Boxing: Khan gives reasons for WBA rematch decision

Boxer wants to prove he is the best, believes Peterson is avoiding fight.


Express January 14, 2012



Briton boxer Amir Khan insists he has been granted a rematch against Lamont Peterson by the World Boxing Association (WBA) because of ‘multiple irregularities’ in their light-welterweight title fight in December, according to the BBC.


These irregularities allegedly include ‘questionable decisions’ by referee Joseph Cooper, who docked two points off Khan for pushing Peterson, and ‘mystery man’ Mustafa Ameen’s ‘apparent intrusion into the scoring process’. The Briton also accused Ameen of ‘interfering’ with a WBA ringside official.

Khan also claimed that there were differences in the WBA, IBF and District of Columbia Boxing and Wrestling Commission score-sheets. The Briton believed that the WBA had done justice and said that he will prove that he was the better boxer in the rematch.

“I want to prove without doubt that I’m the best in the 140lb division by taking care of business in the rematch,” he said.

However, a chance for Khan to reclaim his title is uncertain, as Peterson eyes a more lucrative contest, particularly against Manny Pacquiao in May. Khan believed Peterson was chasing big-money fights because he knows he is going to lose if he comes up against the Bolton fighter again.

“I think Peterson knows he’ll get beaten again so he wants to give up the title and chase the money,” Khan told Sky Sports. “He knows he’ll lose if we meet again. That’s why he’s making all these excuses. If he thinks I’m a sore loser, then let’s have it again.”

Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2012.

COMMENTS (4)

dgsdrf | 12 years ago | Reply

Peterson v Pacman would be way more interesting than some cocky loser who can't back up his words...

Huzefa | 12 years ago | Reply

Manny Pacquiao will mess peterson up !!

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ