He gets called "exposed"?? This automatically does not apply to everyone obviously. Boxers like Trinidad, Jones Jr., and Tyson just to name a few, have gotten called exposed boxers once they lost. Trinidad (as much as I hate him for retiring like a girl every time he lost) beat a lot of solid fighters before he lost to Hopkins, he simply lost to the better man that night. Jones, with wins over Hopkins and Toney are enough said, but lost to Tarver. Again, he was simply beat by the better man that night (Even though Jones could've went for the KO in the 5th round of the 3rd fight with Tarver). And what can I say about the legendary Tyson, who else would have knocked out Spinks in a single round like that? Lost to Lewis and everyone said he was exposed. It's annoying when guys do that, you want them to be invinsible for ever? Ok bye.
Because people have short-term memories here. And also fans have a mentality of "What have you done for me lately." And lastly, it vindicates a few peoples opinions and fuels the haters too.
cause when you lose, some of your flaws that weren't apparent when you were winning are exposed. I think certain flaws are exposed even when a fighter wins. In fact every fighter has been exposed at some point or another, including guys like Pacquiao and Floyd.
The worst part of the whole "exposed" phenomona is that most astute observers know exactly what a fighters flaws and weaknesses are long before they lose a high profile fight. When a fighter beats a guy on the basis of known weaknesses, he did not expose ****. He just used known weaknesses to beat the guy.
This is a very concise/correct appraisal of one of the biggest issues that boxers face, and why today you see less competitive fights, and why upsets are really upsets. Great description Petetp. Now this noob will stfu. Cheers. Duncanne.
No such thing as being "exposed" when considering a good or great fighter. Everyone can be beat no matter how invincible they look.
That usually applies to boxers who have questions surrounding them going in to a particular fight. Tyrone Brunson is a great recent example...
Exposed is what it is, Exposed. When people get exposed then there was something that was shown to beat someone that wasn't there before. When someone get's exposed, it should be implied that all of his fights there after will be tough against any opponent who has ability to duplicate the flaw that got exposed. Example: Calzaghe showed that kessler couldn't fight backwards against speed. So ward made it a point to make kessler go backwards at certain points in the fight because it was shown that kessler couldn't do that and ward had the physical tools to duplicate and expand on what calzaghe had shown to be the weakness of kessler. Kessler will have a problem against any talented fighter with the ability to do that from here on out.
People are stupid, there are legitimate exposures like Tito Trinidad who was exposed in the De La Hoya fight essentially as being a 1 dimensional power puncher and which was then repeated by Hopkins and Wright. And then there are just losses like Bernard Hopkins losses to Jermain Taylor, those were just Hopkins getting to the age where he couldn't handle young guns that were very physical anymore.
