Calzaghe always beats Hopkins at any stage of their careers and here is the evidence

Hopkins was very close to prime v's Calzaghe, to go back in time and take ex amount of years off Hopkins and a take ex amount of years off Calzaghe only means that Calzaghe wins more easily.

 

Hopkins totally wasted his career then ?, defending his IBF titles time and time again against bums, William Bo James, Andrew Council etc amongst others, Hopkins best win, in fact only win of note in that period was against a shop worn career welterwight that had only previously had one fight at middleweight and only had one more fight before retiring for the first time in Trinidad.

According to you as well as other Hopkins fans, Hopkins best wins came at the very time he fought Calzaghe, he beat Tarver and Wright before Calzaghe, and you name beating Tarver as a great win for Hopkins, then the Calzaghe fight itself, you think it was Hopkins greatest ever fight apart from the fight against little guy Trinidad, and then straight after the Calzaghe fight you name Pavlik as one of Hopkins greatest wins.
So Hopkins wasted his best years fighting bums for a trinket belt then ?.

You claim Calzaghe's best years included the years he beat Lacy and Kessler, but he had badly damaged hands at that stage, damaged in only his third defence of his world title, the period between winning the British title up to winning a version of the world title against Eubank and defending it the first couple of times may have been Calzaghe's prime, his physical prime for certain.

In a nutshell you claim that Hopkins best years came years before he had nearly every one of his best wins, yet for Calzaghe you claim his best years were when he had the big fights as an old fighter.
Calzaghe was not just ageing from the middle of his career onwards, he had a bona fide injury to his hands as well.

If the supermiddlewight champ that was Calzaghe with good hands had fought the middleweight champ that was Hopkins, Calzaghe would have slaughter Hopkins, according to boxrec Hopkins is two inches taller and has a two inch longer reach than Calzaghe, so for Hopkins to have spent most of his career at middlweight and Calzaghe at supermiddle meant Hopkins was probably very big at middleweight and considering his big fights in his middleweight career was against blown up lightweights and welterweights Hopkins had it easy, so considering Hopkins was used to it easy Hopkins would not have stood much chance against Calzaghe as Calzaghe for the most part was fighting supermiddleweights with Calzaghe's best wins coming against career supermiddlweights who were unbeaten at the time in Lacy and Kessler, although Calzaghe and Hopkins were a similar size, Calzaghe was fighting bigger stronger men, Hopkins was fighting smaller weaker men.


So there you have it Calzaghe beats Hopkins at any stage of their active careers, Calzaghe with goods hands beats Hopkins and as was proved even a Calzaghe with brittle hands beats Hopkins.
Whatever way you look at it Calzaghe would always beat Hopkins.