where do you rate these fighters on the all-time lists ?

I'd favor most world class Flyweights over larger "toughmen" in boxing contests. Most of them I wouldn't class as among the best of all time, either. I think you're getting ahead of yourself.

Alright, you're a classy guy, and I apologise for my tone in the previous post.

Anyways, as to your case: people did hang with him at Flyweight, and a couple even beat him (and these guys weren't exactly world-beaters). Is it because he was a young, green fighter? Absolutely I say. But then that would undermine your point, wouldn't it? Sure, he'd have been a physical freak of nature at the weight (as he was at any weight he fought at due to his immense proportions), but without any of the experience or craft he'd eventually build up the further his career progressed up the weights. We can't just extrapolate those abilities he would later gain and place them a young, inexperienced version. The same way we can't place Pacquiao among the great Flyweights based on his success at higher weights when he grew into his own. These guys simply weren't the same fighters there.

 

I assumed we were talking about the professional ranks, as that would only be logical.

I didn't question that. Flea Man questioned how they wouldn't have made it into a top 100. My point was to illustrate that you can't simply put the same bearing on the top fighter at each weight. There are extenuating circumstances involved, many of them.

Which fighter was better than which. That's my criteria.

No. I'd rather say the modern game has been and still is deteriorating at a pretty steady rate. The sport's prime ended a couple of decades ago, in my opinion.

The original weight classes hold more weight because, quite simply, they've been around much longer and by that measure have a much richer and fuller history of top fighters.