both were close fights that could ve gone either way.... The difference of these 2 fights is how the fighters reacted after the fight... Pac stayed very humble and respectful.. Khan turned in to one of the biggest crybabies mankind has produced..
Th Khan-Peterson fight was very very close. Can't say the same about the Pac fight, who clearly won 8-4 or maybe even 9-3. Tim was fighting similar to Khan, back peddling too much, and spinning around, very sloppy performance.
The two shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. Khan-Peterson was a close fight that could have gone either - the final scores were very fair and reasonable. The same can't be said for Pac-Bradley, unfortunately. That decision was inexcusable.
The right answer is Khan-Peterson, and here's why: Although Pac-Bradley was a significantly wider win for the man who got robbed, the result of Khan-Peterson remains a loss for Amir despite Peterson's camp admitting their man was on PED's going into the fight. Such an admission should cause the fight result to be changed to being a Khan victory (questionable hometown reffing aside), or at worst, a no contest. You shouldn't be able to admit you broke the rules with no consequence in the outcome. It's the same reason Mosley-De la Hoya II is still one of the biggest robberies in history to me.
Actually i think they recently had a hearing about this that Lamont Peterson refused to show up to, the decision might yet be changed
Robbery? What the hell is this discussion about. Peterson was CHEATING for the Khan fight. The fight should be a NC