It seems more basic than "cultural translation", which suggests changing the literal meaning to match cultural norms. It's stylistic. I obviously can't speak to

It seems more basic than "cultural translation", which suggests changing the literal meaning to match cultural norms. It's stylistic. I obviously can't speak to the accuracy of this relative to the original, but I would suggest "fight well" rather than "be good at fighting". I guess technically that could change the meaning, since "be good at fighting" only implies abstract skill whereas "fight well" implies applied skill. If someone with access to the original confirmed that no, really, the original only implied abstract skill and so this was a very careful translation which favored literal accuracy over very deeply ingrained stylistic requirements, that would be one thing; but I must confess I'm very skeptical that this is the case. What would need to be the case for this to be a "good" translation would be that there is a free choice of terminology in the original dialect to distinguish these two cases, and the "abstract skill" case was used. Otherwise, it was the translator's choice to use the stylistically lacking translation, and that could be bias.