Nate Campbell doesn't deserve a No Contest....

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by WiDDoW_MaKeR, Aug 1, 2009.


  1. Bodysnatcher

    Bodysnatcher Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,302
    0
    Oct 27, 2007
  2. WiDDoW_MaKeR

    WiDDoW_MaKeR ESB Hall of Fame Member Full Member

    37,427
    88
    Jul 19, 2004
    If you didn't see anything that showed you Nate wanted to quit, then I would be amazed if you watched the fight.:lol: Let alone that... which was obvious... there is a loophole to that rule. The doctor seemed pretty clear in the corner that he was NOT going to stop the fight because of the cut. The doctor only stopped the fight because Nate said that he couldn't see, his vision was blurry, and that he saw spots. In the doctor's opinion... the cut wasn't enough to stop the fight. So Campbell simply quit on his stool by telling the doctor that he couldn't see. That's no different than Campbell telling the Doctor that he had a horrible headache and couldn't continue... they can't just chalk everything up to that cut on the eye being the contributing factor. For all we know a Bradley punch jacked up Campbell's vision... because he was even saying afterwards that he was still seeing spots, and there was CLEARLY NO blood coming down at that point.
     
  3. san rafael

    san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

    27,684
    7
    Jun 11, 2008
    After 22 years in boxing, I'm not especially moved. Getting punched in the head causes "serious damage." FYI.
     
  4. iceman71

    iceman71 WBC SILVER Champion Full Member

    51,687
    21
    Jul 28, 2008
    ever heard of the word " adversity"?
    "sucking it up"
    or heres one "trying"
    fighters fights. this aint tennis or golf....
     
  5. nezy37

    nezy37 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,241
    0
    Jul 13, 2007
    Was he looking to get out yes.

    Does he deserve a no contest, yes, the cut was caused by a butt.
     
  6. WiDDoW_MaKeR

    WiDDoW_MaKeR ESB Hall of Fame Member Full Member

    37,427
    88
    Jul 19, 2004
    Going even further you can actually defend the ref's position of ruling it a punch. There was an uppercut landed DIRECTLY after the clash of heads. The ref himself said that there was no blood directly after the clash, so he has to rule on the last thing that he saw which was that right uppercut. That's perfectly acceptable as well. Especially considering that the uppercut also landed BEFORE Campbell pawed at his eye and started complaining.
     
  7. WiDDoW_MaKeR

    WiDDoW_MaKeR ESB Hall of Fame Member Full Member

    37,427
    88
    Jul 19, 2004
    But the doctor didn't stop the fight because of the cut.:good The Doctor stopped the fight because Campbell told him that he couldn't see. There was no blood in his eye when he was telling the doctor this. The doctor even said "Not the cut, are you just telling me that you can't see?" So clearly the ref wasn't stopping the fight based on the cut. That rule isn't cut and dry in that case.
     
  8. san rafael

    san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

    27,684
    7
    Jun 11, 2008
    I saw exactly the same thing.
     
  9. Bodysnatcher

    Bodysnatcher Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,302
    0
    Oct 27, 2007
  10. unclepaulie

    unclepaulie Run like an antelope! Full Member

    6,002
    1
    Aug 14, 2007

    Dropping all sorts of knowledge in this thread WM... Plus it would have been worse if the ref reversed himself after not ruling a butt... He ruled (or, in this case) didn't rule, and that has to stand, otherwise, what is the use of even having a ref?:good
     
  11. sitiyzal

    sitiyzal ................. Full Member

    4,387
    2
    Sep 25, 2008
    Jesus Christ. Are you dumb ****s even aware what seeing spots is a sign of?

    Thankfully the rules are in place for a reason & hopefully the tko verdict will be correctly changed.
     
  12. Barber-ian

    Barber-ian Active Member Full Member

    1,234
    1
    May 24, 2008
    There is one and only one relevant point to be made here. A headbutt clearly resulted in the cut that led to the stoppage, and the rules state that the fight must be called a no contest.

    However you feel Campbell acted has zero to do with anything, and in now way legitimizes the decision. The only and final judgement you can make about this fight is that poor officiating resulted in a TKO win that should have been a NC. That really the end of the discussion.
     
  13. nezy37

    nezy37 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,241
    0
    Jul 13, 2007
    Dude, the ref wasn't exactly decisive. He didn't take command and make a call. thats why it is questionable.

    In short, I don't think he knew either way and guessed, it happens and it can't be an easy call to make sometimes but he blew it.

    by the way, didn't you see the part of my post where I acknowledged Nate was looking for a way out.

    Maybe he couldn't see but the beating he was taking and the way he went about it in his corner look bad, thats for sure.
     
  14. san rafael

    san rafael 0.00% lemming Full Member

    27,684
    7
    Jun 11, 2008
  15. WiDDoW_MaKeR

    WiDDoW_MaKeR ESB Hall of Fame Member Full Member

    37,427
    88
    Jul 19, 2004
    It's a sign that there is bleeding behind the eye. However, they can't exactly diagnose that sort of thing in a few seconds. You also can't prove that it is from that cut. Bleeding behind the eye could just as easily be caused by any other punch to the head causing a hemorrhage to that region.

    That's the point. If the doctor doesn't think the cut is enough to stop the fight... you can't just throw any other symptom in there and act like it has to be from the cut also.