You're a couple times wrong:

Megadrive was actually stronger than Super Nintendo,  Megadrive possessed a higher processing power that SNES couldn't match. While SNES had a higher color palette, Megadrive let the games be faster, smoother, with more stuff on-screen

PS1 was the weakest of it's generation: Saturn possessed 2 powerful processors and was much more powerful than PS1. The problem was that it was almost impossible to tap the second processor fully or even use it efficiently. That's why many Saturn games only used 1 of the processors.

As for Dreamcast, yes it was weaker than PS2: but only slightly. Dreamcast could've matched PS2's graphics until almost the end of the generation if they had to, since DC was so easy to program for.

In the examples I gave, yes, it was always the guy in the middle. From the SNES to the PS2.

In the SNES era it was between the Genesis and the Jaguar.

In the PSX era, it was between the Saturn and the N64.

In the PS2 era there wasn't really a middle guy since there were 4 consoles. Basically the PS2 and the Gamcube were in the middle together.

With handhelds you may have a point, but not with home consoles.

NES was the strongest at the time.
SNES was the most powerful at the time.
PSX was the weakest.
PS2 was not the weakest, but second weakest.

claims such as its always the middle guy is false.
claims such as its always the weakest is false.

No, no, no. That's wrong. It's more like:

NES was the weakest of it's generation.

SNES was the weakest.

PSX was the weakest.

PS2 was not the weakest but the second weakest.

Wii is the weakest.

Only in 1 generation the weakest console didn't win but the second weakest. 

No, I think I do have a point with respect to home consoles. The NES was technically inferior to the Master System. Likewise, the Wii is the weakest of the current generation and is likely to dominate. There is no mysterious law by which consoles in the middle are destined to win the race. It is the consequence of a multitude of factors.

I also disagree with your claim that the Jaguar was from the SNES/Genesis genration of consoles.

Again, I was referring to the last 3 generations. The SNES, PSX and the PS2 were all middle guys.

The Wii is a great success, but it just passed its first birthday, i'm not going to declare any winners for this gen just yet.

And yes I agree, there is no mysterious law that determines a winner, i'm just pointing out that it happened more often than not.

Bold: The Atari Jaguar was competing against the SNES/Genesis. It wasn't very good competition, but it was competition nonetheless.

The PS1 and the Saturn also competed with the SNES. In fact, the SNES outsold them both for the first year of release similar to how the PS2 is still competitive with the HD consoles. Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that the SNES was of an earlier generation.

How do you distinguish between generations I wonder? The Jaguar arrived alongside machines like the 3DO, CDi, CD32 and Pippin, all of which had more in common with the Saturn and Playstation than the Genesis and SNES. Unlike the 16 bit Genesis and SNES, these consoles used 32 bit technology and were CD based from the get go. In fact Atari promoted the Jaguar as a 64 bit console. According to Wikipedia at least, the Jaguar is regarded as part of the fifth generation which of course included the Saturn, PS1 and N64.

What is the basis of your claim that the Jaguar was a part of the SNES/Genesis generation of gaming?

 The SNES had far more colors too.

PS1 got FF13 and MGS because it was more technicallly powerful in that it used CDs. Others have pointed out the SNES and PS2 examples as well. Weakest console always wins = myth.

PS2 was very hard to develop for at first, as well.

I can't believe you actually bring up the Atari Jaguar ( which is a flawed argument ) , but fail to mention systems actually "trying" to compete with the Genesis ans SNES , like the Turbo-Duo and Neo-Geo. I'm pretty sure the Neo-Geo beats the hell out of a SG/SMD or SNES in performance any day.