If Bernard did beat Calzaghe would he be considered as top 20

[pesticid]

of all time?

[TheGreatA]

I don't think so. There were many greats, some even forgotten who had great resumes and I don't see many ranking them at all.
IMO it's impossible to make up an accurate list of all time greats.

Had Calzaghe failed against Hopkins his stock would've dropped by a lot, leading to people discrediting Hopkins' win over him.

[pesticid]

I mean some people have him behind Robinson and HAgler at middleweight and if Robinson is #1 at all time one can make a speculation about Hopkins being in the 20 especially if he won against Zaghe.

[Silencers]

I don't think so either.

Robinson shouldn't be number 1 at middleweight.

[pesticid]

I think Ali is #1 of all time but a lot of people say that Robinson was better.

[Silencers]

Ali is my idol but Robinson is the best pound for pound fighter in history but not the best in middleweight history. I consider him the best welterweight though.

[TheGreatA]

I mean some people have him behind Robinson and HAgler at middleweight and if Robinson is #1 at all time one can make a speculation about Hopkins being in the 20 especially if he won against Zaghe.

The reason Robinson is ranked the number 1 pound for pound by many is because he was a very good LW and beat the champion in that division (in a non-title bout), then became the greatest WW of all time and one of the greatest middleweights of all time. He almost won the LHW crown too.

Hopkins is top 5, top 10, top 15 at middleweight depending on how you rank him and wins over Wright, Tarver and Calzaghe would not make him a great light heavyweight.
Calzaghe would've been called severely overrated and 'protected' had he lost to a 43 year old Hopkins.

B-Hop is a great middleweight but as far as greatness in any division goes he is not close to the top. He would be closer with a win over Calzaghe of course.

[daggum]

well most media, professional boxers, and fans thought he did win the calzaghe fight so i don't think it really matters. a win over calzaghe wouldn't mean all that much as far as history goes since calzaghe never fought good opposition his whole career and will be remembered similar to sven ottke.

[pesticid]

A win means a lot regardless if it is controversial. Look at the win that Tito got vs DLH or the Taylor vs Bhop fights, or Whitaker vs DLH or Chavez, etc, etc. Look at Johnson for Christ Sake, he beats Dawson but he doesn't get rewarded and he drops out of the picture.

[AceNguyen]

No, people would say that:

a. Calzaghe was protected and exposed as an unworthy opponent
b. Both Calzaghe and Hopkins were past their prime, so it proves nothing
c. Calzaghe is a slapper, not a fighter
d. Hopkins had a hometown advantage
e. all of the above

Coming into the fight, I thought that it would prove very little for either guy and I still feel that way.