What is "skill" anyway?

[Joartcc3]

Skill is undeniable if you have fought the top fighters. In this case, an impeccable resume, like PAC has.

****** fake Floyd fans says he's skilled, when his resume speaks of the Baldo's.

True skill is measured by resume and manner of victory.

Nobody can argue against that.

[Mishra100]

floyd isnt really a good defensive technician, floyd just hasnt had an opponent that is great at cutting off a ring , I guarantee you put him in a ring with a cuy like cotto and mayweather is looking at the lights from his back

Why in the hell are you mentioning Floyd vs Cotto in a completely not related thread. This is getting out of hand.

[Mishra100]

As a previous poster said, I think most people relate skill to talent.

[Joartcc3]

As a previous poster said, I think most people relate skill to talent.

Skill and talent needs to be proven.

Everyone can do flashes of brilliance ala Bruce Lee.

Very few has the resume to show for it.

[LemonChiff]

Talent - uncreated ability

[Welter_Skelter]

A lot of times a fighter is lauded for having "skill," though it's not always clear this means anything at all. Another poster (Optimus Wolf) rightly pointed out in another thread that the word is often used on here as a substitute for speed and flash. In that case it's at the least a poor word choice, and more likely it also represents a terrible misunderstanding of some basic things about boxing. If, to use the example Wolf was discussing, Judah is more 'skilled' than Cotto, what could this possibly mean? Judah doesn't throw a better vareity of punches, doesn't throw them in a cleaner, more consistent fashion. Cotto beats him there. Judah doesn't set up his punches better, in fact as fast as his left is, he doesn't work it off his jab or right hook very well at all. What do people mean, then, if not simply he's FASTER?

For my part I think the word is at its best a vague abstraction that has little use in boxing discussions. At the very least you should specify what you mean by this (ways of setting punches up, timing them, throwing them at angles, defensive strategies [specific ones!]), which is rarely done.

NOTE: This thread is NOT about Cotto and Judah; that was just an example. If you disagree with what I said about the example please DO NOT make that the basis of your reply.

Any BODY can be skilled at anything through repetitive practice..

Skill is not the same as TALENTED.. OR natural Ability..

I think that is where most people get confused..

ALL Boxers are Skilled... Some are just more naturally talented than others..

[-EX-]

Skill is undeniable if you have fought the top fighters. In this case, an impeccable resume, like PAC has.

****** fake Floyd fans says he's skilled, when his resume speaks of the Baldo's.

True skill is measured by resume and manner of victory.

Nobody can argue against that.

Floyd's resume is 5 titles in 5 different weightclasses. Pacquiao doesn't have an unbelievable resume dumbass. Manner of victory isn't always important. You don't have to knock everyone out ****head.

[potatoes]

A lot of times a fighter is lauded for having "skill," though it's not always clear this means anything at all. Another poster (Optimus Wolf) rightly pointed out in another thread that the word is often used on here as a substitute for speed and flash. In that case it's at the least a poor word choice, and more likely it also represents a terrible misunderstanding of some basic things about boxing. If, to use the example Wolf was discussing, Judah is more 'skilled' than Cotto, what could this possibly mean? Judah doesn't throw a better vareity of punches, doesn't throw them in a cleaner, more consistent fashion. Cotto beats him there. Judah doesn't set up his punches better, in fact as fast as his left is, he doesn't work it off his jab or right hook very well at all. What do people mean, then, if not simply he's FASTER?

For my part I think the word is at its best a vague abstraction that has little use in boxing discussions. At the very least you should specify what you mean by this (ways of setting punches up, timing them, throwing them at angles, defensive strategies [specific ones!]), which is rarely done.

NOTE: This thread is NOT about Cotto and Judah; that was just an example. If you disagree with what I said about the example please DO NOT make that the basis of your reply.

Any armchair boxing analyst can get into a debate about semantics. If you want to compare the skills of Cotto and Judah, just look at the first round. Any normal person can see that if Judah just kept on reapeating his performance of the first round he would have won the fight. But as we all know Judah is unable to maintain his focus for 12 consecutive rounds.

[squealpiggy]

But as we all know Judah is unable to maintain his focus for 12 consecutive seconds

I fixed it

[Welter_Skelter]

Any armchair boxing analyst can get into a debate about semantics. If you want to compare the skills of Cotto and Judah, just look at the first round. Any normal person can see that if Judah just kept on reapeating his performance of the first round he would have won the fight. But as we all know Judah is unable to maintain his focus for 12 consecutive rounds.

How the **** did His question turn into Another SOUR-PUSS sore loser Going On about "Zab Judah is going to save BOxing.. Just you wait and see ...You know what I 'm saying??"