Quote Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
I think you are misinterpreting exposed. It just means shown for what it is. It doesn't mean the person "exposed" is a bum or any insult at all. At the time casual boxing people thought Naz was the best fighter in the world even though they were hiding him from Marquez and Mayweather. In this case exposed simply means shown to the masses that he wasn't the Superman they thought. He was exposed as a beatable great champion who was highly entertaining.
I don't agree with that definition. It makes no sense really, because obviously every champion is a "beatable champion". In that case, every time somebody loses they are "exposed" and that's really taking all meaning out of the term. The word "exposed" has much more negative connotations, you immediately think of a fraudster being "exposed".

I'm not saying it means that a guy goes from an A-level fighter to a bum, but it certainly means that a guy had successfully hidden a significant weakness, most of the time against soft opposition, and an A-level fighter exposed it. In Nas' case, I don't think that's a fair claim because even though he did have technical flaws, he had been champion for 7 or 8 years and had great success against top ranked opposition before losing to MAB. Sometimes a loss is just a loss, it doesn't necessarily mean an exposing.