Before a definative jugdement can be formed ? A boxer needs to be retired at least 10 years before serious comment can be made on his career ? Joe Calzaghe could retire tomorrow and some peope would say his resume is on the weak side, but what if Kessler goes unbeaten for the rest of his career {dominating the Super-middlweight division for the next couple of years and then move up to Light-heavy at the end of his career and dominate again} Hopkins, Bika and even Lacy could still make noises in the next year or two ?, if Calzaghe has another fight it may well be Chad Dawson, a win over Dawson could do wonders for Joes resume, as Dawson is prime/unbeaten and if Joe was to fight him and win, Dawson may well go on to dominate Light-heavy for the next few years even if Calzaghe beats him, as Chad is 26 and lots of the other leading Light-heavys are Hopkins 43, Johnson 39, Tarver 39, Jones 39 and Woods 36 I am only using Calzaghe as an example, but it does seem that a definative verdict on a boxers career can not be made until several years after his retirement ?
That can be true, but it can also work the other way around. Such is the case with Hopkins's win over Glenn Johnson, which everyone praises nowadays without taking into consideration that Johnson wasn't even world class at the time, and he proved it every fight around that period by losing to every other big name he faced. Not until he gained the experience from those losses, switched his style up, and moved up to LHW did he become a world class operator. He probably didn't even deserve a title shot against Bernard at the time the bout took place.
