Round-by-Round: Josh Taylor vs. Jack Catterall | Sky Sports - 26 February 2022

[Bercli]

Be surprised if anything came of it but good to see the interest.

What will happen is the Board will have to investigate properly now Instead of just brushing it under the carpet.

[emallini]

Order a rematch for the titles at 140. I hope that happens.

[margaret thatcher]

Order a rematch for the titles at 140. I hope that happens.

agree, that's realistically the best we can hope for right now.

[tigermoth87]

Biggest robbery I've seen. Disgraceful decision.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Order a rematch for the titles at 140. I hope that happens.

agree, that's realistically the best we can hope for right now.

The orgs don’t need to answer to the British police do they?

They can have a rematch, but the belts?

[Controversial]

a round can be very scrappy, with lots of wrestling, headlocks, etc.....yet one guy can still clearly land more shots and much better shots. josh could hardly put a clean hand on him, yet got his own head repeatedly snapped back by 1-2s and 1-2-1s.

scrappiness isnt the same thing as a round being a swing round or even a close round. i just dont see it for jt, especially with a kd against him

What did you score it? Taylor pressed the fight more in the later rounds so I can see why he would get recognition for that, I still think he lost but I can see why the scorecards are controversial.

115-110 cat, i dont think there is much disagreement over who should've won, overwhelmingly people scored for cat. the controveersy isnt a split on who should've taken it, it';s the outrage over jt getting it

When you look at the official scorecards all three judges were pretty consistent with each other, there were only two rounds where one judge differed from the other two (the 4th and 12th rounds). I don't think anything dodgy was going on personally. If Loughlin scored the 12th the same as Foster then Catterall would have won.

1st - All scored 9-10
2nd - All scored 10-9
3rd - All scored 10-9
4th - Two scored 9-10 (John-Lewis scored 10-9)
5th - All scored 9-10
6th - All scored 9-10
7th - All scored 10-9
8th - All scored 8-10
9th - All scored 10-9
10th - All scored 10-8
11th - All scored 9-9
12th - Two scored 10-9 (Foster scored 9-10)

[margaret thatcher]

in a bad decision, i dont think saying the judges scored similarly is very convincing tbh its like saying a couple of idiots agreeing with each other makes them right

pretty much nearly everyone thought cat won, yet 2 of the 3 official judges had it for taylor. funny how that works. i doubt they had some contract or anything to score for taylor, but i do think the constant a-side advantage like this is beyond incompetance or 'scrappiness'. it's so overwhelmingly for the house fighter who benefits from scoring like this, and this is yet another example of it. awful decision, taylor got outboxed, outlanded, outfought, and dropped on his butt

[Controversial]

in a bad decision, i dont think saying the judges scored similarly is much of a defense tbh

pretty much nearly everyone thought cat won, yet 2 of the 3 official judges had it for taylor. i doubt they had some contract or anything to score for taylor, but i do think the constant a-side advantage like this is beyond incompetance or 'scrappiness'. it's so overwhelmingly for the house fighter, and this is yet another example of it

Yeah I get that and one of the judges had Catterall the winner. I'm just saying if you boil it down all it took was one judge to score the 12th the same as another judge and Catterall would be champ. I thought Catterall won too but I had it closer on paper than I initially thought watching it without scoring.

[dookus]

What did you score it? Taylor pressed the fight more in the later rounds so I can see why he would get recognition for that, I still think he lost but I can see why the scorecards are controversial.

115-110 cat, i dont think there is much disagreement over who should've won, overwhelmingly people scored for cat. the controveersy isnt a split on who should've taken it, it';s the outrage over jt getting it

When you look at the official scorecards all three judges were pretty consistent with each other, there were only two rounds where one judge differed from the other two (the 4th and 12th rounds). I don't think anything dodgy was going on personally. If Loughlin scored the 12th the same as Foster then Catterall would have won.

1st - All scored 9-10
2nd - All scored 10-9
3rd - All scored 10-9
4th - Two scored 9-10 (John-Lewis scored 10-9)
5th - All scored 9-10
6th - All scored 9-10
7th - All scored 10-9
8th - All scored 8-10
9th - All scored 10-9
10th - All scored 10-8
11th - All scored 9-9
12th - Two scored 10-9 (Foster scored 9-10)

Interesting. I wonder if crowd noise / preconceptions had anything to do with it. Or perhaps whatever other factor it might be that has consistently rendered shit cards in favour of home fighters in Scotland in the years since Harrison drew with Polo

[Controversial]

115-110 cat, i dont think there is much disagreement over who should've won, overwhelmingly people scored for cat. the controveersy isnt a split on who should've taken it, it';s the outrage over jt getting it

When you look at the official scorecards all three judges were pretty consistent with each other, there were only two rounds where one judge differed from the other two (the 4th and 12th rounds). I don't think anything dodgy was going on personally. If Loughlin scored the 12th the same as Foster then Catterall would have won.

1st - All scored 9-10
2nd - All scored 10-9
3rd - All scored 10-9
4th - Two scored 9-10 (John-Lewis scored 10-9)
5th - All scored 9-10
6th - All scored 9-10
7th - All scored 10-9
8th - All scored 8-10
9th - All scored 10-9
10th - All scored 10-8
11th - All scored 9-9
12th - Two scored 10-9 (Foster scored 9-10)

Interesting. I wonder if crowd noise / preconceptions had anything to do with it. Or perhaps whatever other factor it might be that has consistently rendered shit cards in favour of home fighters in Scotland in the years since Harrison drew with Polo

It must influence people, when you have the crowd roaring everytime the home fighter does anything subconsciously it must sway a judges mind in tight rounds.

[Twinkle Toes]

It shouldn't though should it (the crowd noise swaying a decision) - If anything that proves even more so that they shouldn't be judging fights.

They are either professional or they aren't.

[Controversial]

It shouldn't though should it (the crowd noise swaying a decision) - If anything that proves even more so that they shouldn't be judging fights.

They are either professional or they aren't.

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

[dookus]

It shouldn't though should it (the crowd noise swaying a decision) - If anything that proves even more so that they shouldn't be judging fights.

They are either professional or they aren't.

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

I agree. With the best will in the world, etc. It's a bit of a quandary because on the positive side, sitting ringside the sound of blows should give a better feel for how solid they are. Maybe there's some futuristic crowd-noise-cancelling headphones out there..

[jimmystone]

It shouldn't though should it (the crowd noise swaying a decision) - If anything that proves even more so that they shouldn't be judging fights.

They are either professional or they aren't.

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

Everybody else who was watching could hear the crowd and still scored it wide for Catterall. Those judges are either cheats or shyte. They are the only two options.

[Controversial]

It shouldn't though should it (the crowd noise swaying a decision) - If anything that proves even more so that they shouldn't be judging fights.

They are either professional or they aren't.

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

Everybody else who was watching could hear the crowd and still scored it wide for Catterall. Those judges are either cheats or shyte. They are the only two options.

I think there is a difference being in the crowd and picking the winner based on what you saw and actually scoring it. Watching it I thought Catterall was the clear winner by a few rounds but watching it again and scoring the fight I had it a lot closer than expected. As I said in an earlier post, fighter B can dominate and easily win three rounds 9-10 but narrowly lose three other rounds 10-9. To a spectator they might say fighter B is clearly winning because the rounds they dominated will be the standout moments of the fight when in fact it could be a draw after 6 rounds on the scorecards.

Now maybe I was influenced more as I watched it again knowing it was a controversial fight but I tried to be impartial and score it as I would any fight. Doing that I still had Catterall the winner but only by one point. I just think it was a scrappy fight for the most part.

[Twinkle Toes]

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

It's true, but we should be able to have people in these positions that are the the least impacted by it. When it's the same judges making the same bad calls, then I think we are safe to assume the issue is clearly with the person at hand - regardless of outside influences. It should be dealt with accordingly but hasn't been.

IJL in particular is very poor as a referee too, and also confirms ex boxer's aren't necessarily the answer. It would be fair to say that they should at least be able to handle the crowd noises, but in his case it is not true. Add O'connor into that too.

We need to get a handle on this sharpish. Catterall becoming undisputed would have changed his life and it's been denied by incapable people who have a history of poor standards.

[Controversial]

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

It's true, but we should be able to have people in these positions that are the the least impacted by it. When it's the same judges making the same bad calls, then I think we are safe to assume the issue is clearly with the person at hand - regardless of outside influences. It should be dealt with accordingly but hasn't been.

IJL in particular is very poor as a referee too, and also confirms ex boxer's aren't necessarily the answer. It would be fair to say that they should at least be able to handle the crowd noises, but in his case it is not true. Add O'connor into that too.

We need to get a handle on this sharpish. Catterall becoming undisputed would have changed his life and it's been denied by incapable people who have a history of poor standards.

Yes and I agree there should be new faces but it will never stop controversy. We are humans, we all make mistakes, see different things and are influenced in different ways. We all have bad days at the office and good days. In the case of IJL it was only the 4th round he scored different to the other two judges so just goes to show how that can affect the overall decision.

[Frostieballs]

I would be shocked if the police find evidence of actual corruption i.e. brown paper bags changing hands.

For a start, the promoter was neutral and as outraged as anyone.

What the judges are guilty of is ineptitude.

They don’t have the ability to be impartial and not favour the ‘home’ fighter. They don’t have the ability to shut out the noise of the crowd. They are not strong enough to not want to be liked by the ‘more popular’ fighter.

They don’t want to upset the apple cart when it comes to doing what is always expected of them in case the work dries up.

Unprofessional yes. Biased and influenceable? Yes. Blatantly corrupt - I doubt it.

[jimmystone]

No it shouldn't but everyone is human and susceptible to influence, often without even realising we are, we all fall for it daily with advertising, social media sites, news being reported etc..

Everybody else who was watching could hear the crowd and still scored it wide for Catterall. Those judges are either cheats or shyte. They are the only two options.

I think there is a difference being in the crowd and picking the winner based on what you saw and actually scoring it. Watching it I thought Catterall was the clear winner by a few rounds but watching it again and scoring the fight I had it a lot closer than expected. As I said in an earlier post, fighter B can dominate and easily win three rounds 9-10 but narrowly lose three other rounds 10-9. To a spectator they might say fighter B is clearly winning because the rounds they dominated will be the standout moments of the fight when in fact it could be a draw after 6 rounds on the scorecards.

Now maybe I was influenced more as I watched it again knowing it was a controversial fight but I tried to be impartial and score it as I would any fight. Doing that I still had Catterall the winner but only by one point. I just think it was a scrappy fight for the most part.

You have got to be careful watching controversial fights back because you will usually look to give rounds to the controversial winner. Humans are kind and we look for ways to give the benefit of the doubt to the judges (or at least I used to, now I just don't trust them.)

I scored it with a pen and paper and posted each round score on here and I had it wide. I've been scoring fights since the eighties and that is the fight where I have been furthest away from the judges.

[margaret thatcher]

agree, like i told a guy on the current scene who said he was going to rescore it, it already sounded like he was going to look for ways to make a case for taylor. not saying that's the case for everyone, but defo there can be a bit of a pull to do that, especially for honest folk who are doing it to try to see if they can understand why the judges scored as they did

[Ruthless-RKO]

agree, like i told a guy on the current scene who said he was going to rescore it, it already sounded like he was going to look for ways to make a case for taylor. not saying that's the case for everyone, but defo there can be a bit of a pull to do that, especially for honest folk who are doing it to try to see if they can understand why the judges scored as they did

I hardly ever re-score fights.

Just the once.

Sometimes I don't score the fight at first viewing.. Won't think about it.

then I might watch it again and score it. But there's probably only a handful of fights I might have scored more than once.

[Controversial]

Everybody else who was watching could hear the crowd and still scored it wide for Catterall. Those judges are either cheats or shyte. They are the only two options.

Now maybe I was influenced more as I watched it again knowing it was a controversial fight but I tried to be impartial and score it as I would any fight. Doing that I still had Catterall the winner but only by one point. I just think it was a scrappy fight for the most part.

You have got to be careful watching controversial fights back because you will usually look to give rounds to the controversial winner. Humans are kind and we look for ways to give the benefit of the doubt to the judges (or at least I used to, now I just don't trust them.)

I scored it with a pen and paper and posted each round score on here and I had it wide. I've been scoring fights since the eighties and that is the fight where I have been furthest away from the judges.

Yes and I said maybe I was unintentionally being influenced knowing it was a controversial decision, even so I still had Catterall winning. I really had no preference who won, I don't know much about Catterall, in fact I think thats the first time I've seen him fight but he deserved the nod for me.

[margaret thatcher]

agree, like i told a guy on the current scene who said he was going to rescore it, it already sounded like he was going to look for ways to make a case for taylor. not saying that's the case for everyone, but defo there can be a bit of a pull to do that, especially for honest folk who are doing it to try to see if they can understand why the judges scored as they did

I hardly ever re-score fights.

Just the once.

Sometimes I don't score the fight at first viewing.. Won't think about it.

then I might watch it again and score it. But there's probably only a handful of fights I might have scored more than once.

ya same here, often times the hard to score ones are total balls to watch too. i was considering rewatching hopkins-calzaghe recently but decided once is enough

[olij999]

Some interesting ways of scoring and rescoring here. To me, scoring or rescoring when you know the result just doesn't work - you're affected by info that you shouldn't have in order to judge it neutrally, even if you consciously try to ignore it. You can't un-know a result once you've been told it. Best way to do it is to get as close to the conditions in which a judge has to work, i.e. score the fight once only, end of each round, don't keep a running total, and no communication with anyone else during the fight (so no real-time comments on forums, no listening to commentary, no asking mates how they are scoring it). But that does make it a bit anti-social.

[Boxerbeetle]

Plenty of us were scoring the fight RBR on this very thread, not exactly hard to go back and see what we were thinking in real time. I seem to recall I stopped bothering to post my scores after I had it something like 6-1 Catt, because it seemed pointless, Taylor just wasn’t going to (legitimately) win on the scorecards.

I wonder how many of us also posted something like “IJL as a judge, fix will be in” before the fight even started ? But what do we know, eh.