Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
The usage of the term as it pertains to boxing is the same as what Senya13 has uncovered in the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries :
These are better and more accurate definitions than the Boxrec Encyclopedia's fighter who has "little or no expectation of winning his fights" - really, what kind of crap is that ?
A fighter who has little or no expectation of winning his fights is probably NOT a "generally competent boxer with solid boxing skills" as Boxrec goes on to assert. That's contradictorary.
Also, the "along for the journey" origin seems to be almost entirely false, since both dictionaries suggest "journey" is an archaic word for a day's work. A journeyman is a man who does a day's work, works well but is nothing outstanding or special.
In boxing, the chances of a journeyman being successful in his day's work obvious rest entirely on the level of his opponent. Against novices, the inept, the unskilled, the untrained or under-trained his chances of winning are high.
Against other journeyman his chances are even.
It is only against the elite, super-talented and exceptional practicioners should he have little or no expectation of winning.
Go with whatever definition you're most comfortable with. My point, was that the term is often misused on this forum. Weather you're talking about Boxrec's definition, or Oxford's version, neither are accurate descriptions for fighters who were top 10 rated challengers during the 1970's.
Hopfully we can concur on that note....