Boxing Labels: A Typology

It doesn’t always qualify, but usually I think of those guys who could be good, but aren’t really prospects, as “regional level”. My classic example of of a regional level fighter might be Mario Veit. He beat a lot of other Euro-level guys, but couldn’t get it done at the world class. If he had done it at the world class, then obviously he gets upgraded. But this is where I’d stick the Michael Jennings’ of the world, and the guys like Baldomir and Martinez before they got the opportunity to step up.

And that’s “opponents”. Either guys who aren’t full time fighters and get paid to lose, or guys who get booked just to pad a fighter’s record without necessarily trying to give them a tough fight. Basically, everyone Deontay Wilder has fought up to this point.

Is “clubfighters” – guys who are never going to be world class or probably even regional class, but who manage to draw locally, beat a fair number of decent fighters, but usually will lose if they step up. Examples: Matt Vanda, Vinny Maddalone, etc.

No one can become a Reggie Strickland unless his last name is also Strickland.

Reggie Strickland is the farthest thing from a journeyman. He is a “designated loser” in the same sense as those 7 or 8 guys in the U.K. are who now have over 100 losses each.

People who use Tomato Can or stiff or bum have never been in a ring. People like Jim Lampley and Larry Merchant who deep down have no real respect for fighters even though they make their very lucrative living off them.

Without the journeymen, there likely would be no boxing. They provide the foundation and grounding for the sport we love so much. Being a journyman is not a bad thing. Unlike some fighters who are matched to lose with the certainty of the sun setting……fighters like Andre Crowder, Danny Wofford (who has lost over 100 fights), Frankie Hines (lost 120), and Marcus Rhode, the journeymen are solid and competent fighters capable of an occasional surprise though they rarely rise to the top. Some, like Ross Puritty, Quinn Navarre, or Everett Martin are the tough gate keepers through which others must pass to reach the next level. Others, like Kenny Craven, Terry Crawley or Louis Monaco, fight six rounder’s or less to fill out a promoter’s card much like a chef puts garnish on a plate to give it a sense of false fullness. Hell, Kenny fought Eric Esch 4 times going 2 and 2! And some, like Garing Lane, Harold Sconiers or Jeremy Bates, get an occasional main event opportunity of their own. Often journeymen are all three…………..but some, like Saad Muhammad before drop to this status because they fail to heed the warnings

HECTOR CAMACHO jR. IS A REAL ROAD WARRIOR.

I would suggest ‘veteran’. Obviously there can be a few different levels of veteran, and it may only be applicable as an a qualifying adjective: “Veteran Gatekeeper”.

But when it comes to Baldomir, in particular, I see your issue. He doesn’t fit any of the categories you’ve specified. Same with Lovemore N’Dou, Sam Peter (possibly), maybe a Kendall Holt or Nate Campbell (in the last 18 months or so, anyway).

I get the feeling there is another word more suitable, and if it miraculously pops into my head, I’ll come back and post it.

Boxing Encyclopedia defines barnstormers as follows: A barnstormer
(or ‘barnstorming‘) is a term used to describe a boxer who
goes from small town to small town, taking fights, often against local
heroes, for cheap, but frequent paydays. Barnstorming was common
among black fighters before 1940. It was also done by heavyweight
champions such as Jack Dempsey, in the form of exhibition tours. In
some instances the barnstormer, if already well known, would come
to town with his hand-picked opponent. Although this would usually
provide him with a safe foe, it often provided for a mismatch and a
disappointed crowd.

Barnstormers like Reggie Strickland made a decent living with predictable and ultra frequent activity. Some did it by being a designated loser, often against each other. Others were winners who had gloves and were willing to travel as road warriors like Buck Smith.

The Alabama Kid and Tiger Jack Fox also come to mind. Also Simmie Black.

Boston lightweight Tommy Tibbs who ran up a markof 58-77-4 but was stopped only 8 times. Fighting from 1950-1972,he did battle in such global spots as Soweto, Gauteng, South Africa,Jamaica, London, Paris, Sydney, Australia, Italy, Mexico, Puerto Rico,Canada, Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, Venezuela–and barnstormed up and down the Eastern seaboard and Mid Atlantic states. He split six with the great Harold Gomes. Sadly, he was shot to death in a dispute at a Roxbury bar in Boston at age 40

Peter Buckley has seen it all in his 257 [now 295] fight career to date and is a wily old fox when it comes to not being hurt by his youthful and exuberant opponents as he takes them throughtheir "Initiation. —Tom Walker

Certain fighters play a certain role. Some seemed to have found a comfortable way to lose.Said another way, they are savvy enough to survive without undue risk, but at the same time provide enough excitement to guarantee more fights. Their ability to come back time and again is their meal ticket. They are a promoter’s dream; they represent reliability and virtual certainty. Indeed. It’s not if; it’s when.

Donnie "The Spoiler" Penelton has a slate of 13-164-5 and, like Strickland, a low excitement index. Penelton knew how to survive and come back to fight another day, but his likelihood of losing was even higher than that of Reggie Strickland, and if anything, he was no "Spoiler."

Some say a "tomato can" is a guy who is picked because he has
no chance of winning, but he looks good doing it. Maybe so, but
tomato can, paid punching bags, tanker, pasty, stiff, bum, or palooka
are derogatory terms that show disrespect for those who risk their
lives entertaining the fans, and I refuse to use such terms.

However, some on the lowest level of the quality tier often play the
role of designated loser–and ‘loser" is not meant here in a pejorative
sense. Perhaps opponent is a better word. These are fighters
who have a high predictability and likelihood of losing and, as such,
can be matched for that purpose. Quite simply, they lose far more
fights than they win. Some even say their sole purpose is to provide
fighters that are more promising a chance to pad their records and
enhance their careers.

While club fighters have a gambler’s chance to win, those who are
matched to lose are so matched because if the number of their losses
is divided by the number of their total fights, the resultant percentage
is usually high. And numbers don’t lie. Yet, every time they enter the
ring, they are by definition noble and courageous. No fighter dreams
of lacing up to soak up punishment. Let there be no doubt of that. No
one goes in there with the intention to lose–at least I don’t believe
that. Of course, there are the occasional "the fix is in" fights, but this
is not about that. This is about mismatches or fighters who engage in
them; it’s not about rigged fights– and the distinction is essential.

Well schraubd, you sure made me work on this thread. Goooood man!

This is the first time we’ve had this problem with italics

Look the point is that a journeyman, a tomato can/bum, an "opponent", and a professional loser are all very different. A professional loser is especially different. Sedrick Fields, from what I could gather, might be a "professional loser."

Baldomir was “obscure” because he was from another country just like the guy who recently fough Judah and who got screwed by the decision. Baldimir was a solid contender coming in.

NOT a bum.

But did anyone say ‘taxi driver’.

JCC’s record is full of them.

The term Journeyman comes from “Journeymen’s societies”, which were well established in 16th Century Britain, and the term is first documented as being used in the 14th Century.

Per James Fulcher, Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester; “They varied in skill but were commonly craftsmen who had completed an apprenticeship but not yet acquired sufficient skill and experience to become a master.”

The word ‘journeyman’ comes from the French word journee, meaning the period of one day; this refers to their right to charge a fee for each day’s work.

This is partially true, with the term literally meaning day – labourer.

“Writing about blue-collar folks is something I’ve been doing right from the start. It’s a world I know pretty well. I like most of these folks quite a bit.”
                                                                           — Richard Russo