The big fights he contested were overwhelmingly advertised as featherweight title fights. That's as firm an indicator as I can imagine. It's true though that many folks have just subsumed him into the modern weight class governance, which is far from the strangest thing I've read in this thread.
I don't necessarily think either are outlandish in the big scheme of things. I'd probably object more to Zarate being on the top 5, it screams a bit of those modern fans who declare a dominant champ the best ever without really proving themselves the best ever. Yeah he beat Zamora and effectively unified the division, but he didn't do an awful lot outside of that. Putting Zarate top 5 is a bit like putting Donaire top 5 imo.
Yeah some of the big fights were under the FW banner, but it's murky because some were 114 feather, 118 feather 120 feather 122 feather and it wasn't like other weight classes were it gradually moved up it just kinda flitted from weight to weight and the loser would try to make a new title claim at a lower weight. It kinda, almost, is like having multiple divisions all called the same name. So I think a lot of stances are justifiable.
I believe someone in the comments for the Flyweight video specifically mentioned getting input from @Flea Man
I don't think it's anything like as disorganised as you make out. Unless you think Dixon and McGovern were claiming the same title in 1899? My position is that McGovern was clearly the bantamweight champion and that Dixon was clearly the featherweight champion. It's the same with Ketchel. He moved the middleweight title from 154 through to 158. There was nothing abnormal in this. The given champion contested his given title at a weight agreed between the two fighters. They are still contesting the middleweight title. These days, people would get upset and deride them as "catchweight bouts" but it was the way the sport worked then.
I don't think it's that clear cut tbh, but for fear of derailing the thread it's probably best saved for a thread where its more relevant. But I don't think there's anything clear about the title claims.
Just sat down and watched the video. It's an excellent list. A couple of minor quibbles but nothing I'm passionate about. Before doing this exercise I would have had Zarate in my top 5 so I'm not too bothered about it. All in all excellent list. @Rumsfeld are you gonna sticky the final results in a post like we had way back when? Maybe even a super post showing the results from a decade ago so we can see how they've changed?
Yeah hopefully I’ve been working on a combined 105/108 top ten for over a year, no writing yet as I’ve been writing lots of different things for The Fight Site.