Amir Khan V Lamont peter=Robbery of the decade

Robbery of this decade was Pacquiao vs Marquez III, Or Erislandy Lara vs Paul Williams. only a fanatic mexican fans would call pac-marquez 3 a robbery. in the last viewing i have it for marquez, but it was really-really close fight could go either way.

For the record only Floyd fans say PAC-Marquez 3 was a robbery.. Only Floyd fans say PAC-Bradley 1 was not a robbery.. No surprise there It's all the stranger considering Mayweather vs Castillo was a genuine robbery. About the Khan vs Peterson fight, I do think Khan was treated unfairly, but that's often what happens when you fight in another fighter's country. A lot of people talk about how corrupt Germany is but forget about the robberies of Lara, Pacquiao, Campillo, Sturm, etc. in America (amongst the worst I've seen) and the foreign fighters who were victims of 'British stoppages' in Britain. Boxing is a dirty sport unfortunately.

I only watched the fight once, and I thought Khan clearly won the fight. I was very shocked by the decision. I'll have to rewatch it, but I doubt it was worse than Chisora- Helenius or Casamayor-Santa Cruz (sadly).

the fight that changed khan career but he is climbing again to the top

The fact that the result of this fight wasn't changed to a no contest can make it a robbery, whether people like Khan or not his opponent openly claimed he was on some drugs that his doctor gave him for his "Low testetorone or whatever"... That should qualify as a robbery in itself.

People need to stop saying that Bradley vs Pacquaio 1, Abril vs Rios and Marquez vs Pacquaio were bigger robberies. Yes, the were more lopsided with regards to the fight, but none of them tested positive for banned substances. How would have Peterson fared without the testosterone? That loss had a massive impact on Khan's career. Prior to the Lamont fight, there was a lot of talk brewing about him moving up to welterweight. Roach wanted him to have one more fight at the 140 pound weight division against Lamont before moving up. A small list from the top of my head regarding the controversy that happened during and after the fight: - Deducting Khan of two points but failing to warn and do the same to Peterson for coming in with his head low. - 'Hatman' sat next to the judges and peering at their scorecards and conversing with them about their scoring. - Inquest was to be held and 'Hatman' was to be questioned, was apparently a representative of the IBF. He was unable to be contacted or willing to defend himself from the accusations and declined to give evidence when asked by the WBA. - Lamont walked away with the IBF title, a title that he cheated to get. Even in his fight against Matthysse in which he lost, he still somehow managed to keep his titles by making the fight at 141 pounds. - Peterson admitted to the use of testosterone in their first fight, however, Washington DC commission who conducted the drug testing didn't report of him using the banned substance. - Despite Schaeffer writing to have the fight ruled a no contest, it was declined. Yet, Guerrero vs Salido was ruled a no contest. Khan should never have had that loss. One of many idiotic decision he's made, fighting in Washington DC was a massive one. Great points, agrees with everything you wrote here.

Kotelnyk vs Alexander was another terrible one not mentioned yet. Peterson Khan was not a robbery.

The terrible judging and refereeing aside, .peterson would have been DQed and banned for a minimum 2 years in pretty much every other sports in the world for doping.

Robbery yes, one of the worst in a very long time What makes it even more worse is the fact pettetson was on peds and Khan still battered him. Had that been Floyd or Pac in Khans position facing a drug cheat, you people would never let it go. The Patterson fight should not be counted as a win and he should have been banned for life

People need to stop saying that Bradley vs Pacquaio 1, Abril vs Rios and Marquez vs Pacquaio were bigger robberies. Yes, the were more lopsided with regards to the fight, but none of them tested positive for banned substances. How would have Peterson fared without the testosterone? That loss had a massive impact on Khan's career. Prior to the Lamont fight, there was a lot of talk brewing about him moving up to welterweight. Roach wanted him to have one more fight at the 140 pound weight division against Lamont before moving up. A small list from the top of my head regarding the controversy that happened during and after the fight: - Deducting Khan of two points but failing to warn and do the same to Peterson for coming in with his head low. - 'Hatman' sat next to the judges and peering at their scorecards and conversing with them about their scoring. - Inquest was to be held and 'Hatman' was to be questioned, was apparently a representative of the IBF. He was unable to be contacted or willing to defend himself from the accusations and declined to give evidence when asked by the WBA. - Lamont walked away with the IBF title, a title that he cheated to get. Even in his fight against Matthysse in which he lost, he still somehow managed to keep his titles by making the fight at 141 pounds. - Peterson admitted to the use of testosterone in their first fight, however, Washington DC commission who conducted the drug testing didn't report of him using the banned substance. - Despite Schaeffer writing to have the fight ruled a no contest, it was declined. Yet, Guerrero vs Salido was ruled a no contest. Khan should never have had that loss. One of many idiotic decision he's made, fighting in Washington DC was a massive one.

Close fight, no robbery. Khan was warned numerous time about the pushing (he still does it) so he cannot complain about the points deduction. Also, it was Petersons home town, so Khan knew he had to win convincingly, he didn't do that so it is hardly surprising he lost the decision. It was the sort of fight that you just have to shrug your shoulders, take the loss and move on. Yes, it stings to lose a very close fight - but it was nowhere near a 'robbery'. Khan just kept whining in typical fashion after the fight - he should have just focused on a re-match or winning his next fight. Instead he got KO' by Garcia. Then he whined about that... This is what annoys me about 'King' Khan, every-time he loses it is someone else's fault. A weak chin and a huge ego are not a great combination for a boxer.

I wouldn't call it robbery of the decade but the whole event was a farce. **** ref, PEDS, and dodgy judging. It was a good fight...but it's unwatchable with that god awful ref shouting so much **** every second.

seriously? peterson-khan was very close on the cards. the controversy is around the point deduction and the synthetic testosterone but the scores were never in question. you are literally the first person ive come across who didnt think it was close on the cards. i thought peterson won on the cards myself with or without the point deduction. had mayweather beating castillo too btw, that wasnt a robbery either. the robery of the decade is chisora-helenius. chisora literally dominated every round except one (which he still won), they werent even close rounds let alone a close fight. even helenius' promoter said the decision was a joke and that chisora should have won. runner up is probably casamayor-santa cruz. people are going to say williams-lara which was indeed a robbery but not as bad as people make it out to be. i could easily see williams win 4 rounds of that fight, terrible decision obviously but there have been far worse. like i said, you could easily have scored the chisora fight a freaking shut out and he didnt get it. Hmm a running theme with all your robberies i see, you dont need to be Enstein to work out your patterns :rolleyes:

I still think Dirrel vs Froch was a robbery I know some think otherwise but since watching it I really thought Dirrel was doing so much better, he hurt Froch and landed the cleaner shots and I suspect he probably did out land Froch in that fight aswell. you are a horrible poster. If you think dirrll froch was a robbery despite every press row, top pundit and punch stats showing froch won then you really are a idiot...

Clottey vs Cotto was a big robbery What about Zab Judah vs Fraud Jailweather? Fraud should of clearly been DQed.

Amir Khan clearly won that fight IMO, Everyone who thinks that PEDerson edged that fight is either from DC or a serious Khan hater. Peterson had his head low all night and was trying to rough Khan up on the inside thats why Khan was pushing that ****t away the point deduction in round12 was a DISGRACE glad that Uk media exposed Cheaterson and the cheat ref, now he's no where to be seen. Khan is still getting the big fights and Peterson is sitting in his home selling peanuts. Had that fight happened in the Uk, Khan would have won by a landslide.

I still think Dirrel vs Froch was a robbery I know some think otherwise but since watching it I really thought Dirrel was doing so much better, he hurt Froch and landed the cleaner shots and I suspect he probably did out land Froch in that fight aswell.

I had Lamont up by 2 points last time I scored it but I think the fact he failed a drug test whenever after the fight he was lucky not to be revoked of his titles... He is still technically a world title holder is he not?

Real robbery of the decade has to be Abril vs Rios. He schooled him every minute of every round. It was a masterclass. Always breaks my heart when an underdog that is written off puts in an incredible performance and gets jobbed on the cards or is on the receiving end of a premature stoppage.

I think the word robbery is banded around far to much. Any close fight is deemd a robbery. But This was on par with Paquio Bradely 1 or castillo Mayweather 1. Awful, even with the laughable point deductions and the fact that peterson was dangerously on steroids, he still lost by 4 rounds taking all that into account. Does anyone else think this is a robbery??? seriously? peterson-khan was very close on the cards. the controversy is around the point deduction and the synthetic testosterone but the scores were never in question. you are literally the first person ive come across who didnt think it was close on the cards. i thought peterson won on the cards myself with or without the point deduction. had mayweather beating castillo too btw, that wasnt a robbery either. the robery of the decade is chisora-helenius. chisora literally dominated every round except one (which he still won), they werent even close rounds let alone a close fight. even helenius' promoter said the decision was a joke and that chisora should have won. runner up is probably casamayor-santa cruz. people are going to say williams-lara which was indeed a robbery but not as bad as people make it out to be. i could easily see williams win 4 rounds of that fight, terrible decision obviously but there have been far worse. like i said, you could easily have scored the chisora fight a freaking shut out and he didnt get it.