Who was better in their 40's Bernard Hopkins or George Foreman?

Hopkins.

 

Hop by a country mile

 

Hopkins

 

Hopkins easily.

Foreman robbed the bank, but Hopkins was still the best in the world.

 

I like Foreman and I dont like Hopkins, but even that can't make me say old Foreman was better than Hopkins.

Old Hopkins somehow managed to fuse all the craft and guile he'd learned over the years into a very annoying, frustrating and effective style that he used to effect against many high level fighters. He was physically far better than Foreman too. What he managed to do was remarkable, full stop.

 

Going with BHop....
He had better results against better competition, and had the longer career post 40...

But i take nothing from.Foremam

 

Bhop.

 

Hopkins was more consistent and had a longer reign. He was more effective against a wider range of styles and could adapt better.

 

Hopkins without a shadow of a doubt. Foreman beat a middling heavyweight champion but Hopkins beat a number of top notch opponents in his forties.

 

Big George ,he won the World Heavyweight Championship!!!

 

B-Hop clearly

Foreman was simply a monster that has deteriorated, but not quite enough to defeat a lesser champ like Moorer

B-Hop was 40 and in his prime

 

Hopkins really beat better guys. Foreman was big and lost to Morrison. Hopkins was better and fought in a lower division. Fighting in the 40s at heavyweight is not too shocking. Lower? It takes a lot more.