Just had a look at the British SMW rankings. #1 is Froch, bottom of the rung is this guy http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=393255&cat=boxer My question is how good/poor is this level of fighter? I'm guessing the best judge of this would be the ex pros on here. I remember watching a SMW undercard fight and this guy got blasted out in 1, I was about 28 at the time and thought to myself with a bit of training I could have put up a better showing than that. Is that an arrogant attitude I had or are some of the very low ranked pros not that good?
Its very difficult to say, some journeyman are terrible- others are a right handful. Once they get into the fight they can be very difficult to beat. Someone like Carl Allen was good enough to chin Dazzo Williams etc etc. Judging solely from Saddlers record he was good enough to lose only by one point to Geoff Hamilton who was a decent, if sloppy amateur back when I was a junior. You can't judge a fighter by his record, nor can you hope to stand any chance against one, as just a bloke off the street. Trust me- there are levels and then ther are LEVELS. 99% of people I come into contact with who start the sport would be chinned in a matter of seconds by the worst journeyman in the country. There is much more to it then just throwing a haymaker and hoping for the best - or thinking you can take a good **** because you had a few scraps in the pub against fat mick the local hard guy:good Thats said many amateurs would beat many good proffesionals. Its a slightly different sport but ultimately its hit and don't get hit. Obey that principle and you won't get beat.
That's the kind of thing I was trying to understand. So basically even the lowest level pros would smash up a beginner who was in decent shape?
Saddler's record isn't too bad. He's lost the lot but has been the distance in 6 of 7 and even won a few rounds. From his record, to me he knows how to box but clearly isn't not good enough for the pro ranks but would beat most guys of the street. When I boxed amateur, many many years ago I sparred a few pros and the difference was night and day. They would be finishing sparring and i was fresh as well. There's a big difference between an average to below average amateur like i was and a good amateur too.
What do you think of this guy's record Jeff? And do you remember him fighting Gomez? http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=224052&cat=boxer
Saw Brophy fight a few prospects round this way, always gives them a decent test, good for their progression
I'm pretty sure this is the guy I saw blasted out http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=21491&cat=boxer
Don't think I've seen much or any of Walker tbh. A lot of the names he's lost to though are very good fighters, Macklin, Martin Murray, Darren Barker, Paul Smith, Tony Quigley, Kenny Anderson
Name that always springs to my mind in this kind of discussion is Ernie Loveridge. Decent journeyman, not a great record on the surface (20-46-3) but hard as ****.
I think it was on Bunces show when he said Journeyman are so important to the progression of all our top boxers, ut then there are some just taking a pay day
I'd only call someone a journeyman if they come to win. Someone like Peter Buckley was a good journeyman in his earlier years but later on he was losing to all and sundry.
Brophy is a cracking fighter, he has a decent crack on him and knows how to box! Not sure about his circumstances but he's very lazy. Other then that he's decent