Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Floyd Mayweather after moving to 140 biggest cherry picker going.
Sven Ottke
Now i have seen Jermaine Taylor and Ricky Hatton as cherry pickers?? are you for fucking real???
Taylor has fought Hopkins twice Winky Wright and Kelly Pavlik twice and the second time after getting ktfo!!!
Hatton?? Yes his early carrer was a bit patchy but blame good old Franky boy. Since he became champ by "cherry picking" p4p number 3 Kosta and taking a big pay cut he has fought only the best, Mayweather p4p the best and probably best of the past 20 years in the usa. Mallinaggi and Castillo both number 1 contenders to his 140 crown and now the p4p number 1, yes sure looks like Hatton has decided to stay home and fight bums for the rest of his career. :rolleyes:
It depends how you define cherry picker. Guys like Ottke/Erdei and Joe pre Lacy could have had better names on their resumes, and would fit the criteria of your last sentence, however they didn't get any credit for doing that and rightly so.
Cherry picking is when a fighter has influence on who they fight due to their high standing with fans/writers/broadcasters yet choose a path of lesser resistance. PBF after going to 140 fits that bill, and perhaps ODLH of the last 5 years. However ODLH in his prime is also a good example of someon who isn't a cherry picker, it's taking the tough fights (against somewhat unknown quantities to the mainstream) such as quartey when you really didn't have to.
IMO Hatton can be accused of some cherry picking, Castillo was never no.1 for the undisputed 140 crown, and Paulie's claim to fame is taking a beating from a weight drained Cotto. Yet these are the two fights that 'earned' him shots at the so called p4p champs. Cherry picking is avoiding the high risk/low reward fights, Ricky didn't have much to lose against Floyd and everything to gain (which also applies to Pac now) since it can be claimed he only lost to the very best.
So a fighter can have Tszyu, Mayweather and Pac on his resume and still be accused of cherry picking? Just because he didn't have much to lose? The exact opposite of that would be to fight fighters who are well beneath your level (giving you everything to lose) - so would this exact opposite make you the opposite of a cherry picker? It makes no sense.
Since he beat Tszyu which high risk low reward fight would you have liked to have seen him be in? Junior Witter? That's the only one i can think of.
There isn't anybody out there much different to Malignaggi, Urango, Castillo, Maussa, Lazcano. You can throw other names at me like Torres, Bradley, etc.. but we all know they are all of a very similar standard.
So what would you're reaction be if he fought them guys and kept away from Mayweather and Pac? He's ducking the best?
Collazo's also a strange fight to take if you are cherry picking...especially at 147.
I'm struggling to see who he could have fought without been accused of ducking or cherry picking. Those guys i've metioned are the very best at 140 - sad but true. Most would agree that he would wipe the floor with the ones he hasn't already fought. So that only leaves Pac really....which by your calculation makes him a cherry picker because he has nothing to lose by fighting the p4p number 1. I'm astonished.
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
It depends how you define cherry picker. Guys like Ottke/Erdei and Joe pre Lacy could have had better names on their resumes, and would fit the criteria of your last sentence, however they didn't get any credit for doing that and rightly so.
Cherry picking is when a fighter has influence on who they fight due to their high standing with fans/writers/broadcasters yet choose a path of lesser resistance. PBF after going to 140 fits that bill, and perhaps ODLH of the last 5 years. However ODLH in his prime is also a good example of someon who isn't a cherry picker, it's taking the tough fights (against somewhat unknown quantities to the mainstream) such as quartey when you really didn't have to.
IMO Hatton can be accused of some cherry picking, Castillo was never no.1 for the undisputed 140 crown, and Paulie's claim to fame is taking a beating from a weight drained Cotto. Yet these are the two fights that 'earned' him shots at the so called p4p champs. Cherry picking is avoiding the high risk/low reward fights, Ricky didn't have much to lose against Floyd and everything to gain (which also applies to Pac now) since it can be claimed he only lost to the very best.
So a fighter can have Tszyu, Mayweather and Pac on his resume and still be accused of cherry picking? Just because he didn't have much to lose? The exact opposite of that would be to fight fighters who are well beneath your level (giving you everything to lose) - so would this exact opposite make you the opposite of a cherry picker? It makes no sense.
Since he beat Tszyu which high risk low reward fight would you have liked to have seen him be in? Junior Witter? That's the only one i can think of.
There isn't anybody out there much different to Malignaggi, Urango, Castillo, Maussa, Lazcano. You can throw other names at me like Torres, Bradley, etc.. but we all know they are all of a very similar standard.
So what would you're reaction be if he fought them guys and kept away from Mayweather and Pac? He's ducking the best?
Collazo's also a strange fight to take if you are cherry picking...especially at 147.
I'm struggling to see who he could have fought without been accused of ducking or cherry picking. Those guys i've metioned are the very best at 140 - sad but true. Most would agree that he would wipe the floor with the ones he hasn't already fought. So that only leaves Pac really....which by your calculation makes him a cherry picker because he has nothing to lose by fighting the p4p number 1. I'm astonished.
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
But if he fought a few more welters before Floyd he would have a) risked ever getting a shot at the top man and b) risked missing out on a £20m payday
Surely you have to capitilise on your chances when they come?
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
It depends how you define cherry picker. Guys like Ottke/Erdei and Joe pre Lacy could have had better names on their resumes, and would fit the criteria of your last sentence, however they didn't get any credit for doing that and rightly so.
Cherry picking is when a fighter has influence on who they fight due to their high standing with fans/writers/broadcasters yet choose a path of lesser resistance. PBF after going to 140 fits that bill, and perhaps ODLH of the last 5 years. However ODLH in his prime is also a good example of someon who isn't a cherry picker, it's taking the tough fights (against somewhat unknown quantities to the mainstream) such as quartey when you really didn't have to.
IMO Hatton can be accused of some cherry picking, Castillo was never no.1 for the undisputed 140 crown, and Paulie's claim to fame is taking a beating from a weight drained Cotto. Yet these are the two fights that 'earned' him shots at the so called p4p champs. Cherry picking is avoiding the high risk/low reward fights, Ricky didn't have much to lose against Floyd and everything to gain (which also applies to Pac now) since it can be claimed he only lost to the very best.
So a fighter can have Tszyu, Mayweather and Pac on his resume and still be accused of cherry picking? Just because he didn't have much to lose? The exact opposite of that would be to fight fighters who are well beneath your level (giving you everything to lose) - so would this exact opposite make you the opposite of a cherry picker? It makes no sense.
Since he beat Tszyu which high risk low reward fight would you have liked to have seen him be in? Junior Witter? That's the only one i can think of.
There isn't anybody out there much different to Malignaggi, Urango, Castillo, Maussa, Lazcano. You can throw other names at me like Torres, Bradley, etc.. but we all know they are all of a very similar standard.
So what would you're reaction be if he fought them guys and kept away from Mayweather and Pac? He's ducking the best?
Collazo's also a strange fight to take if you are cherry picking...especially at 147.
I'm struggling to see who he could have fought without been accused of ducking or cherry picking. Those guys i've metioned are the very best at 140 - sad but true. Most would agree that he would wipe the floor with the ones he hasn't already fought. So that only leaves Pac really....which by your calculation makes him a cherry picker because he has nothing to lose by fighting the p4p number 1. I'm astonished.
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
I see what you are trying to say but...
I think he earned his shot at Floyd quite fairly. He was the undisputed number 1 at 140. Ok it might not matter at 147 but then you remember how Mayweather won the title at 147. The fight was at welter to convenience Mayweather and imo this fight should have happened maybe 18 months before - at 140.
It would have been career suicide for him to fight one of the bigger guys at welter, because Hatton is no where near big enough.
And if Castillo was really a lightweight, why couldn't he make weight anymore?
I'd say if he wanted to Cherry pick he could fight all the weak champions, back in England. He sold out Coms fighting Lazcano so he could still make mulit-millions fighting bums in the UK.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
So a fighter can have Tszyu, Mayweather and Pac on his resume and still be accused of cherry picking? Just because he didn't have much to lose? The exact opposite of that would be to fight fighters who are well beneath your level (giving you everything to lose) - so would this exact opposite make you the opposite of a cherry picker? It makes no sense.
Since he beat Tszyu which high risk low reward fight would you have liked to have seen him be in? Junior Witter? That's the only one i can think of.
There isn't anybody out there much different to Malignaggi, Urango, Castillo, Maussa, Lazcano. You can throw other names at me like Torres, Bradley, etc.. but we all know they are all of a very similar standard.
So what would you're reaction be if he fought them guys and kept away from Mayweather and Pac? He's ducking the best?
Collazo's also a strange fight to take if you are cherry picking...especially at 147.
I'm struggling to see who he could have fought without been accused of ducking or cherry picking. Those guys i've metioned are the very best at 140 - sad but true. Most would agree that he would wipe the floor with the ones he hasn't already fought. So that only leaves Pac really....which by your calculation makes him a cherry picker because he has nothing to lose by fighting the p4p number 1. I'm astonished.
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
But if he fought a few more welters before Floyd he would have a) risked ever getting a shot at the top man and b) risked missing out on a £20m payday
Surely you have to capitilise on your chances when they come?
He would have missed out on Mayweather given that he retired after the fight. Well he would never have got to him in the first place if he'd have fought Cotto, Margarito etc...far too big for him.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
So a fighter can have Tszyu, Mayweather and Pac on his resume and still be accused of cherry picking? Just because he didn't have much to lose? The exact opposite of that would be to fight fighters who are well beneath your level (giving you everything to lose) - so would this exact opposite make you the opposite of a cherry picker? It makes no sense.
Since he beat Tszyu which high risk low reward fight would you have liked to have seen him be in? Junior Witter? That's the only one i can think of.
There isn't anybody out there much different to Malignaggi, Urango, Castillo, Maussa, Lazcano. You can throw other names at me like Torres, Bradley, etc.. but we all know they are all of a very similar standard.
So what would you're reaction be if he fought them guys and kept away from Mayweather and Pac? He's ducking the best?
Collazo's also a strange fight to take if you are cherry picking...especially at 147.
I'm struggling to see who he could have fought without been accused of ducking or cherry picking. Those guys i've metioned are the very best at 140 - sad but true. Most would agree that he would wipe the floor with the ones he hasn't already fought. So that only leaves Pac really....which by your calculation makes him a cherry picker because he has nothing to lose by fighting the p4p number 1. I'm astonished.
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
But if he fought a few more welters before Floyd he would have a)
risked ever getting a shot at the top man and b)
risked missing out on a £20m payday
Surely you have to capitilise on your chances when they come?
In your own words he took the road of least risk. Im not saying he didn't do a wise thing, and probably the majority of fighters would do the same in his position depending if money or securing genuine legacy is your main motivation. For example I wouldn't call Cotto's list of opponents at Welter cherry picking.
Hatton repeatedly claims that his main goal is to become the best p4p fighter in the world, yet he wants to do it against the fighters over whom he has a natural physical advantage over, rather than facin others on the list just one division north.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
But if he fought a few more welters before Floyd he would have a)
risked ever getting a shot at the top man and b)
risked missing out on a £20m payday
Surely you have to capitilise on your chances when they come?
In your own words he took the road of least risk. Im not saying he didn't do a wise thing, and probably the majority of fighters would do the same in his position depending if money or securing genuine legacy is your main motivation. For example I wouldn't call Cotto's list of opponents at Welter cherry picking.
Hatton repeatedly claims that his main goal is to become the best p4p fighter in the world, yet he wants to do it against the fighters over whom he has a natural physical advantage over, rather than facin others on the list just one division north.
Hmm.. don't know about this Bomp.
Money is every fighters no.1 motivation, no?. And that comes with making the biggest fights avialable to you.
Going by what you're saying Pac is a cherry picker too. He dodged everyone at 135, 140 and 147 to get to Oscar.
Maywether must be a cherry picker as well. He dodged Tsyzu, Hatton and Cotto at 140 to fight Baldomir and Judah at 147.
Hatton doesn't understand how P4P works. He was the underdog against Tszyu (P4P3), Floyd (P4P1) and now Pac (P4P1)... so he can probably be forgiven for thinking he deserves the top spot.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
So a fighter can have Tszyu, Mayweather and Pac on his resume and still be accused of cherry picking? Just because he didn't have much to lose? The exact opposite of that would be to fight fighters who are well beneath your level (giving you everything to lose) - so would this exact opposite make you the opposite of a cherry picker? It makes no sense.
Since he beat Tszyu which high risk low reward fight would you have liked to have seen him be in? Junior Witter? That's the only one i can think of.
There isn't anybody out there much different to Malignaggi, Urango, Castillo, Maussa, Lazcano. You can throw other names at me like Torres, Bradley, etc.. but we all know they are all of a very similar standard.
So what would you're reaction be if he fought them guys and kept away from Mayweather and Pac? He's ducking the best?
Collazo's also a strange fight to take if you are cherry picking...especially at 147.
I'm struggling to see who he could have fought without been accused of ducking or cherry picking. Those guys i've metioned are the very best at 140 - sad but true. Most would agree that he would wipe the floor with the ones he hasn't already fought. So that only leaves Pac really....which by your calculation makes him a cherry picker because he has nothing to lose by fighting the p4p number 1. I'm astonished.
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
I see what you are trying to say but...
I think he earned his shot at Floyd quite fairly. He was the undisputed number 1 at 140. Ok it might not matter at 147 but then you remember how Mayweather won the title at 147. The fight was at welter to convenience Mayweather and imo this fight should have happened maybe 18 months before - at 140.
It would have been career suicide for him to fight one of the bigger guys at welter, because Hatton is no where near big enough.
And if Castillo was really a lightweight, why couldn't he make weight anymore?
I'd say if he wanted to Cherry pick he could fight all the weak champions, back in England. He sold out Coms fighting Lazcano so he could still make mulit-millions fighting bums in the UK.
I can accept that maybe something like that motivated Hatton. But if it's career suicide to fight a guy like Cotto, then how is it that he thinks he has a chance against Floyd, who was the top dog in the division? And how is it that he has earned a shot against Floyd when he can't compete against the top guys? It don't make a lot of sense.
But hey, after all it's all about the dough that Ricky can bring to the table, right?
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
You make fair arguments, Hatton is by no means the worst cherry picker, I was using him to illustrate what I thought the term 'cherry picker' meant in contrast to the ambitionless stay at home guys. The term cherry picking is picking the very best juicy high reward fights (which the likes of Erdei/Ottke never reach) while taking the path of least resistence to do it.
It's how he earned the Floyd fight which makes me believe that Ricky can be accused of cherry picking to some degree. He challenged for the Welter crown after defeating a Lightweight at Light Welter, rather than consolidating his win against another welter - I would say that qualifies as taking the path of least resistence, lesser than at least half a dozen options that were at welter at the time.
I see what you are trying to say but...
I think he earned his shot at Floyd quite fairly. He was the undisputed number 1 at 140. Ok it might not matter at 147 but then you remember how Mayweather won the title at 147. The fight was at welter to convenience Mayweather and imo this fight should have happened maybe 18 months before - at 140.
It would have been career suicide for him to fight one of the bigger guys at welter, because Hatton is no where near big enough.
And if Castillo was really a lightweight, why couldn't he make weight anymore?
I'd say if he wanted to Cherry pick he could fight all the weak champions, back in England. He sold out Coms fighting Lazcano so he could still make mulit-millions fighting bums in the UK.
I can accept that maybe something like that motivated Hatton. But if it's career suicide to fight a guy like Cotto, then how is it that he thinks he has a chance against Floyd, who was the top dog in the division? And how is it that he has earned a shot against Floyd when he can't compete against the top guys? It don't make a lot of sense.
But hey, after all it's all about the dough that Ricky can bring to the table, right?
What did Mayweather do to deserve 'top dog' status? Beat Baldomir? Jesus.
Cotto would have been due to his sheer size and strength advantage....same with Margarito - not to mention his concrete gloves.
Hatton didn't want Mayweather because he was top dog at 147. He wanted him because he wanted Mayweather...regardless of the weight.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
I see what you are trying to say but...
I think he earned his shot at Floyd quite fairly. He was the undisputed number 1 at 140. Ok it might not matter at 147 but then you remember how Mayweather won the title at 147. The fight was at welter to convenience Mayweather and imo this fight should have happened maybe 18 months before - at 140.
It would have been career suicide for him to fight one of the bigger guys at welter, because Hatton is no where near big enough.
And if Castillo was really a lightweight, why couldn't he make weight anymore?
I'd say if he wanted to Cherry pick he could fight all the weak champions, back in England. He sold out Coms fighting Lazcano so he could still make mulit-millions fighting bums in the UK.
I can accept that maybe something like that motivated Hatton. But if it's career suicide to fight a guy like Cotto, then how is it that he thinks he has a chance against Floyd, who was the top dog in the division? And how is it that he has earned a shot against Floyd when he can't compete against the top guys? It don't make a lot of sense.
But hey, after all it's all about the dough that Ricky can bring to the table, right?
What did Mayweather do to deserve 'top dog' status? Beat Baldomir? Jesus.
Cotto would have been due to his sheer size and strength advantage....same with Margarito - not to mention his concrete gloves.
Hatton didn't want Mayweather because he was top dog at 147. He wanted him because he wanted Mayweather...regardless of the weight.
It's a valid question. Maybe ask the boxing bible Ring Mgazine why they rated Mayweather #1. And if Mayweather is number 1 and Hatton can't compete with the "big guys", then there are others far more deserving of a shot than Hatton, just like they were more deserving than Baldomir. But anyways, you say Hatton can't compete at welterweight, so we'll leave it at that.
As for your last comment, no problem here. I guess Mayweather certainly proved who was the better man between the two of them, even if the weight had nothing to do with the reason for the fight.
You know, I can't even remember if you thought Mayweather cherry picked Hatton at 147, I guess he did if he refused to fight a "real welterweight". I don't suppose it matters a lot. Most of this cherry picking business is a load of BS anyways. We all know it's about the money. I don't think Hatton has any claim to the moral high road here, any more than most other guys.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
But if he fought a few more welters before Floyd he would have a) risked ever getting a shot at the top man and b) risked missing out on a £20m payday
Surely you have to capitilise on your chances when they come?
In your own words he took the road of least risk. Im not saying he didn't do a wise thing, and probably the majority of fighters would do the same in his position depending if money or securing genuine legacy is your main motivation. For example I wouldn't call Cotto's list of opponents at Welter cherry picking.
Hatton repeatedly claims that his main goal is to become the best p4p fighter in the world, yet he wants to do it against the fighters over whom he has a natural physical advantage over, rather than facin others on the list just one division north.
Hmm.. don't know about this Bomp.
Money is every fighters no.1 motivation, no?. And that comes with making the biggest fights avialable to you.
Going by what you're saying Pac is a cherry picker too. He dodged everyone at 135, 140 and 147 to get to Oscar.
Maywether must be a cherry picker as well. He dodged Tsyzu, Hatton and Cotto at 140 to fight Baldomir and Judah at 147.
Hatton doesn't understand how P4P works. He was the underdog against Tszyu (P4P3), Floyd (P4P1) and now Pac (P4P1)... so he can probably be forgiven for thinking he deserves the top spot.
I agree, and I did mention it in my original post that Floyd above 140 is a cherry picker (by what I perceive the term to mean). I would say that Diaz for Pac was certainly a cherry pick. Depends how derogatory a term you make it to be, if a guy just does it the once for perhaps one gimme or to test the waters at a higher weight, or if a guy bases a career out of it.
The intention of my original post was to get some clarification of what people mean when they use the term. For me I see a difference between what guys like Erdei are doing (staying at home fighting nobodies), and what guys at the top of the sport are doing (i.e. guys in dominant negotiating positions). I'm NOT claiming that what the likes of Erdei/Ottke are/were doing are better, of course not, just discussing semantics, perhaps someone can sugget a different term for what Erdei is doing.
I picked on Hatton because I admit I don't like him. I've gone from being a big fan (pre Kostya up to about Collazo), to finding him irritating and repetitive, to now finding him a douche who lies and misleads his fans with his pa Ray 'del boy' Hatton (the going to Vegas because it's cheaper for the fans bollocks).
'Money is every fighters no.1 motivation, no?' - perhaps it is, along with satisfying some part of the ego by striving to be the best. Obviously being able to claim that he is p4p no.1 is a big motivation for Ricky, but while he's PICKING an opponent suitable for him specifically (i.e. a man who he has a significant phyical advantage over) to achieve a round about claim on that title, then yes I would call that a cherry pick. He's repeatedly claimed 'what kind of a fighter would I be if I wouldn't take on the biggest challenges' when referring to Pac, yet while Pac may have p4p no.1 next to his name I don't think many on here would claim that Pac is a bigger challenge for Ricky than say Cotto/Mosley, guys who are much closer to him in size.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
I can accept that maybe something like that motivated Hatton. But if it's career suicide to fight a guy like Cotto, then how is it that he thinks he has a chance against Floyd, who was the top dog in the division? And how is it that he has earned a shot against Floyd when he can't compete against the top guys? It don't make a lot of sense.
But hey, after all it's all about the dough that Ricky can bring to the table, right?
What did Mayweather do to deserve 'top dog' status? Beat Baldomir? Jesus.
Cotto would have been due to his sheer size and strength advantage....same with Margarito - not to mention his concrete gloves.
Hatton didn't want Mayweather because he was top dog at 147. He wanted him because he wanted Mayweather...regardless of the weight.
It's a valid question. Maybe ask the boxing bible Ring Mgazine why they rated Mayweather #1. And if Mayweather is number 1 and Hatton can't compete with the "big guys", then there are others far more deserving of a shot than Hatton, just like they were more deserving than Baldomir. But anyways, you say Hatton can't compete at welterweight, so we'll leave it at that.
As for your last comment, no problem here. I guess Mayweather certainly proved who was the better man between the two of them, even if the weight had nothing to do with the reason for the fight.
You know, I can't even remember if you thought Mayweather cherry picked Hatton at 147, I guess he did if he refused to fight a "real welterweight". I don't suppose it matters a lot. Most of this cherry picking business is a load of BS anyways.
We all know it's about the money. I don't think Hatton has any claim to the moral high road here, any more than most other guys.
Bingo. But if we admit this then all the debating of it would become obsolete. Different fighters have very different negotiating positions, so it' rather unfair to compare the choice of opponents. There was a thread about a month ago debating who are the taking on anyone/anywhere guys, where guys like Winky/Williams/Mosley/Glen Johnson were looked upon favourably.
If we compare these guys' situations with the guys 'accused' in this thread (Hatton/Floyd/Pac/Joe) then probably the main difference between the two groups would be negotiating positions. The first group have low negotiating positions due to lack of fan recognition (Winky/Williams) or some defeats (Mosley/Glen) hence they HAVE to be willing to take on all comers to prove themselves, while the second group have the luxury to do otherwise.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
maybe I'm a little too cycnical with my money comments. It's a worthwhile debate topic. Sure these guys like to prove themselves, most of them anyway. Just that some fighters seem to get singled out out as cherry pickers, when in fact many others are also guilty to a certain degree, to maximize there shot at a big money bout. Human nature I guess.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bomp
In your own words he took the road of least risk. Im not saying he didn't do a wise thing, and probably the majority of fighters would do the same in his position depending if money or securing genuine legacy is your main motivation. For example I wouldn't call Cotto's list of opponents at Welter cherry picking.
Hatton repeatedly claims that his main goal is to become the best p4p fighter in the world, yet he wants to do it against the fighters over whom he has a natural physical advantage over, rather than facin others on the list just one division north.
Hmm.. don't know about this Bomp.
Money is every fighters no.1 motivation, no?. And that comes with making the biggest fights avialable to you.
Going by what you're saying Pac is a cherry picker too. He dodged everyone at 135, 140 and 147 to get to Oscar.
Maywether must be a cherry picker as well. He dodged Tsyzu, Hatton and Cotto at 140 to fight Baldomir and Judah at 147.
Hatton doesn't understand how P4P works. He was the underdog against Tszyu (P4P3), Floyd (P4P1) and now Pac (P4P1)... so he can probably be forgiven for thinking he deserves the top spot.
I agree, and I did mention it in my original post that Floyd above 140 is a cherry picker (by what I perceive the term to mean). I would say that Diaz for Pac was certainly a cherry pick. Depends how derogatory a term you make it to be, if a guy just does it the once for perhaps one gimme or to test the waters at a higher weight, or if a guy bases a career out of it.
The intention of my original post was to get some clarification of what people mean when they use the term. For me I see a difference between what guys like Erdei are doing (staying at home fighting nobodies), and what guys at the top of the sport are doing (i.e. guys in dominant negotiating positions). I'm NOT claiming that what the likes of Erdei/Ottke are/were doing are better, of course not, just discussing semantics, perhaps someone can sugget a different term for what Erdei is doing.
I picked on Hatton because I admit I don't like him. I've gone from being a big fan (pre Kostya up to about Collazo), to finding him irritating and repetitive, to now finding him a douche who lies and misleads his fans with his pa Ray 'del boy' Hatton (the going to Vegas because it's cheaper for the fans bollocks).
'Money is every fighters no.1 motivation, no?' - perhaps it is, along with satisfying some part of the ego by striving to be the best. Obviously being able to claim that he is p4p no.1 is a big motivation for Ricky, but while he's PICKING an opponent suitable for him specifically (i.e. a man who he has a significant phyical advantage over) to achieve a round about claim on that title, then yes I would call that a cherry pick. He's repeatedly claimed 'what kind of a fighter would I be if I wouldn't take on the biggest challenges' when referring to Pac, yet while Pac may have p4p no.1 next to his name I don't think many on here would claim that Pac is a bigger challenge for Ricky than say Cotto/Mosley, guys who are much closer to him in size.
I see what you're saying. If Mosley/Margarito were P4P no.1 would Hatton want the fight? Unless the money was HUGE I guess not. He certainly wouldn't be advised to take those fights.
But it's all about situations (as you've said above ;)).
The Pac fight is a natural great match-up. I think you're being a little harsh considering Pac is favourite to beat him. I agree Hatton became very jarring. But the only real fighter he shamelessly ducked is Witter.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
I'd quote you again Fenster but I believe this page is in danger of becoming the longest in history. ;D
You're right, at the end of the day Pac Hatton is a very good match up and should be right good tear up, so can't complain about that. He's still a manipulative misleading tit though ;D.
Re: Can you name a Cherry Picker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
maybe I'm a little too cycnical with my money comments. It's a worthwhile debate topic. Sure these guys like to prove themselves, most of them anyway. Just that some fighters seem to get singled out out as cherry pickers, when in fact many others are also guilty to a certain degree, to maximize there shot at a big money bout. Human nature I guess.
I don't think you're being too cynical.
Bomp's post above sums it up nicely. It's about situations. Everyone is looking for their best money option. Glen Johnson wouldn't be traveling to other fighters backyards if he could sell tickets at home. He can't. So goes where the money is. A fighter like Sven Ottke could sell 20,000 tickets and have millions watching in Germany everytime he fought. So why should he leave?
Boxing is all about money. The risk/reward factor comes into every match made. Great fighters only match-up when the money is right. Sometimes great fighters take more dangerous matches when they lose their position at the top.
