Does Bernard Hopkins have the best longevity in the history of boxing?

yes

 

yes hands down

 

I still have to give it to Moore.

 

Not even close that would go to Moore the man had over 200 fights with 131 KO's

 

Quality > Quantity

 

Yes and Moore has triple the quality over Hopkins as well as the quantity ..

 

I think Duran deserves a mention here. He fought until he was 50, although he didn't have any significant wins, he still looked pretty good

 

In terms of age, he is very impressive, but let's remember that a fighter's age is more related to his mileage than his birthday.

Moore was 45 when he defeated Willie Pastrano and got a bad draw from the judges. But it was his 217th fight. And Hopkins's whole middleweight career looked like a walk through a meadow compared to Moore's life-and-death battles against Murderers' Row in the 40s.

 

Hopkins latest title fight @ 48 years old, Archie Moore's last title fight @ 44 years old. Hopkins isn't even finished yet. He'll go on till he gets embarrased of ****ed up by a younger non-deserving fighter.

 

Its neck and neck between him and Archie.

 

Longevity and WINNING, I think that is what is meant. Saul Mamby's last fight was at 61 years old, do you want to throw him into the mix?

 

The man had over 200 fights and fought a who's who , some people don 't even know who Cloud was ..It's remarkable that @48 he could still compete at such a high level ..But can't compare to Moore's longevity ..

 

He was still winning against DECENT guys after all the damage he has taken in his career. Bernard has taken nowhere near the damage Duran had.

Longevity doesn't JUST mean WINNING. Duran's longevity is still great.

I just said it was a good mention. I still think Bhop's longevity is the GOAT.

 

Exactly.