I should be in bed by now, but having just come across that turd of a thread about "**** boxers being exposed", I began thinking. Marco Antonio Barrera was once 43-0, with his best win coming against a war torn Kennedy Mckinney in one of the best fights of the last 20 years. The fight itself was savage and extremely competitive. Barrera took a lot of right hands, and was hurt a couple of times before stopping Mckinney in the 11th round. Perhaps in typical knee-jerk fashion, Barrera would have been first congratulated on an epic fight, and then slated for being to easy to hit on the general forum. They would have said: "Against a fighter like Naseem Hamed, Marco wouldn't have been able to take that many right hands and would get exposed and KTFO" These predictions would begin to mass further once Barrera took on the experianced Junior jones, only to be knocked out. A rematch would ensue, but Barrera was noticably weary of the right hand, and inevitably lost a lopsided decision. Perhaps in typical knee-jerk fashion, Barrera would have been once again slated on the general forum. This time, they say: "Barrera is a glass-jawed joke. He padded his record, and the first time he steps up in class he goes life and death with a shop worn Mckinney, and then gets KTFO by Jones. He'll be a gatekeeper at best" Of course, this would all be academic once Barrera was to establish himself as not only an elite level fighter, but one of the greatest Mexican fighters of all time. A razor thin loss to Erik Morales, which he would avenge twice after dominating the Prince, really defied all of the doubters. Much like Darchinyan, who was once slated for losing to Donaire, and then reinvigorated with a knockout victory over the talented Mijares, Barrera would now be relevant once again. Was Kelly Pavlik really exposed at the hands of Hopkins, or was he just in the ring with an established all-time great? I suppose we'll let history decide.
Which is a shame because the emphasis on being unbeaten in the last decade has probably stopped hundreds of great matchups happening.
This thread has me laughing cause the main guy he's talking about is so embarrassed, he wont even stand up for himself. This is the true definition of a ******ed poster being exposed!
The guy who initiated that awful thread about "**** boxers being exposed" was certainly the reason for my thread, but he isn't the only one guilty of such talk. Fighters weaknesses can be exposed, as Barrera's was against Junior Jones. He was to open for the right hand, but he made adjustments which made it possible for him to go 12 rounds with Erik Morales, and beat world class operators, such as Naz and Morales. Because a weakness is "exposed" does not mean they are "**** boxers".
Couldn't have said it better than that. Almost every fighter has a weakness, its just that a few are lucky to never have that weakness exposed.
All I'm saying is Joe Fraizier exposed Ali in their first fight...that Cooper knockdown was no fluke!
Nonesense. Ali fought awesomely in that first fight. And Joe fought fantastically in the Thrilla in Manilla. When two great fighters fight, on one night boxer A's strengths will prevail. But on another night, Boxer's B's strenths might prevail. That's not to say that one of Ali's relative weaknesses wasn't his defense to a great left hook. But that fact doesn't mean he was "exposed" in that fight. And the second and third fights with Frazier, the very same fighter who was allegedly exposed, managed to stay away from the left hook. Ali punished Joe severely in their first fight, even in a losing effort, just as Frazier severely punished Ali in his losing effort in Manilla.