Next fighter to be exposed?

[thuggery]

Wilder

Thurman (but not against JSK)

Quillin (but as long as he stays away from GGG he'll be ok, I still think Rosado has a chance though)

Russel Jr.

[D-MiZe]

Surely something needs to be hidden before it's exposed?

It's brutally obvious that Groves doesn't have the greatest chin, Froch doesn't need to be the one who proves that. Again, Brook is blatantly not the talent he's made out to be, his flaws are there for all to see.

I see Groves putting on a good display against Froch but ultimately being overwhelmed and pummelled down. Brook to eat Senchenko's jab for several rounds before he gets inside and stops him late, wouldn't be surprised if it went the distance.

[Weebler I]

Brook to eat Senchenko's jab for several rounds before he gets inside and stops him late, wouldn't be surprised if it went the distance.

You have Senchenko winning or Brook?

[Outwest Exp 355]

So if you loose your exposed? It's boxing. 99% of the fights will end up with one of the two loosing.

[D-MiZe]

You have Senchenko winning or Brook?

Brook wins but not comfortably.

It's not that I rate Senchenko particularly highly, it's because I don't rate Brook that much.

[boliodogs]

I think Groves and Brook are good fighters and will perform well in their up coming fights.

[cameltoe]

I feel like only boxing noobs and 12 year olds use this word "exposed"

to these uneducated types of people who know nothing about boxing, any time a fighter loses a fight, he is 'exposed'. We shouldn't even call them losses or have a win/lose column we should call them exposures.

TALE OF THE TAPE, he is the fighting pride of Miami, Florida, with 17 wins, 14 by way of knockout, and only 3 Exposures!

I mean it's ridiculous

I don't think people do mean losses when the say 'exposed'. If they do, they shouldn't. Nobody claims JMM or Hopkins have been exposed, and they have like, what, 10 losses between them?

Exposed should be reserved for the hype jobs, the next big thing in the division, who then gets taken apart by someone they were expected to beat.

There have been a few of those.

[Weebler I]

I don't think people do mean losses when the say 'exposed'. If they do, they shouldn't. Nobody claims JMM or Hopkins have been exposed, and they have like, what, 10 losses between them?

Exposed should be reserved for the hype jobs, the next big thing in the division, who then gets taken apart by someone they were expected to beat.

There have been a few of those.

They don't even have to be taken apart, they can lose a close fight and we still read the obnoxious "exposed" threads.

I think the only fighters who are genuinely exposed are those haven't actually beaten anyone good and due to having previously been protected against weak opponents they have literally been exposed to a higher level of competition.

I'm reading posts where people say Rios is going to get "exposed" against Pacquiao. How does anyone get that label when taking on an 8 division world champ/all time great? (question is rhetorical)

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

Alvarado had already lost by stoppage so how the fk was he 'exposed'?


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[MBE]

I don't think people do mean losses when the say 'exposed'. If they do, they shouldn't. Nobody claims JMM or Hopkins have been exposed, and they have like, what, 10 losses between them?

Exposed should be reserved for the hype jobs, the next big thing in the division, who then gets taken apart by someone they were expected to beat.

There have been a few of those.

Those were my thoughts exactly.

I'm interested to see how Kovalev develops too. I heard he got handled in sparring by Golovkin.

Not that it means too much but there's no smoke without fire as they say.