TIMOTHY BRADLEY TKO end of 3 NATE CAMPBELL

A much-anticipated bout on Saturday unfortunately ended in controversy when Nate Campbell lost by TKO against Timothy Bradley in what I see as a letter-of-the-law versus spirit-of-the-law situation.

OK, there seems no real doubt that Campbell suffered a cut over the left eye as the result of a head clash in the Showtime-televised WBO junior welter title bout. The TV replays certainly indicated this was the case.

As the fight lasted only three rounds, the Campbell camp expected to escape with a no decision verdict under the unified boxing rules, which stipulate that in these matters no verdict shall be given unless four rounds have been completed.

However, referee David Mendoza felt that, while the fighters had been bumping heads, the cut was caused by Bradley’s punches, which came immediately after the collision.

Going by the TV replays, and going, if you like, by the letter of the law, the fight should have been a no decision.Then we come to the spirit of the law.

The head-clash rule was not intended to provide a loophole for a fighter who is losing a contest.

Too often nowadays we are having endings where fighters, feeling that the tide is going against them, tell the referee and/or commission doctor that they “can’t see” should they suffer a cut from a head clash, thus hoping to cop either a technical decision win or have the bout ruled a no decision.

Whether the fighters could or couldn’t see, only they know.Yet it might not be too unreasonable to wonder if savvy fighters — or their handlers — might, just might, mind you, in some cases, see the head-clash rule as a way out.

This brings us to the controversial and very disappointing finish to the fight on Saturday. There is little doubt that Bradley was dominating the fight. In the third round — admittedly after Campbell suffered the cut — Bradley was overwhelming his 37-year-old opponent.

Campbell, it seems clear from the TV coverage, resigned himself from the fight. When he got back to his corner, it very much appeared that Campbell told his trainer John David Jackson: “Tell them to stop the fight — I can’t see.”

The evidence of our own eyes and ears is that Campbell wanted to get out of the fight.

Clearly, as he himself admitted, he was expecting the bout to be ruled a no decision.

Campbell was adamant that he could not see out of his left eye. We will take him at his word on this.

Yet the fact is that Bradley was winning, even before Campbell got cut. The defending champion looked the better fighter.

Bradley said afterwards that Campbell would have “got older with each round”. That was my impression.

Campbell was handicapped by the eye injury, but we have seen many, many fighters in ring history battle on with what looked, to the observers at least, to be far worse cuts and infinitely greater damage than Campbell appeared to have suffered. Evander Holyfield, Arturo Gatti, Carmen Basilio, Rocky Marciano, Sugar Ray Robinson and many others have gritted their way to victory — or at least to the finish line — when badly, in the game’s jargon, “busted up”.

Wonderful old Sam Langford fought for years when blind in one eye; so did Harry Greb. Just a thought, but I cannot imagine any of the above asking their corner to stop the fight.

Technically, under the rules, Campbell probably should have got his no decision verdict. The matter will be appealed and eventually the verdict could well be changed to an ND.

To me, though, it would have seemed wrong for Bradley not to have left the ring as the winner on Saturday night, because he looked almost certain to have won even if Campbell had not been injured and there seemed an escape-hatch feel about the way the fight ended.

Under British Boxing Board of Control rules, in fights that do not involve an outside sanctioning body (that is, bouts for the British and/or Commonwealth titles, or purely domestic bouts), the rule is simple: If a fighter is cut, whether from a punch or an accidental collision, and deemed unable to continue, he loses the fight.

This is the way things used to be universally until recent, more enlightened times.

I have tended to be critical of Britain for being behind the times with its rules regarding head clashes, but I’ll say this for the British regulations: They keep things simple.