When did Losing become synonymous with "being exposed"?

When boxing fans became more "informed".

The smarter fans think they are, the stupider they show themselves to really be.

 

If it`s a British fighter it`s exposed,if it`s an American fighter well pick any one of 1000 excuses.

 

Yer gimmick is lame.

 

When someone decided it was "cool" to say someone was exposed. It's a useless term for the most part.

 

I see the term used, for the most part, when a fighter does much worse than expected. When Kessler lost to Calzaghe, I didn't see many people say that he was exposed. However, when a guy like Mijares is a big favorite and gets dismantled, the exposed label comes out.

 

I wasn't posting here so I can't account for this board but on another board I posted on, Kessler had been "exposed and overhyped" by Calzaghe and then "ducked" Miranda.

So IMO it depends on where you go really.

 

I think it started out as a technical term. A fighter takes a good flush punch, goes down and doesn't get up. One could say the punch exposed a certain vulnerability where taking a punch on the chin is concerned. Alternatively, a fighter takes a fighter with a very good chin with one punch. One could say that fighter's one-punch power was exposed by the incident. Or a fighter could be exposed as too one-dimentional/non-versatile, etc.

It's quite natural that these days the term would be used to describe a fighter as a whole: "He was exposed [as the fraud I always knew he was]!", because many fighters these days trade on a padded, unbeaten record and pick and choose opponents with styles that are meant to make them look good to claim that they are unbeatable/the best/great etc.

 

It originated first when Gene Tunney first fought a real fighter in Harry Greb. Tunney being a lightheavy at the time he fought Greb got the tar beat out of him by middleweight Greb. It then escalated again years later when Sean O'Grady and Joey Gamache won titles, but now is overly used. It was rivitalized when Cotto lost to AM. Many thought that Cotto had never been in with a tough guy in a long, draw out, tough back and forth fight before he fought AM. Fans thought Arum was putting him with too many soft touches. Cotto might not have been exposed as I've asked the question in the past. He did move up to 147, and lose to a very tough guy. Being exposed applies to only certain fighters so don't get too bent out of shape. Nobody is saying Raf Marquez got exposed by Vasquez or that Morales got exposed by Barrera. Pavlik got exposed. "Exposed" isn't a bad word. Obviously only the flawed fighters are called exposed.

 

Kessler wasn't exposed, and Kessler didn't duck Miranda. Your logic might be exposed as biased lol...but not Kessler.

 

Will you STFU you xenophobic scottish ****...did you catch the clap off a US marine or something?

 

:yep

 

Its a stupid word to use in most cases. Prospects who move up in class and lose "get exposed", boxers like Miguel Cotto who lose wars to boxers like Antonio Margarito don't....

 

That's it exactly! It happened when they started letting high school kids post on message boards. :yep

 

Yeah, the running away from real competition standard