Rocky Marciano VS Wladimir Klitschko.

[shawnkemp804]

Wladimir Klitschko by jab knockout in the first 30 seconds.

[Anthony342]

He beats Wlad by TKO in about 8. Vitali would be a different story, could go either way. Would be a slugfest though. Either goes the distance in a close decision or someone gets stopped late. I'll go with Vitali here for the size advantage, as long as it's pre shoulder injury and he doesn't have his arms beaten up by Rocky to get him to drop his guard.

[Ascended]

Wladimir Klitschko by jab knockout in the first 30 seconds.

Correct and others who said rock are crazy idiots no one even made amateurs fighting like they did in 30-40s in 70s-80s

[Dr. Z]

These mythical match ups are really nothing more than a way to create partisan sentiments with little logic. In a match up like this there are so many things that could happen. Here are a list of things that no one can predict:

1) How would each fighter react to the other's strong suite? Does Vlad's jab just bounce off Marciano? How does Vlad react to getting caught inside when he shoots his hands straight out to avoid the rock?

2) How does fatigue effect each fighter?

3) How does the ref deal with each fighter? Is Vlad allowed to Just clinch? Is marciano allwed to hit as he exposes Vlads body? marciano would hit a fighter anywhere and Vlad might well turn and get hit in the back.

Would Marciano be like Sander's He hit as hard probably...or would his lack of reach and size prohibit his ability to catch Vlad this way?

How would the rock deal with Vlad's jab? could he slip it? marciano probably never dealt with a jab like Vlad's because the great fighters he fought were past prime. Marciano did slip jabs well, but could he do so with Vlad?

There are so many things to consider.

Let think about this. Wlad hit way harder than anyone Marciano faced. And had the stamina to throw hard punches for a long time.

Wlad would just unload in the middle of the ring of Rocky and clinch when needed owing Rocky in the process.

No fighter slipped Wald jab. Name them. It was so good he could win a fight on this punch alone.

This fight is a mismatch. One guy has about oh 7" inches in height, 14" in reach , and 55 pounds or so in weight. And he is more skilled too. These guys are three weight classes apart, maybe four on fight night.

I would pick Wlad to win, say 18 times out of 20. As I said it is a mismatch. Outside of landing his bomb which if you look took on average took Rocky 9 rounds to land vs. his title opponents, Rocky chance is next to none. As they say anything can happen in the ring. Many Rocky's blood will accidentally get on his gloves and blind Wlad. As Larry Merchant used to say, theater of the unexpected.

A question to ask is does Wlad get to used those 1950 style light gloves? He wore 12 ounce gloves, not 8 for 6 ounce gloves. His punching power would be even greater using the 1950's equipment.

[Ascended]

Let think about this. Wlad hit way harder than anyone Marciano faced. And had the stamina to throw hard punches for a long time.

Wlad would just unload in the middle of the ring of Rocky and clinch when needed owing Rocky in the process.

No fighter slipped Wald jab. Name them. It was so good he could win a fight on this punch alone.

This fight is a mismatch. One guy has about oh 7" inches in height, 14" in reach , and 55 pounds or so in weight. And he is more skilled too. These guys are three weight classes apart, maybe four on fight night.

I would pick Wlad to win, say 18 times out of 20. As I said it is a mismatch. Outside of landing his bomb which if you look took on average took Rocky 9 rounds to land vs. his title opponents, Rocky chance is next to none. As they say anything can happen in the ring. Many Rocky's blood will accidentally get on his gloves and blind Wlad. As Larry Merchant used to say, theater of the unexpected.

A question to ask is does Wlad get to used those 1950 style light gloves? He wore 12 ounce gloves, not 8 for 6 ounce gloves. His punching power would be even greater using the 1950's equipment.

Have you never seen full matches of rock and bis era?,how do you expect him to win 2 matches,that whole era were novices compared to even amateurs in 70s-90s,he wouldn't never land he would be destroyed

[Dr. Z]

Have you never seen full matches of rock and bis era?,how do you expect him to win 2 matches,that whole era were novices compared to even amateurs in 70s-90s,he wouldn't never land he would be destroyed

YES I have. And I generally keep the past in the past. A while back I did an article on it.


Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights by 20-year intervals. The criteria for the ranking as follows.

1 ) Head to head vs. the field, which is strictly my personal opinion. 40%

2 ) Resume of wins and losses, excluding losses that happened when a fighter was passed their prime. 30%

3 ) The distinction of the fighter as champion by beating top contenders in title matches if applicable. 20%

4 ) Historians input, which matters most to fighters, not on film. 10%
I will try to list each fighter only once, placing him closest to his prime years. I am also open to shifting the ratings a bit, as this is the 1st draft. So constructive feedback with explanations is most welcome.

1885-1905 Pioneer era: The transitional time between bare knuckles and London Prize-ring rules to Queensberry rules.

1.Jeffries
2.Fitzsimmons
3A. Jackson - No film in the ring, only walking around.
3B. Corbett
5. Sullivan - Mock sparring and hitting a bag only
6. Sharkey
7. Slavin - No film
8. Ruhlin
9. Goddard - No film
10. Griffin - No film
11. Maher - Was fllmed, never saw him
12. Choynski - filmed in sparring only
13. Hart - No film on
14. McCoy - Was filmed in the ring, spars with Corbett
15. O’Brien


1906-1925 Black and white filmed era:

1. Dempsey
2. Tunney
3. J Johnson
4. Langford
5. Wills
6. Jeanette
7. McVey
8. Willard
9. Greb - Training clips only
10. Gibbons
11. Burns
12. Miske - No film on, I think
13. Godfrey
14. Norfolk
15. Smith

1926-1945 Great Depression to World War II: An era where war and the great depression in the USA hurt boxing. I have trouble with the bottom of this list, as the depth is rather thin.

1. Louis
2. Charles
3. Schmeling
4. M Baer
5. Carnera
6. Godfrey
7. J Sharkey
8. Bivins
9. Schaff
10. Conn
11. *****
12. Pastor
13. Farr
14. Loughran
15. Galento

1946-1965 Golden age era:

1. Liston
2. Marciano
3. Patterson
4. Walcott
5. Charles
6. Johansson
7. Moore
8. Ray - No film on, only a radio broadcast
9. Terrell
10. Machen
11. Folley
12. Williams
13. H. Johnson
14. Valdes
15. D Jones



1966-1985: TV expansion to Cable and PPV: This era is loaded with talent.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Norton
6. Witherspoon
7. Thomas
8. Quarry
9. Page
10. Coetzee
11. Shavers
12. Lyle
13. Cooney
14. Young
15. Weaver


1986-2003: 12 round era and super heavyweight era. This era had tremendous depth and a lot of talent.

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Tyson
4. Bowe
5. Ibeabuchi
6.Byrd
7. Moorer
8. Mercer
9. Douglas
10. Tua
11. Morrison
12. Bruno
13. Rhaman
14. Ruiz
15. McCall




2004-2024 – Eastern European dominance era. While this era is only half over, the nations producing the top talent has shifted. Once the iron curtain in Eastern Europe fell both the amateur and professional ranks have been dominated by Eastern Europeans. Only 2 Americans made the top ten. Since many of the below fighters career’s are over, and future talent in the amateurs will arrive, this list will likely look very different after the Klitshcko’s come 2026. It is possible young pros such as Joshua will rate in the next 4 years. Hopefully, we will all be here to debate it!

1A. V Klitschko
1B. W Kltischko
3. Povetkin
4. Usyk * Still acitve
5. Joshua* Still active
6. Fury* Still active
7. Chagaev
8. Sanders
9. Ibragimov
10. Wilder * Still active
11. Haye
12. Adamek
13. Chambers
14. Brewster
15. Peter


I think Rocky was lucky to fight when he did.

IMO, 1986-2003 was the best era.

[Ascended]

YES I have. And I generally keep the past in the past. A while back I did an article on it.


Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights by 20-year intervals. The criteria for the ranking as follows.

1 ) Head to head vs. the field, which is strictly my personal opinion. 40%

2 ) Resume of wins and losses, excluding losses that happened when a fighter was passed their prime. 30%

3 ) The distinction of the fighter as champion by beating top contenders in title matches if applicable. 20%

4 ) Historians input, which matters most to fighters, not on film. 10%
I will try to list each fighter only once, placing him closest to his prime years. I am also open to shifting the ratings a bit, as this is the 1st draft. So constructive feedback with explanations is most welcome.

1885-1905 Pioneer era: The transitional time between bare knuckles and London Prize-ring rules to Queensberry rules.

1.Jeffries
2.Fitzsimmons
3A. Jackson - No film in the ring, only walking around.
3B. Corbett
5. Sullivan - Mock sparring and hitting a bag only
6. Sharkey
7. Slavin - No film
8. Ruhlin
9. Goddard - No film
10. Griffin - No film
11. Maher - Was fllmed, never saw him
12. Choynski - filmed in sparring only
13. Hart - No film on
14. McCoy - Was filmed in the ring, spars with Corbett
15. O’Brien


1906-1925 Black and white filmed era:

1. Dempsey
2. Tunney
3. J Johnson
4. Langford
5. Wills
6. Jeanette
7. McVey
8. Willard
9. Greb - Training clips only
10. Gibbons
11. Burns
12. Miske - No film on, I think
13. Godfrey
14. Norfolk
15. Smith

1926-1945 Great Depression to World War II: An era where war and the great depression in the USA hurt boxing. I have trouble with the bottom of this list, as the depth is rather thin.

1. Louis
2. Charles
3. Schmeling
4. M Baer
5. Carnera
6. Godfrey
7. J Sharkey
8. Bivins
9. Schaff
10. Conn
11. *****
12. Pastor
13. Farr
14. Loughran
15. Galento

1946-1965 Golden age era:

1. Liston
2. Marciano
3. Patterson
4. Walcott
5. Charles
6. Johansson
7. Moore
8. Ray - No film on, only a radio broadcast
9. Terrell
10. Machen
11. Folley
12. Williams
13. H. Johnson
14. Valdes
15. D Jones



1966-1985: TV expansion to Cable and PPV: This era is loaded with talent.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Norton
6. Witherspoon
7. Thomas
8. Quarry
9. Page
10. Coetzee
11. Shavers
12. Lyle
13. Cooney
14. Young
15. Weaver


1986-2003: 12 round era and super heavyweight era. This era had tremendous depth and a lot of talent.

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Tyson
4. Bowe
5. Ibeabuchi
6.Byrd
7. Moorer
8. Mercer
9. Douglas
10. Tua
11. Morrison
12. Bruno
13. Rhaman
14. Ruiz
15. McCall




2004-2024 – Eastern European dominance era. While this era is only half over, the nations producing the top talent has shifted. Once the iron curtain in Eastern Europe fell both the amateur and professional ranks have been dominated by Eastern Europeans. Only 2 Americans made the top ten. Since many of the below fighters career’s are over, and future talent in the amateurs will arrive, this list will likely look very different after the Klitshcko’s come 2026. It is possible young pros such as Joshua will rate in the next 4 years. Hopefully, we will all be here to debate it!

1A. V Klitschko
1B. W Kltischko
3. Povetkin
4. Usyk * Still acitve
5. Joshua* Still active
6. Fury* Still active
7. Chagaev
8. Sanders
9. Ibragimov
10. Wilder * Still active
11. Haye
12. Adamek
13. Chambers
14. Brewster
15. Peter


I think Rocky was lucky to fight when he did.

IMO, 1986-2003 was the best era.

So Rock winning two matches is based on what? When I said his whole era was novice compared to the 1970s,how would he land? Those guys look very horrible. What are you giving him advances in tech, I assume,cause in no match at all did Rock or any of those guys even fight guys as advanced as even the average guy in the 70s and 80s, let alone one in the 90s.

best era, according to who you are? It is no such thing to me. What I will say is that I like the eras of all fighters,but when I compare eras to eras, I am able to easily see advances and obsolete tech/outdated tech,so for me, there is no such thing as the best era.


All you did was name big or mid carders that people are familiar with; I don't do that. I'm a fan of even no names and mid guys who most people don't know or who are on the come-up.

rock/louis/srr were in an era where they could dominate. I find it odd that no one can ever explain the odd quote that has been reproduced for years. They could make pro in any era. Why is it no one made midcard fighting that obsolete in the 70s and 90s? It seems like a contradiction to me. Why can't I find any fighting with those many flaws and obsolete tech if there styles could translate?

[billeau2]

Let think about this. Wlad hit way harder than anyone Marciano faced. And had the stamina to throw hard punches for a long time.

Wlad would just unload in the middle of the ring of Rocky and clinch when needed owing Rocky in the process.

No fighter slipped Wald jab. Name them. It was so good he could win a fight on this punch alone.

This fight is a mismatch. One guy has about oh 7" inches in height, 14" in reach , and 55 pounds or so in weight. And he is more skilled too. These guys are three weight classes apart, maybe four on fight night.

I would pick Wlad to win, say 18 times out of 20. As I said it is a mismatch. Outside of landing his bomb which if you look took on average took Rocky 9 rounds to land vs. his title opponents, Rocky chance is next to none. As they say anything can happen in the ring. Many Rocky's blood will accidentally get on his gloves and blind Wlad. As Larry Merchant used to say, theater of the unexpected.

A question to ask is does Wlad get to used those 1950 style light gloves? He wore 12 ounce gloves, not 8 for 6 ounce gloves. His punching power would be even greater using the 1950's equipment.

Lighter gloves do not create more power unconditionally... The risk to the puncher is also greater. Boxing gloves are bigger to protect the puncher primarily.

Fighters like Marciano and Fullmer had techniques to fight when clinched... Watch how Fullmer hits Robinson in their trilogy. Just something to consider... Vlad could perhaps flatten marciano, but as the fight wears past like the 3rd round, Vlad would be exhausted.

[Dr. Z]

So Rock winning two matches is based on what? When I said his whole era was novice compared to the 1970s,how would he land? Those guys look very horrible. What are you giving him advances in tech, I assume,cause in no match at all did Rock or any of those guys even fight guys as advanced as even the average guy in the 70s and 80s, let alone one in the 90s.

best era, according to who you are? It is no such thing to me. What I will say is that I like the eras of all fighters,but when I compare eras to eras, I am able to easily see advances and obsolete tech/outdated tech,so for me, there is no such thing as the best era.


All you did was name big or mid carders that people are familiar with; I don't do that. I'm a fan of even no names and mid guys who most people don't know or who are on the come-up.

rock/louis/srr were in an era where they could dominate. I find it odd that no one can ever explain the odd quote that has been reproduced for years. They could make pro in any era. Why is it no one made midcard fighting that obsolete in the 70s and 90s? It seems like a contradiction to me. Why can't I find any fighting with those many flaws and obsolete tech if there styles could translate?

Winning two matches of twenty is what I said. Hence Rocky is a big underdog. Rocky was in some great fights vs. sub 200 pound men. Rocky himself was what a light heavyweight today weighs on fight night.

[Ascended]

Winning two matches of twenty is what I said. Hence Rocky is a big underdog. Rocky was in some great fights vs. sub 200 pound men. Rocky himself was what a light heavyweight today weighs on fight night.

I cannot alter footage or can I alter the past and make it show things in future era's you can't either,Everything is on recorded footage,so no, he does not speak opinions only speaks of which is on video, and what is on video shows boxers in the 70s and 80s are way more advanced than ones in the 30s and 40s to go against that isn't correct and is for a fact a mistake to go against the ascended ones vision and facts on video

I said, What is he winning based on? And I said his whole era were novices compared to the 70s,so you're not sane like the rest,no one made pro fighting like they did in 30-40s in 70s,play fiction fighters with the other crazy idiots like you you're are,bragging on him being great vs. guys with 30-40s tech wow that's impressive,see how slow you are?

they now are trying to have people like you try to pretend to be sane but you can't fool the ascended i seen right through you're bull by even saying a novice like fighter would beat one way more advanced than his whole era even in his amateur form,even giving rock 2 wins is ridiculous which is based off of no person he fought even as advanced as the average 70s,I don’t care about you're obsolete 30-40s guys who fought each other

you have no video proof of any 30-40s guys as advanced as any average 70s-80s,no one like you does here or on any other site

And you never watched full matches either cause no one who did would say ridiculous stuff like you made the mistake saying in public where the ascended could see,so you're a liar/crazy just like the others like you

Tell you're crazy cult members like you to keep trying,why you're at it tell them to find video to prove the ascended wrong from full matches,tell them to try to alter footage just as I said I can't or can you,since you thought it was smart to go against his vision