A professional loser ? I personally wouldnt have a problem with it depending on who they were. Someone like Kristian Leight who has had hundreds of fights would have a wealth of experience and tricks and will be able to teach everything in the game. Some would think its a bad idea though because they are "loser" boxers What is your take ?
No boxer is a loser. Just getting in the ring takes a ton of heart. It is sport why there is only you and your opponent and there is no where to hide and the intention is to hurt your opponent. Perhaps journeyman is a better word as you first stated.
I judge a trainer based upon who else they trained. A world champ fighter doesn't make them a world champ trainer.
Having the mentality to get into the ring doesn't make you a boxer. That's like saying "I would take advice from a businessman that went bankrupt because he had the balls to start a business in the first place." He went bankrupt for a reason. Get trained by the best you can find/afford/get to.
i think this is a hypothetical question, but here's my answer. i think you can learn something from anyone, and you need to be aware of what both you and them are capable of. a good journeyman will show you tricks to survive (tying up, rolling punches off your face, etc) but they are losers; paid, professional losers. this is a sport. there are winners and losers. sugar coating it doesn't help. would i get trained by him? no. would i stop by once in a while, become friends and pick his brain on occasion? yes.
Great trainers/coaches/managers in most sports were journeymen. Boxing, American football, baseball, whatever...it's usually the journeymen who become successful in an advisory capacity. Rarely do the greats become successful as trainers. Journeymen tend to not have the superior natural skill, so they need to analyze things more, which his why they often become good coaches. Ted Williams was one of the best hitters ever in baseball, but was said to be a lousy batting coach because he had so much natural ability that he'd never thought about what he did, so he couldn't explain things to people properly. It's not that different in most sports. Ray Arcel, Cus D'Amato, Eddie Futch, Emmanuel Steward...all had no pro boxing experience but were among the greatest trainers ever.
W/L record as a pro has no connection whatsoever to one's ability to teach the sport or develop talent, as different skill sets are involved (knowledge, communication, psychology, motivation, empathy, patience, people skills, etc.). Same reasoning applies to coaching other sports. Natural talent or performance in a specific activity(or activities) is in no way a predictor of success as a teacher or coach of a related activity.
It doesn't matter who trains you as long as they know what they are doing and have had at least over 10 years training in boxing or at least studying the sport to a tee. A journeyman will in all likleyhood be a better option bc they know the ins and outs and can guide you not making some mistakes they did. Of course a trainer with a rep of producing champions usually is going to be better choice. In the end the fighter is the one who has to win and have communication with the trainer is the way this happens . I have to laugh at some comments i read over the net of guys bragging they are trainers and know it all with no more than 2 years experience in a gym and maybe 5 years of watching boxing,these are the guys you DONT want to train you. Ive also met long time pro fighters that cant train their own fighters for anything,and i see this and chuckle.its not so clear how smart ones boxing IQ is just bc they are licensed fighters. The best trainer is one who isnt a struggle to learn from and one that can make you a better fighter to the best of your ability.