Which cut was worse, Campbell's or Cotto's?

It's gotta be cotto but he didn't quit...


... Unlike Nate Campbell. :yep

 

Cotto's. But supposedly there was something else going on with Campbell's eye. Don't know the facts though.

 

Cotto's cut was deeper and wider however the damage caused from the blow that Campbell sustained proved to be more dramatic considering it resulted in spots blocking his vision. The answer to your question is Cotto's cut was worse but the blow that caused Campbell's cut was far more damaging.

 

Cotto's cut looked much worse.

Campbell said he couldnt see, but I dont believe it.

 

Dont forget how adamant the announcers were in the Cotto fight that he couldnt see a thing from the side of the cut. He just didnt quit...thats all.

 

Cotto's was the worse cut visibly, Campbell's was the more damaging.

 

No brainer its cotto

 

He didn't want to be seen as a quitter after what happened with Margarito. Stupid keyboard warriors thinking they have a right to judge a professional prizefighter. He still caught a lot of flack despite having the balls to carry on.

That's boxing fans, though.

 

U tell me!!!

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Cotto could still see out of his eye when the blood wasn't obstructing his vision; granted he was constantly wiping the blood from his eye but it wasn't as dramatic of a scenario as Campbell's who just flat out couldn't see out of his eye. This comparison really shouldn't be measured between the extent of the sustained cuts rather the damage and effects of the blows that caused the cuts in which I would have to say the damage that Campbell sustained was the more taxing of the two.

 

:nod:yep:nod:yep:nod