Name some fighters who were not natural heavyweights who had success at heavyweight

[Joey Giardello]

Fighters who were natural lightheavyweight or cruserweight who had success at heavyweight

[Sugarj]

Fighters who were natural lightheavyweight or cruserweight who had success at heavyweight

Alot of the older heavyweight champions would be natural cruiserweights or light heavyweights now:

James Corbett
Bob Fitzimmons
Tommy Burns
Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney
Rocky Marciano
Floyd Patterson
Archie Moore
Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles

There really are hundreds!

As for recently:

Roy Jones
Evander Holyfield
David Haye
James Toney
Michael Spinks
Michael Moorer

Lets see how Adameck and Tarver do!

[DarkTerror88]

How could you forget Sam Langford, Sugarj?

[Sugarj]

How could you forget Sam Langford, Sugarj?

I'd missed literally dozens!

I'd been drinking with friends last night! I tend to think of Sam as being more of a natural middleweight than a lightheavy or cruiserweight (equivalent). Though.....with a bit more wit I'd have probably put his name down regardless! Ha ha

[sonnyboyx2]

John Conteh
Don Cockell

[Joey Giardello]

John Conteh
Don Cockell

I wouldnt really say john conteh had great success at heavyweight he didnt win no titles, didnt fight for no titles, and got his undefeated record tuck at the weight, then was advised to move down by ali and and the rest is history!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Greatest1942]

Alot of the older heavyweight champions would be natural cruiserweights or light heavyweights now:

James Corbett
Bob Fitzimmons
Tommy Burns
Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney
Rocky Marciano
Floyd Patterson
Archie Moore
Jersey Joe Walcott
Ezzard Charles

There really are hundreds!

As for recently:

Roy Jones
Evander Holyfield
David Haye
James Toney
Michael Spinks
Michael Moorer

Lets see how Adameck and Tarver do!

You make a serious mistake here my friend JACK DEMPSEY not a true heavyweight, how did you come up with this? He was incerdibly lean , because he wanted to keep it that way...You will be surprised to know that Dempsey was bigger in the bones than Joe Frazier, Joe Louis and lot of other heavyweights of even today. Just compare his tale of tape with Joe Louis, except the weight you will see the difference.

[Sugarj]

You make a serious mistake here my friend JACK DEMPSEY not a true heavyweight, how did you come up with this? He was incerdibly lean , because he wanted to keep it that way...You will be surprised to know that Dempsey was bigger in the bones than Joe Frazier, Joe Louis and lot of other heavyweights of even today. Just compare his tale of tape with Joe Louis, except the weight you will see the difference.

No mistake at all. His fighting weight was around 187Lbs.

The question concerned light heavyweight and cruiserweight. 187Lbs in today's money is cruiserweight.

If he was fighting today, I dont doubt with his natural dimensions he would choose to fight at heavyweight.

But he chose under 190 to be his best fighting weight...........and that is how I have based my answer.

[Greatest1942]

No mistake at all. His fighting weight was around 187Lbs.

The question concerned light heavyweight and cruiserweight. 187Lbs in today's money is cruiserweight.

If he was fighting today, I dont doubt with his natural dimensions he would choose to fight at heavyweight.

But he chose under 190 to be his best fighting weight...........and that is how I have based my answer.

Mate all of us are obessed about weight. Gaiining 30-40 pounds today is no big deal. Its the skeleton structure that matters. Jack was bigger in the skeleton than Louis, Frazier or even Holyfield. So these guys you don't see fighting as heavy too.

Its the bone structure that makes all teh difference Sugraj. Dempsey was a true heavyweight, he had the reach, wrist, chest and hands of a heavy. Dempsey at 187-190 is different to say Roy Jones or James Toney at 200. There was no cruiserweight division back then..So it is a bit of guess ofr us to believe what he would have done today. To be honest he could go both ways. I doubt whether dempsey would like to fight as a cruiser anyways

He kept himself down to that weight because he thought that it was his best weight. Not because he could not gain more weight. If you don't believe me , look at his tale of the tape vs Louis or Frazier thats all. He was bigger than Frazier or Louis. Bigger than most heavies you can be sure of that.

[Sugarj]

Mate all of us are obessed about weight. Gaiining 30-40 pounds today is no big deal. Its the skeleton structure that matters. Jack was bigger in the skeleton than Louis, Frazier or even Holyfield. So these guys you don't see fighting as heavy too.

Its the bone structure that makes all teh difference Sugraj. Dempsey was a true heavyweight, he had the reach, wrist, chest and hands of a heavy. Dempsey at 187-190 is different to say Roy Jones or James Toney at 200.

He kept himself down to that weight because he thought that it was his best weight. Not because he could not gain more weight. If you don't believe me , look at his tale of the tape vs Louis or Frazier thats all. He was bigger than Frazier or Louis. Bigger than most heavies you can be sure of that.

I know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to go with you on another back and forth argument. I dont have as much time as you, I'm at work! Ha ha

Dempsey's best fighting weight was 187Lbs.

Frazier's best fighting weight in his own words was 204Lbs.

I am only interested in what is a man's best fighting weight, this is a boxing forum! That is the only thing relevant to this thread. Dempsey's best fighting weight was at cruiserweight. If he bulked up to over 200Lbs his speed and workrate would be hampered.

There is nothing more to add here.