Is losing...

You can only be exposed as a prospect/contender; someone who is untested or someone who has avoided a certain style throughout his career. To hear people say "Mayweather" would be exposed for example is ludicrous. There is a much bigger case for a Pacman 'exposure' than a mayweather one since mayweather HAS come across several styles in his career whereas Pac has avoided slick fighters. Against a slick fighter, if he were to lose handily ala Morales/Raheem. Morales was quoted for saying " I've never fought a SLICK fighter before, I want to test myself " and we saw the outcome. Raheem is in no way shape or form a better fighter than Morales BUT the style made the fight - Morales had been fighting the type of opponents Pacman had been fighting his entire career. HE was exposed that night. You can only be exposed when you test yourself, really. I still think the logic of a possible "pacman" exposure is sound; he's never fought that type of fighter before. It happens often, but doesn't make or break a fighter. You also don't have to LOSE a fight to be exposed. Exposure is just seeing what bothers a fighter. People overuse the term. Examples: Cotto was exposed against Torrez, for example. Sure, he won the fight. But what was exposed to us there was that as competition gets tougher Cotto isn't at all a pressure fighter. Cotto actually has problems with people who bring the fight to him and is better against guys who don't (allowing him to do so instead). Hence the rough fights with foward moving fights like Margi, Clottey and Pacman. He's proven to use his legs and boxing ability more at the elite level. Pacmans "exposure" was against Marquez a long time ago. Sure Marquez squares up and looks to engage just as all of pacmans previous opponents but the difference is he would counter punch. You got the sense that pacman, because of his high workrate and being "off the ground" a lot of times whilst bouncing/throwing at the same time would always struggle with counter punchers. The fact that a disengaging Mosley was able to make that fight as dreadful as he did by only moving backwards and not making Pacman pay when he missed also pointed at something a lot of us have always known - That whole style just seems wrong for pacman. Same thing goes for Floyd. Undefeated, but was "exposed" a long time ago. It's no secret he does noticeably "worse" against Southpaws. he gets the job done, but he gets it done a certain way. It's way pac fans believe Floyd struggles in a fight against Pac. In all of Floyds victories.. there is 1 fact - He's never used his legs against a southpaw. He's high guarded and looked to beat them in the inside. An exposure? Meh, he's never lost to them but he's struggled against a few... Mosley doesn't like Jabs Pavlik doesn't like Laterl Movement Berto doesn't like pressure/fast paced fights Dawson doesn't like lateral movement Wright doesn't like high outputs Abraham doesn't like movement Kessler doesn't like lateral movement Alexander doesn't like Jabs/Fighting inside Judah doesn't like the opening bell of any round past 5, and getting hit ( Lol ) Toney doesn't like counter punchers/lateral movement Margarito doesn't like the Clinch, doesn't let him get off Williams doesn't like fellow southpaws Ortiz Doesn't like Rios Rios doesn't like Ortiz. They need to fight. -.-; lol @ the bold that was pretty good. green k

You can only be exposed as a prospect/contender; someone who is untested or someone who has avoided a certain style throughout his career. To hear people say "Mayweather" would be exposed for example is ludicrous. There is a much bigger case for a Pacman 'exposure' than a mayweather one since mayweather HAS come across several styles in his career whereas Pac has avoided slick fighters. Against a slick fighter, if he were to lose handily ala Morales/Raheem. Morales was quoted for saying " I've never fought a SLICK fighter before, I want to test myself " and we saw the outcome. Raheem is in no way shape or form a better fighter than Morales BUT the style made the fight - Morales had been fighting the type of opponents Pacman had been fighting his entire career. HE was exposed that night. You can only be exposed when you test yourself, really. I still think the logic of a possible "pacman" exposure is sound; he's never fought that type of fighter before. It happens often, but doesn't make or break a fighter. You also don't have to LOSE a fight to be exposed. Exposure is just seeing what bothers a fighter. People overuse the term. Examples: Cotto was exposed against Torrez, for example. Sure, he won the fight. But what was exposed to us there was that as competition gets tougher Cotto isn't at all a pressure fighter. Cotto actually has problems with people who bring the fight to him and is better against guys who don't (allowing him to do so instead). Hence the rough fights with foward moving fights like Margi, Clottey and Pacman. He's proven to use his legs and boxing ability more at the elite level. Pacmans "exposure" was against Marquez a long time ago. Sure Marquez squares up and looks to engage just as all of pacmans previous opponents but the difference is he would counter punch. You got the sense that pacman, because of his high workrate and being "off the ground" a lot of times whilst bouncing/throwing at the same time would always struggle with counter punchers. The fact that a disengaging Mosley was able to make that fight as dreadful as he did by only moving backwards and not making Pacman pay when he missed also pointed at something a lot of us have always known - That whole style just seems wrong for pacman. Same thing goes for Floyd. Undefeated, but was "exposed" a long time ago. It's no secret he does noticeably "worse" against Southpaws. he gets the job done, but he gets it done a certain way. It's way pac fans believe Floyd struggles in a fight against Pac. In all of Floyds victories.. there is 1 fact - He's never used his legs against a southpaw. He's high guarded and looked to beat them in the inside. An exposure? Meh, he's never lost to them but he's struggled against a few... Mosley doesn't like Jabs Pavlik doesn't like Laterl Movement Berto doesn't like pressure/fast paced fights Dawson doesn't like lateral movement Wright doesn't like high outputs Abraham doesn't like movement Kessler doesn't like lateral movement Alexander doesn't like Jabs/Fighting inside Judah doesn't like the opening bell of any round past 5, and getting hit ( Lol ) Toney doesn't like counter punchers/lateral movement Margarito doesn't like the Clinch, doesn't let him get off Williams doesn't like fellow southpaws Ortiz Doesn't like Rios Rios doesn't like Ortiz. They need to fight. -.-; Great write up.

i agree. but what exactly is considered being "exposed"? i guess when a fighter you dont like loses... :thinking: You can only be exposed as a prospect/contender; someone who is untested or someone who has avoided a certain style throughout his career. To hear people say "Mayweather" would be exposed for example is ludicrous. There is a much bigger case for a Pacman 'exposure' than a mayweather one since mayweather HAS come across several styles in his career whereas Pac has avoided slick fighters. Against a slick fighter, if he were to lose handily ala Morales/Raheem. Morales was quoted for saying " I've never fought a SLICK fighter before, I want to test myself " and we saw the outcome. Raheem is in no way shape or form a better fighter than Morales BUT the style made the fight - Morales had been fighting the type of opponents Pacman had been fighting his entire career. HE was exposed that night. You can only be exposed when you test yourself, really. I still think the logic of a possible "pacman" exposure is sound; he's never fought that type of fighter before. It happens often, but doesn't make or break a fighter. You also don't have to LOSE a fight to be exposed. Exposure is just seeing what bothers a fighter. People overuse the term. Examples: Cotto was exposed against Torrez, for example. Sure, he won the fight. But what was exposed to us there was that as competition gets tougher Cotto isn't at all a pressure fighter. Cotto actually has problems with people who bring the fight to him and is better against guys who don't (allowing him to do so instead). Hence the rough fights with foward moving fights like Margi, Clottey and Pacman. He's proven to use his legs and boxing ability more at the elite level. Pacmans "exposure" was against Marquez a long time ago. Sure Marquez squares up and looks to engage just as all of pacmans previous opponents but the difference is he would counter punch. You got the sense that pacman, because of his high workrate and being "off the ground" a lot of times whilst bouncing/throwing at the same time would always struggle with counter punchers. The fact that a disengaging Mosley was able to make that fight as dreadful as he did by only moving backwards and not making Pacman pay when he missed also pointed at something a lot of us have always known - That whole style just seems wrong for pacman. Same thing goes for Floyd. Undefeated, but was "exposed" a long time ago. It's no secret he does noticeably "worse" against Southpaws. he gets the job done, but he gets it done a certain way. It's way pac fans believe Floyd struggles in a fight against Pac. In all of Floyds victories.. there is 1 fact - He's never used his legs against a southpaw. He's high guarded and looked to beat them in the inside. An exposure? Meh, he's never lost to them but he's struggled against a few... Mosley doesn't like Jabs Pavlik doesn't like Laterl Movement Berto doesn't like pressure/fast paced fights Dawson doesn't like lateral movement Wright doesn't like high outputs Abraham doesn't like movement Kessler doesn't like lateral movement Alexander doesn't like Jabs/Fighting inside Judah doesn't like the opening bell of any round past 5, and getting hit ( Lol ) Toney doesn't like counter punchers/lateral movement Margarito doesn't like the Clinch, doesn't let him get off Williams doesn't like fellow southpaws Ortiz Doesn't like Rios Rios doesn't like Ortiz. They need to fight. -.-;

Exposed can be used when a fighter who is considered very good or elite is defeated or given a hard time by a vastly less superior(Or thought to be) opponent. It reveals a major weakness such as bad head movement or weak jab. The term is overused on this board.

really considered being "EXPOSED"? what do you guys think Depends. Did you get robbed or really lose? Losing can expose weaknesses and flaws, but it takes a talented fighter to expose those flaws. When guys here are talking about fighters being exposed, they are speaking as coaches or talking in first person like they would be able to expose those flaws themselves. Its one thing to see it happen, its an entirely different animal to expose those flaws in the ring. Kirkland got KTFO by a featherfisted japanese middleweight. But he took full on shots from a puncher like Joel Julio like nothing. The weakness that was exposed was his patience. Seems like an easy enough flaw to expose, right? Now, he has had fights after this loss. His opponents knew his flaws. Did they expose them? No, they got KTFO. It takes someone with talent to expose those flaws. That does not mean a flaw cant be fixed either. Terry Norris got studied hard by Simon Brown. Simon picked up on a flaw Terry was making and knocked his ass out in a huge upset. Simon went and blabbed about the strategy, Norris picked up on it and fixed his flaw. They rematched and Terry whooped his ass leaving no openings that time.

heck no. and anyone that says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. there isn't a fighter with no flaws. the fighters that lose and people suddenly say they were "exposed" have actually been exposing their flaws every time they fight and just happened to run into a fighter with a decent game plan and the tools to execute it. if mayweather was heavy-handed, that would be the closest fighter i've seen to being flawless. but, since he's not knocking people dead, should he EVER lose to someone with a puncher's chance, some idiots will try and say he was exposed, too. i agree. but what exactly is considered being "exposed"? i guess when a fighter you dont like loses... :thinking:

heck no. and anyone that says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. there isn't a fighter with no flaws. the fighters that lose and people suddenly say they were "exposed" have actually been exposing their flaws every time they fight and just happened to run into a fighter with a decent game plan and the tools to execute it. if mayweather was heavy-handed, that would be the closest fighter i've seen to being flawless. but, since he's not knocking people dead, should he EVER lose to someone with a puncher's chance, some idiots will try and say he was exposed, too.

thats the reason Mayweather is still protecting his 0 lulz