Let me get this straight.. I can't stand Floyd, & it kills me to admit it, but the man is probably the greatest fighter of all time. There's no one in history that could go through his resume & come out 49-0. NO ONE. And even if they did, miraculously, I'm pretty certain they wouldn't be close to his incredible punch stats. The fab 4 in particular would have picked up a few losses along the way. No way on earth does Floyd lose to fighters that Leonard, Hagler, Duran, Hearns have lost to. I know it's hard to come to terms with. But it's true.
You're right, SRL would be 47-0, He wouldn't need the rematches to cleanly win the first time. Name someone who goes 46-0 on Calzaghe's resume? Can't do it, can you.
Put simply: The fab four are better fighters than Floyd. Could they have gone 49-0 versus Floyd's competition: Yes Would Floyd have 5-10 losses versus their competition: Definitely
No they are not. Besides Hagler the rest were all duck artist who only fought each other. Hagler just sat and waited for them to move up. Floyd has fought far better competition at various weights inbetween. Mayweather would have outsmarted and beaten all 4.
Floyd wouldn't ever dare fight any of those guys or anyone of their caliber even if they were dead. They'd all paddle his ass something terrible too, again even if they were dead. :yep
Same was said about Mosley, Cotto, Canelo, Pacquiao. Everytime people pick one he loses to Mayweather.
Mayweather's competition has been largely dire in comparison. Leonard, Duran and Hearns all fought eachother, and would all go through Mayweather's competition with far more ease. Mayweather himself would certainly lose to all three of them. If you have any doubt, go and watch Castillo vs Mayweather I, understanding that Castillo genuinely cannot hold Duran's spit bucket, and that Duran is probably the best pressure fighter of all time. Duran's weight was 135lbs, but despite being completely shot as a fighter, he went up to 160lbs as a slow fatty and beat good champions there. Duran is unanimously regarded as greater than all mentioned in this thread. Leonard was arguably the very best ever. His raw fighting abilities was such that he was able to outhustle everyone other than the master 'fighter' Duran, he would switch to conservative point-scoring (he was a better point-scorer than Mayweather) depending on the game plan. Ray Leonard is the most complete boxer I've EVER seen. Leonard beat the very best each different style ever offered in boxing. Hearns - there is no one in history, not Ali, not Mayweather, nobody, that can out-point better than Hearns. Also, Hearns is one fighter I'd pick confidently to actually KO Mayweather.
I'd pick any of the 4 over Mayweather. I'm not hating, I just think they were all better fighters in a much better era.
Duran had established himself as one if the greatest in history before going anywhere near the fab 4.
It should be the fab 5. Benitez destroys him with less than 3 weeks training. And does it whilst he is still a teenager.
Overall, you have a point. But people will probably largely either rate him above all 4 or below all 4. I can kind of see both sides. I'm inclined to rate Hearns and Hagler tops, but Floyd has an excellent argument. Also, sometimes the pfp stuff really wears thin. "Greatest fighter of all time"? "No one in history could go through his resume". Pretty much any HW champ could.
