Exposed.

I picked Hopkins and every thing I predicted played it's self out perfectly. You can see Pavlik's weaknesses well before the Hopkins fight, it was not hard but so many here got hooked on the KO hype of Pavlik's camp. I was laughing the whole time myself.

 

You are wrong to. Exposed is when an up and coming fighter gets exposed as being more hype than hero. A good example would be Jeff Lacy, he was hyped up as the next Tyson. An unstoppable force, all this and that. But as soon as he steps in with someone who knows his way around the ring he is exposed as a one dimensional type fighter, and never to ammount to anything better. His lackluster wins and losses since being the proof. He was EXPOSED as not being what everyone percieved.

Cotto however simply lost the fight. He was not exposed, sure his defense showed dificiences. But they were merely exposing, he did well for the first half of the fight, but couldnt handle the heat later. He was just to small and Margarito did what he does, and tore Cotto up none stop until he couldnt take it anymore. Cotto however, unlike Lacy, will come back and be a forced to be recokned with just as he was prior. He was not exposed, and will sit again in the P4P rankings soon...

I could go on with examples forever, but basically Exposed means your were proven to be a fraud, or simply not an elite fighter like once thought. Losing is just losing, and you come back and you are as great as you were before the loss.

Its not all about the 0 people, not ever defeated fighter has been exposed!

 

When a new member of the Laker Girls gets pushed (As if they have to force her) into the Laker's Locker room after a game, and she sees them in the shower, she is exposed to the truth. Once she is over the initial shock, like a Scottish Tourist on the Loch, seeing an enormous monster rising from the depths, she will usually join them...

2 days later, when she is too sore to rehearse the new dance moves, and she has to call her coach and come up with a lame excuse, and all the other girls laugh knowingly, she has now been "Exposed" and can never go back to dating guys like Ben Affleck and Eminem, because she will laugh (uncontrollably) at them, once things get "exposed" in the bedroom.

 

AHahah. Best "exposed" clarification story ever.

 

@ Jack Presscot

Thanks, this exersize in futility could use a sense of humor. Made me snicker on so many levels.

 

Cotto was not exposed against Margarito, He's already a proven World Class fighter.
Its just that he was in with another World Class fighter in Margarito and somebody had to lose. Its not like Cotto was completely out classed was it.
Lacy was exposed by Calzaghe because he was completely shut out when facing world class opposition and has continued to look bad.

 

First of all, good thread. I believe it is important that we nail down some definitions of the terms we take for granted....

Edit: Now to reply to some of the comments....

 

I don't believe this to be the case. I don't think we need to stop using the term at all, we just need to be more deliberate or careful in the cases we do.

One of the issues with this term is that it raises high emotions in people. Saying that a fighter was exposed immediately leads to an intense and negative reaction from that fighter's fans, which gets away from the issue - in this case perhaps Cotto's stamina to box and move for an entire fight and/or his ability to tie up and defend when need be.

"Exposed" generally pertains to fighters who aren't yet seasoned veterans. For instance, Bernard Hopkins has shown through his career an ability to deal with all kinds of problems and all kinds of styles, which suggests that he is beyond the realm of being "exposed". If one day he shows up and his legs just aren't there, the consensus will be that his age has caught up to him, not that he has been exposed as never having had fresh legs for an entire fight.

Young fighters are most susceptible to being "exposed" because their bodies of work are less complete, and they are much less likely to have seen a variety of styles.

Just "losing" a fight does not amount to someone being exposed. You suggest here that Floyd Mayweather could get exposed, but I'm not sure how that would be. He's faced all types of opponents through his career and won. Supposing he lost to someone like Margarito in a 7-5 type affair, that would not be a case of him being exposed by pressure.

 

Cotto was exposed against SSM in my eyes. The way he didn't appear to have any advantages in the second half of the fight especially.

He demonstrated limitation in having a close fight with a fighter who would go on to edge Mayorga.

 

You're using a loose definition of "exposed" there in an attempt to show that the term should be abolished from boxing terminology. I don't believe that it needs to be, just that it should be more strictly defined, which is the pursuit of this thread.

 

Good.

 

Close or not he won the fight.

 

The average loss does not amount to an exposure. You can lose a fight, but nothing was really exposed.

 

One example I would use where I wouldn't say that the fighter was Mayweather vs. Gatti. Gatti took a horrendous beating, but no one expected him to outbox Mayweather ala McGirt's plan. We knew Gatti's weaknesses, and while Mayweather exploited them, he didn't "expose" Gatti.

 

2 of the most overused words on ESB are `exposed` & `resume.`
I must say I never/rarely use either.

The thread starter is right about the ACTUAL meaning of exposed, most fans will use the word exposed when any decent ranked fighter loses convincingly.

Hell, even Bernard Hopkins used it in that kind of way when the DLH/Pac fight was signed... B-Hop says `Manny Pacquiao is about to be exposed`... sure Bernard, it was your golden buddy that ended up `exposed.`