John Mugabi: 3 best wins?

[Onetimeonly]

[oogiebe]

You are wrong and you are unable to comprehend the different legit arguments.

There is AT LEAST 3 different ways to rate "3 Best Wins" of anyone's career.

One is to just rate the "greatness" of opponents beaten (and yes - in such a list Muhammad Ali is amongst Holmes' Top 3). I wouldn't do it so but I see the point.Noone with any boxing knowledge would do it this way.

One is to rate the opponents on the status and preceding form of a day they stepped into the ring. IMO, this is the most legitimate way.I don't even know what this means

3rd way (which you seem to be closest to) is to rather rate 3 best fights which ended up as victories. That is not IMO a best perspective, but it has some merit too... This 3rd alternative viewpoint would obviously rate Green high (highest?), but only this one. Other criteria has him around 5th spot amongst Mugabi-victories.(As it's a 'best wins' thread, isn't it obvious that it would be 3 best fights that ended in victories?

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

One is to rate the opponents on the status and preceding form of a day they stepped into the ring. IMO, this is the most legitimate way.I don't even know what this means

What happened in the ring does not matter. One rates the fights based on what the opponent could be expected to bring into the table. Does this explanation make sense to you?

And yes - I don't see a point in rating the fight itself here. The BEST win is the best WIN, not the best FIGHT. Doesn't matter if it was a snoozefest.

[Onetimeonly]

I wouldn't say 3 best fights. Green just happens to be the best fight on an extremely shallow resume. I wouldn't rate Witherspoon over shavers for Holmes. But spoon is an infinitely better win than Ali. Lmao, another know it all imbecile. At least I know what I'm talking about.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

I wouldn't say 3 best fights. Green just happens to be the best fight on an extremely shallow resume. I wouldn't rate Witherspoon over shavers for Holmes. But spoon is an infinitely better win than Ali. Lmao, another know it all imbecile. At least I know what I'm talking about.

Question to you two :

Given how shallow resume Mugabi has (which I agree about).

Does that in your opinion drop Hagler-Mugabi quite a big way down when listing Hagler's best wins? It was one of best FIGHTS of Hagler's championship era, but can Mugabi really be considered anywhere close to Hagler's best wins??? IMO, no.

For me, Mugabi is even behind Roldan & Tony Sibson albeit not by much.

[Onetimeonly]

I don't rate that very highly for Marvin. It's definitely the best result of mugabis career. He's like a light middle vitali.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

I don't rate that very highly for Marvin. It's definitely the best result of mugabis career. He's like a light middle vitali.

Nitpicking a bit in a good humor (now)

A stoppage loss CAN NOT be the best RESULT. It is a bad RESULT.

It was the career-best PERFORMANCE for "the Beast" though...

[Onetimeonly]

I don't rate that very highly for Marvin. It's definitely the best result of mugabis career. He's like a light middle vitali.

Nitpicking a bit in a good humor (now)

A stoppage loss CAN NOT be the best RESULT. It is a bad RESULT.

It was the career-best PERFORMANCE for "the Beast" though...

Absolutely a loss can be a great result. Anybody that rates all losses as bad shouldn't be allowed to talk about rating fighters.

[oogiebe]

One is to rate the opponents on the status and preceding form of a day they stepped into the ring. IMO, this is the most legitimate way.I don't even know what this means

What happened in the ring does not matter. One rates the fights based on what the opponent could be expected to bring into the table. Does this explanation make sense to you?

And yes - I don't see a point in rating the fight itself here. The BEST win is the best WIN, not the best FIGHT. Doesn't matter if it was a snoozefest.

It makes sense in that it was your intention to state that. It just doesn't make much sense in its context.

[oogiebe]

For me it was difficult to find much of anything impressive outside of green that was a good win. Lack of quality opponents. So OTO is right. Best performance for Mugabi might be his loss to Hagler.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

Nitpicking a bit in a good humor (now)

A stoppage loss CAN NOT be the best RESULT. It is a bad RESULT.

It was the career-best PERFORMANCE for "the Beast" though...

Absolutely a loss can be a great result. Anybody that rates all losses as bad shouldn't be allowed to talk about rating fighters.

Semantics obviously...

For you & oogiebe it matters a great amount what you can/could see in your own eyes. Ie. what actually happened in the ring matters...

I view that as irrelevant. IMO, only the things which can be studied on result sheet have any meaning. If that sounds like a strange or drastic way to look at it - I counter with the argument that it is the only way to analyze the resumes of fighters whom none of us alive have ever seen (not live nor on any tape). So if we want to use same criteria for John Mugabi's best wins as for, say, Little Dado's best wins - then we must forget the eyeproof.

And you can't seriously be stating that James "Hard Rock" Green was a better fighter than Curtis Parker and/or Frank Fletcher??? Yes, he was better than the version of Fletcher which Mugabi met. But while Parker get caught early and did not recover, I would still pick that version of Parker to beat any version of Green in a tough, hard fight. Parker was not shot at the time of fighting Mugabi. Nope.

[Onetimeonly]

Sorry bro, you don't have a clue and you're long winded. Bores me.

[Petu v.d. Pajm]

No matter whether it bores you...

Marvin Hagler vs Mustafa Hamsho 1
Marvin Hagler vs John Mugabi

Those both fights ended as 11th-round victories for Hagler. Actually, Hamsho even finished on his feet which Mugabi didn't.

Thus Hamsho obviously had a better RESULT than Mugabi.

But did he fight a better fight or give better performance? No, he didn't.

[Onetimeonly]

[oogiebe]

Um...someone went off the rails.