Again, you are 100% right. But you will not change Nallege's mind that Oscar was one of history's most culpable cherrypickers with mere logic and evidence. No chance. Wait and see....
I think his definition of a cherry picker is a fighter who literally chooses his opponents, whether they are the best in the division or not. If that's the case, he wouldn't be wrong.
No, that is not a cherry picker. Great champions like Dlh, Pac, Floyd and Sugar proved themselves early...they didn't cherry pick until the end of their careers. Pac and Floyd are still fighting so I use that term l'oosely' in calling them that. There is no such thing as calling a great fighter a cherry picker IN THEIR PRIME, or through out their careers.
OK, we'll replace one name from my original statement: Mayweather v Pacquiao and Mayweather v Williams. Those would've been better fights than Baldomir and Hatton........ The point is the same. Floyd could've fought better comp at 140+ and didn't. Personally, I do think Mosley would be a very hard night for Floyd. I can understand why you don't, your post does make sense to me, but I think you are underestimating the effect that Shane's strength would have in a fight with PBF. If they ever get it on, that factor will surprise you.
Oscar De La Hoya "cherry picked" the best fighters of his era in their prime. It's actually a compliment.
Cherry picking isn't picking easy fights. You have to understand the mentality of a fighter to know this. Dlh thought he could beat Pac and Floyd. Everyone shitted on Dlh fo cherry picking Pac and Floyd, but he did not cherry pick since he fought two of the ebst fighters in the world in Pac and Floyd.