Nate Cambpell suffered a vitreous hemorrhage

It's not correct. The punch never caused the injury, it was an accidental but ILLEGAL headbutt. The fighter couldn't continue based on an accidental but ILLEGAL headbutt. It should be ruled a NC. Punches didn't force to him to stop fighting; the ILLEGAL headbutt did.

 

Where is the proof that the headbutt caused this injury behind the eye? That is impossible to prove. Any punch could have caused that. This has nothing to do with the cut that was obviously caused by the clash of heads.

I think that is where most of you guys are getting mixed up. You are relating the headbutt, and the cut... to the injury behind his eye and the stoppage. The cut wasn't bad enough to stop the fight... so the clash of heads is out the window. You can't just clump any injury that Campbell may have sustained in with that headbutt.

 

smells like bull****!

 

I am not in position to blame Campbell for quitting if his eye was injured in that manner. However, that doesn't mean that the fight should be ruled a No Contest. Considering that there is no proof that his injury behind his eye came from the headbutt... it has to be a TKO.

 

California rules:

"If the referee and/or the ringside physician determine that the bout may not continue because of an injury suffered as the result of an unintentional foul or because of an injury inflicted by an unintentional foul which later becomes aggravated by fair blows, the bout must be declared a draw if the bout is stopped before the bell rings to begin the fourth round"

http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/stats_regs/regulations.shtml#339

I think it's a tough argument to say that the type of injury Campbell had could be caused by Bradley's pitty patty punches and not by the massive headbutt on his eye.

 

Those rules only prove my point. There is no way of proving that the injury behind his eye came from that headbutt. Absolutely NO WAY of proving that claim. You call them pitty patty punches... but I don't think you understand just exactly how hard a pro boxer punches. Especially a top flight pro like Bradley. He was lighting Campbell up a good bit. Any of those landed punches can cause that sort of injury to the eye. So.. assuming that it was from the headbutt is just that... nothing more than an assumption that can't be proven. How can you rule a No Contest by way of guessing that he was injured behind his eye by a headbutt? That's silly.

 

So what caused the injury? The punch that hit the gloves? Come on, be honest.

 

I have no ties at all to either guy, so I can honestly say the following:

1. A fighter is injured as a result of a headbutt and cannot continue, then he isn't "bitching", but calling the rules to be obeyed.

2. A bleeding behind the eye as the result of an unintentional headbutt IS a grave, dangerous injury. Making "fun" of that as if that isn't a "serious" injury is as low as it gets.

End of story.

 

He never hit him clean in that whole exchange. It's not guessing, you can clearly see the headbutt hurt him from the replay, a clean punch never landed. You're being ridiculous.

 

The butt caused the cut, the cut bled into the eye, he says he couldn't see, fight is a draw. Open and shut case. You guys are saying Campbell didn't want to fight on(when you truly don't know) probably because you got disgusted with him like I did. I don't let shite like that bother me when it comes to a fighters vision. Nate was not getting beaten up, and in fact, I kept thinking what if Campbell's big right lands on Bradley.

Don't confuse your anger at Nate and say his injury was not that bad that he couldn't fight on. Some of you guys are dissing other fans for thinking this when you've never been in Nate's position yourself. You guys have been watching guys who got cut in the past fight on. Not every fighter can fight on, and the cut happened before 4 rounds...and it was a nasty cut that was going to bleed into his eye the rest of the fight where as most cuts happen outside the eye. If the fight was after 4 rounds, Nate would've had to fight on, so now Nate lives another day since the butt happened before 4 rounds. Pac had to fight on against Morales because the cut happened after 4 rounds.

 

You are confused about the issue. The vitreous hemorrhage they are talking about isn't a literal hemorrhage. It is the excess bleeding of blood into the eye...period. It doesn't have to hemorrhage from a blow. Just too much blood in the area can be considered a hemorrhage.

 

Guys, if you say any punch could've caused the hemorrhage, that is just plain stupid. Who cares if you think he was beating Nate, this is a 12 round fight. One punch from a guy like Nate can change a fight. Nate got butted, it should be a draw, and a rematch in order. This is not a tko for Bradley, and I picked Bradley to win.

 

it's pretty simple guys, the doctor, and his corner didn't see a huge problem with the cut (which was caused by the head butt)...but since the problem was behind the eye, it's a tko cause who in the hell is gonna prove what exactly did that....don't forget that little session where the dr. was looking like he wanted to step in cause nate was getting swamped on against the ropes by bradley.....those punches could've easily been the ones that caused that.....

 

Spot on.

There is no way to prove the cut caused the problem.

It is more likely it was caused by a punch or punches than a clash of heads.