Josh Taylor’s split decision win over Jack Catterall this past Saturday caused an enormous stir among fans, pundits, and pro fighters, with the vast majority of people who weren’t judges Ian John-Lewis and Victor Loughlin feeling Catterall had won the fight.
Various commissions and sanctioning bodies have “investigated” or “reviewed” a number of controversial decisions over the years, but it’s incredibly rare that much of anything comes of it. A notable, fairly recent case came in 2011, when New Jersey suspended judges after Paul Williams won a majority decision over Erislandy Lara in Atlantic City.
The decision, however, was allowed to stand on their records. There was no overturning it to a no contest or the like, and eventually, judges Al Bennett, Donald Givens, and Hilton Whitaker all returned to the job.
Taylor (19-0, 13 KO) has said he feels he definitely won, but what else would he say? He’s not going to rematch Catterall; more likely than not, he’s going to vacate his four world titles at 140 lbs and move up to 147.
The judges in question here will be John-Lewis, who scored the fight 114-111 Taylor, which has received the most scorn, and Loughlin, who had it 113-112 Taylor. Judge Howard Foster scored the bout 113-112 for Catterall.
Catterall was a massive underdog and a mandatory challenger for one of Taylor’s titles. As things sit now, he’d probably be given a shot at the potentially vacated WBO belt if Taylor does scatter his belts to the wind and move up in weight.
If things hold to what they’ve usually been in these situations, the likely outcome of this investigation is that the British board will say they heard the explanations from John-Lewis and Loughlin, and they respect the scores, and life will go on with them still doing the job they’ve been doing.