So where does the nasty, gruesome cut light-heavyweight warrior Badou Jack suffered in his losing fight with Marcus Browne rate on the ‘Klitschko-Ometer?’ As fans saw on Saturday night in Las Vegas, Jack lost to Browne in their interim WBA light-heavyweight title clash – and clash really is an apt word. It was round-seven when the two fighters clashed heads, accidentally, and Jack came off worse, far worse.
The cut, really a gash, literally poured with blood; it was X-rated stuff, make no mistake. Jack bravely fought on, showing zero inclination to quit, yet he lost the 12-round decision (along with a good amount of blood) and fell to 22-2-3(13). New champ Browne is now 23-0(16) and, to Jack’s enormous credit, he heard no complaints or excuses from the man he defeated.
But looking back, should the fight have been stopped? Fighters are too brave to quit themselves (usually anyway) so they need protecting from themselves, and that comes down to the officials. We’ve seen far lesser facial injuries prompt the termination of a fight over the years – think Amir Khan’s 2011 win over Paul McCloskey, the loser being stopped due to a mere scratch in comparison to Jack’s savage wound – and with the amount of blood involved, should Jack have been pulled out?
The fight would have gone to the score-cards if the fight had been stopped, yet the officials decided that Jack’s eyesight was not being threatened and allowed the fight to go on. Fans are split over whether or not the officials made the right call. What do you think?
Despite the loss, and despite the damage he picked up (Jack needed 25 stitches) something good did come from the fight: the sheer sportsmanship, not to mention raw courage, Jack showed. Imagine the number of excuses Jack could have made, how many excuses a number of other fighters would have made had they been wounded the way the 175 pounder was.
Maybe Browne will show class and sportsmanship himself and grant Jack a rematch (if he is permitted to do so). Jack deserves it.
