Who was the worst fighter that was a Champion?

Belongs in the Hall of Fame.

 

"Gazo may have been a world champion, but I don't know how. He's got the most unorthodox style I've ever seen!" ~ CBS analyst Gil Clancy to announcer Tim Ryan during Hearns-Gazo. (Forgive me if I didn't quote Gil precisely, as I haven't viewed Hearns-Gazo since the broadcast. Interestingly, before that bout, Gazo was shown ending the career of the Frog Punching "Man of Fire" Koichi Wajima.

It surely seems Gazo must be the worst champion to ever produce three consecutive successful title defenses. Eddie was certainly not Nicaragua's best from that era...

 

John Ruiz. I don't even know how the WBA ranked him No. 1 in 2000.

 

He wore down fighters because he was bigger than them, he was very easy to hit on the inside, he just had a high work rate.

 

Serrano's a tough one to figure. On the plus side, he's a nice fast-moving boxer who made a lot of title defenses. On the down-side, he's got a glass jaw, no punch and all those title defenses were against a bunch of 2nd and 3rd raters. The hall of fame might be a far reach.

 

Certainly he's far more accomplished than many already in. 13 successful title defenses in two WBA reigns at 130, and defenses in places like Chile, Ecuador, Japan, South Africa (which the WBC didn't recognize during Apartheid) and Venezuela.

He did lose that title for the first time when he tried defending against Yasutsune Uehara at Joe Louis arena, but regained it in their Japan rematch. And he almost successfully defended when he lost it to Black Mamba Mayweather when he severely sunned Roger with one of his patented elbows.

I'm probably more familiar with Serrano than most here because I viewed a number of his bouts on "Cavalcade of Boxing" presented by Steven Bass and Harold Lederman. His nasty defense against Julio Valdez was also broadcast live in the States.

Tough dude. In 57 bouts, he was only stopped the two times he lost the title. There was some call for a unification between the rough Serrano and gentlemanly Arguello, where I believe Alexis would've sliced him into a bloody mess in San Juan as Arguello did to the Snake Man.

Among my fantasy bouts was Sammy defending against Pedroza with Tony Perez as referee...(This one absolutely should've taken place.)

 

Braddock was a decent puncher and well-schooled in the art of feinting. But he was awfully slow. To say he could beat everyone pre-Liston is indefensible. He couldn't beat Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Charles or Patterson. All of them had the speed to beat Jim decisively.

 

I'd favor Tunney by a healthy margin but Braddock is capable of beating him. His combination of power, durability and size is difficult to deal with for any of these guys. But part of this is thinking Louis, Lewis, Farr and Baer would beat every prior champ except Tunney as well. Not consistantly in the case of Baer obviously but at his peak he should be favored over anyone prior except Tunney. Fulton might be too much for Lewis. Otherwise I think that late 30s group were the best. P4P Langford, Miske, Gibbons and Loughran enter the conversation but they just weren't big enough and/or imposing enough.

 

Rene Jacquot for me. Him or Francois Botha.

 

Take your pick out if like five of the early cruiserweight champs.

 

The OP didn't ask for best. Just sayin'.

 

Ruiz was a master casting pearls before swine. You don't deserve his greatness. In 200 years, he will finally be understood and hailed as the greatest heavyweight pugilist up to his time.

 

Leon Spinks in terms of someone who legitimately won the title

Not counting Briggs

 

You don’t become undisputed just because you are big for the weight and throw a lot of punches. There’s a long list of guys like that who haven’t gone anywhere near Taylor’s level.

 

Glen McCrory was awful.