Why does losing = EXPOSED?
Collapse
-
-
-
There is a lot of hype in boxing and fans (especially here) tend to take very black and white views of things. Prior to the Margarito - Cotto fight for example many had Cotto down as a super-talented boxer, along with being a devastating power puncher. Many believed no-one at 147, not even Floyd, could beat him. Many of the same people said that Margarito was literally a bum.
This fight is a good example of 'exposing' though because in this instance many neutral and expert observers tended to go the same way, with the opinion that Cotto was a great in waiting. After the fact, we see that Cotto is neither the skilled boxer some thought, nor quite so devastating. He is by no means bad, in fact he is excellent, but you might reasonably say that he has to quite a large degree been 'exposed' as a much more ordinary boxer (in elite terms) than many thought.
I guess it depends what we mean by 'exposed'. If we mean 'exposed as a bum' then that is overstating the case, but if we mean 'exposed as having weaknesses' then that is pretty accurate.Comment
-
Comment
-
because when the "exposed" fighter loses, his flaws are brought out and main contributing factors to his loss.
such as Jermain Taylor's ability to be lazy on defense and have stamina problems .. showed signs of it vs Ouma, but vs Pavlik it cost him the fight (didn't JT in the post fight interview claim to have gassed out in the 2nd round?)
or the generic monster puncher (Enzo Big Mac) with the weak chin.
exposed gets used so damn much that's it's getting hard to tell if the fighter really was "exposed" or just fought a better opponent who could exploit his weaknesses.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
It's kind of weak. That a guy can lose one fight and his career is over. Not that many finish their careers undefeated. It's just not the norm. If you take on top challengers, world class opponents are bound to have your number on any give night.Comment
Comment