Exposed.

I've skimmed through most of this thread and saw some good answers and some ones that are also good, but I wouldn't agree with to some extent.

Overall...this term is necessary although negative. The crime of the term is not in over-usage, but the time of it's delivery. The term exposed is thrown out at a fighter too quickly. Some people may be able to feel confident enough to label a fighter with this, but for the most part it IS thrown on a fighter rather quickly. It's a word that's purely subjective and something that can only be seen in hindsight.

To me...the perfect example of an "exposed" fighter is Jeff Lacy. He was a man with all sorts of clout. A figher with amazing amateur background. An olympian. Devastating power. And can smash a tomato can fairly easy. But once he faced an elite force or at least a formidable foe. He was exposed as a poor fighter that solely relied on his power. This was apparent after the Calzaghe fight. But again...thrown at him too quickly. I think it is NOW safe to say this after his other **** performance with Jermain Taylor and the fringe contenders he dealt with prior to fighting Jermain. It is now EVIDENT AND CLEAR that the man has been "exposed."

The term and definition of the word that I agree with most is Iceman's...but the OP has another great interpretation of the word as well. Miguel Cotto may have been exposed indeed...but we must see if he continues to perform poorly afterward.

Some fighters manage to squeak passed the "exposed" term because of the fact that they only lose when facing elite fighters. If Ricky Hatton were to be dominated in his upcoming bout with Manny (which I doubt) and were to be KO'd again. I think he might escape the word because he lost to two of the best fighters in the world, but again...he's only dominated sub-par opposition thus far (with the exception of Tsyzu...and his win was something ugly considering the amount of rabbit punching and holding while hitting was going on).

Jermain Taylor is a fighter who has come back into the picture after being dismissed too quickly as "exposed" because of his losses to Pavlik. If he continues to get victories over formidable opposition, then he was a victim to the too-early-used slanderous term.

I feel people should just really THINK and come to a closely observed assesment of a fighter before labeling him "exposed" because the term is associated with fraud...or hypejob. Hence the negative connotation. Because you've been exposed your also a hype-job. This is a harsh blow to someone's life and career...

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Excellent Post:deal

 

i agree with this.

i think amir khan got 'exposed', but a lot of people saw it coming anyway at some point.

cotto's proved his class and he's had to show grit and character to do it. it's amazing how many fighter's 'balance' on the edge of greatness and depending which way they fall (luck, willpower or skill) can often sink or make their career.

i'll remember cotto for the torres fight. a fight where he was obscenely inadequate defensively against a power puncher but he managed to win anyway...

if cotto got 'exposed' by margarito then margarito got 'exposed' by williams - and then we're opening a can of worms which doesn't need to be opened.

they are both proven world class fighters and that's it.

 

word perfect this is a very, very good post i think also.

 

Many thanks again. It fells good to see that i'm not alone.

 

Did you read the first post, tkk? There's a very good reference to Bernard Hopkins in it. Defending yourself entails doing alot more than just slipping. You must be one of the only people that think Cotto's failure to tie Margarito up (at the very least), is an acceptable/forgivable thing. It was a massive oversight - but it's always been there waiting to be exploited. Watch the late rounds of Mosley fight, watch the late rounds of the N'dou fight, watch the Torres fight, watch the Corley fight.

 

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, I agree with most of it,
although i do not agree with your terminology. You're just unable to put your
feelings into words correctly. The way you formulate your definition of
exposed just logically leads to conclusions that are not in line with what you
mean.

I am just showing that the way you define exposure, leads to ludicrous
conclusions that you yourself do not support. Therefor your definition is crooked.

You react by saying I do not understand you. I react to that by saying you
do not understand the rules of logic.

 

I agree, but didn't you make this thread already when you were PACFAN84?

 

Lacy by Calzaghe :!:
Pavlik by Hopkins
Cotto by Margarito :!:
Hatton by Collazo
Pacquiao by Hatton

 

i strongly disagree that cotto was "exposed" he simply lost to the bigger, stronger, taller fighter with great stamina and endurance not mind you, to a better boxer/fighter.

imo "exposed" is the most abused word in esb and i abhor the use of it loosely, as an example for the use of exposed blatantly is the jmm-pac 1 wherein pac was supposedly "exposed" and jmm set a blueprint on how to defeat pac but as we know now years later no one has come close to beating pac except jmm in their too-close-to-call 2nd fight - that for me isn't exposed, it's simply just a matter of styles and matchups.