Rate these guys on your all time middleweight list

You cannot rank a win based on where the fighters were ranked at the time.

You keep quoting the Ring’s ratings.

Okay.

If we use both the Ring’s ratings as well as your logic, then Joe Calzaghe’s wins over Byron Mitchell and Charles Brewer, were significantly better than Roy Jones’ win over Bernard Hopkins.

Is that accurate?

 

You’re hiding behind the statistics.

It’s all you have to try and prop up your weak argument.

Nigel Benn lost to Watson and then immediately beat world class fighters afterwards.

Mugabi knocked over B and C class guys who’d never beaten anyone of note at the time, and then who never went on to beat anyone of note afterwards. Yet you want to ignore all that, to just concentrate on the ratings at the time.

You’re a joker who can’t be taken seriously.

I haven’t criticised Nino Gonzalez. I’ve just used him as an example to highlight your ridiculous points.

You rate Mugabi, and you rate his wins over Bradley, Gonzalez and Hargrove.

You rate them higher than Watson’s win over Benn, as Benn hadn’t done anything at the time, and those other fighters were ranked higher.

Yet any knowledgeable fan would look at their overall level of ability, and see what they did immediately afterwards. They’d also analyse the actual fight.

Only a fool would rank a win over Earl Hargrove higher than a win over Nigel Benn, on the grounds that Mugabi and Hargrove were rated higher at the time.

If you can’t see how dumb that is then you are clueless.

 

Right.

Joe’s wins over those guys weren’t better than Roy’s win over Hopkins, despite the fact that Brewer and Mitchell were rated higher than Hopkins at the time of the fights.

So why are you using that poor logic with regards to Mugabi’s opponents?

What do you mean points decisions aren’t equal to knockouts?

What does that mean?

Are you saying that because a knockout win is obviously more emphatic and can’t be disputed unless there’s controversy?

Or are you saying they’re more important?

 

Winning by knockout obviously looks more impressive. But then you have to look at the quality of the opposition.

Who are they knocking out?

Knocking out B and C level fighters wouldn’t be more impressive that decision wins over top level fighters.

Mugabi never proved that he was a better fighter than Michael Watson.

Do a survey if you want.

It doesn’t mean anything to me.

If I was asked who I though would have won, I would look at 3 things:

1. Their ability.

2. Who they fought.

3. How their styles would have matched up.

I wouldn’t even consider what their rankings were.

I wouldn’t give it a seconds thought.

It wouldn’t be at all relevant to my opinion.

 

I’m sure you got the point I was making.

You are using the Ring ratings to support your argument.

In one of the years, Byron Mitchell was rated higher at SMW, than what Montell Griffin and Virgil Hill were rated at LHW.

 

Watson is several levels above Mugabi.

 

Do a poll.

I’m telling you that I DON’T make predictions based upon RATINGS.

You can do 2 polls if you want.

You can ask guys if John Mugabi’s win over Earl Hargrove, was better than Michael Watson’s win over Nigel Benn.

I’ve gone as far as I can with you.

If you want to do the polls, be my guest.

If you don’t, there’s no point continuing.

I don’t care what your stats say.

I don’t care what you have to say.

I know that John Mugabi went into the fight with Marvin Hagler, having beaten NO top level fighters.

I also know that the opponents that he beat also didn’t beat any top level fighters.

So you can keep your Ring ratings and your statistics, whilst I use common sense and logic.

Do the polls, or we’ll move on.

I haven’t got the patience to take this any further.

 

Oh you can’t say that mate. Because Mugabi was rated higher than what Watson was.

Ha!

That’s what you’re debating with here.

I wish you luck because I’ve done with this fool.

 

Yeah, well I prefer to use my intellect, in order to rate a fighter on their ability, who they fought and who they went on to fight.

The examples I gave you were obviously to prove a point.

I’m done with you.

We’re finished.

Your argument has been crushed.

If you seriously think that wins over Earl Hargrove and Bill Bradley, are superior to Watson’s win over Nigel Benn, then you are absolutely DELUDED.

 

Nobody has said otherwise all throughout the thread.

 

I’m biased?

A coward?

Please!

You are one of the biggest JOKES that I’ve ever debated.

This is how dumb you are:

“Nino Gonzalez and Bill Bradley were great wins for Mugabi”

“They were better than Watson’s win over Benn, because they were rated higher”

“Benn wasn’t world class in 1990, because the WBO wasn’t recognised”

Haha!

That’s what I’ve had to endure over the last week.

Benn beat DeWitt and Barkley, but he wasn’t world class in your opinion, because of the belt that he held.

Good grief.

Benn beat DeWitt with ease, who’d beaten a guy who’d beaten both Gonzalez and Bradley, BEFORE they’d fought Mugabi. Yet those wins of Mugabi’s over Gonzalez and Bradley, are the wins what you’re putting forward to try and highlight his resume.

Haha!

You’re absolutely hilarious.

You rate wins based on rankings rather than on the quality of the fighters.

Move along you donut.

 

We established weeks ago that Gerald had the better singular wins.

However, wins over Mugabi and Williams weren’t top level wins.

Mike McCallum was a better overall fighter than Gerald.

Overall, Mike McCallum achieved more at the weight.

His overall wins have more depth.

Now go away and debate somebody else.

We’re done.

You can only debate on statistics.

I’ve DESTROYED every argument that you have put forward.

I’m not going to waste another second of my time on you.

I’ll watch the fights, whilst you study BoxRec.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

Well... ummm... this thread soon developed into a big argument! But I'd like to answer the OP's original query!
I rank those fighters something like this on my MW list:
22. Toney
23. Zale
26. Nunn
30. McCallum
41. Benn
42. McClellan
But middleweight is the deepest division IMHO, and the most difficult to rank.

 

Dude Ring rankings don't mean dick. Watson is planets better than Muagbi

 

Go and tell him that.

I’m done with him.

The guy’s an absolute joker.

He says the Benn win can’t be rated highly, as Benn hadn’t done much then. But then he tells you how great Mugabi’s resume is, as he had great wins over the likes of Bill Bradley and Earl Hargrove etc.

Ha!

Hopeless.