Rate these guys on your all time middleweight list

Ra's Al-Ghul,

How can it be irrelevant?

What are you talking about?

You said that Kalule was DONE after fighting Leonard.

How could he have been done, if he went on to beat Lindell Holmes and Sumbu Kalambay afterwards?

You’re hilarious.

Forget where people were ranked, and look at their actual ability.

Kalambay was still a great boxer even when he was starting out. Go and see for yourself.

I don’t care if Jacquot was higher rated at one point.

He wasn’t any better, and he was a career European level fighter.

You’re really going to rate a win over Jacquot as being better than a win over Benn, on the grounds that the WBO belt wasn’t as prestigious?

Stop being ridiculous.

Yes, the WBO was a lightly regarded title back then. I agree with you 100%. But beating Nigel Benn is a better achievement than beating a European level fighter. And once again, Mugabi doesn’t inherit the win over Curry. Mugabi didn’t beat Curry. Jacquot did. And lots of other fighters beat Jacquot too.

You’re getting really desperate now.

Michael Watson’s win over Nigel Benn, was better than any win that Mugabi had, irrespective of where they were ranked at the time.

Mugabi has no top level wins.

Jacquot wasn’t a top level win.

Is there any point in taking this any further?

 

And?

Was Hargrove better than Nigel Benn?

No.

 

Significant gap between Eubank and Benn? They had two close fights, one war with both fighters taking loads of shots at 160 and a messy affair at 168, however Benn was far better at 168 than at 160.

 

G-man was beaten by Benn at 168 but did beat Jackson at 160, Julian didn`t do much after those bouts and was coming to the end, however McCallum took Jackson out in two rounds at 154, so maybe you`re saying McCallum was better and 154 otherwise your logic doesn`t stand-up at all.

 

Hargrove was rated higher than DeWitt and Barkley, by who?

 

Your exaggerations are cringe. There was no 'far' or 'loads', much like there's no 'awful' in the professional boxing champions you log on to an online forum to talk about

 

You’ve got to stop debating on statistics.

Stop looking at where fighters were ranked etc, and analyse their ability and the level that they fought at instead. That is a much better gauge.

It doesn’t matter where Benn was ranked at the time, or that it was only a domestic level fight.

The version of Nigel Benn who fought Michael Watson was a better fighter than Earl Hargrove. Nigel Benn beat Iran Barkley in a round the following year. That means that Nigel Benn was a world class MW at the time.

Yes, I understand that the Watson fight wasn’t a big championship fight at the time. I understand your point regarding that. But again, Benn was still a world class fighter at that point. He proved it. And so was Chris Eubank.

Now go and look at the career of Earl Hargrove:

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/2915

No disrespect intended, but the guy wasn’t a top level fighter, and he never beat a top level fighter in his entire career.

This is what I’ve been telling you.

John Mugabi went into the Hagler fight with a great looking record, as he’d scored a great number of knockouts. Yes, he was highly rated. Yes, his statistics looked great. But when you break it down, he wasn’t knocking out any quality, top level fighters.

So it doesn’t matter if he had more knockouts and was higher rated than Michael Watson etc.

Michael Watson proved himself as a world class fighter.

He beat Nigel Benn who was a world class fighter.

He almost beat Chris Eubank who was a world class fighter.

John Mugabi does not possess any top level wins.

Earl Hargrove also doesn’t possess any top level wins.

I would also bet that most of Mugabi’s other opponents don’t possess them either.

 

Ra's Al-Ghul,

Below are the resumes of Nino Gonzalez and Bill Bradley:


Nino Gonzalez:

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/2337

Nino Gonzalez has no top level wins on his resume.

Going into the fight with John Mugabi, he’d lost 6 times, which included a knockout defeat to Matthew Hilton just 3 months earlier.


Bill Bradley:

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/3001

Bill Bradley has no top level wins on his resume.

Going into the fight with John Mugabi, he’d lost 7 times.


I’m sure that if I did some more digging, many other of Mugabi’s opponents would also have similar records.

Again, I don’t mean to disrespect anyone.

I don’t want to disrespect yourself or any former professional fighters. They were all warriors who deserve enormous respect. But at the end of the day, the statistics that you have quoted, clearly don’t hold any value.

 

Mugabi was more or less shot by then. He was never the same after the Hagler fight. The Mugabi that lost to Hagler that night was a true beast.

 

But he hadn’t beaten anyone of note beforehand, and he didn’t beat anyone of note afterwards.

 

I understand that we now have the benefit of looking back at the bigger picture, whereas we obviously didn’t have that option at the time. I appreciate that.

I understand that before the Watson fight, that Benn hadn’t done much.

I understand that Mugabi was ranked higher.

That doesn’t change any of what I’ve said though.

Wins can alter over time.

They may lose value or value may be added.

Now we can look back, we can say for sure that Watson’s win over Benn, was better than Mugabi’s wins over guys like Hargrove.

You’ve got to be pretty ignorant to dig your heels in and just rate Mugabi’s wins higher, based upon his ranking at the time. That’s absurd.

Nigel Benn beat Sanderline Williams, Doug DeWitt and Iran Barkley, in 1990, which was the year after the Watson fight.

Watson beat Benn in 1989.

Benn proved he was a world class MW in 1990.

Read this carefully:

Earl Hargrove, Bill Bradley and Nino Gonzalez, NEVER HAD A TOP LEVEL WIN IN THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS.

Irrespective of where they were ranked at the time, Watson’s win over Benn, was better than Mugabi’s wins over those guys.

If you don’t agree with that then you are completely ignorant.

Go and look at their resumes.

Mugabi went into the Hagler fight with no top level wins on his resume.

The guys who he beat weren’t top level fighters.

They themselves also never beat any top level fighters.

Mugabi’s stats looked impressive. But the truth is, he hadn’t fought anybody.

The rankings are not important 30 plus years later.

Stop being ignorant.

Nigel Benn was on another level to any of those guys. Even the 1989 version.

 

Benn had already established himself as a world class MW before he fought Eubank.

Eubank established himself as a world class MW when he beat Benn and went on to fight Watson.

The guys who Mugabi beat weren’t world class, either before, during or after.

If you’re hyping wins over Hargrove, Gonzalez and Bradley, it just shows how desperate you are.

I’ve been telling you for a week now, that Mugabi had an inflated resume going into the Hagler fight. He hadn’t beaten anybody of note. And he didn’t afterwards either. And if you look at most of his opponents, neither did they.

There is nothing more to say.

Micheal Watson’s win over Nigel Benn, was levels above Mugabi’s wins over Hargrove, Bradley and Gonzalez.

Where they were ranked at the time isn’t relevant.

They were all career B and C level fighters.

 

He was strong and exciting and he had a lot of stoppages.

In their opinion, he warranted a high ranking. But the facts are: He was knocking over B and C class contenders, and he had never had a top level win in his entire career.

It doesn’t matter to me where he was rated at the time.

I don’t just rank guys upon their ratings.

I rank them on how good they were and who they beat.

 

How long do you want to continue this charade?

Your posts are absolutely ridiculous.

You’re trying to win a debate based on statistics.

Again, it doesn’t matter where they were rated.

Yes, of course what they went on to do immediately afterwards is relevant. It’s extremely relevant. Because it tells you the level they were operating at within that period.

I’ve already agreed that the Watson-Benn fight wasn’t a big fight at the time. But that was just due to the circumstances. Now go and watch the fight. Go and see what they did immediately afterwards.

Yes, the WBO wasn’t recognised with the other main organisations at the time. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the guys who Nigel fought were world class fighters.

Doug DeWitt had just beaten Matthew Hilton before he fought Benn. And Matthew Hilton had already beaten Nino Gonzalez and Bill Bradley, who you’ve used to prop up Mugabi’s resume. So that just destroys your argument.

Think about the following:

You don’t want to rate Watson’s win over Benn, as the WBO weren’t rated highly. But you’re hyping Mugabi’s resume, because he had a high rating due to beating B and C class guys. Yet those B and C class guys who he’d beaten, had already lost to the guy who Benn easily beat.

Iran Barkley was also a world class MW. He’d beaten Thomas Hearns and he gave Michael Nunn a tough fight. Benn then beat Barkley easily.

So:

It doesn’t matter that the WBO weren’t highly regarded.

Nigel Benn proved that he was a world class fighter, by beating world class fighters, irrespective of the belts prestige.

Earl Hargrove WAS NEVER A WORLD CLASS FIGHTER AT ANY POINT IN HIS CAREER.

You cannot rate Mugabi’s win over Earl Hargrove higher than Watson’s win over Benn, because of the rating system.

That is absolutely absurd.

 

Of course it’s interesting. How can it not be??

Both Micheal Watson and Nigel Benn were CLEARLY better fighters than a guy like Earl Hargrove.