Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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....
Well, I would generally agree with that but I think "journeyman" is a broad enough category (good skilled fighter who is nothing outstanding) that it would include some
Calling Chuck Wepner a "journeyman", for example, actually seems rather generous to Chuck.
As for Jimmy Braddock, I think journeyman is an accurate description, even though he was champ.