BoxRec

This is revisiting a topic I started last month (http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=174165) and relates to the job of the UK journeymen.

Do UK journeymen do a lot less offensive work than those elsewhere?

Johnny, sorry to use you as the example (my attention was drawn to your record from your post today), and I haven't seen any of these four fights, but apart from your 100th fight, which you won, you very rarely take even a single round off your opponents, including four debutants between Mar-12 and Sep-13.

Firstly, I do realise Johnny's role, and understand that taking unnecessary risks is not a good thing because a) he may accidentally beat his opponent, and b) he might leave himself open to getting hurt or stopped.

You look at the record of UK fighters and see that if a fighter gets to say 10-0 they barely ever drop a round along the way.

I can't say with certainty that it's that much different from what happens in the States, but I've noticed in the past from looking at non-British world champions records, you often find that they have distance fights from their early days which were reasonably close, or certainly not shut outs, suggesting that they weren't always just in there with a guy who was a good survivor and could give them rounds that way.

So do UK fighters not have to do enough defensively on the way up compared to their US counterparts?

And does this mean that they end up not as well schooled defensively? I know a lot of the defensive work is learned in sparring and whilst wearing head gear, which makes sense, but should there be such a strong emphasis on their early bouts being trying to walk down a good survivor as opposed to a guy who can give you a bit more to think about defensively?

I'm not blaming the journeymen themselves for this because I understand they are there to do a specific job, but is it made a little too easy for the prospects themselves to the detriment of their careers? Are they left too ill equipped to be able deal with a crisis?

I have no idea if it's true or not but I've seen a few british fighters over the years that have gone to the states to train and fight over the years saying that a fair few of the journeyman over there would be good enough to be british champions over here.

It's a 2 way thing. American journeymen seem more willing to fight back but do tend to get stopped more as a result, our guys will test an opponent mentally I think as opposed to physically.

I think that the American journeymen make more of an effort. Certainly off what I have seen on television but I guess at the same time they are only showing the better quality prospects on the bills we see so maybe they have a lot more confidence when matchmaking.

Depends what you call a journeyman South America, the States, and Eastern Europe have lots of tomato cans who never get past the first round. British journeyman go the distance otherwise the board would take their license

Very interesting thread this.

The dilema for the journeyman is if they get too adventerous they wont get used as often.

Do I think they are too easy, no, but it would be great if there were more shock wins.

Spud wrote:Do I think they are too easy, no, but it would be great if there were more shock wins.

Great for who?

Aden wrote:

Spud wrote:Do I think they are too easy, no, but it would be great if there were more shock wins.

Great for who?

Fans watching.

The occasional shock in boxing gets people talking about our great sport more!!!

Aden wrote:

Spud wrote:Do I think they are too easy, no, but it would be great if there were more shock wins.

Great for who?

Surely everyone? An honest result, ie the best man/most deserving man on the night won.

I understand this is an ideal that boxing is not remotely close to. Not a dig, I accept it is how it is.

To be fair in the right circumstances over here i think a few of our journeymen had the ability to have won a British title. The business is harsh, and if you don't tick all the boxes unfortunately it's highly unlikely your going to get the opportunities.

95gerog wrote:

Aden wrote:

Spud wrote:Do I think they are too easy, no, but it would be great if there were more shock wins.

Great for who?

Surely everyone? An honest result, ie the best man/most deserving man on the night won.

I understand this is an ideal that boxing is not remotely close to. Not a dig, I accept it is how it is.

In theory I'd like all matches to be 50:50 as much as the next man but I don't think it is feasible when there are concerns over the health and general well-being of fighters and they are not literally owned by promoters. Any lad has only a few genuinely tough fights in him with small gloves and pro rules before he'll start paying the price long-term.

Surely everyone? An honest result, ie the best man/most deserving man on the night won.

I understand this is an ideal that boxing is not remotely close to. Not a dig, I accept it is how it is.[/quote]

In theory I'd like all matches to be 50:50 as much as the next man but I don't think it is feasible when there are concerns over the health and general well-being of fighters and they are not literally owned by promoters. Any lad has only a few genuinely tough fights in him with small gloves and pro rules before he'll start paying the price long-term.[/quote]

I agree with the sentiment Aden, but who is suggesting a guy needs to fight 50 times In his career? Again, it is what it is, and as fans we can manage what we pay and don't pay to see.

Journeymen ruin British boxing IMO.

@95gerog I suppose it ultimately comes down to the ratio of fans of boxing versus fans of boxers. I suspect the former is greatly outnumbered and it's therefore the desires of the majority that take precedence when a promoter plots the path for his fighters.

Lightsoot wrote:Journeymen ruin British boxing IMO.

Why?

Lightsoot wrote:Journeymen ruin British boxing IMO.

WTF??

I an surprised by this ... please explain?

Aden wrote:@95gerog I suppose it ultimately comes down to the ratio of fans of boxing versus fans of boxers. I suspect the former is greatly outnumbered and it's therefore the desires of the majority that take precedence when a promoter plots the path for his fighters.

I think I agree. This is quite interesting though. I think many more would be boxing fans as opposed to fans of certain boxers, if fights were more genuinely competitive.

Youseff Al Hamidi,Lee Connelly,Dan Blackwell,James Ancliffe,Jody Meikle all come to fight

handsofstone wrote:Youseff Al Hamidi,Lee Connelly,Dan Blackwell,James Ancliffe,Jody Meikle all come to fight

You match a fighter against the lads mentioned when you want to test how porous his defence is if and when he's on the verge of stepping up. Decent output, limited fire-power. If you see one of those matched against a fighter making his début or thereabouts, it's a sign he's got a bit of potential; that or the promoter/matchmaker has dropped a bollock or has simply decided he doesn't like the kid.

The attitude to a boxer's record is looked at very differently in the States to how it is in the UK. A US prospect can be matched hard early on, and a loss to a decent journeyman is generally viewed as a good learning experience.

One loss for a British fighter & everyone writes them off as a no-hoper, so I doubt our journeymen are encouraged to test our prospects as much as they possibly could...

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:The attitude to a boxer's record is looked at very differently in the States to how it is in the UK. A US prospect can be matched hard early on, and a loss to a decent journeyman is generally viewed as a good learning experience.

One loss for a British fighter & everyone writes them off as a no-hoper, so I doubt our journeymen are encouraged to test our prospects as much as they possibly could...

Japan is probably the best example. Look at a guy like Keita Obara (pushed VERY deep on debut) or Ryosuke Iwasa (put in with Shinsuke Yamanaka too early). Obara is now the Japanese national champion at his weight and Iwasa is the #1 contender to Yamanaka's WBC crown.

I don't think it's that journeymen are too easy more like the fear that if they fight back and manage to knock out a promoters Olympic Champion gold nugget they'll get blacklisted and just have to fight other journeymen.

columbo wrote:I have no idea if it's true or not but I've seen a few british fighters over the years that have gone to the states to train and fight over the years saying that a fair few of the journeyman over there would be good enough to be british champions over here.

Was it John O'Donnell touted as the British de la Hoya or british golden boy who went to US with big expectations and got sparked by a Mexican with 10 or so losses? Bigger place, so more of the feckers isnt there.

On a different scale, for example, I'd say its harder to be the best Welterweight in Manchester than it is to be the best Welterweight in Wales. Michael Gomez son, Michael Armstrong, recently beat the Welsh champ (2weeks ago i think) - is he the best in manchester at his weight?

banjo wrote:I don't think it's that journeymen are too easy more like the fear that if they fight back and manage to knock out a promoters Olympic Champion gold nugget they'll get blacklisted and just have to fight other journeymen.

They aint gonna get work next week if they...

a) Win the fight
b) open up and get KO'd

So best thing to do for bank balance is lose without getting KOd

You were a credit to the noble art of boxing Johnny I wish you well mate you training any lads yet iv got ya down as going to be a good coach best of luck