Originally Posted by Senya13
But if, let's say, 80 to 90% of his meaningful victories happened above middleweight limit, in light heavyweight division (at the time, super middle having been introduced only in 1980s), why should he be ranked as a great middleweight? He obviously felt himself better above 160lb, that was his normal weight for most fights in late 1910's and most of 1920's.
Fighting bigger men as he often was, it would have been silly for him to get down to 160 for those fights. When fighting bigger men he did feel comfortable often being mid 160's. The majority of his career defining fights did occur above 160 so it does make sense to rate him as a light heavy. I don't think its a massive stretch to rate him as a middleweight either though.
Take Henry Armstrong as another example. How many career defining fights did he have at featherweight? The majority occured at lightweight and welterweight true? Does that mean he can't rank as a featherweight (and at the top of the featherweight rankings)?