Let's try that again, slowly and carefully:
it's not about the goal, it's about the methods and implementation to achieve said goal.
If you have to "practice and memorize" because during the first attempt you are forced to fail no matter how good your previous skills were, simply because you're being set up — then there's no actual "skill" in it, no involvement of understanding of underlying mechanics or player decision-making, just a mechanical memorization of a pre-set pattern.
If you argue on a "false equivalence", let me make a more specified one:
being a stuntman on the movie set, where you haven't been shown the script and don't know what exact stunts you're supposed to perform, only being able to decipher it by trial-and-error. It has been initially formulated as
You must be registered to see the links
, but is also applicable to the most of classic NES game designs, either fully or partially.
Or, as another example, the good ol' "Souls vs Sekiro difficulty" argument. Classical Souls games are known for being "hard", however they actually become very easy if one plays by meta instead of going blind. Meaning, you may struggle to find an approach to a seemingly-difficult Souls boss by trial-and-error, or you may open a game wiki page, read about its moveset and counter-tactics, then beat said boss on a first try. On the contrary, most Sekiro bosses are able to regularly throw 50/50s which require difficult contextual counters on-the-fly, so even if you know boss' moveset on a meta level, you still are forced to git gud at the game's core combat mechanics to beat it. That follows, the former is a "perceived meta difficulty" while the latter is a "skill-based difficulty".