BoxRec

Has any boxers fought 0 journey men Like every fight the boxer has had has been against winning records has that ever happend before

Lomachenko

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/659771


He is still active so it could change, but very hard to see him ever fighting anyone with a losing record

kareemb wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 19:40 Has any boxers fought 0 journey men Like every fight the boxer has had has been against winning records has that ever happend before

No

Every fighter takes tune-ups or soft touches or learning fights or whatever you want to call them.

The only guys that qualify might be a loser that fought nothing but good prospects or something, got beat every time, and then quit Boxing after only a couple of fights.

If you've had more than 5 fights, and you're being promoted as somebody to look out for. You'll definitely be matched against a journeyman.

Well first, I'd say it's what they are at the time of the fight, and Ramriez was more like a fringe contender who had a WBO regional title and was ranked by them for a world title shot

Second read the dude's actual post, he specifies fighting nothing but winning record opponents, 25-3 is a winning record

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 19:57 Lomachenko

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/659771


He is still active so it could change, but very hard to see him ever fighting anyone with a losing record

Ramirez is 3-4 since his fight with Loma. I'd say he's a Journeyman.

The U.K. has a habit of calling "Paid Losers" Journeymen.

But by U.S. Boxing standards. That's what Jose Ramirez is, and was.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:09 Well first, I'd say it's what they are at the time of the fight, and Ramriez was more like a fringe contender who had a WBO regional title and was ranked by them for a world title shot

Second read the dude's actual post, he specifies fighting nothing but winning record opponents, 25-3 is a winning record

It is indeed a winning record.

And that's what his post specifies

gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:10

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 19:57 Lomachenko

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/659771


He is still active so it could change, but very hard to see him ever fighting anyone with a losing record

Ramirez is 3-4 since his fight with Loma. I'd say he's a Journeyman.

The U.K. has a habit of calling "Paid Losers" Journeymen.

But by U.S. Boxing standards. That's what Jose Ramirez is, and was.

Ramirez was nothing at all like those types of journeymen. The UK dudes are like 4-87 and almost never try to win, the US journeymen are usually knockover jobs nowhere near contention

Depends what people classify as journeymen too, basically I've seen pretty much every level of boxer that supposedly has a journeyman in it. This dude asks specifically about only fighting guys with winning records .

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:13

gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:10

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 19:57 Lomachenko

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/659771


He is still active so it could change, but very hard to see him ever fighting anyone with a losing record

Ramirez is 3-4 since his fight with Loma. I'd say he's a Journeyman.

The U.K. has a habit of calling "Paid Losers" Journeymen.

But by U.S. Boxing standards. That's what Jose Ramirez is, and was.

Ramirez was nothing at all like those types of journeymen. The UK dudes are like 4-87 and almost never try to win, the US journeymen are usually knockover jobs nowhere near contention

Journeymen in the U.K. is a nice word to call those guys.

Paid losers is what they are.

By U.S. standards even a guy that gets put on TV as the B side that's fully expected to get his ass kicked usually has a decent record on paper.

Not always, but usually.

Unless you are a star world class boxer your biggest money opportunities will almost always be in fights youre brought in to lose (because the higher level guys are bigger fish and their teams have more money)

If you are good enough though you can still have a career as a winning boxer at levels below that, where you are paid for fights you win and you win a lot more than you lose. A guy like Chisora is called loser to the stars by you, and a journeyman by a lot of people, but he has far more wins than loses and gets paid well to win. That's not a career loser. Guys who most of their paydays have been to lose are.

Journeymen is one of boxing's most vague and variantly defined terms. Loma certainly hasnt fought any journeymen going by winning record like op says

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:26 Unless you are a star world class boxer your biggest money opportunities will almost always be in fights youre brought in to lose (because the higher level guys are bigger fish and their teams have more money)

If you are good enough though you can still have a career as a winning boxer at levels below that, where you paid for fights you win and you win a lot more than you lose. A guy like Chisora is called loser to the stars by you, but he has far more wins than loses and gets paid well to win. That's not a career loser. Guys who most of their paydays have been to lose are.

Journeymen is one of boxing's most vague and variantly defined terms. Loma certainly hasnt fought any journeymen going by winning record like op says

Oh I know Chisora isn't a loser to just anybody. He's a loser to the stars. Hence the nickname.

I agree Loma's record on paper looks absolutely excellent (and hell it is absolutely excellent), but the story ain't always told on paper in Boxing, and Ramirez's winning record is a lot of fluff.

Ya, of course there's a lot more to the record quality, though a winning record is just made up of more wins than losses no matter what

You got any other established guys who have only ever fought opponents with winning records? I'm sure there must be plenty more around.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:33 Ya, of course there's a lot more to the record quality, though a winning record is just made up of more wins than losses no matter what

Yeah I got that.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:33 Ya, of course there's a lot more to the record quality, though a winning record is just made up of more wins than losses no matter what

You got any other established guys who have only ever fought opponents with winning records? I'm sure there must be plenty more around.

Hell Muhammad Ali never fought a guy with a losing record. He fought one guy with a .500 record, but nobody with a losing record.

Doesnt cut it then

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑11 Aug 2020, 20:37 Doesnt cut it then

I would think it'd have to be somebody else who was a highly decorated amateur, and therefore would've never been matched soft, but even Leonard and Joe Frazier had at least one or two losing record guys on their resume.

Andre Ward did too.

So yeah it probably is quite the rarity.

Most journeymen haven't fought any journeymen, so most of them have only fought boxers with winning records. Do they count?

Miles Templeton

prewarboxing wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020, 02:49 Most journeymen haven't fought any journeymen, so most of them have only fought boxers with winning records. Do they count?

Miles Templeton

Good one.

Usyk hasn’t faced anyone with a losing record and neither did....Ali Raymi!

Arturo Mayan and Joves De La Puz never faced a journeyman (at least according to their boxrec records)

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020, 13:49 Arturo Mayan and Joves De La Puz never faced a journeyman (at least according to their boxrec records)

That record always makes me laugh.

Sung Kil Moon

I think some people are now using the term journeyman differently. It used to be that a journeyman was a guy who had a little ability. fought a lot and probably had a winning record. He probably made it to the level where he would fight 10-round fights. He was a notch below a "fringe contender". Prospects who had a about 2-3 years experience fought these types of guys. Just good enough where the fight was not a total joke but not expected to beat the supposed rising star.

A tomato can was a guy who really had virtually no ability, probably never got past the 4-6 round fight level. He probably had a losing record. Prospects very early in their careers would fight these guys to pad their record. They aren't as good as journeymen.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Aug 2020, 10:10 I think some people are now using the term journeyman differently. It used to be that a journeyman was a guy who had a little ability. fought a lot and probably had a winning record. He probably made it to the level where he would fight 10-round fights. He was a notch below a "fringe contender". Prospects who had a about 2-3 years experience fought these types of guys. Just good enough where the fight was not a total joke but not expected to beat the supposed rising star.

A tomato can was a guy who really had virtually no ability, probably never got past the 4-6 round fight level. He probably had a losing record. Prospects very early in their careers would fight these guys to pad their record. They aren't as good as journeymen.

In the UK it's not exactly about your level of ability; it's a career choice. They call it 'going on the road' which means fighting often, usually on short notice and always being the 'away' fighter (e.g. the fighter without the promotor of the show's backing).

Some of them are more skilled than the number of losses on their record suggest because they are often fighting without time to train properly, need to avoid risking getting stopped, KO'd or cut so they can fight again soon after, and their opponent will always have the favour of the judges.

It's basically deciding to box primarily in order to earn rather than trying to fulfil whatever potential you have

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Aug 2020, 10:10 I think some people are now using the term journeyman differently. It used to be that a journeyman was a guy who had a little ability. fought a lot and probably had a winning record. He probably made it to the level where he would fight 10-round fights. He was a notch below a "fringe contender". Prospects who had a about 2-3 years experience fought these types of guys. Just good enough where the fight was not a total joke but not expected to beat the supposed rising star.

A tomato can was a guy who really had virtually no ability, probably never got past the 4-6 round fight level. He probably had a losing record. Prospects very early in their careers would fight these guys to pad their record. They aren't as good as journeymen.

The definitions people use are really all over the place today, encompaasing both the types you describe, guys in between (like Kamil Sokolowski, who are further off a fringe contender than the first type, but still capable) and then also guys who've actually been up fighting for world titles and are still contenders, but simply arent top tier, elite guys. It's hard to discuss the term on the same page really, unless like the op someone gives clearly what they mean (although even then of course I think most would agree you can have a winning record and be a journey man)