Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
There are many great fighters, higher on the alll time list than BHop who were burnt up well before 35 let alone 42. His longevity is testament to his extraordinary discipline and focus, and also a slight knock on his boring mechanical style, but it doesn't make a difference in his all time standing.

By that I mean BHop shouldn't get extra credit for beating Tarver at 42 than he would have had he beat him at 30. The fact is that BHop's talent just havn't declined much over the years, not that he was so extraordinarily talented that even an old shell of his former self can still be competitive with the worlds best.
This is an interesting argument, because there is truth to it in many cases. It's a bit of a circular argument in this case because it presupposes your answer to the original question. If Hopkins is as good now as he ever has been, then naturally a Calzaghe win would dictate that he's a better fighter and it gives him the maximum amount of credit toward his "legacy" no matter how he performs.

I disagree, but it's not obvious that you're wrong. Bernard can't fight his former self so there's no way to really know.

What we do know is that Hopkins' performance at his age is part of what makes his resume so impressive. His dedication and his style (whether you perceive it as "boring" or "intelligent") are not separate from his "talent" -- they all go together. That's why Calzaghe beating him now doesn't necessarily measure up to what Bernard himself has already accomplished.