i dont think losing to a great fighter can be called getting "exposed". If you're resume is suspected as being padded and you lose to your very first "live opponent" then the term fits you.
Hopkins exposed Tarver. He showed the world that Tarver was nothing more than an illusion created by a shell of Roy Jones.
To me, there is a difference between losing a fight, and being exposed. Jeff Lacy was a classic example of an overhyped fighter being hammered, whilst Tyson just didn't perform, underestimated his opponent and got KO'd. There is an obsession in boxing, or writing off the defeated man - Morales, Marquez, Barrera and Pacquiao have all lost fights and have come back. Naz wasn't like that - he was on the slide before Marco got hold of him, and to many, the outcome, if not inevitable, was predictable.
Are you kidding me............. I guess you didn't see Tito "damage" Mayorga with about every shot in the book about a year or so earlier. Mayorga had NEVER been down before that fight, but OSCAR exposed Mayorga's chin?:nut That's why I call him opportunistic, because his "ball lickers" will fall for it everytime..atsch