Originally Posted by Ovid***ile
I really object to calling Haye a cruiserweight just because he started his career low and fights superheavies. He has the same dimensions as Ali and Holyfield. Larry Holmes was 6'3 too but with 3 inches more reach. Ken Norton was that tall with just two inches more reach. Max Baer was about that size. Pinklon Thomas had an inch less reach. These are big natural heavyweights. Haye is bigger than Joe Louis, much bigger than Jack Johnson. Jack Dempsey and Marciano were true cruiserweights, only topping 6'1 and 5'11".
As for Paul Williams who is 6'1" with a 79 inch reach, he has exactly one inch more reach than Thomas Hearns, whose career trajectory he most likely would have followed. If you remember, Hearns fought low and then ended his career after picking up the cruiserweight title. He had phenomenal power at lower weight classes, and was one of the all time great punchers and that's because he didn't really belong in those divisions. He could have been a light heavyweight or a cruiserweight his whole career if he'd wanted. Just look how reed thin he was as a light middleweight. 6'1 is a good height for a natural cruiser, 6'2" is a small heavy, and 6'3" is a decent sized heavy. 6'4" is a big heavy like George Foreman, Buster Douglas, or Tim Witherspoon and anything taller is a superheavy.
Guys like Eddie Chambers 6'1", Chris Byrd 6', James Toney 5'10", Dwight Qawi 5'6", and Sam Langford 5'6" are the real sub-heavies who had to put on weight to compete.
I would also object to Haye being called a Cruiserweight, or indeed Cruiserweights being called small heavyweights at all when historically compared to older heavyweights (who were often naturally smaller men).
However, I don't agree that height should automatically determine what weight class you belong to. David Tua was five nine. Would you say he was a natural welter? Of course not.