BoxRec

johnnygreaves wrote:

ApolloCreed wrote:

thanks pal. Things have been slow for me lately due to a cut but, due to box scotty cardle & looking forward to the fight. Bit of a test but , on my game I'll be fine & I'll make him work. Cheers for the mention !

Only in boxing could a fella who has failed at his job 90% of the days he went to it come on a message board and get praised.
That is, of course, if the job of one boxer is to try to beat the other, as one would expect.
If the job of one boxer is just to last four or six rounds but make sure not to win, then Johnny is wildly successful.
And then we wonder why casuals are turned off the sport...

I think I get praised by people who understand the role I play in fighters careers.

Apollo, i think thats highly disrespectful to a man who clearly loves the sport and is involved heavily. You say the casuals are turned off? i'd say you are a 'casual' yourself mate if you don't understand why Johnny hasn't failed at all.

Johnny - hats off to you mate, people like this clown have no clue.

Calling someone a clown doesn't help your argument.
I understand it completely. However, there are way, way more talented fighters who get SLATED on message boards and we have a fella who hardly ever TRIES to win a fight, let alone win one, getting made out to be a great lad.
Would you rather see more good matches in boxing? You can't answer yes to this if you are happy to see fellas with 100 odd losses and a couple of wins still getting fights.
Yes, it's part of the business, but so are phoney titles and bad officiating.

Fighters starting out in their careers need to deal with savvy professionals who bring experience, guile and, more often than not, no little fitness and stamina.

They're the lifeblood...who else is going to fight the prospects?

If the prospects are all fighting each other after 2/3 bouts then their careers won't last five minutes

Props to the fella.

PS That said, the constant slagging off of some of our best boxers in recent years- notably Hatton, Khan and Calzaghe - makes my blood boil.

You put that across better than I could

I also feel that there ought to be a distinction between men who turn up in no condition, offer nothing during a bout and look for the earliest opportunity to get out. A proper journeyman is skilled, fit and capable, journeyman is not a term of abuse, it means a boxer can ply his trade wherever and get by. Anyone willing to box (fight with rules wih next to nothing on in front of a crowd) deserves some respect; it is a difficult thing to do. To do it over and over, when the odds are stacked against you shows an awful lot of character.

There is a huge difference between journeymen and tomato cans

Tomato cans contain tomatoes

Journeymen contain heart (or they're crazy, or daft.. take your pick)

For me that was quite profound, so I'm going for a lie down...

I also feel that there ought to be a distinction between men who turn up in no condition, offer nothing during a bout and look for the earliest opportunity to get out. A proper journeyman is skilled, fit and capable, journeyman is not a term of abuse, it means a boxer can ply his trade wherever and get by. Anyone willing to box (fight with rules wih next to nothing on in front of a crowd) deserves some respect; it is a difficult thing to do. To do it over and over, when the odds are stacked against you shows an awful lot of character.

There is a difference but the common denominator is, in general, neither make any effort to win the fight.
One wants to lose while looking ok and making the other fella work. The other doesn't care. Regardless, they both want to turn up, get paid and lose to a more ambitious fighter.
Nothing against Johnny Greaves at all but I've never seen a negative word about him on here, or the other journeymen such as Peter Buckley etc. All are universally loved.
Yet fighters who actually TRY TO F**CKING WIN like Fury, Khan etc get slated.
That makes no sense to me.

Any winner is divisive and it is mostly the promotional pronouncements, ducking of legitimate challenges and milking of belts etc that bring more disillusionment than the boxing capabilities of the boxers. Khan is a fantastic boxer but should have rematched Prescott and makes a nob of himself on Twitter. Hatton should have boxed Witter, Fury shouldn't have avoided Price.

A title class boxer may not be the best at the weight but will come out with all sorts of drivel, they will avoid tough men and pretend they seek them out. The journeyman may keep himself fit for another day but will at least get in with someone likely to hit them back (for a lot less dough as well).

There's no one perfect and (probably) if Johnny Greaves, or any of the other men making a living boxing as a TBA were given enough of a platform to make an ass of themselves, they would. That they box with little recognition or wide media pick up makes it less likely they'll make fools of themselves, maybe that makes it easier to affilaite to them. (If you get my drift).

ApolloCreed wrote:

I also feel that there ought to be a distinction between men who turn up in no condition, offer nothing during a bout and look for the earliest opportunity to get out. A proper journeyman is skilled, fit and capable, journeyman is not a term of abuse, it means a boxer can ply his trade wherever and get by. Anyone willing to box (fight with rules wih next to nothing on in front of a crowd) deserves some respect; it is a difficult thing to do. To do it over and over, when the odds are stacked against you shows an awful lot of character.

There is a difference but the common denominator is, in general, neither make any effort to win the fight.
One wants to lose while looking ok and making the other fella work. The other doesn't care. Regardless, they both want to turn up, get paid and lose to a more ambitious fighter.
Nothing against Johnny Greaves at all but I've never seen a negative word about him on here, or the other journeymen such as Peter Buckley etc. All are universally loved.
Yet fighters who actually TRY TO F**CKING WIN like Fury, Khan etc get slated.
That makes no sense to me.

The only thing i meant really was that you were being disrespectful, which you were.

Not really sure why you are so intant on bringing those boxers down but they do a lot for the sport in terms of fighting the up and comings etc to give them a run out You say you understand copmpletely but then pull them down again? If you understand, then you wouldn't have a dig?

You tell me mate, you've got me confused

I think I can understand what he's getting at and it deserves another thread, this one was about Bill the Bomb.

Champions and high achievers do attract more 'attacks' than competitors or participants. There are some intelligent people on BoxRec who may be able to put an explanation forward.

Look ,in some of my fights. I'm in against fuckin good fighters & getting thru & landing a few on the way is the best I can do. I do try to win fights. Whether I get them is another thing. I do make most fight hard. Cardle this week,he has been 1 of our best ams for the last few years & is quality. I've been brought in to make him work & give him rounds. What winning boxer is gonna take that fight. None. I don't fish 4 complements. The boys can just see a man quite good at he's job

i dont see journeymen giving the sport a bad name. they often get little notice , short end money and have to fight more than a couple of divisions above their natural weight. they dont behave like primadonnas, put out ridiculous statements refering to themselves in the third person, or do many of the negative things that some of our better quality boxers do. all boxers deserve credit for getting into the ring, and making money from fighting..but as in normal life, success turns some people into fuckwits.

johnnygreaves wrote:Look ,in some of my fights. I'm in against fuckin good fighters & getting thru & landing a few on the way is the best I can do. I do try to win fights. Whether I get them is another thing. I do make most fight hard. Cardle this week,he has been 1 of our best ams for the last few years & is quality. I've been brought in to make him work & give him rounds. What winning boxer is gonna take that fight. None. I don't fish 4 complements. The boys can just see a man quite good at he's job

How many of your losses would you say you thought you won Johnny?

When you see how many fighters get robbed in bouts that are shown to millions on the telly you can imagine how many get robbed when there's no telly viewers to cause a stink. (I can't remember a dodgy bout decision overturned after an outcry, though am sure someone can).

Captain Hook wrote:PS That said, the constant slagging off of some of our best boxers in recent years- notably Hatton, Khan and Calzaghe - makes my blood boil.

spot on hookie on both posts as usual, you aint bad for a taff are ya

*just messing two of best friends are welsh

yiddo14 wrote:

johnnygreaves wrote:Look ,in some of my fights. I'm in against fuckin good fighters & getting thru & landing a few on the way is the best I can do. I do try to win fights. Whether I get them is another thing. I do make most fight hard. Cardle this week,he has been 1 of our best ams for the last few years & is quality. I've been brought in to make him work & give him rounds. What winning boxer is gonna take that fight. None. I don't fish 4 complements. The boys can just see a man quite good at he's job

How many of your losses would you say you thought you won Johnny?

hard 2 say mate. In some,if I were the home fighter,I win. Had a few outrageous ones but, plenty of fights that could & maybe should've gone my way. Point is,I down lie down

ApolloCreed wrote:

I also feel that there ought to be a distinction between men who turn up in no condition, offer nothing during a bout and look for the earliest opportunity to get out. A proper journeyman is skilled, fit and capable, journeyman is not a term of abuse, it means a boxer can ply his trade wherever and get by. Anyone willing to box (fight with rules wih next to nothing on in front of a crowd) deserves some respect; it is a difficult thing to do. To do it over and over, when the odds are stacked against you shows an awful lot of character.

There is a difference but the common denominator is, in general, neither make any effort to win the fight.
One wants to lose while looking ok and making the other fella work. The other doesn't care. Regardless, they both want to turn up, get paid and lose to a more ambitious fighter.
Nothing against Johnny Greaves at all but I've never seen a negative word about him on here, or the other journeymen such as Peter Buckley etc. All are universally loved.
Yet fighters who actually TRY TO F**CKING WIN like Fury, Khan etc get slated.
That makes no sense to me.

Never see journeymen in UFC do you. There is however an obsession in boxing with having an undefeated record, and i guess its easier for promoters to keep prospects away from prospects so they can make money on them... Culture change i guess. Props to groves and de gale for getting it on, really

Wales wrote:

ApolloCreed wrote:

I also feel that there ought to be a distinction between men who turn up in no condition, offer nothing during a bout and look for the earliest opportunity to get out. A proper journeyman is skilled, fit and capable, journeyman is not a term of abuse, it means a boxer can ply his trade wherever and get by. Anyone willing to box (fight with rules wih next to nothing on in front of a crowd) deserves some respect; it is a difficult thing to do. To do it over and over, when the odds are stacked against you shows an awful lot of character.

There is a difference but the common denominator is, in general, neither make any effort to win the fight.
One wants to lose while looking ok and making the other fella work. The other doesn't care. Regardless, they both want to turn up, get paid and lose to a more ambitious fighter.
Nothing against Johnny Greaves at all but I've never seen a negative word about him on here, or the other journeymen such as Peter Buckley etc. All are universally loved.
Yet fighters who actually TRY TO F**CKING WIN like Fury, Khan etc get slated.
That makes no sense to me.

Never see journeymen in UFC do you. There is however an obsession in boxing with having an undefeated record, and i guess its easier for promoters to keep prospects away from prospects so they can make money on them... Culture change i guess. Props to groves and de gale for getting it on, really

Yes, you do see journeyman types in MMA, all the time. You wont generally see them on the televised portion of a UFC card.

Journeymen get respect because they do their job without lying down or muttering much of a bad word about their opponent. They fight countless times a year and do their job.

Prospects or top boxers can get shit because they moan, stop big fights from happening, or are all-round gobshites. You either love them or hate them (hating someone brings the hate on the forums).

It's that straight-forward, Apollo.

Just for the record, I'm very proud to be a journeyman. I'm known all over gt Britain . & I've made myself well known for doing what I do. I was never good nor dedicated enough to be a world champ . I take my lumps & feed my kids in a law obiding way. In a perfect world prospects face each other. But they don't. Which is why I & others provide a much needed service . If that offends you Apollo, well, blow me !

Captain Hook wrote:Fighters starting out in their careers need to deal with savvy professionals who bring experience, guile and, more often than not, no little fitness and stamina.

They're the lifeblood...who else is going to fight the prospects?

If the prospects are all fighting each other after 2/3 bouts then their careers won't last five minutes

Props to the fella.

Well said!

I'd rather not blow you Johnny, thanks all the same.
Yes, you've made yourself well-known but personally, I'd rather not be known as a fighter who got beat 78 times out of 81 fights.
You come across as a good guy and fair play to you but it says something about the "sport" that journeymen like you are not just tolerated but lauded.
Yes, this is utopian, but in my opinion so long as there are fellas willing to go in and shamelessly lose, again, and again, and again, records will still be padded, fights the fans want to see will continue being avoided and when reasonably competitive fights eventually do happen, they will be PPV.

Apollo's points have merit and shouldn't be sidelined just because we like Johnny.

Further, there are very different types of journeymen. Johnny is very different to, say, Ryan Clark.

Look Apollo,that comment from me wasn't on.you have an opinion & in some ways you have a point.I do put up more of a fight than some & I really don't go in to lose. Fact is some/most are to good. But getting beat on points doesn't always mean I lost big without a close fight. I'm just proud that I do a hard job & always do my best. As long as I'm given work I'll take it. Boxings probs r not really mine.