Rate Parker.

6.75/10

Adjusted for heavyweight being the worst p4p division by far relative to overall talent in the rest, and he's a solid four point five.

 

Below Joshua obviously. Below Povetkin and Ortiz H2H.

Fifty fifty with Wilder, though I'd pick him to beat him.

Above Pulev, Browne, Whyte, Takam, Breazeale, and Miller.

He's a solid top five guy, in that I don't see anyone except the very best beating him.

 

He's a top 10 heavy. Probably top half dozen. He'll go top 5 when Wilder evicts Ortiz.

Still very young & with plenty of room for improvement. Needs to be developed carefully over the next couple of years which is why the strategic direction they set for him from here is very important.

Weakest titleholder in the HW division?

I've got Joshua & Wilder at one & two so yeah.

 

I currently think he's the 5th best HW, and I agree he's the weakest titlists right now, but he could also have the highest ceiling out of the three belt holders. He has hand speed, a solid chin and a big heart which are all uncoachable assets but I think his mediocre footwork and glaring defensive flaws make him vulnerable to anybody with reach and power, so I'd back Joshua, Wilder and Ortiz to beat him H2H. Povetkin being smaller makes for an interesting fight, of the top 5 heavies I think Povetkin is Parker's best chance for a career defining scalp.

Does he have the nerve to drop Barry and kick onto the next level though?

 

Of the three current beltholders he's number two. Wilder at three.

I refuse to rate a guy who got outboxed by Washington and Szpilka a world championship level boxer.

 

1. Joshua
2. Wilder
3. Parker
4. Ortiz
5. Povetkin

 

#5 HW in the world.

 

Not sure why everyone's ranking Wilder so high. He's clearly the weak link in the division.

 

Yeah I still think Joe can take him but I put Wilder up there because hes had more fights than any of those mentioned in my top 5 and is still undefeated. Also Im respectin him more now that hes taking on Ortiz. I know some might say 'thats long overdue' but Im just happy were going to see a big fight from him.

 

Yeah, but he might get destroyed. You don't rate guys on why they're going to fight but on who they beat.

Wilder's longevity is a direct result of his terrible (or brilliant) matchmaking, not a reflection of his quality. Ditto his undefeated record.

 

JUST squeezing top 5 probably, with a bit of "styles make fights" in there. I'm quite confident Joshua beats him, Ortiz beats him, Wilder would be favourite BUT Parker would be a very live underdog with every possibility of winning, Povetkin 50:50. I think David Haye is being counted out too soon, if he has two working legs he may murder Tony Bellew in December and make himself a case for top 5 as well.

 

Comfy but I prefer a duffle coat.

 

Parker's well placed.

1. Anthony Joshua (IBF & WBA)
2. Deontay Wilder (WBC)
3. Tyson Fury (Lineal & The Ring)*
4. Luis Ortiz*
5. Alexander Povetkin*
6. Joseph Parker (WBO)

The loser of Wilder v Ortiz waves bye-bye.

* Doping question marks.

 

I think Wilder is potentially there for the beating when you look at the other top 5 names being thrown around, including Parker BUT in his defense - despite the safe pickings... you can always have a bad day in the office if you spend enough time in the ring and have a loss which is not representative of your potential. Wilder has had a LOT of time in the and is undefeated, with only 1 decision win. He hasn't been fighting THAT low a level of competition that this is an unimpressive resume.

Too often boxing is treated like "x beats y, end of.". It's not that simple. I've played a number of club-level chess tournaments - you can have a lot of games because training camps and battles don't have so much of an impact on you hahaha. It may seem like a random comparison, but it seems relevant as there are very clear chess rating systems and it's based off the statistical likelyhood of one person beating another. There is NEVER any guarantee that the perceived stronger player will win, even if there is a lot wins and losses to gauge their limits... while in boxing we are talking about guys with 20-30 fights MAX with typically 30-50% of the opponents being outmatched, while in chess you immediately go up against people BEYOND your ability as you don't get killed.

Everything comes down to the judges, how the camps went, who has the best game plan, and then a little bit of what happens on the day. If David Haye didn't bust his leg he probably would have won his fight with Bellew, I'd say the same could even have gone for Vyacheslav Glazkov vs Charles Martin. Klitschko was looking very close to beating Joshua. There is a VERY close alternate reality where everything is all different to now, every fight holds that potential.