Thanks for your reply Dr Rumack
We are talking about Tyson vs Mayweather without any imaginary modification. Two fighters relatively similar height and reach, but not weight. The key point is that could Mayweathers "superior" skill handle the skill of Mike Tyson that is manifestation of his larger physique.
For example in submission wrestling there are lots of technique that are great in a handicap system (in your weight class), but when there is no weight class, they render useless due to the new characteristics of the environment, for the smaller guy. In this kind of case, can it really be stated that someone has a superior technique, when it is only superior against the opponents sharing some specific attributes.
"Secondly, if you are talking about technical attributes alone, then the most valid and reliable analysis is one where opponents do share specific attributes. The best environment for the analysis of any variable is one where all other variables are equal."
This is not true, when the phenomenon we are trying to analyse is strongly and inextricably linked with the environmental and innate attributes, like the skill is. It is build on physique (on these innate attributes), so we cannot leave physique out of the picture and compare skill manifested from meaningfully different physique (e.g., in low and high weight classes), as the skill manifesting from different innate attributes results in different kind of environmental attributes.
"When you remove the weight classes, you're moving away from a reliable analysis of technique, not towards it."
Like stated above, comparing skill in weight classes far apart is like comparing a skill of a tennis player to a badminton player. (Obviously this example exaggerates the environmental differences, but should make somewhat clear that different attributes and components skills are valued somewhat differently depending on which game is in case.)
To unify the play field, we actually did remove several innate attributes from the picture in the fantasy match-up (height and reach) by selecting Floyd and Mike. And it was to speculate of how well Floyd's badminton translates into this new field (that is neither badminton or tennis) against Tyson's tennis.
All things considered, A Prime Tyson easily dismantles any version of Floyd.
So, which fighter you think posses better technique and why? Do you think light weight guys have punching power to knock out heavy weights?
My point is that you're looking at two distinct sets of technical skills and are treating them like they're one and the same.
Well that is where the whole argument started, and it had two sides. What you present there is the other side - presented in the first post - and the other (also presented in the first post): e.g., in "skill is inextricably linked to physical attributes, different type of physic enables skill to manifest in different forms." and "while other thinks that Floyd could not compete with Iron Mike, as he does not posses a superior technique for the reasons stated above."
I think skill is a term we use for doing certain things well but it doesn't really mean anything concrete.
Froch tears through supposedly more skilled fighters all the time rendering the term empty.
Maybe, or maybe skill is conceptualized or perceived in incorrect fashion, e.g., maybe "proper" (general) technique has been given more value than in-context effective approaches, or something like that.