Future Hall of Famer Miguel Cotto may still box before the end of 2016. The Puerto Rican great, inactive since his engrossing and competitive 12-round loss to the bigger and younger Canelo Alvarez, has had a number of potential opponents mentioned for this year – from James Kirkland to Yuriorkis Gamboa (talk which proved to be just that, talk). But now, according to a news piece on RingTV.com, Cotto could face Lamont Peterson on December 3rd.
A “source” told The Bible of Boxing that although no deal has yet been reached for a Cotto-Peterson clash, the talks are “far along,” and how things “looked good.|” The fight, if it does happen, will go ahead at The Barclays Centre in New York. Ring reports how it is not yet clear whether this would-be fight would go out on HBO pay-per-view, or just reguar HBO. In the interest of the fans, Cotto-Peterson, a good if far from great match-up, should not be pay-per-view.
Peterson, 34-3-1(17) is probably best known for his big upset win over Amir Khan down at 140-pounds back (seemingly way back now, considering what Khan and Peterson have been through since: a failed drugs test on Peterson’s part, ruining a return fight with Khan, and a couple of nasty KO losses on Khan’s part) in 2011. Since then, the 32-year-old from Washington DC has continued to mix in good company, but he has lost his two big fights; to Lucas Matthysse (who really blew him away) and dropping a competitive decision to Danny Garcia.
Peterson, a good fighter who has plenty of big fight experience (below the amount the seen-it-all-done-it-all Cotto has experience-wise, but experienced nonetheless) might just be the kind of tough, reasonably fast and very game fighter to give Cotto some problems. How much credit would Cotto get if he were to defeat Peterson?
Personally, I’d rather Cotto fought the vulnerable but always dangerous banger Kirkland (again, on regular HBO). Kirkland would get beaten, sure, but he’d go down punching and this match-up would be no boring affair. Can the same be said of a Cotto-Peterson fight?
