BoxRec

If there was a yes / no vote on here i doubt youd get more than 10% classing del as a journeyman. I may be wrong.

This.

One of the more 'out there' labellings on here for a while.

Del is unlikely to ever get a world belt unless klits retire and landscape changes dramatically, but hugely disrespectful to label him that (although nothing wrong with genuinely being one if that's path you end up on).

Instead I see del being a kind of gatekeeper at world level unless he does something amazing in next few fights, e.g. face and k.o. price or fury.

And for the show, enjoyed it but needed more journalistic rigour to give it a bit more structure

I can't stand Chisora nor his persona. However, in his last 7 fights he can count 3 fights for a British title, a fight for the European title, a fight for a genuine world title against a Klitschko (plus two fights fighting for fringe WBO and WBA belts including one against David Haye). All this in a total of 19 fights, not the slate of a journey man, not by some way.

Calling a former british champion within the last few years ,who fought for the world title and went distance,got a winning positive record. to cal that person a journyman really just shows a complete lack of knowledge in boxing to be fair either that or dislike for the person is clouding there view.

jonp wrote:Calling a former british champion within the last few years ,who fought for the world title and went distance,got a winning positive record. to cal that person a journyman really just shows a complete lack of knowledge in boxing to be fair either that or dislike for the person is clouding there view.

I have to say the comment "if he isnt a journeyman hes a borderline gatekeeper" also shows a lack of understanding about the labels we give fighters.

Wales wrote:

jonp wrote:Calling a former british champion within the last few years ,who fought for the world title and went distance,got a winning positive record. to cal that person a journyman really just shows a complete lack of knowledge in boxing to be fair either that or dislike for the person is clouding there view.

I have to say the comment "if he isnt a journeyman hes a borderline gatekeeper" also shows a lack of understanding about the labels we give fighters.

You're probably right. I was trying to say, as diplomatically as possible, that I think he's been very fortunate to get the chances he's got. I believe him to be nothing special and widely overrated. If there is a catch-all label for that, that's what I meant.

Probably should be another thread for this but...

Journeyman
Boxer
domestic gatekeeper
Domestic honours
European
Gatekeeper
World class
World champion

I don't look at it in such a linear fashion but I accept that most do.

Did Froch say boxers don't get paid enough? If he did, I don't know if he was referring to his own situation specifically. If he was then why doesn't he help himself and fight more than twice a year? Something he hasn't done since 2006.

Cholo_cws wrote:Did Froch say boxers don't get paid enough? If he did, I don't know if he was referring to his own situation specifically. If he was then why doesn't he help himself and fight more than twice a year? Something he hasn't done since 2006.

When you've been fighting the level of opposition he has, it takes a good few months to recover from not just the fight but the training in itself. Big fights take time to make too.

Notice how Haye kept quiet when they discussed money, because he's done more than alright. He seemed shocked at the statistic that Nelson came out with the something like only 5% (could be less, I'm just going from memory) of fighters make enough to retire on.

dbf wrote:
Notice how Haye kept quiet when they discussed money, because he's done more than alright. He seemed shocked at the statistic that Nelson came out with the something like only 5% (could be less, I'm just going from memory) of fighters make enough to retire on.

Yes, definitely lower - probably under 1%, I'd say.

Which Brits made enough brass from boxing in the last 20 years so that they don't have to work for the rest of their days?

Calzaghe, Hatton, Naz, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Haye, Khan, maybe Froch...

(I just mean made enough...whether they blew it or not is another matter).

Anyone else?..I'm probably forgetting someone obvious.

dondada wrote:

dbf wrote:
Notice how Haye kept quiet when they discussed money, because he's done more than alright. He seemed shocked at the statistic that Nelson came out with the something like only 5% (could be less, I'm just going from memory) of fighters make enough to retire on.

Yes, definitely lower - probably under 1%, I'd say.

Which Brits made enough brass from boxing in the last 20 years so that they don't have to work for the rest of their days?

Calzaghe, Hatton, Naz, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Haye, Khan, maybe Froch...

(I just mean made enough...whether they blew it or not is another matter).

Anyone else?..I'm probably forgetting someone obvious.

Lennox Lewis obviously must have done. Eubank is now bankrupt allegedly so obviously despite making millions it hasn't lasted him!

dondada wrote:

dbf wrote: Which Brits made enough brass from boxing in the last 20 years so that they don't have to work for the rest of their days?

Calzaghe, Hatton, Naz, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Haye, Khan, maybe Froch...

(I just mean made enough...whether they blew it or not is another matter).

Anyone else?..I'm probably forgetting someone obvious.

Lennox Lewis can probably scrape by as well

I thought that the time. Got to be way under 1%. I think Johnny just made it up.

doctorboxing wrote:

dondada wrote:

dbf wrote: Which Brits made enough brass from boxing in the last 20 years so that they don't have to work for the rest of their days?

Calzaghe, Hatton, Naz, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Haye, Khan, maybe Froch...

(I just mean made enough...whether they blew it or not is another matter).

Anyone else?..I'm probably forgetting someone obvious.

Lennox Lewis can probably scrape by as well

Aye, there you go! I knew there was at least one! Made the most out of the lot...

dondada wrote:Yes, definitely lower - probably under 1%, I'd say.

I don't think there is any "probably" about it, Ian. Less than 0.1% is closer to being an accurate number.

I think sportsmen/women should consider themselves lucky if they make enough money from doing something they love so that they don't have to have another occupation even when they are still active never mind retired. Froch moans they don't earn enough but he earns a damn slight more than I did for my sport, I earned fornicate all, zilch, no money whatsoever, I loved it though that's why I did it but I had to work a proper job to not only fund my hobby but for other things.

JLP wrote:

dondada wrote:Yes, definitely lower - probably under 1%, I'd say.

I don't think there is any "probably" about it, Ian. Less than 0.1% is closer to being an accurate number.

When I heard 5% I thought it was boxers who boxed for a living. i.e their only income. Was only half watching by that point though.

Banjo, I don't think they should count themselves lucky, in fact in many ways I feel as sorry for high earners as I do for every other private sector bloke who grosses what he's worth and then gets fleeced by the parasitic government so it can prop up itself and the public sector by coercive means. D

JLP wrote:Banjo, I don't think they should count themselves lucky, in fact in many ways I feel as sorry for high earners as I do for every other private sector bloke who grosses what he's worth and then gets fleeced by the parasitic government so it can prop up itself and the public sector by coercive means. D

Switzerland or Monte Carlo is what I'd do.

JLP wrote:Banjo, I don't think they should count themselves lucky, in fact in many ways I feel as sorry for high earners as I do for every other private sector bloke who grosses what he's worth and then gets fleeced by the parasitic government so it can prop up itself and the public sector by coercive means. D

You mean the government which has underpinned the system which allows many high earners to prosper in inverse proportion to their talent, work ethic and, indeed, against basic moral laws?

dondada wrote:

JLP wrote:Banjo, I don't think they should count themselves lucky, in fact in many ways I feel as sorry for high earners as I do for every other private sector bloke who grosses what he's worth and then gets fleeced by the parasitic government so it can prop up itself and the public sector by coercive means. D

You mean the government which has underpinned the system which allows many high earners to prosper in inverse proportion to their talent, work ethic and, indeed, against basic moral laws?

Yep. That pretty much sums up the public sector and subsidised elements of the faux-private sector. D

Indeed, the public sector has plenty of people not earning their wages. But not as grossly out of kilter as many in, for example, private financial services, jam-packed with amoral vermin which any decent society would tackle.

dbf wrote:

Cholo_cws wrote:Did Froch say boxers don't get paid enough? If he did, I don't know if he was referring to his own situation specifically. If he was then why doesn't he help himself and fight more than twice a year? Something he hasn't done since 2006.

When you've been fighting the level of opposition he has, it takes a good few months to recover from not just the fight but the training in itself. Big fights take time to make too.

Notice how Haye kept quiet when they discussed money, because he's done more than alright. He seemed shocked at the statistic that Nelson came out with the something like only 5% (could be less, I'm just going from memory) of fighters make enough to retire on.

I'm not convinced. Like I mentioned, it's a pattern that goes back to 2006. Granted he was tied to the Super Six tournament for a while but he fought less than eight rounds last year and surely if he'd wanted to he could have done more than just face Yusaf Mack in what looks like a year between the Bute and proposed Kessler fight. Maybe Froch sees it as self-preservation. Make hay while the sun shines I say.

dondada wrote:Indeed, the public sector has plenty of people not earning their wages. But not as grossly out of kilter as many in, for example, private financial services, jam-packed with amoral vermin which any decent society would tackle.

I'll likely get rounded on for this but the banking "industry" is (essentially) public/government sector. It couldn't operate how it does without the central bank enabling it to undermine the basic principles of economics.