When did Losing become synonymous with "being exposed"?

i might agree with that on the similar term of "poseur"/"poser"

usually the term poser was applied to people trying to come up in the punk scene as a true and serious anarchist punk rocker, but once "exposed" as not being true to their wit and only mere casual fans...they were called posers...

then all of a sudden...dumbass high school kids used it for everything. if you wore a certain band shirt and didnt know the life and times of that band you were a poser...if you didnt skate good you were a poser...

so i guess in a sense...boxers who were "exposed" are usually posers...pavlik was thought to be exposed because he was a KO artist that got COMPLETELY humbled by a much older fighter...i personally think he just didnt belong in that weight class...as well as fight B-Hop with Bronchitis...

 

It's mainly used when an up-and-coming, hyped up fighter is dominated. Basically it means that they've been exposed as not good enough for the best fighters, or their style has been exposed. I think you could argue that Hopkins exposed Pavlik as a very one-dimensional fighter. It doesn't mean that Pavlik is a dud, it just means that his style can be exploited by more well-rounded (and better) fighters.

 

I love the way when certain fighters lose on here they are no longer "Prime" or "Exposed".

It is a damn joke. Good post. :happy

 

I'd say this really started to happen near the end of the Mike Tyson era, perhaps really coming into the Lennox Lewis era.

Was Tyson "Exposed" by Douglas?
Lewis Exposed by McCall?

I think the term is most fitting in the case of a hyped prospect with an inflated record getting blasted when stepping up.

Tye Fields was exposed by Monte Barrett (although, most boxing fans kind of knew that anyway). He was "Exposed" to the novice / casual fan.

Perhaps that's the best way to use the term:

Exposed:

When casual fans are shocked to find out the truth about a fighter (something that's usually already known (or at least suspected) by "serious" fans)

 

Imo, fighter A is "exposed" when fighter B beats him so one-sidedly, that he "exposes" his flaws for all to see.

I can see a case for people calling Cotto "exposed" in the Margarito fight, but only in the sense that the fight showed Cotto can't handle relentless pressure well, other than that Cotto was a great fighter before that fight and is still a great fighter after that (the facts that Cotto doesn't have the best defence in the world or that he is susceptible to uppercuts were already known before that fight took place).

A better case can be made for the Taylor/Pavlik I fight. Many thought Taylor was a hype-job, and the first Pavlik fight confirmed them in a way, meaning Pavlik exposed flaws that previously hadn't been seen. (I strongly disagree with the term "hype-job" describing Taylor, though, cause I believe he is a very good fighter. He obviously HAS flaws and he is not the master boxer HBO wanted people to think he is, but still he is very talented and definitely one of the top dogs in his division).

In the Hopkins vs Pavlik fight, Pavlik got "exposed" in the sense that it was proven he can't be even nearly as effective at 170 (or 168 of course) as he is at 160, plus the bout showed that Pavlik can be easily beaten by a faster guy with about equal power. In addition, almost nobody expected Pavlik to be so thoroughly dominated in a fight. BUT, I believe that Pavlik wasn't "exposed" as a slow and more or less one-dimensional fighter, simply because those things were known before that fight and people should know about them. When I was watching his previous fight with Lockett I was like "man, he's doing the same thing over and over again"!

My objection to the term "exposed" as it is being used by many, is that a fighter can't be exposed for something we already knew was there. If a fight punctuates flaws that people ALREADY KNEW ABOUT, then imo the term shouldn't be used in those cases.

The recent Mijares vs Darchinyan fight I think is a very good example, where the term should be used and be 100% accurate.

 

a fine example is when a boxer who has a great record (0 L's) finally meets an honest to goodness boxer and he losses..

Velaro for example 25-0 more or less but if he meets the likes of juan diaz, guzman, campbell, JMM or even Juarez.. He'll get exposed!

 

It really depends on how a fighter loses, to who he loses to, and under what circumstances. And there are degrees of being "exposed" as well.

I agree it is an over-used term at times, and also used very inconsistently.

 

since stupid asses started watching boxing

 

very true:good

 

In reality a boxer doesn't have to lose a fight to be exposed..... he can be exposed (and many have been exposed) even if he wins the fight.... sometimes a second class boxer can expose a so-called elite boxer and that doesn't mean that he is a great boxer, it just mean that the so-called elite boxer was vastly overrated...... some times has to do with styles.

Some boxers have never being (were) exposed because there (were) are no boxers in their division with the style to do so.