Weakest heavyweight world champions

[Tuan_Jim]

The question should be, can you envisage your choice beating any champ in history at all? If not, that's your man.

With that in mind, Charles Martin is the obvious worst of the worst. No discernible talent, won a belt he should never have been boxing for on a freak injury, lost it on two punches, both of which knocked him down, the second one convincing him not beat the count. There has literally never been a less talented, more pathetic 'champion' in recorded history. Who can you picture him beating? Absolutely no one, I would hope.

Regarding lineal, I think calling Leon Spinks the worst is totally wrong. Leon was nuts and only dedicated himself to one full, disciplined training camp in his life, but that time he did it he showed that he had the intangibles. Surely you can see fit, aggressive, focused Spinks of that night bulldozing Hart, Burns et al? Out-working Willard, Carnera, Braddock, Briggs, Rahman? Leon with his brother's sane bent would have been a very good fighter. Personally I struggle to see Marvin Hart beating anyone--accept probably the aforementioned alphabet champ Charles Martin.

Burns was better better than often made out, but too small really. I don't think Braddock even deserves to be mentioned in discussions of the worst, look at the fight he gave Joe Louis.

Yep, wouldn't disagree with anything there really, I just think Leon Spinks on 1st Ali fight form beats them. But good fighters.

[Coco]

If we are talking about genuine lineal champions, none of them were to shabby, it's a shame that the likes of Martin gets mentioned in the same breath as Leon Spinks

[Ambling Alp II]

As for the real champions, Hart and Spinks were the worst. Maybe Briggs if we count him. (There have been probably 100 WBS title holders that were worse than them.)
Burns, Willard, Carnera, and Braddock are probably the next group. Johansson might belong with those guys as well.

[Boxing Writer]

As for the real champions, Hart and Spinks were the worst. Maybe Briggs if we count him. (There have been probably 100 WBS title holders that were worse than them.)
Burns, Willard, Carnera, and Braddock are probably the next group. Johansson might belong with those guys as well.

Why Johansson? He was pretty good. He went 1-2 vs prime Patterson and demolished Eddie Machen like nobody else did.

[Duran1970]

Burns could fight.... Study up.

[DrDuke]

As for the real champions, Hart and Spinks were the worst. Maybe Briggs if we count him. (There have been probably 100 WBS title holders that were worse than them.)
Burns, Willard, Carnera, and Braddock are probably the next group. Johansson might belong with those guys as well.

Why Jahansson? He was pretty good. He went 1-2 vs prime Patterson and demolished Eddie Machen like nobody else did.

Yeah, Ingo deserves to stay away from such lists. He was a short-termed champ, but had a solid resume. Furthermore, he was a classy boxer.

[Ambling Alp II]

I do think he was a bit better than the guys mentioned. The wins over Machen and Patterson is enough to do that. But there really isn't much else besides those two wins. He was not as good as the mid-tier champions (Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson etc.)

[oogiebe]

Big John Tate/Mike Weaver

[Ambling Alp II]

Burns could fight.... Study up.

I totally agree that he could fight. Pound for pound he is very underrated. However, compared to the heavyweight champions (not WBS champs) he was one of the worst. Outside of Hart, Spinks, Briggs, and maybe Carnera, Willard, and Braddock, there aren't any that he was better than.

[HomicideHenry]

Burns is probably the most underrated Heavyweights of all time strictly because of his size (5'7") but his hyperactive title defenses (14) wouldn't be surpassed until Joe Louis some 30 years later. He could have technically claimed to have been the Light Heavyweight champion of the world simultaneously, though he said he had no need for that title (Philadelphia Jack O'Brien never defended the belt again after that point).

Outside of losing to Jack Johnson, I don't see how "horrible" he is as many want to proclaim. I've seen some of the films and imho he was a better all around fighter than MOST from that era and prior. I'd of loved to have seen him fight Sam McVey in Chantilly France as he originally planned. That'd of given us a greater compass as to his overall abilities. Personally, I think he'd of beaten McVey on points. He was very fast, very nimble.

[gilgamesh]

Lineal Champions
Tyson Fury

Alphabet Paper Champions
Charles Martin

[HomicideHenry]

Lineal Champions
Tyson Fury

Alphabet Paper Champions
Charles Martin

I wouldn't write Fury off just yet considering he's 29 years old. He did beat the here before undefeated for a decade Klitschko, even if it wasn't an entertaining fight by any stretch of the imagination. If he can regroup in his comeback and regain the Heavyweight Championship, then he'll certainly prove that he's not the worst by a long shot.

[gilgamesh]

Lineal Champions
Tyson Fury

Alphabet Paper Champions
Charles Martin

I wouldn't write Fury off just yet considering he's 29 years old. He did beat the here before undefeated for a decade Klitschko, even if it wasn't an entertaining fight by any stretch of the imagination. If he can regroup in his comeback and regain the Heavyweight Championship, then he'll certainly prove that he's not the worst by a long shot.

If...

As of this moment. He's garbage, and from the looks of his last performance. He's gonna be.

[HomicideHenry]

I've seen stranger things happen in this sport of uncertainty. Nobody can really rule out anybody, especially at Heavyweight.

[DrDuke]

I think, we shouldn't make conclusions on Fury so quickly indeed. Wlad was never confused and outboxed by anyone, even Joshua fight was close up to the 11th with Klitschko arguably leading by points. Now Fury was rusted and didn't cut all extra-weight, so his performance wasn't very convincing. So he shouldn't be in this list.

[Ambling Alp II]

I put most heavyweight champions (again, not talking about WBS titleholders) belong in three basic categories:

Top Tier Champions – Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Frazier, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Marciano, Bowe, Tunney, Liston, Jeffries, Tyson

Mid-Tier Champions – Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton

Lower-Tier Champions – Hart, Burns, Willard, Carnera, Braddock, Leon Spinks, Douglas, Briggs, Moorer
Hard to rate Johannson. He would either be the worst of the Mid-Tier or the best of the Lower Tier.

Also hard to rate Michael Spinks because he only had 5 fights at heavyweight. Guessing he belongs in Mid-Tier, but it’s hard to say.

[Tuan_Jim]

I put most heavyweight champions (again, not talking about WBS titleholders) belong in three basic categories:

Top Tier Champions – Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Frazier, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Marciano, Bowe, Tunney, Liston, Jeffries, Tyson

Mid-Tier Champions – Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton

Lower-Tier Champions – Hart, Burns, Willard, Carnera, Braddock, Leon Spinks, Douglas, Briggs, Moorer
Hard to rate Johannson. He would either be the worst of the Mid-Tier or the best of the Lower Tier.

Also hard to rate Michael Spinks because he only had 5 fights at heavyweight. Guessing he belongs in Mid-Tier, but it’s hard to say.

Given who he beat, and how, surely Douglas merits mid-tier inclusion? I would think Moorer belongs there too.

Agree with M. Spinks in mid-tier.

Otherwise fantastic categorisation!

[Duran1970]

Fitzsimmons mid tier but Burns low tier?
Fitzy other than winning the strap accomplished lil as a heavyweight..also had 53 fights against winless fighters or 1 win fighters..
Burns 13 title defenses with 11 kos

[Tuan_Jim]

Fitzsimmons mid tier but Burns low tier?
Fitzy other than winning the strap accomplished lil as a heavyweight..also had 53 fights against winless fighters or 1 win fighters..
Burns 13 title defenses with 11 kos

Pssss: Boxrec records from that era are incomplete.

[Thunder and Lightning]

I put most heavyweight champions (again, not talking about WBS titleholders) belong in three basic categories:

Top Tier Champions – Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Frazier, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Marciano, Bowe, Tunney, Liston, Jeffries, Tyson

Mid-Tier Champions – Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Norton

Lower-Tier Champions – Hart, Burns, Willard, Carnera, Braddock, Leon Spinks, Douglas, Briggs, Moorer
Hard to rate Johannson. He would either be the worst of the Mid-Tier or the best of the Lower Tier.

Also hard to rate Michael Spinks because he only had 5 fights at heavyweight. Guessing he belongs in Mid-Tier, but it’s hard to say.

If Douglas, Johansson and Moorer are lower tier shouldnt M Spinks and Norton be too?
I just mean what did they do to earn a higher ranking than those guys, Norton did beat Ali and Quarry granted and his losses to Ali and Holmes were very close but he also lost his share and got blasted a few times (by monsters though so not holding it against him) I guess i just dont see it assuming we are going by accomplishments.
As for Spinks 2 close wins against Holmes and just 5 fights at heavyweight is that better than Douglas, Johansson and Moorer, Like i Said i just dont see it but i could be wrong.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just wanted to reply to Tuan Jim and Thunder and Lightning:

Not high on Moorer at all. He had a lot of ability but when you really look at the results what do you really have?
Yes he beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was awful in that fight; Moorer really was not all that impressive himself. In the rematch he got whipped. He lloked good for the Foreman fight, but of course ultimately got knocked out by a senior citizen.
What would his 2nd best win be? A close decision over Axel Schulz? Bert Cooper? Frans Botha?

Johannson has the win over Machen and of course Patterson. But he also got whipped twice by Patterson. Really no other important fights to speak of. I do think you can make a case for him. The problem in rating him is that he really only had 4 major fights in his career. He is borderline.

Spinks only had 5 fights at heavyweight, three were fights where you could a gauge of how he did. Really, he had almost as many relevant fights at heavyweight as Johannson. He looked bad against Tyson, but really it's hard to imagine Johannson or Moorer doing much better. He looked pretty good against a past his best but still good Holmes. He is borderline.

I think you can make a case for Douglas being Mid-tier. Obviously he looked great against Tyson and had a few other decent wins. The way he rolled over against Holyfield always bothered me.

Norton is rock solid at mid-tier. Forget the Cooney fight. If you are going to count that, then you have to count Douglas losing to Savarese and Moorer to Tua. Even the Shavers fight he was already 35. He had the three fights with Ali and a great fight Holmes. The Young fight is possibly the most underrated heavyweight fight of all time. Dominated Quarry. He had other wins that were decent. Some people forget how the Bobick win was huge at the time.

[Cojimar 1946]

Bowe is not top-tier given his lack of title defenses and thin resume. He would have needed to dominate the division for an extended period to be rated alongside guys like Louis, Marciano, etc.

[Tuan_Jim]

Bowe is not top-tier given his lack of title defenses and thin resume. He would have needed to dominate the division for an extended period to be rated alongside guys like Louis, Marciano, etc.

Bowe is obviously top tier given that no one in the mid or lower tier would have a prayer against him and he would be a heavy favourite against at least half of that top tier.

[Thunder and Lightning]

Just wanted to reply to Tuan Jim and Thunder and Lightning:

Not high on Moorer at all. He had a lot of ability but when you really look at the results what do you really have?
Yes he beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was awful in that fight; Moorer really was not all that impressive himself. In the rematch he got whipped. He lloked good for the Foreman fight, but of course ultimately got knocked out by a senior citizen.
What would his 2nd best win be? A close decision over Axel Schulz? Bert Cooper? Frans Botha?

Johannson has the win over Machen and of course Patterson. But he also got whipped twice by Patterson. Really no other important fights to speak of. I do think you can make a case for him. The problem in rating him is that he really only had 4 major fights in his career. He is borderline.

Spinks only had 5 fights at heavyweight, three were fights where you could a gauge of how he did. Really, he had almost as many relevant fights at heavyweight as Johannson. He looked bad against Tyson, but really it's hard to imagine Johannson or Moorer doing much better. He looked pretty good against a past his best but still good Holmes. He is borderline.

I think you can make a case for Douglas being Mid-tier. Obviously he looked great against Tyson and had a few other decent wins. The way he rolled over against Holyfield always bothered me.

Norton is rock solid at mid-tier. Forget the Cooney fight. If you are going to count that, then you have to count Douglas losing to Savarese and Moorer to Tua. Even the Shavers fight he was already 35. He had the three fights with Ali and a great fight Holmes. The Young fight is possibly the most underrated heavyweight fight of all time. Dominated Quarry. He had other wins that were decent. Some people forget how the Bobick win was huge at the time.

I may be a Ingo apologist but i just think his record is a bit underrated, he did fight mostly europeans wich is a nod against him but I dont think Nortons record outside of the Ali win is much better than Johanssons.
Ten Hof, Cavicchi, Cooper, Erskine, Bygraves and Neuhaus in my opinion matches Nortons opponents quite well i think, im not trying to say Norton wasnt good he was and in a fight he probably would beat both Johansson and Douglas but if its based on accomplishments i dont think he should be higher then either Ingo or Douglas.
Not realy saying Norton and Spinks arent mid tier i guess as much as i think Ingo and Douglas should be, about Moorer i can see youre point and wouldnt fall on that sword.

[Cojimar 1946]

People are rated based on accomplishments. Bowe's accomplishments simply don't measure up regardless of how you think hypothetical matchups go. Also, the Golota fights seem like a pretty strong indication that Bowe's more beatable than the Holyfield fights might suggest.