I consider Barker, Macklin, Razor to all be good fighters.
My ratings are more like:
Paid losers, plain and simple.
Fighters with usually barely winning records at best (over F-level fighters mostly), function to build modest early experience for decent prospects. They all have day jobs, you only know them if you literally know them in person. Even if they wound up on ESPN when you were watching, you still don't know them.
The worst might make a few TV spots, have an okay record on paper, are dedicated also-rans, honest journeymen.
The best of which are usually fighters with some name of some kind, sometimes national champs or well-faded former titlists, occasionally still fringe contenders in some ****ty abc ranking or recent abc challengers.
The lowest of which is just a little too formidable to call them average. Solid. Flawed but some things that stand out.
The highest of which can be just shy of great or borderline greats for their time.
"Excellent, but shy of historical weight."
The lowest of which might be a flash in the pan of elite names. The highest of which is an ATG.
Flea's, probably goes something like:
Sulaiman's ******l yeast
The **** which is shat from utter dog ****
Utter dog ****
Semantics, you know.