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

Yes, you can add whatever fighter you like though. Riddick Bowe or Evander Holyfield, or Joe Louis or Lennox Lewis, as he's relevant to the thread. The point I am making is that you are making a specific claim. Correct me, but basically your claim is that a fighter's skill is about gaps - but only when those gaps matter in terms of what you've seen during their career. What I am saying to you is that this is badly flawed specifically because of our negative proof chat. Think about it. If Wladimir had Riddick Bowe's infighting ability he would be a more skilled fighter. You can imagine for yourself, i'm sure, instances where having these skills would have aided Wladimir in his losses, and in his wins, to enhance his legacy and standing on the forum.

It should be obvious enough really, that being more skilled in areas where he has very little skill would dramatically improve him as a fighter in a way that mattered for his skillset. I mean - it's a little ridiculous having to say it.

Perhaps i'm mistaken in your defnintion.

 

Yeah, he was better than most of the guys he fought - except when he wasn't. If he was more skilled, he'd have done better a lot of the time. He has a lot of skillgaps, as i've said several times now, more than most heavies in his class. He was less skilled than his peers (great or near great heavyweights) because of these skillgaps.

 

He did develop a skillset that was built around his weaknesses and protecting them which is also all but unique in heavyweight history, but no, what you have written isn't true. If Wladimir knew how to say, feint himself into position on the inside, that doesn't make it more likely for him to be hit. It's not like every skill involves landing a lead right hand to a southpaw's body. The type of refinement of infighting that goes on at the lower weights doesn't make a world-class fighter with elite skill more likely to be hit, it makes him less likely to be hit.

I will say that for whatever reason, Wlad's clinching went almost completely unpunished (compared to Lennox Lewis, say) and that he was right to mine that for all that it was worth, but in the broadest possible sense that makes him a less adaptable and worse fighter than the alternative - either way.

 

While we normally do find lots to disagree about when it comes to Wladimir especially, this is a really good point. When we talk about physical memory and true technique what were talking about is the sort of excellence that outstrips that fatigue to become second nature. AJ was such a potentially enormous victory for Wladimir, the very limited nature of his repertoire, of his fundamental technique, did paralysis him at a point where he might have won the crucial fight.

 

Right, so you and I have agreed that Wladimir having a broader skillset would be to his advantage, and to the advantage of all fighers with a narrow range. But you also write that:

"A fighter is more skilled when he/she doesn't have any relevant technical gaps. Relevant technical gaps would be gaps that actually matter."

What i'm saying is that all technical gaps are relevant and this statement is a redundancy. We know that because we know that filling these technical gaps results in an improvement, whether or not we can point to a direct example in the real world and say, specifically, that is where filling that gap would have helped?

 

well thanks but i'll make up my own mind.

That's one way to say it! It is extremely difficult, and when people manage it, it's noticeable, it's apparent, and the fighter who manages to do it - guys like Roman Gonzalez, Roberto Duran, Ezzard Charles - it helps overcome major physical shortfalls in a way that is almost unique. Duran is the physically most capable out of these three but the breadth of technique is their greatest excellence. You can bet though that "practical" wasn't really the word that would most have occurred to them either.

Right, perfectly reasonable.

But that, by definition, would make you less skilled than someone who had somehow got the time to master them all, like Archie Moore.

That's it. That's all.

We have now agreed that the most skilled fighters are the fighters with the broadest skillsets that have achieved a level of expertise in all aspects of boxing. We even have a few examples to hand of fighters who are among the greatest in history without being elite fast or powerful (Charles, say).

Working back form here it is clear that we disagree on the point at which a broader skillset remains superior. That is, you will want to say that mastering very few or many fewer aspects can be superior to broadly mastering boxing minus x%.

But in the end we agree: the fighters with the most elite broadest skillsets are the most skilled fighters. Working back from there it is fair to assume that these more skilled fighters have an inherent advantage in combat that can be overcome, for example by a power/chin defecit, but is nevertheless self evident.

Yeah?