BoxRec

Posted: **01 Aug 2009, 22:51**

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.

Posted: **01 Aug 2009, 22:58**

Every time Campbell was asked if he could see he was pretty adamant with his answer of no, it was only when asked did he want to continue that he didn't say anything.

There was quite a bit of blood from that cut, I wouldn't say it's impossible that blood got in his eye and the reason fights are stopped when a fighter gets a cut is because of blood potentially getting in the eye.

Campbell was getting whupped, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say the eye problem was genuine and not just a way out.

Posted: **01 Aug 2009, 23:12**

BigEars wrote:Every time Campbell was asked if he could see he was pretty adamant with his answer of no, it was only when asked did he want to continue that he didn't say anything.

There was quite a bit of blood from that cut, I wouldn't say it's impossible that blood got in his eye and the reason fights are stopped when a fighter gets a cut is because of blood potentially getting in the eye.

Campbell was getting whupped, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say the eye problem was genuine and not just a way out.

He said he could see 'Spots'. They wiped the eye and the doc said "Your telling me that your completely blind in this eye?" Campbell said "It was a headbutt." The ref stopped it. Campbell went up to him to confirm a no decision. The ref looked confused as if to say "You just quit didn't you?" Then Campbell ran up to Jackson and said "I've lost." Jackson sort of looked at him like "Yeah. I know."
Then the doc asks Campbell again in the corner "Can you see?" Campbell pushed him away obviously no longer interested in his serious injury and the doc said "Nate I need to confirm that you can't see through that eye." Campbell then walked away from him.
Compare Campbell's cut to the one Cotto got against Clottey. End of story.
Campbell took a pasting in that 3rd round and must have known that Bradley was only going to crank it up. He quit. The ref or the doc didn't just make the decision based on his condition. Campbell said he couldn't fight. I'm just glad he didn't get rewarded with a No Decision or No Contest.
Two fights in a row Nate Campbell has acted completely unprofessionally. This time he didn't benefit from it.

Posted: **01 Aug 2009, 23:17**

Maybe not sure it was that contrived but he was taking a pasting, he was going to get stopped anyway and he probably could tell and there was a cut from a headbutt and it was a bad 1, so he sort of has a point on the technicality of the law but no way he was winning that 1.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 04:23**

Perhaps he couldn't see, and felt worry for himself because he couldn't see and was getting beaten up.

Seriously, why was this fight made in the first place? Campbell, who lost his LIGHTWEIGHT titles on the scales a while back...

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 04:45**

Autobarn wrote:Perhaps he couldn't see, and felt worry for himself because he couldn't see and was getting beaten up.

Seriously, why was this fight made in the first place? Campbell, who lost his LIGHTWEIGHT titles on the scales a while back...

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 04:51**

Campbell may have forgotten that there's little sympathy in there, that ppl want a winner, preferably a stoppage winner. That he's seriously damaged his marketability, basically APPEARING not to want to fight. (After Victor Ortiz, as well....) There won't be any more chances at the big time, and he's had few lucky breaks in his hard career. I hope he didn't think eg it's fair that they write it off as no contest, and i'll do better in rematch. Because no one wants to see a rematch, and I wonder if many even welcomed last night's fight.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 07:23**

pretty pathetic from campbell.

first he can't make weight after mouthing off about guzman.

then he's stirring it up in the build up and bitches out.

moaning minny is what he is.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 07:41**

You guys are just Nate Campbell haters. Bradley used his cannon ball of a head to open that cut and it should have been a no contest. Nate takes a few rounds to warm up as we saw in his terrific win over Juan Diaz and by the sixth round he would've drained all of Bradley's energy with body shots. By the tenth Bradley would have been finished. I bet anyone here that Campbell would beat Pacman if they fought, because Pacman has never faced a fighter with as much determination as the Galaxxy Warrior. Of course Paquaio is running scared from Nate, but that's another issue.

That fact is this: If Tim Bradley hadn't used an illegal blow to open that cut, Nate Campbell would be the new 140 pound champion of the WBO. Instead the cheating, the cowardly Bradley had to resort to fouling to beat a warrior like Nate. Unfortunately for Nate the headbutt produced a terrible cut that left him dizzy with massive amounts of blood pumping into his eye. There was no way any brave man like Nate Campbell could continue under those horrendous circumstances.

Lets have a rematch, Nate Campbell, KO, 10

just kidding of course! Campbell pussied out like a little bitch

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 08:14**

crusader wrote:You guys are just Nate Campbell haters. Bradley used his cannon ball of a head to open that cut and it should have been a no contest. Nate takes a few rounds to warm up as we saw in his terrific win over Juan Diaz and by the sixth round he would've drained all of Bradley's energy with body shots. By the tenth Bradley would have been finished. I bet anyone here that Campbell would beat Pacman if they fought, because Pacman has never faced a fighter with as much determination as the Galaxxy Warrior. Of course Paquaio is running scared from Nate, but that's another issue.

That fact is this: If Tim Bradley hadn't used an illegal blow to open that cut, Nate Campbell would be the new 140 pound champion of the WBO. Instead the cheating, the cowardly Bradley had to resort to fouling to beat a warrior like Nate. Unfortunately for Nate the headbutt produced a terrible cut that left him dizzy with massive amounts of blood pumping into his eye. There was no way any brave man like Nate Campbell could continue under those horrendous circumstances.

Lets have a rematch, Nate Campbell, KO, 10

just kidding of course! Campbell pussied out like a little bitch

Pretty funny.

Though mate your acknowledgement that your taking the piss only shows when replying and is not showing in the thread itself. Just incase thats something you want to ammend.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 09:28**

The Dr punctured Campbell's excuse by making Nate clarify that the retirement was because of the spots in his vision and not the cut. He wanted to be pulled out but the Dr wouldn't have it. Good work by the doctor. Nate was looking for an easy way out he wanted a no contest rather than a long and hard fight with a cut. It backfired, simple as that.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 14:10**

Campbell was cut by a butt and had spots of blood behind his eyeball, as confirmed by the doctor. He was severely handicapped by a foul and would have been a straight up fool to fight on under those circumstances. He knew he'd been butted and was obviously expecting the correct call of No contest and then a rematch.

I like fighters to show bravery when injured legitimately in a fight. I won't berate one who is injured on a foul and who then uses his brain and saves himself for another day. Campbell shouldn't have lost the fight last night. He lost because the referee was apparently a blind tw*t. It clearly should have been a NC, end of.

Lets see a rematch asap.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 15:09**

lurkyshaka wrote:Campbell was cut by a butt and had spots of blood behind his eyeball, as confirmed by the doctor. He was severely handicapped by a foul and would have been a straight up fool to fight on under those circumstances. He knew he'd been butted and was obviously expecting the correct call of No contest and then a rematch.

I like fighters to show bravery when injured legitimately in a fight. I won't berate one who is injured on a foul and who then uses his brain and saves himself for another day. Campbell shouldn't have lost the fight last night. He lost because the referee was apparently a blind tw*t. It clearly should have been a NC, end of.

Lets see a rematch asap.

'Spots of blood behind the eyeball.' Oh yeah. I remember them bringing the CAT scan into the ring.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 15:38**

Come on guys Nate didn't want to suffer the same fate as Barrera did against Khan. Thats why he said stop the fight.

Whether the spots in the eye were caused by the headbut of not is irrelevant. The cut was a very nasty one right above the eye which would have opened up continuously throughout the fight. If Nate had of carried on the fight would definately have been stopped at some point and their was only 1 more round left where the fight could be called a no contest.

So, whether or not Nate was seeing spots doesn't matter. Nate knew fight was destined to be stopped by the cut as blood was pooring into his eye. Fact

The cut was caused by a headbutt. Fact

Don King didn't want to see another of his old fighters face another unfair decision because of rule technicalities. Fact

Nate asks for the fight to be stopped.

Bradley acted very disrespectfully to Campbell afterwards. Absolutely no class. He acted like a puppet to his promoters. Hes a multiple World Champion, surely he could say it as it is!

And I've no idea what the ref was on about. ''I saw a punch land on the left eye''

Both Bradley and the ref were watching replays of the incident, Bradley was even reluctant to confirm a butt happened as it was shown to him.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 16:39**

JDC wrote: Come on guys Nate didn't want to suffer the same fate as Barrera did against Khan. Thats why he said stop the fight.

Whether the spots in the eye were caused by the headbut of not is irrelevant. The cut was a very nasty one right above the eye which would have opened up continuously throughout the fight. If Nate had of carried on the fight would definately have been stopped at some point and their was only 1 more round left where the fight could be called a no contest.

So, whether or not Nate was seeing spots doesn't matter. Nate knew fight was destined to be stopped by the cut as blood was pooring into his eye. Fact

The cut was caused by a headbutt. Fact

Don King didn't want to see another of his old fighters face another unfair decision because of rule technicalities. Fact

Nate asks for the fight to be stopped.

Bradley acted very disrespectfully to Campbell afterwards. Absolutely no class. He acted like a puppet to his promoters. Hes a multiple World Champion, surely he could say it as it is!

And I've no idea what the ref was on about. ''I saw a punch land on the left eye''

Both Bradley and the ref were watching replays of the incident, Bradley was even reluctant to confirm a butt happened as it was shown to him.

It was an accidental butt. That’s clear as day. Hatton has had worse cuts shaving and comparing Barrera who had a chasm on his skull to Campbell's cut is ludicrous. It does serve to underline the difference between the two though in terms of character. Barrera would never go out like that. But I think that less absurd than proposing that Don King was going to get an underhanded short end of the stick from the officials. He's made a career out of perverting them in his favour so I kinda doubt that.
Like I said Campbell was getting beat up. Got a cut. Saw a way out. It blew up in his face. I also notice you've neglected to mention Campbell's Judah-esque theatrics after the fight. He was behaving like a wanton child.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 16:54**

lirva wrote:The butt was caused by the headbutt 100%. Cambpell has every right to stop fighting after the third round. That is why that rule is there in the rulebook. Bradley now had an unfair advantage because of the headbutt. Campbell didn't want to fight on with that cut, which could have gotten worse at any time and caused the fight to be stopped. He was well within his rights to stop fighting and the fight should have been a no contest.

He was well within his rights to quit. But its ludicrous to suggest that at the first sight of blood fighters can 'opt out'. Accidental head clashes occur all of the time. They are part and parcel of boxing. Using them as a bail out clause is embarrassing and last night would put off any neutral.
Its also the 3rd consecutive fight Campbell has sabotaged with his nonsense. And last night was nonsense.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 17:11**

WayoftheCass wrote:
JDC wrote: Come on guys Nate didn't want to suffer the same fate as Barrera did against Khan. Thats why he said stop the fight.

Whether the spots in the eye were caused by the headbut of not is irrelevant. The cut was a very nasty one right above the eye which would have opened up continuously throughout the fight. If Nate had of carried on the fight would definately have been stopped at some point and their was only 1 more round left where the fight could be called a no contest.

So, whether or not Nate was seeing spots doesn't matter. Nate knew fight was destined to be stopped by the cut as blood was pooring into his eye. Fact

The cut was caused by a headbutt. Fact

Don King didn't want to see another of his old fighters face another unfair decision because of rule technicalities. Fact

Nate asks for the fight to be stopped.

Bradley acted very disrespectfully to Campbell afterwards. Absolutely no class. He acted like a puppet to his promoters. Hes a multiple World Champion, surely he could say it as it is!

And I've no idea what the ref was on about. ''I saw a punch land on the left eye''

Both Bradley and the ref were watching replays of the incident, Bradley was even reluctant to confirm a butt happened as it was shown to him.
It was an accidental butt. That’s clear as day. Hatton has had worse cuts shaving and comparing Barrera who had a chasm on his skull to Campbell's cut is ludicrous. It does serve to underline the difference between the two though in terms of character. Barrera would never go out like that. But I think that less absurd than proposing that Don King was going to get an underhanded short end of the stick from the officials. He's made a career out of perverting them in his favour so I kinda doubt that.
Like I said Campbell was getting beat up. Got a cut. Saw a way out. It blew up in his face. I also notice you've neglected to mention Campbell's Judah-esque theatrics after the fight. He was behaving like a wanton child.

Everything that happened equals no contest.

The ref missed the butt. Thats why it wasnt no centest.

Posted: **02 Aug 2009, 20:41**

Cant they appeal the decision or something? I'm sure I've seen other bouts which ended one way, and were subsequently altered.

This wasn't the one sided beating some are making it out to be, Nate was certainly in the fight and the cut was almost definitely caused by a headbutt. This is a no-brainer, correct the decision and rematch.

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 05:11**

charlieb wrote:Cant they appeal the decision or something? I'm sure I've seen other bouts which ended one way, and were subsequently altered.

This wasn't the one sided beating some are making it out to be, Nate was certainly in the fight and the cut was almost definitely caused by a headbutt. This is a no-brainer, correct the decision and rematch.

It was caused by a clash of heads. Not a headbutt. Campbell was taking a beating in the 3rd and had lost the 2 previous sessions clearly. Campbell was at it. I mean refusing to fight on with a marginal cut.

Thank God Cotto and Hatton are not of similar mind sets. Like I said this is the 3rd bout in a row that has been either ruined or to say the least influenced heavily by Campbell's bullshit. I personally hope this is the last time we have to put up with him in a top level fight and I think it probably is.

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 05:28**

campbell has always been a moaner.

he's the bernard hopkins of the lighter weights.

but without the talent to match.

his performance after the fight was pathetic tbh.

kinda wish bruno had come down and sat on his face actually (eminem stylee).

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 06:00**

Galaxy Warrior - change it, change it right now.

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 11:45**

lirva wrote:The butt was caused by the headbutt 100%. Cambpell has every right to stop fighting after the third round. That is why that rule is there in the rulebook. Bradley now had an unfair advantage because of the headbutt. Campbell didn't want to fight on with that cut, which could have gotten worse at any time and caused the fight to be stopped. He was well within his rights to stop fighting and the fight should have been a no contest.

the thing is, the public perception of campbell has gone way down. if only he'd gone for broke and tried to score a desperation KO. i know this could have got him knocked out. but, he ended up giving the appearance that he didn't want to fight. campbell has responded badly to rough tactics before
(peden rematch). on the other hand, i'm sure he and juan diaz butted heads and this was where diaz unraveled.

doesn't look great for campbell. in one fight he "quit" and in the previous fight, he was 3 pounds overweight and unprofessional. hopefulyl for him he'll get an immediate rematch. can't say i'm particularly interested.

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 11:47**

WayoftheCass wrote:
charlieb wrote:Cant they appeal the decision or something? I'm sure I've seen other bouts which ended one way, and were subsequently altered.

This wasn't the one sided beating some are making it out to be, Nate was certainly in the fight and the cut was almost definitely caused by a headbutt. This is a no-brainer, correct the decision and rematch.
It was caused by a clash of heads. Not a headbutt. Campbell was taking a beating in the 3rd and had lost the 2 previous sessions clearly. Campbell was at it. I mean refusing to fight on with a marginal cut. Thank God Cotto and Hatton are not of similar mind sets. Like I said this is the 3rd bout in a row that has been either ruined or to say the least influenced heavily by Campbell's bullshit. I personally hope this is the last time we have to put up with him in a top level fight and I think it probably is.

Yeah, clash of heads, either way, it should have been a no contest.

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 11:49**

hitman_hatton1 wrote: he's the bernard hopkins of the lighter weights.

but without the talent to match.

That description fits Bradley moreso than Campbell.

Posted: **03 Aug 2009, 12:23**

charlieb wrote:
WayoftheCass wrote:
charlieb wrote:Cant they appeal the decision or something? I'm sure I've seen other bouts which ended one way, and were subsequently altered.

This wasn't the one sided beating some are making it out to be, Nate was certainly in the fight and the cut was almost definitely caused by a headbutt. This is a no-brainer, correct the decision and rematch.
It was caused by a clash of heads. Not a headbutt. Campbell was taking a beating in the 3rd and had lost the 2 previous sessions clearly. Campbell was at it. I mean refusing to fight on with a marginal cut. Thank God Cotto and Hatton are not of similar mind sets. Like I said this is the 3rd bout in a row that has been either ruined or to say the least influenced heavily by Campbell's bullshit. I personally hope this is the last time we have to put up with him in a top level fight and I think it probably is.
Yeah, clash of heads, either way, it should have been a no contest.

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

BoxRec

Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.

Re: Nate Campbell tries to pull a fast one.