Yeah for me there are bums (guys that lose the majority of the time no matter whom they face), prospects (generally anyone with 2 losses or less, unless one of their losses is disqualifyingly bad), journeymen (guys who aren't totally hopeless but are not in the top 50 or maybe top 25 in the thinner divisions and can't be considered prospects), fringe contenders (guys you might rank anywhere between 11-25 in a relatively deep division) and gatekeepers (generally a top 50 fighter that has too many losses to be a prospect and who is not successful enough to be a fringe contender, though this also usually implies a tendency to fight prospects and thus keep the gate).Glyn Leach wrote:Seems he was talking present tense though Macho, not pulling a Mystic Meg. Some people are too fragile to accept they have been wrong and will argue and argue until they look plain silly, which is what the fella appears to have done here. Personally I'd term Chisora a fringe contender at the moment, journeyman is too harsh IMO. Michael Sprott is a journeyman in my book, if that helps as a reference point.MachoMan09 wrote:Labelling an undefeated fighter as a "journeyman" or a "club fighter" is not necessarily incorrect, in my view. What's more, I'd say Rosenthal's judgement of Chisora has subsequently been proven valid.
I could never imagine calling an undefeated prospect a journeyman unless perhaps it was very clear he had no real upside (take for instance a guy like Butterbean who appeared destined to fight 4-round fights for the entirety of his career and needed several robberies against nobodies to stay undefeated).
In Chisora's case specifically, even if he wasn't an undefeated prospect you'd have had to call him a fringe contender after knocking out the British champion for the second time- a guy Boxrec rated #13 at the time- in Sam Sexton.