Can you name a Cherry Picker?

[CGM]

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?

[ono]

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.

[CGM]

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.

[Bomp]

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.

[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.

[Fenster]

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.