No one will dispute that Gabriel Rosado was cut in a bad way and in a bad spot tonight in his fight against WBO middleweight titlist Peter Quillin, but should the fight have been stopped when it was, or did Rosado deserve a chance to continue on?
Rosado (21-7, 13 KO) pleaded with referee Allan Huggins and the physician to let him continue on, telling them very clearly before the doctor even asked during a 10th round check that he could see fine, and from what we could tell on TV, Rosado was not having an issue with his vision.
Now, had the fight continued on, it seems almost likely given the nature and placement of that cut that it would have led to a stoppage in those final rounds. But the argument for Rosado's side here is going to be that he'd made it to the 10th round, fought hard (even if the scores didn't reflect the competitive fight that it was), and deserved a chance to go as long as he could. The cut was already there. That damage had been done. But for a guy in a world title fight, should he have been stopped before it became a major issue?
After all, haven't we seen worse in fights that have carried on? Rosado said that he was cut worse and in worse shape in January against Gennady Golovkin, when his own corner stopped the fight in New York, and Rosado didn't protest that one.
That's my thought, anyway. Rosado deserved to fight until he actually couldn't see. But how do you feel? Was the stoppage when it was made the right call?