Who is the better boxer Mathysse or Peterson?

[Phenom]

He said in the clinch, insinuating that Khan's lack of inside boxing, and "strong" holding game were going to prepare him for Matthysse.

I've seen almost every major fight of Peterson's. SMDH, dumass.

You must love boxers that have been taking PED's. What you hiding china chinned Gamboa?

honestly think you only seen him fight only Khan and you are basing your opinion on Peterson style of that fight only.
Peterson fought out of character against Khan because he was losing early on and couldn't keep up with Khan speed Lucas is a different fight Khan cant clinch properly wish is why Peterson was more aggressive on the inside ignoring defense he will probably outbox Mattyesse on the inside too but he won't **** with him

[Russian Crushin]

I thought he rolled a lot of Khans shots..Agree to disagree I guess,but imo Peterson did a solid job(not great)against Khan..He did not get hit cleanly to often and was the one applying pressure..

He also took many fluch clean shots. Theres a reason helost more rounds while being the "better boxer" and thats because he was getting hit a lot. If you want to argue a fight where Peterson had great defense, the Khan fight sure isnt it

[Rome-By-Ko]

He also took many fluch clean shots. Theres a reason helost more rounds while being the "better boxer" and thats because he was getting hit a lot. If you want to argue a fight where Peterson had great defense, the Khan fight sure isnt it

I don't believe he was the overall better boxer then Khan..Khan was far more talented,while Peterson was fundamentally better..There are a lot of other fights I could use..But the Khan fight was a good one because of Khans talents..It was a hard fight and pretty evenly matched,so of course Peterson got touched up..But that does not mean he did not have good defense...

[Russian Crushin]

I don't believe he was the overall better boxer then Khan..Khan was far more talented,while Peterson was fundamentally better..There are a lot of other fights I could use..But the Khan fight was a good one because of Khans talents..It was a hard fight and pretty evenly matched,so of course Peterson got touched up..But that does not mean he did not have good defense...

Isnt that what a "better boxer" is, being fundamentally and technically better?

Whats a good defense then, if getting touched up all night isnt an indicator of a bad one?

[Rome-By-Ko]

Isnt that what a "better boxer" is, being fundamentally and technically better?

Whats a good defense then, if getting touched up all night isnt an indicator of a bad one?

No not really,Kotelnik was better fundamentally then Khan,yet Khan overwhelmed him..Marquez is better fundamentally then Pac,yet Pac beat Marquez twice..Just because you are fundamentally better does not always mean you are the better boxer..

When you are fighting someone who you are evenly match with,you are not gonna look like Mayweather or Sweetpea..Peterson was the better defensive fighter when he fought Khan tho..Hell when he fought most of his opponents(outside of Bradley)..

[Russian Crushin]

No not really,Kotelnik was better fundamentally then Khan,yet Khan overwhelmed him..Marquez is better fundamentally then Pac,yet Pac beat Marquez twice..Just because you are fundamentally better does not always mean you are the better boxer..

When you are fighting someone who you are evenly match with,you are not gonna look like Mayweather or Sweetpea..Peterson was the better defensive fighter when he fought Khan tho..Hell when he fought most of his opponents(outside of Bradley)..

So what exactly makes a fighter a better "boxer"?

How was he the better defensive fighter then Khan? He lost more rounds and only won due to the point deductions. Peterson got beat up as much if not more then Khan in the Khan fight. I guess Khan had a great defense as well!

[Rome-By-Ko]

So what exactly makes a fighter a better "boxer"?

How was he the better defensive fighter then Khan? He lost more rounds and only won due to the point deductions. Peterson got beat up as much if not more then Khan in the Khan fight. I guess Khan had a great defense as well!

Not really,Khans defense was to push hold or flat out run..Peterson rolled with punches and punched with Khan(because Khan is to fast to just cover up and Peterson does not use head movement as much)..I had the fight a draw,with the 2end deduction being the reason why I scored it as such..I agreed with one point,but the 2end meh..

That's a complex question don't you think??

[QUOTE=Russian Crushin;13088160]So what exactly makes a fighter a better "boxer"?

I mean it's a lot of things..Who can control range,who knows how to set traps,who can adapted,who has better footwork etc etc..But imo Peterson was the better boxer against Khan,Khan was the more talented boxer against Peterson..Like I said very evenly match...

[John Barron]

it would be impossible not to get hit by khan's pitty pat flurries unless you're a defensive wizard. his size and style will pose problems for anybody. he's not a rubik's cube though cause once you get past the speed it's a wrap. khan was busting up lamont's head but lamont was PUNISHING khan's body all night. it was a tit for tat fight for the most part.

[TheUptownKid]

Im a Peterson fan and im glad he's shown alot of doubters that he's a real contender. I think he's the.better boxer not.bc.of any 1 skillset but mainly bc he's shown the ability to adapt in a fight and win. He is.not.just one style and he has the ability to fight outside or inside effectively. He lacks the power that Matt has, but he has the iq to manipulate his game plan to give himself the best opportunity to win. We'll c if it will b enough

[Tom Cruise]

Strange that people seperate Matthysse's power from his boxing ability. I know some power punchers arent great boxers and wind up their shots to get leverage, but a lot of Matthysse's power comes from his positioning, good technique, timing, accuracy etc. All things i would associate with being being a good boxer.

Matthysse edges this I think.