Josh Taylor vs Jack Catterall: Judge downgraded after controversial scorecard

Ian John-Lewis has been downgraded by the British Boxing Board of Control

Josh Taylor’s split-decision win over Jack Catterall sparked a probe (Steve Welsh/PA)
Josh Taylor’s split-decision win over Jack Catterall sparked a probe (Steve Welsh/PA)

One of the judges in the controversial world title fight between Josh Taylor and Jack Catterall has been downgraded.

But the British Boxing Board of Control says it is satisfied that the scoring of Ian John-Lewis did not affect the outcome.

The outcome of the BBBofC’s investigation into the scoring of the contest has been criticised by Catterall, who lost a split decision in Glasgow on February 26.

Both John-Lewis (114-111) and Victor Loughlin (113-112) awarded the contest in favour of undisputed super-lightweight champion Taylor, despite him being knocked down in the eighth round and most observers claiming that Catterall had won the fight. The other judge, Howard Foster, scored it 113-112 for Catterall.

A statement from the BBBofC read: “Following an internal review of the scoring of the Josh Taylor v Jack Catterall contest by all three appointed judges, the stewards of the board decided to call Mr Ian John-Lewis to appear before them to explain his returned card.

“Having considered Mr Ian John-Lewis’ explanation, the stewards of the board decided to downgrade Mr John-Lewis from an A Star Class to an A Class Official.

“Whilst the board were satisfied that Mr John-Lewis’ scorecard did not affect the overall result of the contest, the stewards of the board did have issue with his margin.

“As the regulatory body for the sport in Great Britain, the British Boxing Board of Control continue to improve and maintain the high quality and consistency in scoring by our licensed officials.

“As such, the stewards of the board have further decided that in addition to each A Star Class Official being evaluated after each bout, as per current procedure, they will now also be subject to a separate individual annual review.

“Finally, the British Boxing Board of Control have contacted the WBO, WBC, IBF and WBA supporting Jack Catterall to be made mandatory challenger for each or all championship sanctioning bodies.”

Chorley fighter Catterall issued a succinct response to the statement on Twitter, saying: “Not good enough.”

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who is MP for Chorley, this week asked police and Cabinet officials to investigate the scoring.

The WBO this week ran a story on its official website which stated that the sanctioning body had objected to the appointment of John-Lewis and Loughlin before the fight.

Taylor, who plans to step up to welterweight level, has insisted he was the rightful winner.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in