HAHA ...Campbell clowns bradley on fightnews

Wow. How quickly people forget about Robbie Pedan.

 

Never did see that KO, but now that you mention it had I seen it much less remember that it happened I might not have made that post. For now though I guess you'll have to take my above post with a dose of ignorance.

 

As they should. Just because a fighter losses that shouldnt seal ones opinion of him...I look at Nate's body of work and recent performances and judge that. Sure he quit. The argument is why he quit. Did he quit because he saw no way to win the fight or because he geniunly couldn't see?

I prefer to give him the benifit of the doubt based on what I've observed his character and fighting spirit to be...

It was a no contest. The no contest rule is there for a reason and is aptly applied once in a while as in this case for example.

 

Ok I just relised you were responding to lbl...but what do you think of my comment, makes sense right?

 

I agree! I wanna give him the benefit of the doubt as far as why he quit.

I also think alot of boxing fans go overboard when someone quits as if the worst sin ever.

 

I agree. Although I do believe he quit, I don't see it as such a big deal depending on what his reasoning was. Maybe he felt he was having a bad night and maybe he felt sluggish or something. Or maybe he just figured he'd get an extra payday out of it by getting a rematch. Like I say it all depends on his reasoning and since Nate has shown he's no coward and has nothing to fear from a guy like Bradley I don't think it's a big deal.

Now when perenial losers like Judah or Camacho Jr quit to get out of a beating they were taking then yeah, I don't like it. They don't have the track record of toughness so I know what their motivation is.

 

#1. I think no contest is the right call given the circumstances.

#2. I don't think there's any way of knowing what would have happened throughout the course of the fight.

#3. I actually like Nate Campbell.

#4. Nate didn't do himself any favors that night. I don't really know what his motivations were. Milking two paydays in one, not feeling like it was his night..........temporary blindness..........I don't know.

It was a rough headbutt but I've seen much worse and I've seen many fighters continue after much worse. Campbell barely was cut and I did not see evidence of heavy swelling after the bout.

On the night he decided to pay tribute to Arturo Gatti?

Somebody else brought up the point. Would Campbell have reacted the same way if the exact same damage was brought about from a punch?

After watching Juan Urango almost have his face split in half against Randall Bailey the other night and get up and fight even harder does not make me feel any better about Nate Campbell's warrior declarations.

I hope there's a rematch and Nate Campbell doesn't start complaining to the ref 30 seconds into the first round. I like both fighters and I hope Nate prepares for Tim Bradleys style next time.

 

Nate will be critical of other fighters for quitting. If Victor Ortiz did what Nate done Nate would have talked shit about him.

 

The one thing you can say about Nate is he was consistent that night just as today...he kept saying he couldn't see. In retrospect, he wasn't saying he couldn't see due to blood. That's what everyone's caught up on.

He said he had blurred vision.

 

Maybe he forgot to put his contacts in.

 

Or he had bleeding behind his eye, which is what happened.

 

:bears: these conspiracy theories must end

 

I hope not, he is human afterall. He made the judgement call that his chances of winning the fight without seeing were diminished and as it was from a headbutt the logical smart thing to do was inform the doctor he couldn't see and take the nc. I hope if it was from a punch he'd soldier on and let the chips fall where they may.

 

You've got to be kidding me. You cannot seriously believe what you are writing. Either that or you simply are not thinking through your argument.

First, I never said that the fight didn't need to be finished. When did I say that? Campbell is the one one who quit, take it up with him. I also never mentioned any other fights and said they didn't need to be finished in order to know the winner. This is called a strawman argument in logic 101 because you are creating a false "person", made up of points I never made, then tearing down that argument instead of the one I made. Yes Double L, fights should be finished where possible. Well done.

Next, IMO you arguing that "either fighter could have won" is no different than me arguing "Bradley would probably have won". Both of use are making assumptions about what would happen if the fight continued, but your assumptions are (respectfully) much worse since you are ignoring what happened in the fight up to that point. It's like trying to pick the winner of a two horse horserace when they leave the starting line as opposed to trying to pick the winner when horse one is leading big after a quarter of the race and horse 2 is injured. It does not take a rocket scientist to determine who has a better chance at that point does it?

Finally, I don't know how often you bet, but I have learned that when HISTORICALLY something always happens DON'T BET AGAINST IT until it does happen. Of course there are exceptions, and of course there is a first time for everything, but come on. Will you again choose to ignore the obvious trends among these 2 fighters, and the trend that was occurring in the fight because as you say "well there's a first time for everything?". That's silly. Bradley is throwing more, landing more, has a style that clearly bothers Campbell, and Campbell is looking beat up, slow, and he traditionally tires whereas Bradley does not, Bradley is 26 and Campbell is an old 37..... and you're just going to throw all that away and argue that "well weird stuff could happen."?

OK, well then I suppose Bradley could have had an aneurysm or something, too. I mean that DOES happen sometimes, right?

Also, Campbell was NOT losing to Diaz anything CLOSE to how he was getting pummeled by Bradley. Two totally different fights.

In summary, there is no such thing as a foregone conclusion in sports, everyone knows this, God knows why you need to repeat it to us. But it would take a serious case of blinders to argue that there was not a far, FAR better chance that Bradley was going to win that fight than Campbell, no matter which way you analyze it.

 

For real. Nobody knows how bad the headbutt effected Campbell, I just prefer to go with the obvious and give him the benifit of the doubt. Nate has never shown any sign of being a quitter.

 

Being consistent in your lies is the key to being a successful liar.

 

And how exactly do you know he is lying?
You are assuming something and thats all you are doing.
How many called Vasquez a quitter in his fight with Marquez but he is somehow redeemed when it turned out he was telling the truth and couldn't breath.
I think its wrong to call someone a quitter like that, if he honestly couldn't see out of that eye he could have seriously been injured so if he is telling the truth he did himself a favor.
So before you call him a liar with absolute no evidence to back you up, maybe we should just give him the benefit of the doubt.
And again I dont like Nate I haven't since his fight with Pedan, but still I will take a fighters word for it until proven a liar.

 

Where in that statement did I say Nate was a liar. I was merely pointing out the proper techniques of telling a successful lie. My point being that the fact that Nate has been consistent doesn't necessarily indicate he's been honest. At the same time it doesn't mean he's been lying either.

Personally I do believe Nate lied or exhaggerated the extent of his blurred vision but I'm not going to state it as fact or even argue for or against it. I don't speculate, if I have an opinion I'll state it as such.