When to move on from Journeymen?

When they are ready too, simple.

 

A lot of the so-called journeymen aren't journeymen.

They're just professional losers who serve no real purpose to the sport.... they're cheap, they're nasty and don't contribute anything meaningful.

''They save shows'' - bollocks. Stick two young lads against each other rather than begging a journeyman to run away for four rounds for £500 or whatever they get.

A proper journeyman should be capable of upsetting people, if I was a promoter I'd not employ someone who didn't give 100% every time.

That's what puts people off boxing. It's rubbish.

 

I hate journeymen it's makes a mockery of our sport when only one person can win a two horse race.we dont need them no way.British board should
Only licence boxers who can compete
And there are some good journeymen around

 

Great post, this is what puts fans off. Boxing is a sport, it's competition, it should be between two contestants who will give all they can to win. Even if a young fighter struggles here and there against 'journeyman', it's a learning curve, but promoters are afraid if their fighter doesn't look a million dollars each time out it will put fans off. Ray Leonard only fought two guys with losing records throughout his entire pro career, in his 11th fight or something like that, he fought a decent contender in Floyd Mayweather sr. Adam Booth looks to be doing a very good job with George Groves

 

What sort of answer is that :nut

Good amateurs have no reason at all for wasting their time against journeyman who have precisely 0% chance of winning. There is absolutely nothing to be learned or gained from those fights. Beeston has it spot on- having two 2-0 prospects going at it would be far more entertaining and competitive. It would bring them on quicker as well because they're being tested.

 

I wouldn't mind watching two journeymen go against each other.

In fact, I think a ''Prizefighter: The Journeymen'' would be a good event.

But fighters who have lost 100+ with only a handful of wins shouldn't be in against leading amateurs who have just turned over.

It's only a matter of time before one of them gets seriously hurt. Same with those Eurobums.

Oscar De La Hoya never fought anyone with a losing record.

Plus, there's a limit to how good you can look when the opponent is either useless and glass jawed or so desperate to hear the bell that they run away all night.

Agree mate.

 

Theres good journeyman and bad journeyman. What fighters don't need is there Latvians coming over.

Take David Price. He comes out of the Olympics and fights nobody for 2 years. I don't care who he is sparring, who he is training with theres no way that doesn't make you digress as a fighter.

If I was Alex Fergersoun I wouldn't take my team on pre season and play Confrence South and Latvian 3rd Division sides.

 

18 months after the Olympics, Frankie Gavin was 5-0 and he beat Peter McDonough 60-54. You telling me he couldn't have done that over 4 rounds on his pro debut. 18 months of no risk allowed Frankie to tale his eye of the ball and not take the sport seriously. Not picking on Gavin could list 100 other fighters.

Unless you have had less than 30 am fights theres no reason to fight journeyman. Fight a guy with a 16-7 record over 6 rounds.

 

It's a financial decision as much as an experience/talent issue. Stay under the radar and the fights are less expensive to make. As soon as the prospect label is attached opponents demands increase.

 

Exactly like I said when they're ready, good amateurs don't need to be in with journeymen, because they're already ready for better fights atsch

 

It's all depending on there age, ability and development. If there still not showing anything after 5 fights against low level then there's some issues.

I don't think likes of Stalker learn anything from fighting a lad who's been pro for a mere 6weeks. But i don't think a promoter and manager can go at start of a career ok your going to fight this many journeyman and then after this fight go onto this title. Some lads develop quicker then others.

 

For me the stand out sign against low level journeymen is the KO ratio.

All of the leading British fighters of the last decade or so have a near 100% KO ratio against the poorer opponents.

Hatton, Calzaghe, Haye, Froch and Khan all destroyed the really weaker ones, and (Haye aside) were only extended by the smarter guys that could upset a ''prospect'' who wasn't all that good.

You certainly wouldn't see a young Ricky Hatton taken four rounds by a Johnny Greaves, Kristian Laight or a Daniel Thorpe - no disrespect intended. All three would be gone inside a round.

 

Some good posts in here lads.