The solid evidence is the next. Here is your archie moore without inflated musculature trained with weights. https://capitalart-2.myshopify.com/...tunts-with-white-background-premium-art-print He had to add musculature to make 188 pounds. However quarry never ever could have made the 175 limit and he looked natural at 195-200 with average musculature, it is because he had bigger frame, here you have your evidence. Stop debating nonsenses. It is.a natural 195-200 pounder https://www.gettyimages.es/detail/fotografía-de-noticias/american-heavyweight-boxer-jerry-quarry-fotografía-de-noticias/646345759?uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp Quarry had clearly wider thorax ,thicker legs
But none of them were even close to Moore in terms of skills, defense or instinct. Quarry is at most 10 lbs bigger than Moore, it's basically meaningless. I don't understand why boxing fans are so obsessive about small weight differences...
He is 20- 25 pounds heavier. Prime archie moore weighed 175. Prime quarry weighed 195-200 And it is not obsessive it is a fact. Archie was a lhw and quarry a full sized modern cruiser. 2 different classes if this does not matter then why are 2 different classes? stubborn people who don't admit reality
I was asking for evidence that "natural weight" is of any real importance. I'm well aware (chuckle) that Archie Moore didn't start his career at 196.
the evidence is that a natural guy with the bigger frame will carry bigger weight much better, and the naturally smaller guy will have to add musculature that will be negative for his stamina. michael spinks at 212 was not as good as he was at 175. michael moorer at 220 pounds was not as good as he was at 175. qawi at 222 was not as good as he was at 175. bob foster at 188 was not as good as he was at 175. It is pretty evident that you never will admit it. So don't waste my time
Moore fought a lot at heavyweight, he wasn't out of shape there and he beat a lot of big, strong fighters at 190-195 lbs. It's not an example of a fighter bulking up for one fight (like Roy Jones for example), Moore fought almost a decade at HW. Sure, Quarry was bigger man overall, but Archie isn't at disadvantage from size perspective against him or Shavers. His best HW version is within 10 lbs to them and he beat larger fighters than them.
Edit: by the way, I actually saw the picture of Quarry you chose while doing my image search but chose not to use it because it was too unflattering. Although he is indeed quite lean and well muscled in that photo, I'm betting this won't be apparent to most people who don't realize just how big a difference diffuse frontal lighting can make in this sort of thing. This is the type of lighting that ads for protein powder and other fitness gimmicks use in the "before" photos to make the guy look far less ripped than in the "after" photo that was taken only a few minutes later.
But Archie Moore was as good at 190 lbs as he was at 175 lbs. Why do you bring examples that says nothing about Archie Moore abilities at heavyweight?
Please hahaha earnie shavers was a big guy a natural 215 guy in shape for fights weighed 209-210 he had bigger frame broader thicker than Joe Louis. Look at archie moore next to sonny Liston. Liston in his prime weighed exactly like shavers . https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...ZtYNRjaMewdzl-6w_g&vet=1&docid=5JIk1Ruk9ZkveM
Liston carried 220+lbs very well, he was bigger than Shavers. Archie also beat Nino Valdes, guy bigger than Shavers who was also very dangerous hitter and was more durable.
Sonny liston in his prime weighed 208-212 exactly like earnie shavers. Liston even at 218 against Ali was overweight too much muscle and ponderous. No ****ing way he carried well over 220 pounds being as good as boxer. Shavers had bigger head broader shoulders than Liston