Exposed.

So, if i undertstand correctly (wich is by no mean a sure thing), by your definition, as soon as a fighter loses, he's exposed?

 

Maybe. Simplify a little, my man. If fighter A loses because of weaknesses WE already have pointed out maybe 100 times before the event occured, that's not exposure. Now if fighter B beats A showing us weaknesses we'd never thought of, seen, or discussed; yes that is exposure.:good

 

Thank You :mj

 

Everyone knows that if a boxer gets beat he has been exposed as a fraud and that the blueprint has been laid out on how to beat him.
Serously it might be the most over used word. Sometimes good boxers have bad nights, or just get into the ring with someone who is better than they are, or fight a guy who just has his number. We sometimes make too big of a deal about a loss.

 

Oh...i'M sorry! I thought you and pipe wrenched were agreeing on the expose definition...

 

Ok. Then i understand you definition. But i prefer iceman71's

 

If you think that Cotto was "exposed" then you know as much about boxing as most of the rest of these keyboard warriors. His defense is clearly defective and I have outlined these defects in many posts prior to the match against Margarito. If you just suddenly noticed this, then it is because you don't know boxing. The only person who has been "exposed" is you.

 

I think there is more than one way to use the word exposed in boxing which seem to be confused here:

1) In a fight certain aspects of a boxers game are uncovered, and this doesnt necessarilly mean in a losing fight even. These aspects can range from lack of defensive ability to certain punches/tactics, a weak chin , a lack of stamina, power or movement to recklessness or lack of heart.
These aspects of someone's game will be exposed in games where that aspect is tested more than ever before, often because of facing the best opponent yet but possibly simply because certain styles and fighters are kryptonite to the other fighters style.

This type of exposure for me does not make the figher as a whole exposed, but rather shows a specific weakness in the fighters total game. This i why i would not say Cotto was exposed in the fight with margarito, but I would say some aspects of cotto's game were exposed, namely a lack of particular defensive skills.

So i would not say Cotto was exposed, since i think Cotto is still a great fighter.


2) When you say a fighter is exposed, to me that means that the fighter as a whole is uncovered to be something else than was previously perceived.For me the only time you can fairly say that a fighter is exposed is when a fighter has been made by fighting inferior opponents, building a great record and gaining fame for his beating of over the hill or clearly inferior boxers and THEN loses his first fight against a decent opponent badly.

In this case the fighter that was preaviously perceived as a great fighter by many (people just like to see clean records with all wins) will be uncovered as a bad or mediocre fighter at best. Here the hyped "great" turns out to be a nobody.

Again different people use the word in different ways, but this is how i think the term exposed should be used.

 

No sir. And that is exactly the outlook that the OP is calling out in this thread. Just because a fighter loses by no means, does that necessarily mean he was exposed by a weakness yet to be identified.

the fighter could have lost to a RECOGNIZED and DOCUMENTED weakness, thereby, no exoposing was done.

 

that's the equivalent of looking at a result and mistaking a symptom for the cause.