Exposed.

I agree with your definition. To Expose something or someone, is to uncover a yet unidentified (in boxing) weakness.

You are right, the term gets used WAY too much, and just because a fighter loses, does NOT necessarily mean that fighter was exposed.

 

To me, the definition of someone being exposed is Amir Khan.

Feasting on a combination of smaller, shot or featherfisted opponents - some of which were more than one of the three...... before being splatted by the first live opponent he faced with higher than average power.

Some of Cotto's weaknesses were exposed in the Margarito fight.... but not Cotto in general.

 

:good Well put. that is a fine example too. In the case you described, the aura of invinciblity that can be created fighting cans, was exposed to be myth.

For a fighter A to be exposed, another fighter B will have to have uncovered yet to be identified weaknesses in fighter A's skill set.

IMO.

 

I may be wrong but thats what i think too.

 

Fair point, but was it really an exposure? People had been questioning Khan's chin forever and a day. All it took was for a fighter to nail him right and it was over. Maybe the hype was "exposed" in that case, but we all knew Khan was getting knocked down by fighters he should have easily walked on, given his reputation (hype).

 

But...when a fighter loses, isn't it always because of some weakness compared to is opponent? :huh

 

In general I dislike the term "exposed." It is usually used in a very derogatory way. Although I rarely use the term, I have been guilty of using it inappropriately myself.

Posters also often use it when we see something in a fighter that we already knew about him. Pavlik/Hopkins is a great example of this. We already knew that Kelly would have trouble with slick boxers. I said ages ago that KP would lose his zero to a slick boxer at LHW. I just had no idea it would be Hopkins in '08.

An appropriate use of the term might be Vera/Lee. Andy was suppose to be able to beat both Abraham and Pavlik by the end of '08. He got beat by the pressure and power of Brian Vera. If Vera's power bothers you, what will happen when Arthur cracks ya? If you can't keep Brian Vera off of you, what chance would you have of keeping Pav off of you? However, at this point we need to stop and ask WHAT was really exposed? All that was really exposed was that Andy ain't ready yet, and a lot of us already knew he was more hype than substance.

Cotto/Margarito? Both guys were exposed to a certain degree. Cotto's lack of survival skills was shocking. Tony made hard work of a fight that should have been over in 8 rounds. He let Cotto escape repeatedly when a truly good finisher would have used subtle foot adjustments to keep him on the ropes and close the show.

The term has appropriate usages. On ESB it's usually an insult rather than a legitimate analitycal term.

 

No sometimes you just lose to the better fighter

 

In general, yes sir. But the real question is, had that weakness been pointed out before, or did the winner "expose" an unknown weakness to the world that no one had yet seen?

 

ANd the other is better because...?
Lets say he beats you because he hits harder. Then, your weakness (in this specific fight) was your punching power, or you defense. No?
I mean, a weakness is always compared to something.
How can we say that guy has a bad D if there is no one with a better D?

WOuld Pavlik shows any weakness if he was figthing...me? I dont think so. I dont think i would be able to EXPOSE his weaknesses...

 

So, that means that, as soon as a fighter loses, at least one weakness has been exposed. Then if he loses again, its not exposed because it was exposed before?

 

Got dayum, how I've missed reading posts like this. A++ as usual, sir.