BoxRec

Coco wrote:

dookus wrote:

Coco wrote: So are these fighters getting paid extra to lose? There are so few journeymen around they would still get work if they picked up wins nowadays. I've seen Deakin on you tube, at times he has been unfit but he always went for it. Warbutton doesn't seem to be listening to these people telling him to lose.

According to the book, yes.

How much extra do they get to lose?

They don't specify an amount.

damianhucker1 wrote: I think its more of a case of they are being paid and they know their role... ie they are expected to lose rather than being explicitly told to lose.

Read the book. Being expected to lose is what they normally do. However, six out of the nine journeyman interviewed say that at some point they've been explicitly paid more to lose.

What, you think it's corrupt? This is boxing for Christ's sake!

dookus wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote: I think its more of a case of they are being paid and they know their role... ie they are expected to lose rather than being explicitly told to lose.

Read the book. Being expected to lose is what they normally do. However, six out of the nine journeyman interviewed say that at some point they've been explicitly paid more to lose.

What, you think it's corrupt? This is boxing for Christ's sake!

Don't believe everything you read...

I've been out of the game I while, I was never aware of it in my day. And if 6 out of nine had been given a backhander I would have definately known about it. It certainly never happened to me.
This is something which should be rooted out, with decent matchmaking you should never need to fix a fight.
As I said before, big accusations are being made and they should be investigated fully.

mickey1975 wrote:

dookus wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote: I think its more of a case of they are being paid and they know their role... ie they are expected to lose rather than being explicitly told to lose.

Read the book. Being expected to lose is what they normally do. However, six out of the nine journeyman interviewed say that at some point they've been explicitly paid more to lose.

What, you think it's corrupt? This is boxing for Christ's sake!

Don't believe everything you read...

Mickey, the writer posts here (Junker) and those are direct quotes from fighters he interviewed for the book . Ask him if you think he made them up.

I know one of the lads in the book and he started off with a well known manager/trainer of journeyman,another pal of mine was with the same guy but is a decade older,and with what I've been told and what people have been saying in the thread maybe there has been a change in how they perform/what is expected from the away fighter

I don't have anything against journeymen, boxing needs them in fact.
You want to measure yourself against the top without actually fighting the top, then you need to fight someone who has fought that top guy and compare both of your results.
I must say with that that I don't like it if journeymen fake a lose, on the other hand, such a journeymen will pay the price anyway because he will receive less money the next time.

I knew a journeyman who said he got £400 more to go down in a specific round. Said that the kind of people who came in to the room to tell him that weren't the kind of people you can say no to

Coco wrote:I've been out of the game I while, I was never aware of it in my day. And if 6 out of nine had been given a backhander I would have definately known about it. It certainly never happened to me.
This is something which should be rooted out, with decent matchmaking you should never need to fix a fight.
As I said before, big accusations are being made and they should be investigated fully.

It could simply be that a) there are fewer journeymen around now and b) there is a much smaller audience for small-hall boxing than in the 90s as home entertainment is so much cheaper and better than it was (plus the economy is in a much worse state than the mid-to-late 90s), so promoters are even more risk-averse with prospects who can shift tickets and might be able to make them good money down the line. Then it really becomes protecting them with bribery if necessary.

I agree that the suggestions of boxers being specifically paid to lose (rather than what they usually do) need investigation. I was shocked by the number of journeymen who were quoted as saying that they'd been offered money to lose deliberately. That's no longer sport, but fraud on the public.

Finally, I notice there's a lot of denial in this thread. I've been following boxing well over 20 years, I know what a journeyman is "expected" to do. What the journeymen are talking about is a whole other thing. Unless you think Junker just made up those quotes (are you Johann Hari in disguise, Junker?) what the fighters are saying is utterly damning evidence, especially as it's so many of them. It needs investigating, not fingers in ears.

dookus wrote:

Coco wrote:I've been out of the game I while, I was never aware of it in my day. And if 6 out of nine had been given a backhander I would have definately known about it. It certainly never happened to me.
This is something which should be rooted out, with decent matchmaking you should never need to fix a fight.
As I said before, big accusations are being made and they should be investigated fully.

It could simply be that a) there are fewer journeymen around now and b) there is a much smaller audience for small-hall boxing than in the 90s as home entertainment is so much cheaper and better than it was (plus the economy is in a much worse state than the mid-to-late 90s), so promoters are even more risk-averse with prospects who can shift tickets and might be able to make them good money down the line. Then it really becomes protecting them with bribery if necessary.

I agree that the suggestions of boxers being specifically paid to lose (rather than what they usually do) need investigation. I was shocked by the number of journeymen who were quoted as saying that they'd been offered money to lose deliberately. That's no longer sport, but fraud on the public.

Finally, I notice there's a lot of denial in this thread. I've been following boxing well over 20 years, I know what a journeyman is "expected" to do. What the journeymen are talking about is a whole other thing. Unless you think Junker just made up those quotes (are you Johann Hari in disguise, Junker?) what the fighters are saying is utterly damning evidence, especially as it's so many of them. It needs investigating, not fingers in ears.

No denial, i just think the journeymen are going along with it to excuse their records in some way. Ive been around journeymen fighters a long time and Coco was one of the best of his time and neither of us have heard of someone being told specifically to lose. As stated, there was no need!

mickey1975 wrote:

dookus wrote:

Coco wrote:I've been out of the game I while, I was never aware of it in my day. And if 6 out of nine had been given a backhander I would have definately known about it. It certainly never happened to me.
This is something which should be rooted out, with decent matchmaking you should never need to fix a fight.
As I said before, big accusations are being made and they should be investigated fully.

It could simply be that a) there are fewer journeymen around now and b) there is a much smaller audience for small-hall boxing than in the 90s as home entertainment is so much cheaper and better than it was (plus the economy is in a much worse state than the mid-to-late 90s), so promoters are even more risk-averse with prospects who can shift tickets and might be able to make them good money down the line. Then it really becomes protecting them with bribery if necessary.

I agree that the suggestions of boxers being specifically paid to lose (rather than what they usually do) need investigation. I was shocked by the number of journeymen who were quoted as saying that they'd been offered money to lose deliberately. That's no longer sport, but fraud on the public.

Finally, I notice there's a lot of denial in this thread. I've been following boxing well over 20 years, I know what a journeyman is "expected" to do. What the journeymen are talking about is a whole other thing. Unless you think Junker just made up those quotes (are you Johann Hari in disguise, Junker?) what the fighters are saying is utterly damning evidence, especially as it's so many of them. It needs investigating, not fingers in ears.

No denial, i just think the journeymen are going along with it to excuse their records in some way. Ive been around journeymen fighters a long time and Coco was one of the best of his time and neither of us have heard of someone being told specifically to lose. As stated, there was no need!

Maybe times are harder at small-hall level now than 20 years ago. It wouldn't surprise me.

Obviously its nice the book is generating discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For my side, the fighters all spoke to me openly - I'm not Johann Hari (!) and I didn't approach this with any agenda to get anyone to say anything. I've got no reason to. My interestn was just in journeymen as a phenomenon and how it all works. Regarding the bone of contention, not all of them said this happened but most did. And it was news to me too, to begin with.
The implication was that it occurs when you get a lad who's a massive ticket seller but his handlers know he's fragile. Its like an added safety measure.
When I then spoke to promoters, managers and the general secretary of the Board and raised it as an issue, every one of them said that this practice does go on. As far as I'm concerned, that's case closed. I'm only reporting what I was told.

I'm not going further into than that because the whole thing was quite a lot of work and it would be nice if people who were interested read the book!

cheers

Mark

Junker wrote:Obviously its nice the book is generating discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For my side, the fighters all spoke to me openly - I'm not Johann Hari (!) and I didn't approach this with any agenda to get anyone to say anything. I've got no reason to. My interestn was just in journeymen as a phenomenon and how it all works. Regarding the bone of contention, not all of them said this happened but most did. And it was news to me too, to begin with.
The implication was that it occurs when you get a lad who's a massive ticket seller but his handlers know he's fragile. Its like an added safety measure.
When I then spoke to promoters, managers and the general secretary of the Board and raised it as an issue, every one of them said that this practice does go on. As far as I'm concerned, that's case closed. I'm only reporting what I was told.

I'm not going further into than that because the whole thing was quite a lot of work and it would be nice if people who were interested read the book!

cheers

Mark

I did buy the book, read it, and I thoroughly recommend it. It's insghtful, interesting and the fighte are very honest. You can purchase it here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journeymen-Othe ... Journeymen

PS Mark - please PayPal me my £50 by the end of play today

dookus wrote:Thanks Junker. Good article. As you say, it's the system people should be narked at, not the journeymen themselves. It's ridiculous that prospects in this country are obliged to also be good salesmen - if in some alternate universe I had the talent to box professionally, I'd be a journeyman from day one simply because I'm also quite an introvert and can't imagine hassling people to come watch me! That can't be right.

Yeah I can't bear asking people to sponsor me £5 for charity, let alone persuade people to part with £40 to watch me fight.

reggaereggae wrote:

Junker wrote:Obviously its nice the book is generating discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For my side, the fighters all spoke to me openly - I'm not Johann Hari (!) and I didn't approach this with any agenda to get anyone to say anything. I've got no reason to. My interestn was just in journeymen as a phenomenon and how it all works. Regarding the bone of contention, not all of them said this happened but most did. And it was news to me too, to begin with.
The implication was that it occurs when you get a lad who's a massive ticket seller but his handlers know he's fragile. Its like an added safety measure.
When I then spoke to promoters, managers and the general secretary of the Board and raised it as an issue, every one of them said that this practice does go on. As far as I'm concerned, that's case closed. I'm only reporting what I was told.

I'm not going further into than that because the whole thing was quite a lot of work and it would be nice if people who were interested read the book!

cheers

Mark

I did buy the book, read it, and I thoroughly recommend it. It's insghtful, interesting and the fighte are very honest. You can purchase it here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Journeymen-Othe ... Journeymen

PS Mark - please PayPal me my £50 by the end of play today

Or buy it from your local bookshop rather than a faceless tax-shy mega-corp.

Junker wrote:Obviously its nice the book is generating discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For my side, the fighters all spoke to me openly - I'm not Johann Hari (!) and I didn't approach this with any agenda to get anyone to say anything. I've got no reason to. My interestn was just in journeymen as a phenomenon and how it all works. Regarding the bone of contention, not all of them said this happened but most did. And it was news to me too, to begin with.
The implication was that it occurs when you get a lad who's a massive ticket seller but his handlers know he's fragile. Its like an added safety measure.
When I then spoke to promoters, managers and the general secretary of the Board and raised it as an issue, every one of them said that this practice does go on. As far as I'm concerned, that's case closed. I'm only reporting what I was told.

I'm not going further into than that because the whole thing was quite a lot of work and it would be nice if people who were interested read the book!

cheers

Mark

Your ego-stripped objectivity really came across. Each of the interviews was fascinating because you let them speak. As a reader, I enjoyed the fact that it allowed me to draw my own conclusions, and not tell me what I should think.

Dixonian wrote:

Junker wrote:Obviously its nice the book is generating discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For my side, the fighters all spoke to me openly - I'm not Johann Hari (!) and I didn't approach this with any agenda to get anyone to say anything. I've got no reason to. My interestn was just in journeymen as a phenomenon and how it all works. Regarding the bone of contention, not all of them said this happened but most did. And it was news to me too, to begin with.
The implication was that it occurs when you get a lad who's a massive ticket seller but his handlers know he's fragile. Its like an added safety measure.
When I then spoke to promoters, managers and the general secretary of the Board and raised it as an issue, every one of them said that this practice does go on. As far as I'm concerned, that's case closed. I'm only reporting what I was told.

I'm not going further into than that because the whole thing was quite a lot of work and it would be nice if people who were interested read the book!

cheers

Mark

Your ego-stripped objectivity really came across. Each of the interviews was fascinating because you let them speak. As a reader, I enjoyed the fact that it allowed me to draw my own conclusions, and not tell me what I should think.

thanks mate. At the risk of sounding massively pretentious, I've always thought the most interesting books / stories / films raise questions rather than try to provide pat answers, so its really nice for me that you feel that way about the book. Genuinely one of my favourite bits of feedback I've received.

I went to York Hall 2 years ago to watch some boxing. Dean Burell was on the bill (up & coming boxer) when me and my brother saw his oppenent's record. It was (9 197 7) I felt gutted straight away. Gutted I wasted £30. Watching a boxer spar down the gym was more competative & entertaining then watching that bout. Every night I can go to my gym and watch hard sparring for free!! Why go to a place and pay money for a fighter to look good?

I respect journey men as it isn't their fault. But a boxer who has a win over someone that is there to survive is not a real fight in my eyes. (again this is not the JMan's fault) Even if you had a boxer that never trained; smoked liked a chimney and drank, if he went in the ring as a oppenent to a young up & comer, to really win, no matter how out of his leauge he is and how much the contest was one sided, that would still be a real victory to the young prospect compared to a super fit journeyman guy, who's just in there to take a boxer 6 rounds.

To me it's fixing fights. What's the diffrence? Like someone on here said before about learning your craft, that's what sparring is for?

Now if I'm going to watch a show live, it'll only be the Amature shows.

Dixonian wrote:

dookus wrote:Thanks Junker. Good article. As you say, it's the system people should be narked at, not the journeymen themselves. It's ridiculous that prospects in this country are obliged to also be good salesmen - if in some alternate universe I had the talent to box professionally, I'd be a journeyman from day one simply because I'm also quite an introvert and can't imagine hassling people to come watch me! That can't be right.

Yeah I can't bear asking people to sponsor me £5 for charity, let alone persuade people to part with £40 to watch me fight.

This is a very real problem. When your consistently asking people to pay to watch you. Can come across pushy/annoying/etc. some people will unfriend you on Facebook due to this.

It's the nature of the beast though. Would be good if the show sold itself

I think that's why most (switched on) fighters affiliate themselfs to a football team to sell loads of tickets; esp premireship. Which is a very good idea.

Cazelo wrote:I knew a journeyman who said he got £400 more to go down in a specific round. Said that the kind of people who came in to the room to tell him that weren't the kind of people you can say no to

Was it marcelius Wallace?

Herbie Hide got done for that. But how can taking a dive be wrong and a boxer beign paid to not win be accepted?

Eddy wrote:Herbie Hide got done for that. But how can taking a dive be wrong and a boxer beign paid to not win be accepted?

well the former sounds like a betting fix, whereas most journeyman v prospect type bouts aren't available to bet on

I remember reading on this forum from Journeyman saying Frank Maloney did not want to use him because he wanted his fighter who was debuting, to have a 1 round KO on his record!

That smells a bit Billingsgate to me!

Eddy wrote:I went to York Hall 2 years ago to watch some boxing. Dean Burell was on the bill (up & coming boxer) when me and my brother saw his oppenent's record. It was (9 197 7) I felt gutted straight away. Gutted I wasted £30. Watching a boxer spar down the gym was more competative & entertaining then watching that bout. Every night I can go to my gym and watch hard sparring for free!! Why go to a place and pay money for a fighter to look good?

I respect journey men as it isn't their fault. But a boxer who has a win over someone that is there to survive is not a real fight in my eyes. (again this is not the JMan's fault) Even if you had a boxer that never trained; smoked liked a chimney and drank, if he went in the ring as a oppenent to a young up & comer, to really win, no matter how out of his leauge he is and how much the contest was one sided, that would still be a real victory to the young prospect compared to a super fit journeyman guy, who's just in there to take a boxer 6 rounds.

To me it's fixing fights. What's the diffrence? Like someone on here said before about learning your craft, that's what sparring is for?

Now if I'm going to watch a show live, it'll only be the Amature shows.

Funny you should mention that Eddy. If you're talking about the fight I think you are, I was ringside that night and watching the performance of the journeyman in question, the reaction of the crowd and the demeanour of both boxers afterwards was pretty much what made me decide to write the book. Its still stuck in my head now.