Hello all. I've been lurking here for a while now. I've always been casually into boxing until a couple months ago. The past couple months it had really got ahold of me. So I read all your posts and take in your opinions. My question is on theses titles that you guys give boxers. From what I understand so far... Gatekeeper: An above average boxer thats not of elite status. Like he's the guy you fight before getting your title shot. Contender: Would obviously be the guy that wants a shot at the belt and has a chance. Journeyman: Not too clear. Maybe these are the guys that an up and coming boxer would fight to move up. Less skilled then a Gatekeeper. This is what I think I understand. I would appreciate some clarification on this. Are there any others? Also, what does H2H mean? I really do enjoy ESB. Thanks a lot. Turo
H2H means head to head. example: Lewis might be ranked 5th all time great at heavyweight, yet H2H people may say he beats every Heavyweight. (this is just an example).
You've got the definitions correct. I would go further with a journeyman and say that he doesn't have any ambition to win titles or become elite - he's a pro boxer who regards boxing as a bit of a hobby or a bit of cash now and then. There are a few exceptions but journeymen are card fillers. H2H = head to head
I think your definitions are sound. I would just add that a journeyman should also have solid experience, otherwise you'd struggle to be certain he is infact a journeyman
Pretty good definitions. I would say a gatekeeper isn't ness. the guy you fight to get a title shot but rather the guy a prospect fights to se whether he's good enough to get to the next level (i.e. contender.) Journeymen will fight just about anybody, including other prospects, contenders and other journeymen. They're guys who've been around a long time who are never going to make it. Some are more skilled than others and some were prospects or contenders at some point in their career. They win some, they lose some. H2H=Head to head
Howdy, feller! Here's how I see it: A journeyman is a feller who is never good enough to get a title shot. If he does get a title shot, it's in a meaningless defence and the journeyman loses. There are run of the mill journeymen and there are good journeymen. Good journeymen pride themselves on never getting stopped or on giving a hard fight to anyone, no matter how good. Fellers like Thysse, for example. They are often picked to fight up and coming fighters who are gunning for a belt, both as a measuring stick and to make their name. Good journeymen never beat these up and coming fellers. Good journeymen separate the contenders from the run of the mill journeymen. Good journeymen are C+ at best. Then you have contenders. Contenders are better than good journeymen. On their best day, they can beat a weak beltholder who has a bad day. They always lose the rematch, though. Some contenders are gatekeepers. Fellers like Bika, for example. Gatekeepers separate the good contenders (e.g Bute) from the run of the mill contenders (e.g. fellers like Stieglitz). They lose to the good contenders but beat run of the mill contenders. Gatekeepers are B at best, but usually B-. Good contenders are B at best, but never less than B. Then you have beltholders. Beltholders are good contenders. Fellers like Bute, for example. Some are weak champs - they'll lose to other good contenders eventually and some are strong champs - will only lose to a good contender on a bad day, but win the rematch. Strong beltholders are B+ to A-, but not quite A-. The best beltholders beat other beltholders and defend their unified titles for a long time against other beltholders or the best contenders out there. If they consistently beat B+ level fighters, they join the elite - A- fighters or better. If they beat an A- level fighter, they are strong elites - A level fighters. Kessler was a strong beltholder when he was beaten by Calzaghe. Kessler was better than B+ but not quite A-; Calzaghe was A-. How I see me these things anyways, feller.
This is easy: A Gatekeeper is typical a former contender who just didn't have the stuff to win a title, but is still a solid fighter, more than likely fight for a title multiple times, maybe even won a belt versus a weak champ, etc. Angel Manfredy, Darnell Wilson, Glen Johnson are great examples of gatekeepers. Beating them doesn't mean your world class, but it means you belong in the mix for a title shot. A Journeyman can be a former contender, a former gatekeeper, a former prospect, but is either a guy who has long since declinded and now doesn't have the heart to win, or a guy who never had the talent to really compete with legit guys. They have good experience, decent records, Journeymen aren't Tomato Cans who's sole purpose in life is to get beat up and KO'd... Journeymen know how to fight at least a little bit. Marteze Logan and Emmanuel Augustus are prime examples. A Contender is a guy in contention for a title shot, typically top 10 -15 in a weight class. They can be a prospect or a former title holder. Quintana and Williams fit this bill.
Quintana's a titlist right now. I'd say Clottey, Williams and now Jermain Taylor(168) fit the contender bill.
You're right, my bad. I meant to write Clottey.. but Quintna will switch with Williams after they fight again.
Some people say gatekeepers divide the journeymen from the contenders and that they are good journeymen. I say they divide the run of the mill contenders from the good contenders, so they must be contenders themselves. It doesn't much matter because there are all sorts of gatekeepers, at all levels, so everyone can be right. The gatekeepers I'm interested are the ones separating world class fighters from continental fighters. I'm not that interested in prospects until they've proven to be world class.
