Does jimmy wilde deserve to be amongst the top 25 boxers in history?

I don't know.

If you rank fighters based upon what they "could" have done in their own era, you're going to have about 25 fighters tied for first.

 

Well for example he could have beaten Herman or Villa, likely the best fighters he ever met.

And just how many title fights did he win?

But like I said, who cares? I rank him based upon what he did do, not what he didn't. Maybe he would have benefited from sharing an era with Canto, Lopez and Humberto Gonzalez. Or maybe he would have been beaten. Based upon what he did do in his own time compared to what other fighters did in their own times he is not in my top 25.

 

I think he did more than any other flyweight whilst weighing in under the limit.

 

I'll give you an example. I have Dick Tiger ranked at #10 at MW. I have Burley ranked at #7. I have Williams ranked at #5. All these fighters beat better fighters than Wilde, and i'm quite satisfied of the fact. They also achieved good/great things outside of their own divisions.

Now, Wilde's "achievement" of being arguably #1 in a top-light (though deep) division like fly is more impressive than the superior resumes of men ranked lower down in much more top heavy divisions, that's fine - your criteria are your own.

But it's certainly not logic I could embrace or even take seriously when comparing fighters on a p4p ATG scale.

 

Like I say, i'd rather compare the fighters directly.

Wilde falls well short compared to most of the men you list. Charles, Moore, Robinson and Pep for example are quite clearly in a completely different class in terms of greatness in-spite of them belonging to the same "club" in your view. To me, it's meaningless.

But like I say, your criteria are your own.