BoxRec

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.

One day Bradleys cheating headbutts will lose him his title.

That boy needs to clean up his act.

He always hurts opponents with his head.

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.

Bradley reminds me of a young Evander Holyfield a bit. Is anyone having that?

He is getting better and better, showed excellent variety vs Campbell. He is showing some teeth too.

DG. wrote:One day Bradleys cheating headbutts will lose him his title.

That boy needs to clean up his act.

He always hurts opponents with his head.

He's rough as they come but there was nothing vindictive in that headbutt. It was a clash of heads.

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.

To be fair if a guy woke up of a morning with spots behind his eye he'd likely panic, whether it'd clear up in a few days or not. So i don't blame Campbell for making a fuss when he had bleeding behind the eyeball(not to mention the horrible cut leaking blood over his eye) after being butted. He was seriously handicapped in the fight, and as he knew it was a butt he had a right to expect the NC verdict. The fight doctor confirmed that Campbell did indeed have bleeding behind the eye along with the obvious bleeding above the eye socket.

Campbell has proven his mettle in the past. I think he's being unfairly blasted. Would it have been wise for him to try and continue in a handicapped position when he'd been injured on a foul? Imo he just used his brain, though it backfired because the referee was apparently also blinded, maybe Timmy nutted him on the sly aswell.

WayoftheCass wrote:

DG. wrote:One day Bradleys cheating headbutts will lose him his title.

That boy needs to clean up his act.

He always hurts opponents with his head.

He's rough as they come but there was nothing vindictive in that headbutt. It was a clash of heads.

The thing is that every fight I have seen him in he headbutts people.

What channel did you lot watch this on?

chinny wrote:Bradley reminds me of a young Evander Holyfield a bit. Is anyone having that?

He is getting better and better, showed excellent variety vs Campbell. He is showing some teeth too.

fighting style doesn't really remind me of him tbh.

only the bald head.

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.

steve689 wrote:What channel did you lot watch this on?

ESPN. They broadcast a dodgy showtime feed which cut the top and bottom of the picture out. Which could be why some on here are giving Bradley a pass for the butt DD

Was it a free feed or do you pay for the channel?

WayoftheCass wrote:Campbell was getting his ass kicked and tried to get a No Contest. He was cut from a clash of heads. However it was by no means intentional. He claimed he couldn't see. Absolute BS. He could see fine. They thought they could get out without a defeat but it blew up in their face. If Nate Campbell believes that is an injury worthy of pulling out the fair enough but thankfully the majority of world caliber fighters don't hence why we see some great fights and not fighters pulling out at the first sight of blood.
The American commentators as usual sound like morons. "The referee stopped the fight because there was blood behind the eye...." Yeah sure Al. Every time the ref asked Campbell if he could see he was non-committal.
Lets call a spade a spade. Campbell had a whisper to John David Jackson and tried to pull a con job. It blew up in his face. I'm glad. There was only one guy fighting in there tonight.

Your an IDIOT

Bradley bout to be ruled no-contest
Associated Press Updated: August 24, 2009, 9:24 PM EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08 ... ntest.html