Not trying to be a dick but I mentioned that. I'm saying if the cut is so bad that it can open again many times in the future, it should be stopped so the cut doesn't get worse.
Should according to who, you? Or the Texas State Athletic Commission? Their site is down right now, I checked, so until you show me that that's in writing, I can't accept it. You should stop a fight because
maybe a cut will become bad later on? That's too preemptive to me, and kind of absurd when you take that thinking to its conclusion. With that logic, any time there's even the smallest cut you might as well stop it, since it can open again and worse as the fight progresses.
You say the cut is "so bad," but how do you define that? Usually a cut's "badness" is defined by how badly it obstructs vision, but in your argument, that's a moot point because obstruction is not the problem but
potential for obstruction at a later time. The whole argument is flawed, then.
I assume "assess the fighter's ability to see" is a criteria that is clearly spelled out, at least much more clearly than "use your predictive powers to determine what will happen to the cut as the fight progresses."
Of course the matter won't be settled until we see their official criteria. Until then it's all opinion
