Jesus, these skills threads this week. Usyk is the more skilled of these two. Ali is marginally better at doing boxing.
Apples and oranges. Both are very skilled and well rounded fighters, so its impossible to call one more skilled than the other.
Competitive sports is about more than skill. Size, speed, reflexes, and heart also have a say. Willis Reed had a jumper, yet if he played Shaq in his prime he would have got rolled.
Ali was not traditionally skilled, and did unconventional things like leaning out. His arsenal was not the best. He made it work from speed, talent, and later, sheer toughness.
Before people finally calm down they are going to have Usyk born of a virgin in a stable in Bethlehem.
Speed, toughness, even things like handling fear are skills, Usyk will never have the opportunities to end up comparing to Ali, there will never be a rumble in the jungle type of event for Usyk to see how he handles things on that level, the only thing Usyk can do is continue to prevail over the worst most pathetic heavyweight division there has ever been
Not traditionally skilled? I contend that he wasn't traditionally complete, but a kid that's been boxing since childhood, winning Olympic Gold, with all-time jab, right cross, excellent foot work knows enough about traditional skill to throw out the rulebook when he wants and still demonstrate traditional skill when it suits - look at him controlling ring centre, boxing Liston off the jab and pivot, or look at him with a wider base, taking half diagonal steps backwards and throwing the right hand lead off beat to catch Foreman unawares, a mix of orthodox and unorthodox, but nevertheless high traditional, technically sound skills on display.
It's more than not being complete...he did some things wrong. But in any event, we are saying things that are only marginally off, so however you want to say it.