Harry Wills fought 43 fights from 1919 to 1925 who really had a chance

I agree Wills was not a journeyman.
I disagree he was the number one contender for 8 years BTW Dempsey was champ for 7 years so I don't know where you are here:huh

 

Wills had a solid case as an outstanding contender to Willard, but there were some years during Dempsey's reign that he didn't do so much.

 

"I don't actually see much difference in its meaning when applied to any profession or craft."

I do. It is just confusing to mix the sport use of journeyman with the craftsman use of it.

Sort of like mixing up file and file.

 

Robert Lipsyte previewing the Ali-Frazier fight in 1971, wrote :

"He (Ali) is still speedy enough to work with Frazier, who is still a journeyman boxer. Frazier's reputation rests on the single-minded, sensual joy with which he tracks an opponent across and around the ring, corners him, then disassembles him.
Frazier always does the same thing, which is awesome to watch, and has always been effective."

etc.



Will Grimsley, veteran AP sportswriter, in 1977 wrote about Jerry Quarry :

"He sees Earnie Shavers catching a jaded Ali with a thunderclap right hand in their title fight at Madison Square Garden Sept.29 and the heavyweight division suddenly opening up like a mad Pandora's box.
'Ernie can't ever forget I took him out in the first round back in 1973' the journeyman pugilist said on a visit to New York to choreograph his return to the resin wars. 'He's got to give me a shot'
"



Jim Taylor, in 1977, after the Ali-Shavers fight wrote :

"But, in truth, Muhammad is only a fragment of a once-superior boxer-fighter, and Shavers is a journeyman contender, maybe the best around outside of Ken Norton."


Peter Alfano, experienced sports writer, writing in 1987 on Larry Holmes' coming back to face Tyson :

"What he forgets, however, are the punches he has taken over the years, especially in the last few. Most legitimate heavyweights - even journeymen like Renaldo Snipes, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith, David Bey, Carl Williams - have been able to hit Holmes hard."






In an AP article from December 1970 about George Foreman :

"He has won all 24 of his pro fights, 21 by knockout. Last month he knocked out Boone Kirkman of Seattle in two rounds.
When will Foreman, now the third-ranked contender, be ready to fight for the world title?
'If D!ck makes the match, I'll be ready' he says.
Sadler hedges when asked the same question.
'George is a journeyman fighter now' he says. 'He's fought all kinds of styles. We are now preparing for the title. When the opportunity comes we will be ready.'
'Anyone can fight for the title. The trick is to win it'"

--------
!!!! So that's D!ck Sadler describing his 24-0, third-ranked contender, and his protege as a "journeyman fighter".
Far from disparaging him, I think he's saying he's reached a high level of competence and expertise, although he isn't quite about to say he's champion-quality just yet.



----------------------------------------------

All the above men were competent writers, with a good grasp of language.
Also were all knowledgeable on boxing.
D!ck Sadler was an old school expert, a good trainer, a veteran.

I may not agree with the use of the term in all the cases, but I can't say they are wrong or absurd.

 

Well, in that case when someone says "the craft of boxing" or a boxer "learning his craft" you must get confused too ?

There's no "sport use" of the term independent of its wider meaning. It's just that the wider use is hardly used any more and has become archaic and mostly irrelevant to modern life ...... and most modern sports fans and writers are perhaps totally ignorant of, and uneducated in the English language.

It's okay pulling George Orwell out and talking about the precision of language and how people shouldn't misuse.
But I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this.
Journeyman is Journeyman.
Same word, same origin and meaning ...... and you are defending the distorted meaning and misuse of the term.

The men who wrote about boxing and baseball in the 1930s and 1920s and before were well-versed in English language, and knew what a journeyman was, and applied the term to boxing.
And the term fits well.
That's the most likely explanation BY FAR, and I can't see any way to deny that.

 

Actually I don't think Wills was always number 1 contender.

I think Firpo definitely surpassed him when he knocked out Willard.

I think other than that Wills was always the highest ranked man out there.

 

Yet people are stumbling over themselves to avoid this.

Contemporary accounts, historic accounts, accounts decades later after the dust has settled predominantly agree on this.

 

Very slanted and as such really incorrect statements.

Dempsey was the fighter whose job is to fight the opponents contracted to fight by his manager working with promotors.

A fighters job is not to choose opponents not to act as a manager or a promotor.

Every bout that was contracted for while hwt champion he fought. He never backed away from ANY opponent. He koed Sharkey who as a leading contender would outclass Wills a short time later.

The innuendo that Dempsey back peddled or himself purposefully avoided Wills because he did not want to fight a black man OR he was afraid he would lose is total BS. Whether you are trying to infer this or saying it outright is wrong and incorrect.

The facts surrounding why this bout was not made have been known and understood for 90 years. None of these facts have anything to do with Dempsey not wanting to fight Wills.