Exactly what I was thinking when I read the first responses to this thread. Some of the guys being named here were undefeated, or close to it when they became champions. Pendleton, Weaver, Mullings, Braddock, Backus, Bud Smith, Lauro Salas, Paddy DeMarco, Red Cochrane, Juan Zurita, Babe Risko, and Solly Kreiger are all examples of fighters who had journeyman records when they became world champs. You could also argue Tony Zale for this category as well. But fighters like Bramble, Saad, Holyfield, or even Leon Spinks (who was an undefeated prospect when he got his shot at Ali), who didn't acquire "journeyman" records until after they were champs, don't belong in the same category.
id consider him a journeyman other than the disgraceful "wins" over Terry Norris he lost to the best fighters he fought. The fact he was a champion still baffles me
Jungle Jess Willard...although a win over a shot Johnson might propell him to a higher ranking...maybe...
:dealThis Exactly my thoughts. Theres a world of difference between the 2 and surely the guys on here are intelligent enough to recognise this. The perfect examples given here would be fritzie zivic, yet he hadnt 65 losses on his record when he won he beat Armstrong, and jimmy braddock, whos record was journeyman status AT BEST, when he got his Baer title shot. (C/O Duodenum). Theres a big difference between the 2.
(In my opinion), there's no particular numbers that quantify a journeyman. A journeyman could go 40-0. There have been fighters who aren't even good enough to be called journeymen who have had impressive numbers. Also, I think lots of people still use the term 'journeyman' incorrectly. A journeyman is a GOOD fighter, a solid professional ... just not a special or outstanding one. Occasionally such fighters do win world titles.
All true of course but im thinking that the jist of the thread is kinda regarding what a journeyman record is that springs to most peoples mind. Not derogatory at all (i dont think)