Or a high skill game?

I define the "skill" of a game by the ability of people to demonstrate consistent individual differences in performance. I wrote two articles about this for the 2+2 magazine a couple of years ago.

Consider for example the lottery. Nearly everyone's expectation in terms of performance is the same, therefore there is no skill. But consider a game like shooting 3 point shots in basketball. Clearly some people will consistently do better than others. Therefore, the game has skill. The articles discuss how these differences can be specifically quantified.

If you really want to know, I would suggest examining a huge number of players and determining the consistency of their performance over large samples of hands. Then compare this to other games (e.g. Hold'em).

Yes that's what I asked, I was kind of looking for an answer rather than work it out myself.
How about Razz, low or high skill?
I think low.

I mean, I personally cannot say, because I do not have the data to back up any claims, but I do believe that this question can be answered by data.

In Poker, Gaming, & Life Sklansky talks about "Steam Games" and he suggests that Razz is a fairly bad game to play against "steamers" because even players who are steaming won't get too far out of line on 3rd street (i.e. on deciding whether to play or not) whereas a game like Omaha hi-lo split 8 or better is a great steam game because people will find all sorts of excuses to continue with bad hands.