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