Is Lennox Lewis the most skilled "giant" in boxing history?

Boxing skill is a range of skills, there are many. Being a skilled boxer is about being good at these skills, to various degrees. Being one of the most skilful boxers is about being great at all of them. You can't be awful - absolutely awful - at whole sections of them, like Wlad is, and be defined as very skilled. It makes no sense.

That also makes no sense, and in fact it is absolutely ridiculous. It's not things i personally like, it is ALL things. Personal bias can only exist when a person is undertaking selection, which you are, and I am not. It is impossible for me to be showing any bias - I weigh all the skills in fighting. I demonstrably exhibit literally zero personal bias, the opposite of your claim is key to the argument.

That is an atrocious definition. By your definition, a fighter is very skilled if he gets hit a lot, has only one great punch, has learned to land that punch, and imposes that punch. So if he has no jab, no right hand, no uppercut, no left hook, but great inside uppercuts which he consistently imposes on his opponent, that is a skilled fighter. Awful, indefensible.

By your definition, Wilder is one of the most skilled heavies of the century.

Agree, but it doesn't matter.

No reason, but not being skilled and still winning doesn't make you skilled.

I can see now that you're trapped in a cycle of trying to be right (note: it's impossible, you're that wrong) and that we won't get anywhere here, but i'll do you this favour: if you are arguing for excellence instead of skill you've made a mistake. You can be very skilled and never win. You can be unskilled and win a lot.

From hereon, i'll ignore any argument concerning a fighter being good thereby proving he is skilled. You should really try to think about and understand why this doesn't matter.

Got it.

 

I didn't say that, but it does definitely matter as you've randomly brought it up. Byrd spoke in awe of Wlad's power and there isn't a trainer or fighter in the world who doesn't understand that deploying your skillset is much more difficult against punches that hurt very badly. I'll go so far as to say that at the very highest level, the virtual threat is almost as important as the real threat.

I didn't say that either - if you want to continue this conversation, stop pretending i've said things I haven't.

I hereby acknowledge Wlad having better footwork, defense, long range game.

 

BS? Ah, the clue's in the initials heh heh.

 

Yes, but again, as I've said many times before in this thread already, you can win a fight and be less skilled.

Look, start there. Do you agree that you can win a fight while being less skilled?

Even this is untrue. I say they are less skilled. There is no sense in which I value them less. So, strawman. That was never my argument.

Incorrect. I like range fighters, I love Ricardo Lopez for exmaple and have his career set, it gets play at mine and I've uploaded many of his fights to my all-boxing YouTube channel. Any way in which my devotion to that type of fighter can be proven, I can prove it. My guess is that you won't accept it though.

You are wrong.

I understand your definition absolutely.

Right so we have Deontay Wilder, clearly much more skilled at landing his biggest punches, and at trapping than Louis Ortiz. Louis Ortiz though is the all round more skilled fighter.

Which fighter is more skilled, Louis Ortiz or Deontay Wilder?

And the most skilled fighters are the ones who are most skilled in all aspects?

Aren't they? Obviously?

 

All skills gap matter - every one. If you have can switch-hit that is better than not being able to switch-hit. If you can't point to a specific moment in that fighter's career where being able to switch-hit would have made his life different, it doesn't matter. That is because every fighter that has ever boxed (almost) would rather be able to switch hit that not. You argue from a place of relative proof, which is flawed - where is your proof that Wladimir Klitschko wouldn't have knocked out Anthony Joshua in 15 seconds of round one, if he was an expert body-puncher upon breaking a clinch?

Prove that to me.

 

I don't feel that I'm expert enough on Quarry's style to answer that question, but I will say that Frazier is a good example to use. Frazier is interesting because he is among the best example of a swarmer on film and he is a heavy, which is perhaps unique to Joe. I think that Frazier is a better infighter than Wlad is an outfighter but that both are heavily compromised as being very skilled fighters with their shortfalls at ranges other those at which they are expert.

Frazier is more skilled than Wladimir but neither is an example of a highly skilled technician - both have too many technical deficiencies for that to be true.

Foreman is difficult because his skillset changed over the course of his career, but nineties Foreman might be a very good example of what @cross_trainer is talking about. Overall, I'd have to spend a lot of time thinking about whether or not Foreman is more skilled than Wladimir. Both have serious shortfalls but Foreman has that jab, which might rescue him.

I have, multiple times, but I will again. Mastery of all skills in boxing is better than mastery of very limited skills in boxing.

This is self-evident.

Yeah, you did. What you said was that a fighter who has mastered limited aspects of boxing and made that aspect the defining aspect of themselves in the ring to the point where their deficiencies don't matter is more skilled to you than a fighter who has mastered all aspects of boxing to some unidentified degree that is, to you, "below" the fighter of mastery in one area.

This is absolutely a perfect definition of what happened with Deontay Wilder. But, we'll leave Wilder there unless you don't want to.

Again:

The most skilled fighters are the ones who are most skilled in all aspects?

Aren't they? Obviously?

 

Let it lead to this then:

Do you think that Wladimir is more skilled having the skillset he had, or the skillset he had plus all of Roberto Duran's skills?

And do you think having all these extra skills would help him as a fighter?

I'll be cheeky and answer for you: you believe he would be more skillful. And you believe that all these extra skills would help him. And that is true for every fighter. So skills gaps that might somehow not matter in your original definition of skill - they would, wouldn't they?