Thread: Hopkins and Over-40 Greats

Where would it rank among the all-time over-40 boxing accomplishments if Hopkins won?

There are only five fighters in history who have scored what could arguably be termed "great" wins after the age of 40: George Foreman (who won the heavyweight title from Michael Moorer), Archie Moore (who recovered from four knockdowns to defend the light heavyweight throne against Yvon Durelle), Larry Holmes (who upset a prime Ray Mercer), Bob Fitzsimmons (who captured the light heavy title from George Gardner) and Hopkins (who took the 175-pound championship from Antonio Tarver).

I honestly think Hopkins is the most impressive considering the level he's still fighting at and the competition he's facing and being more than competitive and winning after he turned 40.

People have great performances, but Hopkins is consistent at his age...

Larry Holmes should of won the title against Oliver McCall, making him only few months younger than George Foreman when he won the title. He was also unlucky against Evander Holyfield, i only had Larry Holmes just losing by 7 rounds to 5.

And Larry Holmes looked the stronger fighter in the championship rounds, which is amazing considering Larry Holmes was 42 years old. And Evander Holyfield was in his prime.

But as it stands at the moment Bernard Hopkins is the best over 40 fighter, in history IMO.

I go with Archie Moore...The man fought BoBo Olsen, Marciano, Durelle and Ali all over 40..yeah he lost to Ali and Marciano but he still faced them and at the time they were both unbeatable....Also he fought Pastrano,

He fought over 30 times past 40yrs old...For some guys today 30 fights is a career

"The Mouse" Zaragoza was 39 going on 40 througout his last reign.
He won and defended his title 4 times.
Beating Acero-Sanchez, McGullogh, Tatsuyoshi 2 times, and Harada until he lost what was a very competative fight vs. Morales.

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

"The Mouse" Zaragoza was 39 going on 40 througout his last reign.
He won and defended his title 4 times.
Beating Acero-Sanchez, McGullogh, Tatsuyoshi 2 times, and Harada until he lost what was a very competative fight vs. Morales.

Good call here Mick.Zaragoza was a damn good fighter,gutsy as they come.He should have been declared the winner of the first Acero-Sanchez fight......F!!!!!!g B.S decision of draw,Sanchez could be shifty and frankly dirty.I penned it 117-111 Zaragoza....could have been biased though.

The question was where would a win against Pavlik rank amongst those other fights... I think it would have to be close to #1 for an individual performance, depending on how he did it. If he comes from behind, gets up off the canvas, or totally dominates to win, then that would really elevate it.

Originally Posted by ICB

Larry Holmes should of won the title against Oliver McCall, making him only few months younger than George Foreman when he won the title. He was also unlucky against Evander Holyfield, i only had Larry Holmes just losing by 7 rounds to 5.

And Larry Holmes looked the stronger fighter in the championship rounds, which is amazing considering Larry Holmes was 42 years old. And Evander Holyfield was in his prime.

But as it stands at the moment Bernard Hopkins is the best over 40 fighter, in history IMO.

All the drinking over the years must have killed my brain cells, I remember McCall destroying Holmes. Bernard Hopkins on the other hand is an inspiration to all aging fighters

Virgil hill carried on late and obtained yet another belt when he was 42

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

Virgil hill carried on late and obtained yet another belt when he was 42

True, but there is a world of difference between beating Valery Brudov and beating Kelly Pavlik (or Tarver or Wright for that matter).

wasnt SRR 30-10 after he turned 40 and if so thats great for a guy fighting around 40 fights after he turned 40.

I think Carl Froch will be the best over 40's champion lol

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper

Originally Posted by ICB

Larry Holmes should of won the title against Oliver McCall, making him only few months younger than George Foreman when he won the title. He was also unlucky against Evander Holyfield, i only had Larry Holmes just losing by 7 rounds to 5.

And Larry Holmes looked the stronger fighter in the championship rounds, which is amazing considering Larry Holmes was 42 years old. And Evander Holyfield was in his prime.

But as it stands at the moment Bernard Hopkins is the best over 40 fighter, in history IMO.

All the drinking over the years must have killed my brain cells, I remember McCall destroying Holmes. Bernard Hopkins on the other hand is an inspiration to all aging fighters

It must of bro because it was a very competitive fight and Larry Holmes, was winning until he got tired at the end. It was a very close fight but i thought Larry Holmes deserved the nod, the judges had it close aswell.

If the match is setup. Holyfield could be in that class if he can beat Valuev. Even though I don't like how he still fight's on you can't not root for him.

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

wasnt SRR 30-10 after he turned 40 and if so thats great for a guy fighting around 40 fights after he turned 40.

Archie Moore fought 42 times...Held the LHW title and lost only 3times in those 42 bouts...and those losses came to prime Patterson, Marciano and Ali...All 3 losses at HW above hism perspective division