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 rated fighters. 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.
Seriously though? #1 at LHW...Heavyweight Champion of the world...an astonishing performance v Joe Louis...wins over Farr, Baer, John Henry Lewis...calling him a jounreyman seems a really odd thing to do to me. Of course he lost fights. He also reached the absolute pinnacle of professional sports and was knocked of that perch by arugably the best practitioner of that profession ever to grace the weight class.
Is that , "journey's end" now? The term actually is a corruption of the name of a French heavyweight, Paul Journee who discovered Primo Carnera.
Some people think a journeyman is a fighter who has levelled off outside of world class. It's not. Whilst It can be fighters who have levelled off it is also moreabout apeal and status. A hometown hero is never a journeyman. I've heard Henry Cooper called a journeyman which is outrageous. Henry was a headliner.
Your definition is better than some I've read in the last couple of days. I personally never tried to define boxing journeyman. I simply looked up the definition and printed what I found.
A journeyman is a fighter who can beat the lower levels of competition, and sometimes provide a good test or even upset a top ten ranked fighter. Essentially he's a stepping stone for fighters on the way up. Sometimes they advance to fringe contender status by beating someone decent, or even get a title shot. They make ideal sparring partners. In his prime, the journeyman usually has a clear winning record that dips once he starts facing superior talents.
A journey man is a full time, serious pro who happens to always be "the away fighter". He can still be a good fighter but his opponents are not carefully selected for him. Instead the Odds are set against him, and he turns up for work. A prospect is a serious pro also, but unlike a journeyman, he has backing, is always the "home fighter" and gets hand picked, selected opponents. A journeyman is not a hometown star with big time backing because he's either had that (and he did not make it) or he just was never quite colourful enough to begin with.
This was an old thread that I apparently posted about nine years ago ( and forgotten, ) but it has since become moot since the poster it was aimed at is no longer around. The argued definitions of "journeyman" kind of took the thread in a different direction than intended. But the point of it was to illustrate that men like Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Oscar Bonavena, Jimmy Ellis and Earnie Shavers were NOT journeyman. Not sure how the notion that they were ever got formed.
A journeyman is someone competent enough at his craft to eke out a living at it, but not good enough to truly excel and distinguish himself. Shavers, Quarry, Norton, etc. were NOT journeymen. They were true contenders.
Maybe because they were described as such by several members the contemporary press ? As I showed in the other thread. I think the most likely explanation is that the status of the term "journeyman" has been downgraded since then in common boxing parlance, and many people now can only see "contender" and "journeyman" are mutually exlcusive terms. I think I've shown that wasn't always the case, and the term was always often used in a broader meaning. But however many quotes I produce from credible and respected writers and others, it seems that people are way too uncomfortable with the term to accept that it can be used for contenders too. I'm not sure why that should be the case. But I doubt I will be the one to 'reclaim' the word for its broader use. Shame really. But the people have spoken.
For any word or phrase there is a literal and figurative definition. I would take Arcels comment figuratively. We know Wills won an overwhelmingly percentage of his bouts so a strict literal definition of the word does not fit. Arcel know allot of Wills as he mentored with Wills trainer so his comment must be taken with a high level of respect.
Not to drive this into the ground, though I guess that is what I'm doing, But my actual complaint about Arcel is that this quote has no provenance. Roger Kahn did not footnote or state in the text where he got it. As for the meaning of the word, like many words (for example--major) it has diverse roots and meanings. The 1913 example seems in context to merely mean professional, different from just about every other quoted usage. And historical examples might just be misuses. I misuse words all the time, or at least now and then. I read a lot of high journalism, I guess you would call it, about current affairs and politics, and I notice respected commentators misusing words, like "Sanctuary cities are flaunting Federal law." It happens. My bottom line is it is best to go by standard definitions if you want others to understand you.
A also think that fighter's role can change multiple times throughout his or her career. Braddock was a respected contender for a while, then sank to journeyman level, and resurfaced as a heavyweight champion. Jesse Ferguson was a decent prospect who became a journeyman then a contender and back to journeyman again.. At no point however did I see Quarry, Norton, or Lyle ever resemble the career patterns of a journeyman though.