Great Fighters beaten by a Journeyman when in their prime.

[billeau2]

But every old fighter ends up there. We're talking about fighters at their peak. Otherwise Robinson, Duran, Ali, Leonard, etc etc etc were all journeymen, which is silly of course.

Top champions aren't close to journeymen, even when they end up shot and past their primes. They're just shot, old, past their prime former champions at that stage, not journeymen and gatekeepers.

Erik Morales isn't a journeyman for instance. He's a once great, now shot, former champion.

Toney and Jones, both used for younger fighters to beat on now (the purest definition for gatekeeper), are not gatekeeper/journeymen. Again, they're both shot to **** former greats of the game.

Judah may have come up short of the potential people once expected of him, which was P4P greatness, but he still reached the very highest levels of the sport and was a multiple time, two division, Undisputed world champ. That's not a gatekeeper/journeyman however fluid your definitions might be. It's the exact opposite.



Exactly.

There are so many belts and championships that a fighter winning championships is not necessarily a reason for not being a gatekeeper. I think regarding journeyman I can see your point but gatekeeper? is a little different concept. If you think that by being a champion and continuing to fight that keeps one out of the category of a fighter who never achieved and was always a professional opponent....I concede that.

Gatekeeping is a little different issue. In a division where there is a tremendous amount of fluidity (guys moving up and down, catchweights) where there are always a bunch of guys coming up the ladder and down, I do think that fighters who became a tough fight, had flaws which were exposed and now the blueprint on these flaws was out for all to see....can be a great gatekeeper. Judah was exposed, first by Zoo. He became a guy who fought tough but broke down in the later rounds and never really became a great fighter. This to me is a gatekeeper.

[BennyST]

There are so many belts and championships that a fighter winning championships is not necessarily a reason for not being a gatekeeper. I think regarding journeyman I can see your point but gatekeeper? is a little different concept. If you think that by being a champion and continuing to fight that keeps one out of the category of a fighter who never achieved and was always a professional opponent....I concede that.

Gatekeeping is a little different issue. In a division where there is a tremendous amount of fluidity (guys moving up and down, catchweights) where there are always a bunch of guys coming up the ladder and down, I do think that fighters who became a tough fight, had flaws which were exposed and now the blueprint on these flaws was out for all to see....can be a great gatekeeper. Judah was exposed, first by Zoo. He became a guy who fought tough but broke down in the later rounds and never really became a great fighter. This to me is a gatekeeper.

Well, I think a champion is a champion wherever he ends up later in his career. A gatekeeper or journeyman to me is someone that never reached championship level, hence the three different terms champion, gatekeeper and journeyman. In that order.

Someone like Darnell Boone or Augustus is a gatekeeper to me, or Mickey Ward etc. The perennial contender type who is a tough go for any young guy with championship prospects. Journeymen is below that level, guys that don't even really test you very much if you're good and club fighters are just to feast upon.

But an undisputed, two division champion? No matter who he was exposed by, he was still one of the best fighters in the world for some time.

[C.Y.]

agreed past it and out of shape

That's his fault for being out of shape

[Mugwump]

The term pejorative term "journeyman" is completely arbitrary and not much more than worthless. To most around here it means "any fighter who lost a lot of fights against other 'journeymen'". It has absolutely nothing to say about the skills of the fighter and/or deeper contexts which may often yield important information.

Take the first bout on the list "Duran vs Laing".

Sure, anyone who looks at Kirkland Laing's resume without any deeper knowledge of the fighter himself will likely conclude that Laing was an average fighter who hit lucky catching Duran during one of his (many) career troughs.

But those observers who actually WATCHED Kirkland Laing would tell you he was a fighter with tremendous skills way in excess of anything a sterile career summary derived from Boxrec could ever hope to describe.

Indeed, I've spoken to several good judges all of whom felt Laing was one of the most naturally gifted fighters Britain has ever produced. Unfortunately he was also one of the most infuriatingly unprofessional trainers as well.

One week he would deliver a boxing masterclass, completely bamboozling his opponent. The next week he'd turn up twenty pounds overweight and get beat.

What I'm saying is - context is everything. You can't just look at a fighter's career record and think that it provides an accurate assessment of a fighter's abilities. Very often they do not. For many reasons.

[sonnyboyx2]

The term pejorative term "journeyman" is completely arbitrary and not much more than worthless. To most around here it means "any fighter who lost a lot of fights against other 'journeymen'". It has absolutely nothing to say about the skills of the fighter and/or deeper contexts which may often yield important information.

Take the first bout on the list "Duran vs Laing".

Sure, anyone who looks at Kirkland Laing's resume without any deeper knowledge of the fighter himself will likely conclude that Laing was an average fighter who hit lucky catching Duran during one of his (many) career troughs.

But those observers who actually WATCHED Kirkland Laing would tell you he was a fighter with tremendous skills way in excess of anything a sterile career summary derived from Boxrec could ever hope to describe.

Indeed, I've spoken to several good judges all of whom felt Laing was one of the most naturally gifted fighters Britain has ever produced. Unfortunately he was also one of the most infuriatingly unprofessional trainers as well.

One week he would deliver a boxing masterclass, completely bamboozling his opponent. The next week he'd turn up twenty pounds overweight and get beat.

What I'm saying is - context is everything. You can't just look at a fighter's career record and think that it provides an accurate assessment of a fighter's abilities. Very often they do not. For many reasons.

Sorry to pizz on your chips here. But Laing is being overrated by those "Good Judges" you spoke too. Laing could look decent against a Class D opponent, but almost always got exposed by the better class fighters he fought. I can remember Laing's career and have a large collection of his bouts, he was nothing BUT a journeyman when compared to World class fighters.

[Mugwump]

Sorry to pizz on your chips here. But Laing is being overrated by those "Good Judges" you spoke too. Laing could look decent against a Class D opponent, but almost always got exposed by the better class fighters he fought. I can remember Laing's career and have a large collection of his bouts, he was nothing BUT a journeyman when compared to World class fighters.

Well that's your OPINION.

Which - based on your seemingly pathological obsession toward not giving demonstrably good fighters the merest crumb of credit (which really says more about you as an individual and the prejudices you hold than anything else) - I don't take seriously.

There's no need to apologize for pissing on my chips. The truth is like a bar room drunk tottering unsteadily into the gents at closing time to relieve himself you missed and sprayed it over your own trousers.

Toodle-pip.