The word exposure comes around every time a boxer is beaten, for some reason a fighter is never just beaten by the the better boxer or the better man on the night, instead he is ''exposed''. Lets say Calzaghe in a farewell fight faces Dawson and loses, this means 1000 threads claiming Cazlaghe was exposed will come up, what was he exposed as? An ATG who lost one fight at the age of 37 to somebody 11 years younger? Or a bum all along? (Im using Cazlaghe as an example but this applies to any boxer, even those who already have losses) Lets take Paulie, I knew he would lose, I even said he wouldnt last the 12 (I called round 10), people now claim he has been exposed, exposed as what? Somebody not as good as Hatton (or Cotto)? Exposed as an athlete who has fought the best in his weight class and just fell short at the highest peak? The word 'exposed' should be eliminated from these forums, a boxer losing to another boxer exposes him as nothing but a professioanl who would whoop your own arse anytime, anyday, but just didnt have enough on the night (or maybe any night) to beat another professional.
Only thing that exposes is the fact that whom ever said Paulie was "exposed" against Hatton is a certified nooblet. We didn't find anything out about Malignaggi in this fight that we didn't already know.
it was originally applied to undefeated boxers who were pwowerfully backed by shrwed promoters...thing is almost all boxers have a certain hype atatched to the, in the 50's to the 80's it was a bit different to what it means now.khan clearly had a weak chin..wasnt totaly shown to us that he cant take a punch. but he still had/has all the facilties. somone like chuck davey is a good example of a guy picking on weaker or older fighters while looking good himself. when he came against somone of quality he was taken apart. tye fields wasnt thought of as a contender only a guy with a decent record and an exciting style. but suddenly he was ranked rather highly (top 20 if i remember) as soon as he fougth a guy who wanted to fight he got sparked...that is technically exposed. BUT tye doesnt think of himself as a world class fighter nor does his managment full heartedly, only a streaking fighter who was excitng and kinda fresh for the heavywieghts. you have to be beaten by a certain skill level. Robert Nelson getting beat up horribly by Andy Bell is a good example. or ian napa reducing lee haskins hamed act. i think exposed means proving that your not as good as thought of. you think your a great boxer. just to find out that your pretending to box, pretending to fight. thats what i felt about haskins was that he liked to pretend he was naseem hamed...clearly wasnt and didnt have the skill, the reflexes or power to pull it off. somone like anthony small is a completly different kettle of fish. even tho he bounces roudn liek an idget and pretends to be skilful. he does know what he is kinda doing. losing to pryce wasnt a bad loss. the main reason why it is a hateful word is becuase it is used so quickly to describe how an unbeaten fighter gets handed.
:good I agree with you 100%! I think I made a thread similar to this when Cotto lost the fight against Margo. There's a lot of people out there who don't know much about boxing that use such words as: exposed, glass jaw (I particularly hate this one because most people who say this have not taken a real punch in their face), overrated, etc. These are all big words that needs to be used carefully, with respect AND with facts. One too many people here are using these words too much with little knowledge if you ask me.
Agreed,the idots here yell exposed after every loss,no matter the situation.Fighters just lose,it's a normal thing
