According to me, a "crushing defeat" and a "thrashing win" are opposites. I have always seen the usage of these two terms in sports. But I have seldom seen the usage of "thrashing defeat". Is "thrashing win" an oxymoron? Should "thrashing" not be used along with victory? What is a better way to phrase a huge win where the opponent team is crushed?
6
-
1I don’t understand—why would it be an oxymoron? A crushing defeat is a defeat where you are crushed; a thrashing win is a win where you soundly thrash the opponent. The participial adjectives don’t show who is agent and who is patient of the action, but these roles are the same in both cases: the winner is the crusher/thrasher, and the loser is the crushee/thrashee.– Janus Bahs JacquetCommented Mar 18, 2015 at 12:13
-
1I've never heard/seen the term before. I suppose it's meaning would be apparent to the average listener/reader, thought there are probably better terms. "Overwhelming victory" would be clearer and a more familiar phrase.– Hot LicksCommented Mar 18, 2015 at 12:34
-
In British football you might hear something like: "Arsenal were thrashed by Chelsea" (used passively). here's another example: Tiggy Wiggy gives rivals weight and a thrashing to win Weatherbys Super Sprint for Hannon and Hughes– Mari-Lou ACommented Mar 18, 2015 at 12:44
-
If you could post a British or AmEng phrase where the words "thrashing win" are used together that would be great.– Mari-Lou ACommented Mar 18, 2015 at 12:47
-
1'Thrashing Win' only evokes to me the sound of virtual memory thrashing the hard drive on an old Windows machine.– RacheCommented Mar 19, 2015 at 14:30
|
Show 1 more comment
3 Answers
Crushing and thrashing describe what the loss and win do, but the words do not specify an object for each action.
A crushing defeat means a defeat that crushes [something]. Notice that the phrase does not specify what is crushed. The object of the crushing is obvious from the context: the recipient of the defeat.
Similarly, a thrashing win means a win that thrashes [something], but no object of the thrashing is specified. Obviously, the object of the thrashing is the winner's opponent, not the winner. This is perfectly grammatical and plainly obvious from context; you do not need to be concerned that your use of thrashing defeat is ungrammatical or confusing.
As others have commented, I've never heard of a thrashing win. However, a term I've commonly seen is a lopsided victory, where one team greatly outscores the other. And on that note, a one-sided victory is often coined a blowout.
Colloquially, you also could say the victor decimated the losing team.
Also: landslide (usage 2)
Surely, this would be entirely down to context for you can be thrashed and doing the thrashing. I see you point and understand your logic, being thrashed would be the negative and the win the positive, so they do create an oxymoron from your point of view. However, in the context you are describing its more a case of desbribing the win/defeat. A crushing win explains how you lost, such as a thrashing defeat shows the manner in which you were victorious.
