Journeyman defined for those who don't know

[mr. magoo]

Lately, a lot of folks ( and not just a few ) have misused the term journeyman to almost embarrassing proportions. I have recently heard some posters refer to fighters like Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Shavers and Ken Norton as journeyman. This is a horribly incorrect use of the word.

I decided to pull up the definition from the Boxrec Boxing Encyclopedia.

Here is the link if you care to type it in, unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it so that you can just click on it.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

SUMMARY

A journeyman is a boxer who has little or no expectation of winning his fights, thus he is said to be " along for the journey ". They are generally competent boxers who posses solid boxing skills and or the ability to absorb punishment. Often they were aspiring novices or even prospects, but were defeated and found to have limitations which relegated them to the role of Journeyman.

TO Mcgrain:

You slapped me on the hand for calling James Braddock a journeyman. This article continues by making references to him and others:

There have been boxers who were considered journeyman, who have gone on to have success in boxing.

Jim Braddock- A former #1 ranked light heavyweight contender, he had been relegated to journeman status before propelling himself to win the heavy weight title from Max Baer...

Enjoy fellas!!!!!

I disagree with the Boxrec Encyclopedia's definition of "journeyman".

"Journeyman" is NOT a term used exclusively for boxers. And I am inclined to dispute the claim that it originates in "along for the journey", although I am uncertain.

Journeyman is a term for any tradesman, craftsman, person of skilled profession, who is GOOD at his job but NOT EXCEPTIONAL.
It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it's about levels of skill, expertise and craftsmanship.
A journeyman is not a master at his craft, but he is proficient.

Twisting a exclusively boxing-related definition into the term "journeyman" is pointless. It means what it means. And can obviously be applied in many different contexts, because it's meaning is broad and somewhat relative.

End of lecture.

[Senya13]

Oxford Dictionary: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
• noun 1 a skilled worker who is employed by another. 2 a worker who is reliable but not outstanding.

— ORIGIN from JOURNEY in the obsolete sense ‘day’s work’ (because the journeyman was paid by the day).


Merriam-Webster: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Etymology: Middle English, from journey journey, a day's labor + man
1 : a worker who has learned a trade and works for another person usually by the day
2 : an experienced reliable worker, athlete, or performer especially as distinguished from one who is brilliant or colorful <a good journeyman trumpeter -- New Yorker> <a journeyman outfielder>

[UpWithEvil]

The Oxford English Dictionary just officially added the word "Ginormous" this week. Just thought you'd want to know.

Originally Posted by Senya13

Oxford Dictionary: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
• noun 1 a skilled worker who is employed by another. 2 a worker who is reliable but not outstanding.

— ORIGIN from JOURNEY in the obsolete sense ‘day’s work’ (because the journeyman was paid by the day).


Merriam-Webster: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Etymology: Middle English, from journey journey, a day's labor + man
1 : a worker who has learned a trade and works for another person usually by the day
2 : an experienced reliable worker, athlete, or performer especially as distinguished from one who is brilliant or colorful <a good journeyman trumpeter -- New Yorker> <a journeyman outfielder>

Good stuff.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I disagree with the Boxrec Encyclopedia's definition of "journeyman".

"Journeyman" is NOT a term used exclusively for boxers. And I am inclined to dispute the claim that it originates in "along for the journey", although I am uncertain.

Journeyman is a term for any tradesman, craftsman, person of skilled profession, who is GOOD at his job but NOT EXCEPTIONAL.
It has nothing to do with winning or losing, it's about levels of skill, expertise and craftsmanship.
A journeyman is not a master at his craft, but he is proficient.

Twisting a exclusively boxing-related definition into the term "journeyman" is pointless. It means what it means. And can obviously be applied in many different contexts, because it's meaning is broad and somewhat relative.

End of lecture.

I'm referring to the usage of the term as it pertains to boxing, and yes boxrec hit it right on the head in my opinion. There was a very good reason for my doing this, as authors here have grossely confused journeyman with whatever. I personally do not consider men like Jerry Quarry to be a journeyman boxer.

Now the lecture is officially over...

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

I'm referring to the usage of the term as it pertains to boxing, and yes boxrec hit it right on the head in my opinion. There was a very good reason for my doing this, as authors here have grossely confused journeyman with whatever. I personally do not consider men like Jerry Quarry to be a journeyman boxer.

Now the lecture is officially over...

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 :

2 a worker who is reliable but not outstanding.

OR

2 : an experienced reliable worker, athlete, or performer especially as distinguished from one who is brilliant or colorful

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.

[mr. magoo]

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 :



OR



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.

Very well,

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....

Lately, a lot of folks ( and not just a few ) have misused the term journeyman to almost embarrassing proportions. I have recently heard some posters refer to fighters like Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Shavers and Ken Norton as journeyman. This is a horribly incorrect use of the word.

I decided to pull up the definition from the Boxrec Boxing Encyclopedia.

Here is the link if you care to type it in, unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it so that you can just click on it.

This thread is friggin HILARIOUS!

And it's even gettin better with each new post.

Oh,and BTW, Shavers and Norton definately WERE journeymen.

[rekcutnevets]

Jesse Fergeson was a journeyman.

Everett Martin was a journeyman.

Mark Young was a journeyman.

Ken Lakusta was a journeyman.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Lately, a lot of folks ( and not just a few ) have misused the term journeyman to almost embarrassing proportions. I have recently heard some posters refer to fighters like Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Shavers and Ken Norton as journeyman. This is a horribly incorrect use of the word.

Quite right. It also renders the term "contender" quite useless, unless you're talking about the frigging tv show.

A journeyman is a boxer who has little or no expectation of winning his fights, thus he is said to be " along for the journey ". They are generally competent boxers who posses solid boxing skills and or the ability to absorb punishment. Often they were aspiring novices or even prospects, but were defeated and found to have limitations which relegated them to the role of Journeyman.

I think this is a decent definition. I'd also say that it's a fighter who has "hit the roof" in terms of his development (for all intents and purposes) before he's reached championship level. This is why a sudden leap late in a career can REVERSE the journeyman status. A fighter can cease to be a journeyman.

TO Mcgrain:

You slapped me on the hand for calling James Braddock a journeyman. This article continues by making references to him and others:

There have been boxers who were considered journeyman, who have gone on to have success in boxing.

Jim Braddock- A former #1 ranked light heavyweight contender, he had been relegated to journeman status before propelling himself to win the heavy weight title from Max Baer...

I know this about Braddock. Those who called him a Journeyman at the time have reasoning - those who can look back at a former #1 ranked LHW and World Heavyweight Champ (the most lauded sportsman in the world) have the opportunity to revise.

Calling Braddock a journeyman with 20/20 hindsight is not sensible IMO.

Thanks for posting the link/summary, i think it was a fine idea.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by KTFO

Oh,and BTW, Shavers and Norton definately WERE journeymen.

This is right up there with your statement that "Duran was the ATG with the least natural talent".

So wrong it's almost right.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

A journeyman is a boxer who has little or no expectation of winning his fights, thus he is said to be " along for the journey ". They are generally competent boxers who posses solid boxing skills and or the ability to absorb punishment.

Come to think of it, it sounds exactly like:

[thunder06]

my favorite modern journeyman

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by KTFO

This thread is friggin HILARIOUS!

And it's even gettin better with each new post.

Oh,and BTW, Shavers and Norton definately WERE journeymen.

What's really " friggin HILARIOUS " here, is that with each of your posts, you're reavealing more and more of your ineptitude, as it pertains to boxing terms. You have yet to provide a definition of the word journeyman. So far, the definitions provided by Sonny, Senya and myself do not describe Norton, Shavers, Ellis, Quarry, Mathis or anyone of the sort.

If you're going to apply terminology to your posts, then at least have the intelligence to demonstrate that you have a working knowledge of the jargin that you use.

That's the way debates are done my man......Plain and simple......