WayoftheCass wrote:charlieb wrote:WayoftheCass wrote:
If the doc deems that it means that the fighter can't continue. Not if the fighter quits.

Is that a technicality which will prevent the TKO being overturned?
It's not as though any doctor would let a fight contnue if a fighter's said he cant see.
He also has to be conscious of deception though Charlie. Its like you going to your doctor and saying you can't see. If the doc shines a light in your eye and see's zero evidence of this he'll either give you the chance to own up or send you to a mental institute. Campbell didn't exactly behave like a half blind man after the fight. His immediate concern was the decision and not his health. I mean if I lost the sight in one eye I'd be running past Usain Bolt to get to the nearest hospital.
I see on f.ightnews he's claiming he had a 'haemorrhage' behind the eye that will, ahem, 'clear up in a few days to a week!'
Yeah 'Galaxy Warrior'. It's called a burst blood vessel and its the sort of injury you get from sleeping face down on the pillow.
This is the sort of absurd sh!t that's become too common place in boxing. They should take away half his pay and give it to people with genuine vision problems.

I wouldn't have thought it was in the ring doctor's remit to be conscious of deception. At least not when it concerns a fighter claiming he cant see, although I guess they'd have to be wary of fighters trying to fight on, blind, and liable to get themselves hurt.
Bradley's a
very dirty fighter and whether or not Campbell
could've continued, terribly hampered by the cut, that shouldn't be a reason not to overturn the TKO. The ref clearly made a bad call in ruling it a cut caused by a punch, if he'd have correctly ruled it a cut caused by a clash of heads the decision would be a NC, which is what it needs to be changed to.