BoxRec

jezzamundo wrote:

Ok, i didn't realise he was that big tbh, he does't look it. By Super heavies I mean:
Wlad
Stiverne
Fury
Povetkin
Wilder
Thompson
Arreola
And that's just the established ones.
Have I missed any out?

What exactly do you mean by super heavies then? Povetkin is a small, chubby heavyweight and Stiverne and Arreola are fairly average sized. Of the above list, only Wlad, Fury, Wilder and Thompson are really big heavyweights.

Watching the video and knowing his opponent is 6'3 1/2" and 254lb, it's clear that Parker is a decent sized heavyweight. I'd say he's a naturally slightly bigger guy than Arreola.

Ye, Pov doesn't fit that list, my mistake. For me, anything over 240 is a Super Heavy. I believe smaller more traditional HWs are putting on extra weight to try to match these really big guys.
Wlad for instance is some kind of super freak size. When you see AJ standing beside him it's incredible the difference.

I'm actually not sure about parkers power. yes, that was a huge KO but the Opponent was untested apart from hammer who is not really a Puncher. against most guys he had mid to late round stoppages, usually TKOs rather than one Punch KOs.

I don't think he is a bad Puncher but probably not an elite Puncher like wilder either. I don't think he will KO top10 guys, he will Need to rely on his boxing against those more (which he can do). definitely a good prospect though.

Ye, Pov doesn't fit that list, my mistake. For me, anything over 240 is a Super Heavy. I believe smaller more traditional HWs are putting on extra weight to try to match these really big guys.
Wlad for instance is some kind of super freak size. When you see AJ standing beside him it's incredible the difference.

I'd agree that 240lb is a good cut-off for being a super-sized heavyweight, but I think you need to include a precursor that they must also not be overweight or overly muscle-bound at that weight. By that definition, neither Stiverne or Arreola would qualify as super heavyweights. In fact the only top 25 heavyweights who would are:

Wlad
Pulev (debatable)
Fury
Wilder
Takam (debatable)
Teper
Browne
Joshua (barely qualifies for weight)

Tarkus wrote:On the matter of size. I think since Lewis and more so since Klitschkos it is difficult to see "small" or "short" HW dominating the division. By this I mean anyone shorter then 190 cm, such as Povetkin, Stiverne, Jennings. However Parker is not "small". He will have disadvantage over "super big" or "tall" HW such as Klitscko, Fury, Joshua and even Wilder but I dont think it is anything decisive.

I really don't think height is that important. I'm confident that a 178cm Mike Tyson in his prime would knock out both Wlad and Fury. Shortness can actually be an advantage if you know how to use it.

jezzamundo wrote:I really don't think height is that important. I'm confident that a 178cm Mike Tyson in his prime would knock out both Wlad and Fury. Shortness can actually be an advantage if you know how to use it.

I strongly disagree about Tyson beating Klitschko. Jury is still out about Fury, but I seriously doubt that either. Height difference is so huge that Tyson would be punching up almost vertically to hit the head. I believe you can only use shortness for you advantage if tall guy allows it. Both Klitschko and Fury are experts of using height and size.

BTW Joshua is heavier then Wilder.

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:I really don't think height is that important. I'm confident that a 178cm Mike Tyson in his prime would knock out both Wlad and Fury. Shortness can actually be an advantage if you know how to use it.

I strongly disagree about Tyson beating Klitschko. Jury is still out about Fury, but I seriously doubt that either. Height difference is so huge that Tyson would be punching up almost vertically to hit the head. I believe you can only use shortness for you advantage if tall guy allows it. Both Klitschko and Fury are experts of using height and size.

BTW Joshua is heavier then Wilder.

A better question would be how long Wlad would last against Mike. Maybe Wlad gets into the second round.

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:I really don't think height is that important. I'm confident that a 178cm Mike Tyson in his prime would knock out both Wlad and Fury. Shortness can actually be an advantage if you know how to use it.

I strongly disagree about Tyson beating Klitschko. Jury is still out about Fury, but I seriously doubt that either. Height difference is so huge that Tyson would be punching up almost vertically to hit the head. I believe you can only use shortness for you advantage if tall guy allows it. Both Klitschko and Fury are experts of using height and size.

BTW Joshua is heavier then Wilder.

Right you are about Wilder's weight - I actually knew that Wilder was relatively light, but forgot, as I do consider him a large heavyweight. So that makes it just 4 clear-cut super heavyweights in the current Top 25 - hardly a new era of super heavyweights.

Ultimately a lot of these who-beats-who scenarios are little more than guesswork. In his prime, Tyson never fought anyone who was both as good and as big as Wlad, but the same applies in reverse - Wlad has never fought anyone remotely like a prime Mike Tyson. Big, skilled heavyweights can use their natural advantages relatively easily when their smaller opponents are slow, flat footed and don't use head movement.

parker is big enough. I read he is more 6"3 rather than his listed 6"4 but that still is big enough, bigger for example than david haye (although parker is not quite as fast and explosive as haye but fast enough).

I see more of a question mark behind his power (despite that big KO against a nobody), I don't think he will KO top10 guys.