How it's done? For example, Joe Calzaghe eeks out a disputed decision win over Bernard Hopkin's. Decades ago, Gerry Cooney is fed a steady diet of past prime 70's main stays whom he obliterates. Lyle and Norton in 1 round, Young in 4. He broke multiple ribs with a single bodyshot vs Lyle, and nearly killed Norton in there. Is any Conney deserving of any more credit then Calzaghe? Does it even matter HOW you beat past prime greats?
Depends how you do it and how far past their prime the great is. Calzaghe certainly didn't gain anything with the manner in which he beat Jones, and if anything he probably hurt his legacy (though to be fair to Joe, he is past his absolute best as well, and already had one foot in retirement before the bout took place).
Marciano crushed Louis. Louis crushed a bunch of Hvywt ex-champs. Most people realize that the greatest & latest beats the old champ most of the time......and both of them split the paycheck.
I think that we should take a look at the fighters and their styles, a guy like Gatti is shot faster than a guy like Hopkins. Same thing for Roy Jones, his main thing was his athletic ability and it went away with age.
Someone from the general boxing forum posted this and I thought it was hilarious... Welsh sensation Joe Calzaghe has officially announced that he will make a run at Rocky Marciano's iconic 49-0 record. His recent wins over the legendary Roy Jones Jr. and perennial champion Bernard Hopkins were merely icing on a cake that already included names like Peter Manfredo Jr. and Tocker Pudwill. Calzaghe has no doubt stepped up to "stiffer" competition in his last 2 bouts and he will continue to add LEGENDARY names to his resume with his next 3 fights. First up is light heavyweight legend Dwight Muhammad Qawi who at 55 years old is still plenty spry. They say that punching power is the last thing to go. Well, that and control of your bowels. Second in line is none other than Michael Spinks. While we last saw Spinks at Mike Tyson's feet back in '88 rumor has it that he's been training and the 20 year period of inactivity has served him well. Last but not least, in his 49th and final bout the opponent for the historic record tying bout will be The Old Mongoose, Archie Moore! Now I know what you're saying, "didn't he die?" Well leave it to Super Joe Calzaghe to achieve the impossible. Enzo Calzaghe has already arranged for the remains of Archie Moore to be exhumed for the December 25, 2009 showdown. Moore's corpse will be dangled from the rafters to the center of the ring where Calzaghe will slap it and dance for 12 uneventful rounds on his way to his 49th victory. A resume that includes not only Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins, but ALSO Spinks, Qawi & Moore will leave the Americans NO CHOICE but to acknowledge Joe Calzaghe as the official "legend killer" and the undisputed G.O.A.T.
How past their prime? Holmes beating a Parkinson-suffering Ali in 1980 does just about nothing for Holmes's legacy. Tyson beating a past-his-prime and rusty, 38 year old Holmes was still a solid win. Holmes had some success later on, he wasn't shot like Ali was. DLH beating Chavez in 1996. Solid win. Tszyu beating Chavez in 2000. Means nothing but having a big name on your resume.
Berbick beating Ali. While not looking as horrible as he did in the Holmes fight, Ali was a cooked goose at this point. Nothing too special about beating him.
THANK YOU, I've been saying this for freakin' AGES!!! :happy :good If you completely dominate an "aging" fighter, people will just assume the aging fighter is "shot". They won't consider you were simply just that much better than him. But if the aging fighter puts up a fight, people consider it a better win because they assume the aging fighter must not be shot, so it becomes a more credible win. Definitely an unfair standard IMO.
As for the original question: It depends how dominant you are, how far past his prime the other fighter is, and how past your prime you are. IMO, if you completely dominate a fighter who is considered past it but NOT yet considered shot, you should probably get the benefit of the doubt in a hypothetical "prime for prime" matchup. Likewise, if you beat another fighter when you're both past your primes, you should probably get the benefit of the doubt in a prime-for-prime matchup as well. Hence, for example, I think Lennox Lewis deserves the benefit of the doubt in mythical matchups with Tyson and Holyfield, even though Lennox was probably less faded than them at the time those fights came off.