Who was the least skillfull champion

Well he never won a world title, but he did beat a lot of others that held them was David Tua. Tua was the most successful one dimensional fighter in the history of boxing. He was short, didn't have a long reach, wasn't particularly fast with hands or feet. But he had great power, especially in his left hook, an iron chin, and great stamina. Izon, Maskaev, Rahman, many others outboxed him before being knocked out, while John Ruiz and Michael Moorer among others were blown out very quickly. Tua was a fighter that did a lot with a little.

 

Buster Douglas was hardly one of the "least skillful" champions!

I'm thinking more along the lines of Freddie Mills... who on film looks absolutely awful.

 

Max Baer off the top of my head

 

Baer wasn't completely without skills - he had one of the best backhands I've ever seen!

Just kidding of course... yes, Baer would be a prime candidate.

 

Lakva Sim. He could take a beating though.

 

And Baer looked like Sweet Pea Whitaker against Primo Carnera.

 

it is Primo Carnera for sure

 

The least skillfull "champion" that I have seen in the last 40 yrs. was WBA Junior Middleweight Champion Eddie Gazo.

 

Carlos Maussa was pretty awful

 

Buster Douglas was a very skillful boxer with a excellent left jab right hand and good footwork .pity he didn't use it all the time. Least skillful but still a very effective was Dennis Andres .Tough as old boots strong as an ox and relentless beat a lot of guys who were fancied to beat him .imagine Buster with Denniss mindset.

 

Not that they were bad fighters but Yasatsune Uehara, Guts Ishimatsu and Dennis Andries

 

Eupalus in 388 BC literally bribed his way through. He was caught after the fact and the hellanodikai made him and the men who took the dives for him give up their winnings and their purses were used to make statues of Zeus inscribed with the affair to embarrass Eupalus for eternity. Six I think but I'd need to check to be sure. Being ancient we don't know dick about the guy's skills but his being a champion by depth of pocket is pretty telling.

My next story is John Morrissey of the 1840's-50s who won his fights and crown at gunpoint. Morrissey would just have his gang in the crowd and his gang would be carrying pistols. I'm not sure he had a clean fight his whole career. There are no account of Morrissey being a great boxer or skilled in any regard, he was referred to in his day as a slaughterer which is what you'd think, the same as today's "puncher" or "slugger". He'd use the same gang intimidation to win a seat on the US senate when he retired from the ring.

The transition guys are pretty bad at what we think of boxing now, but were pretty good at adapting what used to be LPRR into something viable for Queensberry rules. so you can take or leave names like John L. depending on your person pov of what is boxing.

Carnera was pretty bad, but he had some good elements and was a pioneer of some posturing still used today. I've never been big on Baer either. He's alright but in the 30's the action was with colored title and HWs like Feab Smith and Larry Gains until Louis cleans things up.

Lee Savold, the IBU was ****in' nuts. I think Lee's the first example of guys like what Charr is now. A "champion" we all are forced to accept as champion but absolutely no one has or had it twisted that he might actually be the best of his era.

Valuev may qualify depending or what you call boxing skills. Dude can fight like an ogre but that's it.

Martin's really not got much of anything to him.

 

Someone owes the brothers Klitschko some kind words seeing as you can paint Da Preem as a boxing pioneer!

Not true. He strolls our world akin to the celestial deity.