Yes, and Phillip had some less than successful campaigns against Richard and was once saved only by the pope imposing a truce (after he narrowly escaped being captured/killed and lost his personal bagages to the English).
That's why I wrote 'defining' battles. These are the first battles that come to mind (to me at least) when thinking of Philip and John military campaigns.
Bouvines is indeed the pinnacle of Philip's military carrier and, AFAIK, his last one. It was indeed a crucial battle (however less than accredited by French historiography/propaganda) as a crushing defeat will set back most of Philip's achievements, but I do not believed that this will mean the end of the Kingdom of France. Still, the history will be massively changed (the immediate consequences were: Magna Carta, Otto's downfall and Frederick success, Flandres back in line, Anjou and Normandy kept, France on the railroad to centralization, a tremendous increase in national conscience among the people of France, etc., etc. Without all these, the history will be very different).
Now, Philip indeed was a tremendously spoiled boy and do not had the physical and mental constitution for being a great warrior. However, he learned from his errors and little by little he overcome his lacks. Philip was truly a gifted person, a genius. Think that he was almost illiterate in Latin (and other languages) but his amassing talent of diplomacy help him to do the unthinkable. And at very young age. He became King at 14 and immediately he faced massive challenges. He succeeded to turn off the massive coalition against him by playing the opposing members one against each-other. At the funking age of 14!
Richard was also a very gifted person and the only one who could succeed against Philip. Because he was so brilliant (on the battlefield because little care about his poetry in Occitain), carried a huge amount of prestige by Crusading and was also very diplomat: he was the one who had build the anti-French alliance in the first hand, alliance destroyed by John in the beginning and resurrected later (well, the credit of Reginald de Boulogne). Richard reverted Philip's gains and even make some on his turn before kicking the bucket.
Without Richard in the scene... Johns is screwed. I might have being to harsh by calling him "not particularly intelligent" (which by the way do not mean that he was stupid), however, tell me 3 actions in which he acted brilliantly. I will give you one, even if it is disputed (in the eyes of his vassals was seen as atrocious): he called peace with Innocent III and submit to him as vassal, paying tribute. His barons saw in this act a surrender of universality (which indeed it was, as the Papal Legate become the man of decision in England) and an humiliation (which also indeed it was).
There is a huge movement of revisionism in today history (I do not refer to 20 century revisionism) which I do not agree at all. The modern historians love to "demolish myths" saying that that King was not so good because this and that, while the other one was not so bad, even he was quite good (even if the contemporary believe otherwise). Richard main critics are that he do not give attention to England, while spending all in Crusade and war on France, judging with hindsight and applying modern standards. But England was only one of his titles and it was the safest, while all other were under the siege and in great threat. He was also Duke of Aquitaine and Normandy and count of Anjou, and so on. The 12-13th century English strategic interests were across the Channel, in Aquitaine and Brittany and Anjou and Normandy and Flanders. Not going in Crussade was unacceptable for a king of his taille and the prestige he bring back for England and for his dynasty was huge. If he do not go in Holy Land and Philip will not go either (fearing of him), than maybe Saladin will overrun the entire Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Europeans will loose the contacts with Levant far earlier, not being in contact with the Mongols. Maybe this will means a very different Renaissance, a very different age of exploration... maybe a very different Europe in which England will never run the waves and we will speak now on this thread God know in which language! We can never know!
In this scenario, I believe that John will lose all his continental lands, once Alienor will die and Philip will move sky and earth to keep the duchy for his family and close to the crown. He will be younger and with a far better position. By 1200, both Normandy and Anjou could have being already lost and Aquitaine was on the plate. maybe he will play with Arthur for challenging John but I am pretty much certain that he will drop him in order to make a deal with John. He will not want to replace an ogre with another (allowing Arthur to keep Brittany, the Plantagenet French lands and to win the English crown too). Maybe, he will become Arthur the first but he will have by this date only Brittany on the continent.
Or, maybe John will suddenly become a great king, will defeat Philip in battle and on diplomacy field, will keep his vassals happy and will add Flanders and Toulouse under the Plantagenet umbrella. Maybe one of his sons will become Holy Roman Emperor and France will be crushed and England border will be on Meuse and Rhone... His grandson, King John from the House of Plantagenet will be, by the Grace of God, King John I of France, the II of England, Suzerain (or maybe King too) of Scotland, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Aquitaine, Normandy and Brittany, count of Anjou, Toulouse and Champagne...
))
