Originally Posted by Manassa
Not so negligible is the difference in craft; I agree with Surf-Bat's assertion that number of fights x quality of opponents = experience = skill.
My addition to this leans away from that slightly; we have to remember that humans are still human and that most (not all) great boxers today would likely adapt to the parameters set and rules by which they governed, therefore I believe such a consummate professional such as Bernard Hopkins would fit right into the '40s. To me it's obvious the man is both talented and hardy and would shine in any era, if not as a single standout then at least as part of a top tier elite, even if his own times didn't test him as much as we'd have liked. Two other examples of the same kind of fighter; Bob Foster and Larry Holmes.
I completely agree with this. Hopkins wouldn't be anyone's punk, that's for sure. And H2H I might take Foster over almost any LH in history.