View Full Version : Being 'exposed' as opposed to being 'exploited'.


BennyST
01-10-2010, 06:46 AM
There is constant talk that when a fighter loses he has been 'exposed' as such. There is a distinct difference from being beaten because of a flaw that is recognised and being exposed. I think we should all go about discussing the difference between the two. It comes up everywhere in every fight that someone is exposed!

"Katsidis was exposed against Casamayor!", as if we didn't already know that he wasn't greatly skilled.:dunno:

It came up in a debate about Williams fighting Quintana and that his loss showed him being exposed.

The major difference in my opinion between the two is that if you are exposed it means that previous to the fight in which it happens that had been a consensus that a particular part of your game doesn't have any holes or that something in it is thought to be great, when in fact it isn't at all.

So one fighter might be thought to be an excellent boxer/puncher (ie has excellent boxing skill with very good defensive and offensive skill with very good power) with a great chin etc. If he gets exposed it would mean that one part of that equation is false. He is obviously not at all a boxer/puncher but simply a puncher as a better opponent than what he had obviously been fighting would show that his boxing skill is terrible. That's being exposed. Exposed is when you have something uncovered that is thought to be covered. So, if someone got exposed it would mean a part of their game that was thought to be great has been uncovered and is now recognised as a liability in their game.

Now, being exploited and beaten is when there is an obvious flaw in your game, no one has been able to exploit until one good fighter does. Everyone knows it's there but none have been able to take advantage of it. I think that is obviously the case with Williams. You saw every flaw in his fight with Margarito. His jab was sloppy, he fought inside too much for a guy with the height and reach advantage as well as the boxing skill and speed advantage. In fact, you could see it in every fight of his. Anyone could see that against the right opponent he could have some serious problems if they did certain things against him. Quintana did those things hence Williams got beaten. IN the rematch Williams came out stronger and avenged that loss easily.

He wasn't exposed against either Quintana or Martinez. That's my take on exposed and exploited. What think you though?

talip bin osman
01-10-2010, 07:34 AM
vic darchinyan's flaw was exploited by nonito donaire...

something that hasn't been done by any other fighter...

now as in exposed...

joe calzaghe simply did it to lacy...

is this what u mean?

donkim
01-10-2010, 08:26 AM
I'm not sure if Casamayor is a good example to use considering that before he landed the perfect hook,had had through a life and death struggle with Katsidis.Perhaps Juan Diaz would be a better example.


Most were shocked that Quintana was able to outbox Williams as easily as he did.He never had great defense but to see the much smaller man move so easily in and out of Williams range to land such predictable,heavy shots is very worrying for any fighter with the physical atributes of Williams.


Nobody thought of Williams as being that limited until Quintana exposed his limitations(exploited...whatever).


Williams caught Quintana early and hurt him early.He didn't show that he had improved as a fighter and had worked out Quintana's style.

HaglerSteelChin
01-10-2010, 08:40 AM
Going by the BennyST definitions of exposed and expoited an analogy would be Felix Trinidad. DLH exposed the bad Trinidad footwork where he could be hit and not be able to counter in time and this will be exploited by BHOP who won like 10 of the 12 RDS against Tito.

boxing_great
01-10-2010, 08:44 AM
exposed means a protected fighter finally stepping it up and losing to somebody formidable.
That is exposed.
Exposing the myth that a protected fighter is exactly that, protected.

GJC
01-10-2010, 09:53 AM
Going by the BennyST definitions of exposed and expoited an analogy would be Felix Trinidad. DLH exposed the bad Trinidad footwork where he could be hit and not be able to counter in time and this will be exploited by BHOP who won like 10 of the 12 RDS against Tito.
Yes that about covers it. I would imagine many fighters were aware of the game plan to beating Tyson when he was in his prime but knowing what to do and being able to do it are 2 very diffrent things.
Do think that fighters protecting their zero's and fighting for world titles after a dozen fights etc mean that many never work on weaknesses and finish their careers with pretty much the same fundamental faults they had in their first fight.
You can learn far more from a loss than a win.