Parker = 4th best of this era.

He was never lineal in this era so that seems like a strange argument.

 

Wilder was never, ever #2. The competition was not there.

 

At present, I agree.

Wins over - Ruiz, Zhang, Chisora, Wilder and Takam is a solid record.

I really hope Parker vs Kabayel is a fight on the AJ Wembley undercard.

 

Whyte - if the knockdown due to a head clash was correctly called in round 2, that would have been a draw.

Joyce - styles make fights. Joyce is a terrible matchup for Parker, but he found his own terrible style matchup in Zhang, who Parker beat.

But even with these losses, at the end of the day, no one else has enough significant wins to be in 4th right now.

 

Disagree with vs Whyte - Even with Not including the KD that shouldn't have stood. Whtyte should of won that fight by a couple of points. However I said at the time I would favour Parker in a rematch, due to growing in confidence working Whyte out ( Whyte was holding on dear life in the last round and was gassed).

 

Parker has not yet shown his full potential, in my view

If he can rematch and beat AJ - which I favor - the sky is the limit

 

If that knockdown didn't stand, Parker was winning round 2 so simply amending that on all cards, the final score would have been a split draw. I can understand if you thought Whyte would have still deserved to win the fight anyway however.

 

Not sure for me.

Beating Wilder nowadays is easy as he lacks boxing fundamentals and now he's lost the only things that made him dangerous. He's not even a top 10 fighter anymore.

His win vs Zhang was a great win though.

 

I will still put Wilder above him for outpointing Fury.

 

IMO it was the opposite. Parker dominated Wilder start to finish and really made you wonder if maybe he could beat the other top fighters. The Zhang fight he only won because Zhang was knockout or bust. Parker got the W but its not the sort of fight you should be proud of winning IMO because the other guy gift wrapped it for you.

 

Yeah, cause the champion killers from the 90's like Bruce Seldon or Frank Bruno were sooo great, haha.

 

Parker is sound. I reckon he could avenge all his losses if he wanted to aswell.

 

I agree that Seldon would likely lose to Parker. But, you are picking one of the weakest belt holders in history to try and prove your point. Likewise, Bruno made zero successful defenses of his belt. And yet, I would still pick him to beat Parker. Bruno was really only troubled by big punchers. Parker is not a big puncher. And, as bad as Seldon could be, his best performances were actually equal to, if not better than Parker's best. Seldon has a glass chin, but, was actually a pretty good boxer. I think Parker's recent win streak has just as much to do with the non effort of his last two opponents. Zhang only threw about 20 punches per round, and landed less than 7 punches a round. (Yet he still scored 2 knockdowns of Parker). Furthermore Parker's winning effort against Zhang had him landing just over 8 punches per round. (None of which bothered Zhang in the least) This is more indicative of a poor effort from an out of shape opponent (Zhang landed zero punches in the final round and was exhausted) than it is proof that Parker has dramatically improved. If Parker can beat Joshua or Usyk, I will eat my hat and give him full credit.

 

That's not the same. There's nothing equal about Roy and DM. Fury and Joshua are equal pretty everywhere else, but Fury had the lineal title.