Why Is Someone Always Saying "exposed"

But Haye was already exposed by Thompson and Dawson was exposed in the Glen Johnson robbery:yep

 

yeah, people use the word exposed way too much. It's people who hate that certain boxer that lost. They sit back and wait for him to lose so they can say I told you so. I guess these boxers were exposed too....

Sugar Ray Robinson

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

This content is protected

Marvin Hagler

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

This content is protected

Ray Leonard

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

A fighter that earns his way through the ranks with legitimate knock outs is anything but a hype job. Those saying Pavlik was a hype job are just clueless about boxing.

 

Exactly! You are correct.

 

I also think the word "exposed" is severely overused.

And come to think of it... "shot", "nuthugger", and "hater" get overused as well.

But that doesn't mean those words don't apply sometimes, and to a certain reduced level. With that being said...

I think KP really did get exposed. Not as a complete fraud, but as a fighter who is not nearly as invincible as the media would have hoped. He was hyped as some mystical, destiny-driven, golden-boy, Great American, RustBelt Rocky, Superfighter who absolutely could not be stopped. I always knew he would crash hard, and suspected Hopkins would be tougher than people were giving credit.

Cotto was exposed. He was exposed as a fighter who, come to think of it, hadn't really beaten anyone except Zab (who everyone beats) and A 37-year-old Shane. Allthis after he was unfairly ranked #1 just because he won a title vacated by a man who was truly #1. By the way, people still use this inflated #1 status to justify ranking him as the current #2 Welter. I knew with much more certainty that Margarito would beat his brains out. I said it over and over and over again...

But overall, these are still great fighters, and I think people's criticisms are a little harsh considering the fact that

This content is protected

 

Pavlik is 26 years old. So saying hes an overrated exposed bum is ridiculous. He moved up 10lbs to face a crafty legend.

And the guy Pavlik beatdown, defeated Bhop twice. Sure they were debatable fights but they were very close nonetheless.

Pavlik will go back down to 160 and hopefully he addresses some of his weaknesses. Hes still the man at 160 and I believe he beats Abraham.

 

I would never say one loss is the end of a fighter's career, especially not to a bona fide ATG with a legendary sized chip on his shoulder. People who believe losses are the end of the world seem to be the ones who throw around words like "exposed" and "hype jobs".

On the other hand, we learned last night that Pavlik has a WHOLE lot more to learn than a lot of people were willing to admit. He didn't just lose last night, he looked like he didn't belong in the same ring as Bernard. If that fact being "revealed" makes you more comfortable than it being "exposed", then use a synonym. Either way, I hope Pavlik bounces back. Marco Antonio Rubio would be a good place to start.

 

Well said. I too hope he bounces back.

 

These people don't know what the word "exposed" means. For example, Kelly Pavlik was not "exposed" against Bernard Hopkins, he was simply beaten by a much better fighter. Pavlik was a one-dimensional, direct powerpuncher before this fight, and he still is now. He is excellent at what he does, and he will prove this again when he goes back down to middleweight. No aspect of his game was exposed, he simply didn't jab enough and was up against someone faster and stronger at the weight they fought at.

By contrast, Miguel Cotto was "exposed" by Antonio Margarito. Before that fight, Cotto was thought of as a skilled all-round fighter with a little of everything in his armoury. But his lack of defence and all-round nous was badly exposed by a opponent who was more strong and relentless than skilled like Hopkins. However, Cotto can now right these wrongs (work hard on his defence and stamina as they were the aspects which were exposed in his defeat) and he will become a better fighter.

 

It is annoying when a boxer loses and the word "exposed" comes out.
Styles make fights. What Hopkins could do to Pavlik,Taylor couldn't do.
What Taylor did to Hopkins, Pavlik couldn't do.
Does that mean those fighters were "exposed"?
Naw because styles make fights.
Congrats to B-Hop fantastic win!

 

I knew Hopkins would win this. MFer is an ATG! But what's funny is everyone on ESB said Pavlik would beat the old man with a few disagreeing. I knew I would come on today and hear how exposed Pavlik was by the majority. Such is the nature of ESB and hindsight 20/20. Either way, getting beat by Hopkins does not expose you as a bad fighter. You just got beat by one of the greatest strategist of all time, that's all. Pavlik is in the company of Hoya, Trinidad, Wright, Tarver, and in my opinion Calzaghe. Not a bad place to be at all.

 

These are likely the same folks who would jump in in a street fight after the guy they don't like is already incapacitated and then go around braggin' about it. Just gleeful pilers-on.

 

VERY WELL SAID!

 

Pavlik is also in the company of Alexis Arguello, Danny "Little Red" Lopez, George Foreman, Jerry Quarry, Arturo Gatti, and many other very good to great fighters who had trouble with slick boxers. Hopkins beat Pavlik by exploiting weaknesses we already knew Kelly had. That hardly qualifies as being "exposed." Besides neutralizing the right hand by taking away Kelly's jab, BHop also fought a damn near perfect fight. One of Pavlik's best weapons is the other guys mistakes, and Bernard simply did not make any real mistakes.