

Cotto exposed Randall Bailey is extremely average without his big right hand.

Michael Moorer’s chin is exposed by any hard hitting fighter
:rolleyes:

Monstor.

for my weight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Good topic, with alot of great insight offered. I’ll use these examples for correct vs incorrect

Ruined Meldrick Taylor was ruined by JCC
Incorrect usage of Ruined: PBF -Maidana (Brock was just being Brock with his thread:)-)

---

Incorrect usage of "ruined": JCC Jr. ruined Sergio Martinez
Well...... granted, only one poster here made that ridiculous claim.

Correct version: Martinez ruined himself by never giving himself enough time to recuperate fully from his knee injury suffered during his complete, embarrassing, and one-sided shutout of the clueless JCC Jr.



BTW, this fight also serves to point out the correct usage of "exposed", as in..............

Martinez exposed JCC Jr. as a subpar fighter with only a good chin and a penchant for gaining 30 pounds overnight from the weigh-in.

Lou Duva

"Just win this fight. You can look good in the next fight."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He takes a good punch."

"He's a cagey guy."

"He's been in there with the best."

"He was in the Olympics 6 years ago."

"He was a long-time contender."

"A former Top 10 fighter."

"He was a highly-regarded prospect himself at one-time."

Most incorrectly and overused terms in boxing (by fighters)

I've got the most experience.
or
I'm the most experienced fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Most incorrectly and overused terms in boxing (by fighters)

I've got the most experience.
or
I'm the most experienced fighter.

---

In what way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I think the exposed thing gets blown out of proportion because, to me, it's supposed to mean that a guy was SUPPOSEDLY A-level, fought another A-level guy and was beaten to the point where he was "exposed" as not truly elite.

But the fact is, A-level fighters lose to A-level fighters all the time, it doesn't in itself mean that the guy who lost was not A-level and was "exposed". I think a guy who unfairly gets that criticism is Prince Naseem, who was a world champ at featherweight for 7 or 8 years before losing to MAB. I never understood why losing to one of the greatest fighters in boxing history meant you were "exposed".

Shane Mosley is an all time great, I don't see why he was "exposed" because Forrest and Winky Wright had his number.

---

I think you are misinterpreting exposed. It just means shown for what it is. It doesn't mean the person "exposed" is a bum or any insult at all. At the time casual boxing people thought Naz was the best fighter in the world even though they were hiding him from Marquez and Mayweather. In this case exposed simply means shown to the masses that he wasn't the Superman they thought. He was exposed as a beatable great champion who was highly entertaining.

'He's a good gym fighter.'

'Tough-Nosed'

'Cagey'

'Unproven'

'A Cutey'

[B][/ 'Well-Protected'B]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

I think you are misinterpreting exposed. It just means shown for what it is. It doesn't mean the person "exposed" is a bum or any insult at all. At the time casual boxing people thought Naz was the best fighter in the world even though they were hiding him from Marquez and Mayweather. In this case exposed simply means shown to the masses that he wasn't the Superman they thought. He was exposed as a beatable great champion who was highly entertaining.

---

I don't agree with that definition. It makes no sense really, because obviously every champion is a "beatable champion". In that case, every time somebody loses they are "exposed" and that's really taking all meaning out of the term. The word "exposed" has much more negative connotations, you immediately think of a fraudster being "exposed".

I'm not saying it means that a guy goes from an A-level fighter to a bum, but it certainly means that a guy had successfully hidden a significant weakness, most of the time against soft opposition, and an A-level fighter exposed it. In Nas' case, I don't think that's a fair claim because even though he did have technical flaws, he had been champion for 7 or 8 years and had great success against top ranked opposition before losing to MAB. Sometimes a loss is just a loss, it doesn't necessarily mean an exposing.

ex-pose

[ik-spohz]

verb (used with object), exposed, exposing.

1. to lay open to danger, attack, harm, etc.:
"to expose soldiers to gunfire; to expose one's character to attack."

2. to lay open to something specified:
"to expose oneself to the influence of bad companions."

3. to uncover or bare to the air, cold, etc.:
"to expose one's head to the rain."

4. to present to view; exhibit; display:
"The storekeeper exposed his wares."

5. to make known, disclose, or reveal (intentions, secrets, etc.).

6. to reveal or unmask (a crime, fraud, impostor, etc.):
"to expose a swindler."

7. to hold up to public reprehension or ridicule (fault, folly, a foolish act or person, etc.).



To reveal or unmask a fraud or impostor. In the true sense of the word, a fighter is not exposed merely 'cause he loses, as Bean said. It's basically when a fighter is unmasked as not being as great as was previously thought, or as his record would indicate.

To me, the classic way of exposing a fighter is when the fighter has a bloated record, filled with non-competitive or low-quality opponents. Which is why W-L records are so overrated sometimes. You can fight 40 bums (yes... I'll use that word too) in your own hometown.... beat them all.... and be exposed when you finally fight someone good.

Matinee idol! WTF is a matinee idol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Most incorrectly and overused terms in boxing (by fighters)

I've got the most experience.
or
I'm the most experienced fighter.

---

In what way?

---

IMO it's severly Overused.

Every veteran fighter I can think of who is fighting an up in comer can beat them, why? Because I've got the most experience.

Grizzled veteran