The term "expose" is over rated

True. Losing to a top P4P legend does not mean one was exposed.

Was Ali exposed against Joe Frazier?

One could argue, however, that Amir Khan was exposed.

 

The Pavlik/Hopkins fight was the very definition of getting exposed. Losses happen, but that was an execution. Pavlik was a big favorite and got destroyed for 12 rounds. The last time I can recall that happening was Calzaghe vs. Lacy. Lacy was exposed in that fight as was Pavlik last night. It wasn't an off night, or controversial decision. It was a good ole' fashion, passionate ass whoopin. Hopefully, Pavlik learns from this and works on some of his deficiencies.

 

Ali was out of the game for a few years and lost in a competitive fight to the reigning HW champ. Kelly was dominated by a 43 year old man coming off a loss. If Kelly wasn't exposed than no one can be exposed.

 

He exposed Lacy as a limited fighter with no plan B and little ability to deal with movement.

 

That has nothing to do with him being exposed. Beating a good fighter doesn't mean that you can't get exposed yourself.

 

I agree that these words are thrown around too much but jesus I m afraid for kelly...I mean is he basically an arturo gatti? he went from a p4p guy to getting utterly destroyed in every way...I am a fan of KP that is the type of fight that makes u scratch ur head and wonder who he can physically beat and more important mentally...fighters will now TRY to emmulate bhop more...he may need a new trainer...i dont know...but if any fighter has ever been exposed it is him and jeff lacy and look what happened to lacy....I just hope his skills improve and he fights a few guys who will stand in front of him and he can bring the thunder again

 

Pavlik exposed as a guy who cannot carry extra weight and fight his fight.

Cotto exposed as a quitter who couldn't even slow down a 'limited' fighter like Margarito

Taylor exposed as guy who got a string of gift decisions against undersized and older opponents. As soon as he fought a live fighter in his prime with reasonable physical talent, he got KTFO.

There are no perfect fighters, but Cotto and Taylor have huge holes in their games that people chose to ignore in favor of buying the hype. And Pavlik is more limited than some think he is. Calzaghe would thrash Pavlik in a way so many here can't even understand. And I am a Pavlik fan.

That doesn't mean these guys aren't excellent fighters, but their flaws were exposed in the fights which they lost their "O"s.

 

Exactly. Golota exposed Bowe in a lot of ways and Lord knows Andrew has been exposed any number of times himself.

 

Kelly fought two names before Hopkins; Miranda and Taylor. We've already seen that Miranda is a joke, and Taylor had looked bad in his previous few fights. Peter beat Toney twice and gave Wlad some trouble in their fight before getting dismantled by Vitali. Many thought Vitali would win that fight and saw Peter as a crude slugger. I have no idea how you could say Peter was exposed but Pavlik wasn't. Was Peter a 3-1 favorite against Vitali?

 

I disagree. Khan wasn't exposed against Prescott. Everyone knew he had a glass jaw. Now had he been picked apart for 12 rounds, then you could say he was exposed. Margo was not exposed against Williams. We already knew he was a slow starter with defensive deficiencies. Also, the fight was pretty close. You see where I'm going with this?

Hopkins surprised everyone with his activity. However, everyone knew the movement and angles would be there. Depsite this, many said Kelly would dominate and/or stop Hopkins. No one thought he would have that much trouble dealng with lateral movement. That's a weakness that was exposed in a big way. I think it's also more apparent that another key to beating this guy is to continually time him. He relies on the same combo over and over again. If you can time his jab, it disrupts his whole fight plan. Taylor showed this to some degree in their second fight. Everyone now has a blueprint to beating Pavlik. Fortunately for Pavlik. not many(if any) can follow this blueprint at 160.

 

I would say the term "overrated" is overused :blood

BTW "exposure" for me would have to do with things people didn't know about a fighter. So Hopkins' win over Pavlik, a schooling it was, didn't "expose" anything about Kelly imo. His flaws were more or less known. It's just that Bernard underlined them big time, fighting a great fight himself.

 

Possibly. But some fighters, no one has an answer for yet. What's the answer for Floyd? When you find out that answer for the first time, you get exposure.

 

Styles make fights, and Hopkins just had Kelly's number. Term expose should be exposed as a overrated, overrused word that make haters feel better when someone loses.

 

I think Cotto was only slightly exposed. He's certainly not as good as boxer as thought. He's great when pressuring his opponent, but he doesn't have the footwork and defense to effectively fight a guy that he can't overwhelm.

No exposure. Diaz was simply outhustled and out toughed.

I say no exposure. Lefties will always have problems with straight rights and left hooks. Pac is really aggressive and therefore can be countered. I think most knew what problems Marquez would posses for Pac and Pac handled it relatively well.