Rate these guys on your all time middleweight list

John Mugabi was not better than Michael Watson and Herol Graham.

 

Who are you referring to?

Mugabi or Williams?

I think Gerald’s performances were impressive. But beating either of those guys weren’t that great.

 

Behave.

Williams give Toney a hard fight. Yes. But Toney was young and fighting every month.

Look at Williams’s whole career.

He lost to every top level guy he fought.

Mugabi had won a title.

Yes.

Against who?

Beating Mugabi wasn’t better than beating Kalambay, Graham, Watson and Collins, especially when you consider they were younger, bigger and he fought them in their home countries.

Wins over Williams and Mugabi are nothing to celebrate at all.

 

Stop with the statistics.

Hagler was faded.

Yes, Mugabi was tough. But he wasn’t better than Watson or Graham.

I don’t care if he was a champ and they weren’t.

Do you seriously think that Graham and Watson couldn’t have obtained the belt that Mugabi did?

Look who they fought and beat.

They were better guys with or without a belt.

Michael Watson beat a peak version of Nigel Benn and almost best a peak version of Chris Eubank.

Graham was world class. But he was desperately unlucky that he had to face great fighters who were prime.

Mugabi wouldn’t have beaten Kalambay and McCallum etc.

Who did Mugabi beat?

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Stop debating on statistics.

 

George,

I’m tagging you in.

Come and have a go with this guy.

I’m going to bed.

Ha!

 

Nah nah nah nah

You got yourself in this one pal, I learned my lesson quick. You don't question Ra's. It's too much work.

 

Ha!

 

Did Sanderline Williams lose to every top guy he faced?

Yes or no?

If you have to big up a win over Williams then you’ve got a weak resume.

Why does every Brit think that?

Tell us who Mugabi beat.

Both Watson and Graham could have won his title.

Jackson shouldn’t be rated higher than Toney at the weight.

Again, Mike beating the guys he did at MW eclipses Gerald’s wins at the weight.

When looking at Mike’s opponents, you have not taken into account the following factors:

Mike’s age.

The quality of the opposition.

The fact that they were prime.

The locations of the fights.

The physical aspects.

The stylistic match ups.

When you take everything into account, Mike has the better MW resume. And your statistics won’t change that.

 

Jackson would've been favourite to beat Toney at middle in that big proposed unification in 92, but I think that was a lot to do with the Tiberi thing and people believing McCallum was too old.

Julian was in the 1992 year-end lb4lb list, quite high if I recall, and Toney and McCallum nowhere to be seen. In reality, we know Toney and McCallum were the two best technicians on the planet.

Another strange one is every single writer predicting Frank Tate to beat McCallum in 88 if Mike moved up and challenged him.

And the fact Barkley was quite the favourite to beat Toney that night is hard to get your head around in hindsight.

 

Chris Eubank Zilch
Nigel Benn Zilch
Mike McCallum Top 20
Gerald McClellan Top 30
Tony Zale Top 15
James Toney Top 28
Michael Nunn Zilch

 

Your argument is weak.

I’ll break things down and discuss the points individually so we don’t miss anything.

First up, Sanderline Williams.

Sanderline Williams had a lot of ability. He knew his way around a ring. And he gave lots of fighters trouble.

He pushed Toney hard in their first fight, and the fight was declared a draw. Toney was fighting every month at that point. Toney then rematched him and beat him comfortably. But although Williams was very good, he turned into a gatekeeper. He lost to many fighters, including the following:

James Toney
Lindell Holmes
Herol Graham
Merqui Sosa
Reggie Johnson
Nigel Benn
Iran Barkley
Frank Tate

He’d already had 11 losses on his record before he fought Gerald.

Gerald decisioned him like most other fighters did.

I don’t want to disrespect any fighters, but Gerald decisioning Williams like everyone else did, wasn’t overly impressive.

It wasn’t in any way a great win.

It was a good win and nothing more.

 

Next up is John Mugabi.

As we saw in his fight with Hagler, he was extremely tough.

He’d had a lot of knockout wins going into the fight. But again, without wanting to be disrespectful, who did he beat before fighting Hagler? They weren’t top level opponents. He then gave a faded Hagler a great fight. Afterwards in his following fight, he was knocked out by Duane Thomas. He then had more low level wins before he went on to win the JMW title against a European level fighter who’d shocked Curry. He then had a few more low level wins before he lost to Terry Norris by a 1st round knockout.

So by the time that he fought Gerald, he hadn’t really beaten anyone of note, and he’d lost 3 fights, 2 of which were by stoppage.

Gerald also had significant physical advantages over him.

You can say that Gerald’s performance was great where he knocked him out in a round, but again, Terry Norris had already done it almost 2 years earlier.

All things considered, it can’t be classed as a great win.

It was a good-very good win, nothing more.

 

Regarding Michael Watson, why do you think that Mugabi would most likely have stopped him?

Based on what?

Who did Mugabi beat who was as good as Watson?

Tell me who Mugabi’s best wins were against.

Micheal Watson was a good fighter with a lot of ability, who was a very strong MW. He’d have had significant physical advantages over Mugabi.

Watson knocked out Nigel Benn and almost beat a peak version of Eubank at SMW.

Why do you think that Mugabi may have killed him?

Is it based on his tragic fight with Eubank?

 

Regarding Gerald’s resume, I agree that he has TWO GREAT wins over Julian Jackson.

I’ve no argument with that at all. But again, there was nothing great about beating Sanderline Williams who lost to every top fighter he faced, or beating Mugabi, who’d lost to a faded Hagler, and who’d been knocked out by Thomas and Norris.

Outside of his great wins over Jackson, Gerald’s MW resume is lacking.

Overall, it wasn’t as impressive as what Mike did.

Mike went to Italy to fight a great technician in Sumbu Kalambay. Okay, he lost. But Kalambay was elite and Gerald lost a couple of decisions when he was younger.

He then went to London to fight Herol Graham, who was a big southpaw with great ability. He was extremely fast and sharp and he possessed a 77” reach. He was very elusive, but Mike beat him in a close fight.

Mike then went to Boston to fight a young warrior in Steve Collins, getting the decision in a great fight.

He then went back to London, to fight Michael Watson, who’d beaten Nigel Benn. He stopped him in the 11th round.

He then fought James Toney when he was 35, where James was in top condition, where he fought to his full capabilities, due to the huge amount of respect that he had for Mike. They produced one of the greatest ever MW fights where it was classed as a draw.

He then rematched Kalambay where they had a very close fight, where he won a decision.

So look at how he travelled to Italy, Boston, and Britain twice.

Consider the stylistic match ups that he faced.

Consider that Watson, Kalambay, Toney and Graham were elite fighters and in their prime.

Consider Mike’s age at the time of most of those fights.

Mike has a better overall resume at MW.

It doesn’t matter if Gerald has better statistics.

Wins and a draw over Graham, Watson, Kalambay, Collins and Toney, is better than 2 great wins over Jackson and wins over Williams and Mugabi.

Mike was a better overall fighter than Gerald, (even at MW) and he has a stronger overall resume, where he beat more top fighters than what Gerald did.

Gerald should not be ranked significantly higher in your rankings.

 

How the **** is this still going?

McClellan's best two wins, are over a guy who already lost to McCallum years before, and the guy who beat McClellan, lost to someone who McCallum beat up too!