Iain John Lewis

[olij999]

ijl has a long history of terrible judging and weffing.........although im not sure if the bbbc had ever given him any formal warnings about it prior to the downgrade

That's probably where he has a chance to win his case.
Have no inside knowledge of the situation but if they've not followed procedures correctly then he'll probably win and either get reinstated or paid off handsomely.

Didn't he get a warning from the board when he gave a fighter 10 points in a round in a Prizefighter? In spite of the fact that the guy actually got knocked down and given a count in the round.

It's not that difficult for anyone to build a case against IJL showing incompetence, at the very least.

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

[Flump]

That's probably where he has a chance to win his case.
Have no inside knowledge of the situation but if they've not followed procedures correctly then he'll probably win and either get reinstated or paid off handsomely.

Didn't he get a warning from the board when he gave a fighter 10 points in a round in a Prizefighter? In spite of the fact that the guy actually got knocked down and given a count in the round.

It's not that difficult for anyone to build a case against IJL showing incompetence, at the very least.

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

Is that right? I don't ever remember a fighter who gets floored being awarded 10 points, outside of that fight I referred to. 9 plenty of times if he was winning the round but I thought a knockdown incurred a penalty.

Happy to be put right, but I have never seen this. Are you a referee or judge per chance?

[olij999]

Didn't he get a warning from the board when he gave a fighter 10 points in a round in a Prizefighter? In spite of the fact that the guy actually got knocked down and given a count in the round.

It's not that difficult for anyone to build a case against IJL showing incompetence, at the very least.

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

Is that right? I don't ever remember a fighter who gets floored being awarded 10 points, outside of that fight I referred to. 9 plenty of times if he was winning the round but I thought a knockdown incurred a penalty.

Happy to be put right, but I have never seen this. Are you a referee or judge per chance?

I was on an Area council for several years, and was on a small committee (that included an A* ref) that redrafted and updated the Referees Guide a few years ago. I had the "privilege" of typing up the whole thing up once finalised. As for how often that 10-10 occurs in practice, that of course depends on whether all refs read the guide, a point on which I couldn't possibly comment. However, IJL's scoring in that round indicates that he at least had read it. For another example of knockdown rounds being scored as 10-10, see the first Dave McAuley v Rodolfo Blanco fight. McAuley down twice round 2, once in round 3, once in round 11, Blanco down once in round 9. Scores were Frank Brunette 113-111, Rocky Castellani 115-110, Knud Jensen 117-113, and I believe rounds 3 and 11 were scored 10-10 by some of the judges. Although that was an IBF title fight, similar approach, I believe.

[Flump]

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

Is that right? I don't ever remember a fighter who gets floored being awarded 10 points, outside of that fight I referred to. 9 plenty of times if he was winning the round but I thought a knockdown incurred a penalty.

Happy to be put right, but I have never seen this. Are you a referee or judge per chance?

I was on an Area council for several years, and was on a small committee (that included an A* ref) that redrafted and updated the Referees Guide a few years ago. I had the "privilege" of typing up the whole thing up once finalised. As for how often that 10-10 occurs in practice, that of course depends on whether all refs read the guide, a point on which I couldn't possibly comment. However, IJL's scoring in that round indicates that he at least had read it. For another example of knockdown rounds being scored as 10-10, see the first Dave McAuley v Rodolfo Blanco fight. McAuley down twice round 2, once in round 3, once in round 11, Blanco down once in round 9. Scores were Frank Brunette 113-111, Rocky Castellani 115-110, Knud Jensen 117-113, and I believe rounds 3 and 11 were scored 10-10 by some of the judges. Although that was an IBF title fight, similar approach, I believe.

Thanks mate, didn't know that. I remember the McAuley-Blanco fight, not the specifics of the scoring, you learn something new every day!

[Coco]

That's probably where he has a chance to win his case.
Have no inside knowledge of the situation but if they've not followed procedures correctly then he'll probably win and either get reinstated or paid off handsomely.

Didn't he get a warning from the board when he gave a fighter 10 points in a round in a Prizefighter? In spite of the fact that the guy actually got knocked down and given a count in the round.

It's not that difficult for anyone to build a case against IJL showing incompetence, at the very least.

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

Nowadays would you say it's normal and good practice to give the round 10-8 against the fella who has been knocked down even if he has won the round.
Obv I guess it would be to what extent he won the round. I know it is subjective.
Or would you say if a fighter wins the round but gets knocked down he would lose it 10-9? Or would you say 10-10?
Or would the knocked down fighter need to win the round big to get 10-10

[olij999]

Didn't he get a warning from the board when he gave a fighter 10 points in a round in a Prizefighter? In spite of the fact that the guy actually got knocked down and given a count in the round.

It's not that difficult for anyone to build a case against IJL showing incompetence, at the very least.

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

Nowadays would you say it's normal and good practice to give the round 10-8 against the fella who has been knocked down even if he has won the round.
Obv I guess it would be to what extent he won the round. I know it is subjective.
Or would you say if a fighter wins the round but gets knocked down he would lose it 10-9? Or would you say 10-10?
Or would the knocked down fighter need to win the round big to get 10-10

It shouldn't be, for any BBBofC referee. They should be following the guide. See viewtopic.php?p=5015483 for an old thread on this. If a fighter wins the round but gets KD'd, that's 10-10. And it doesn't matter how hard the knockdown is - you're either down or you're not.

However, it would certainly appear that this is not consistently applied. And the fact that it is just a "guide", and is not part of the regulations, gives referees free rein to be inconsistent - if a fighter protested, the referee would have the defence of "it's only a guide". When a fighter's entire life can be changed by a one-point swing on one scorecard, that just isn't good enough, for me - the guide should be incorporated as an Appendix to the rules so that it is binding. The Board need to change that.

[Coco]

Interesting, so technically dependencies on the fight, British title or WBC for example, you should score the fight differently

[olij999]

Interesting, so technically dependencies on the fight, British title or WBC for example, you should score the fight differently

Coco, that's the problem. In many cases, there is very little in terms of rules or guidance on how to score a fight. The EBU have some pretty good stuff on their site - see https://www.boxebu.com/european-championship-rules/ , scroll down to "Pocket Reminder Basic Guidelines Judges" and click on the different tabs there. But many bodies do not appear to. There are lots of articles on the internet saying "this is how the 10-point-must system works" but that don't show what the source or basis for their assertions is. It's that kind of thing that leads to fallacies such as "automatic 10-8 round" being repeated and gaining traction.

That's what gets me irritated about this - scoring is potentially so critical to a fighter's future, yet I can't find the specifics incorporated into rules anywhere. Imagine taking your GCSEs or A-Levels and being told "We haven't got a binding, defined marking system for your paper".

[whiskey]

His scoring as a judge is as horrible as his refereering.

Remember his 114-111 to Taylor against Catterall ? BBBoC called him in for a meeting after that score and downgraded him.

I sort of remember he gave first 8 rounds to Kevin Mitchell against Jorge Linares. Kevin was incredibly gutsy and i was rooting for him, but he didn't win all 8 rounds (Linares stopped Mitchell in 10, so that howler remained hidden).

[Counter-puncher]

I sort of remember he gave first 8 rounds to Kevin Mitchell against Jorge Linares. Kevin was incredibly gutsy and i was rooting for him, but he didn't win all 8 rounds (Linares stopped Mitchell in 10, so that howler remained hidden).

that's very, very bad. IIRC you could make a case Mitchell won maybe, what? 3 rounds in the first 8? maybe 4? Linares had started to work him out by maybe rd 5/6 at latest IIRC

[My T Sharp]

I like it when he tells the gloved up boxers to shake hands

[Flump]

I sort of remember he gave first 8 rounds to Kevin Mitchell against Jorge Linares. Kevin was incredibly gutsy and i was rooting for him, but he didn't win all 8 rounds (Linares stopped Mitchell in 10, so that howler remained hidden).

that's very, very bad. IIRC you could make a case Mitchell won maybe, what? 3 rounds in the first 8? maybe 4? Linares had started to work him out by maybe rd 5/6 at latest IIRC

This didn't come.as a surprise to me. A few weeks before the bout he was selling his book at a London ex-boxers meeting, and announced that he was judging Linares-Mitchell, then let out an excited 'C'Mon Kevin!' as if he were a fan, not an impartial judge.

[Counter-puncher]

ffs man

[TheLeprechaun]

Didn't he give an impossible scorecard in prizefighter once where there was a kd he didn't take into account over the three round distance?

[jonp]

Edit

[jonp]

I'm not here to defend IJL. But if people are going to criticise him, at least get it right. If a fighter wins a round but suffers a knockdown, it is perfectly possible for that round to be scored 10-10, as IJL did in that case. It's in the Referees Guide that all referees have to read, although it is not published. We've had countless threads in recent years on scoring, the myth of the "automatic 10-8 round", so there are fuller explanations in there. So he would not have been called before the Board for that.

More widely, I agree that, on a number of occasions, IJL's reffing and judging have really not been good. But, in his position, I would ask "If you say I am in a skilled role but am not performing competently, then before downgrading me (i) what warnings did you give me about my underperformance as a judge and ref; and (ii) what training did you give me to help me to remediate the problems?". I don't know what the answers to that are. But if they are (i) none/few; and (ii) nothing, that's likely not great for the Board. It's not about the Board building a case against IJL, it's about what case IJL has against the Board, if he is indeed taking legal action.

Is that right? I don't ever remember a fighter who gets floored being awarded 10 points, outside of that fight I referred to. 9 plenty of times if he was winning the round but I thought a knockdown incurred a penalty.

Happy to be put right, but I have never seen this. Are you a referee or judge per chance?

I was on an Area council for several years, and was on a small committee (that included an A* ref) that redrafted and updated the Referees Guide a few years ago. I had the "privilege" of typing up the whole thing up once finalised. As for how often that 10-10 occurs in practice, that of course depends on whether all refs read the guide, a point on which I couldn't possibly comment. However, IJL's scoring in that round indicates that he at least had read it. For another example of knockdown rounds being scored as 10-10, see the first Dave McAuley v Rodolfo Blanco fight. McAuley down twice round 2, once in round 3, once in round 11, Blanco down once in round 9. Scores were Frank Brunette 113-111, Rocky Castellani 115-110, Knud Jensen 117-113, and I believe rounds 3 and 11 were scored 10-10 by some of the judges. Although that was an IBF title fight, similar approach, I believe.

Iv seen it d mitchell against martin concepion mitchell scored a knockdown lost a decision which seemed off with the scoring got to see the card he scored the knockdown round 10.10 ( to be fair gill got released from being a ref not long after anyway lol)

[jonp]

Another howler iv seen but it didnt get shown because of a knockout. Sam Eggington against Ashley theopagne most people had sam winning every round including a knockdown and when it ended with a body shot even us in sams corner were releived as we thought he was gonna get a bad head shot ko.

Turns out IJL had the fight even and without the knockdown would have had sam behind !!!

[maverick23]

Another howler iv seen but it didnt get shown because of a knockout. Sam Eggington against Ashley theopagne most people had sam winning every round including a knockdown and when it ended with a body shot even us in sams corner were releived as we thought he was gonna get a bad head shot ko.

Turns out IJL had the fight even and without the knockdown would have had sam behind !!!

Bloody hell. I had it as a shut out. Incompetence at best.

[olij999]

Didn't he give an impossible scorecard in prizefighter once where there was a kd he didn't take into account over the three round distance?

No, he didn't. See the explanation higher up in this thread.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Boxing judge Ian John-Lewis ‘suing BBBofC’ after he was relegated for scoring of Josh Taylor vs Jack Catterall

EMBARRASSED British boxing referee Ian John-Lewis is reportedly suing the board after they relegated him for his terrible card that gifted Josh Taylor a win over Jack Catterall.

In February 2022, the British Boxing Board of Control official inexplicably scored the undisputed super-lightweight bout 114-111 to the defending Scotsman.

Broadcasters Sky Sports - like most fair-minded fans - were disgusted by the card and the BBBofC dropped John-Lewis from A* status down to A, ruling him out of their elite events.

In September John-Lewis - who released his own autobiography in 2014 - moved to BBBofC rivals the British and Irish Boxing Association (BIBA).

And the Mail now claims he is taking the matter to a tribunal

After the BBBofC investigated the two cards that robbed Catterall of a magnificent win - and punished John-Lewis but not fellow judge Victor Loughlin - they said: "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’s explanation, the Stewards of the Board decided to downgrade Mr John-Lewis from an A Star Class to an A Class Official."

John-Lewis, 61, is no stranger to scoring controversy after another stinker in Lyndon Arthur's split-decision 2020 win over Anthony Yarde.

Yarde was the home fighter and favourite but underdog Arthur dominated him with a ramrod jab.

Two of the ringside judges both gave Arthur victory, with 115-114 cards that should have been even wider.

But John-Lewis somehow wrote 117-111 to Yarde on his scorecard and was the subject of ridicule online.

The Mail also reports that 61-year-old ref Jeff Hinds is seeking action for not being permitted to referee or judge fights since pursuing a 2020 defamation claim against the BBBofC.

[olij999]

Well, presumably if the case proceeds, his barrister will have fun quoting Mr. Smith's words on page 16 of the 22 December 2022 edition of Boxing News - "I've always said to you, and I'm sure you scratch your head when I do, that an honest decision is a good decision. It was an honest decision and nothing has been said since to make me think otherwise." Then, unless the Board has any evidence that IJL has ever been dishonest in his role as a ref or judge, his decisions are by definitions good decisions, in the Board's own words. Hardly a good starting point for them, never mind the cross-examination of any Board witnesses. I'd be amazed if this case ends up at a full hearing. But it may be an entertaining watch from the public gallery if it does.

[handsofstone]

IJL should've been binned years ago and I do mean years ago, still I'm glad to see the BBBC get sued as well, that's what they get for condoning such shoddy officiating for such a long time from the old boys club

Win/win really , Robert Smith is horrendous

[dookus]

Well, presumably if the case proceeds, his barrister will have fun quoting Mr. Smith's words on page 16 of the 22 December 2022 edition of Boxing News - "I've always said to you, and I'm sure you scratch your head when I do, that an honest decision is a good decision. It was an honest decision and nothing has been said since to make me think otherwise." Then, unless the Board has any evidence that IJL has ever been dishonest in his role as a ref or judge, his decisions are by definitions good decisions, in the Board's own words. Hardly a good starting point for them, never mind the cross-examination of any Board witnesses. I'd be amazed if this case ends up at a full hearing. But it may be an entertaining watch from the public gallery if it does.

That would indeed be a great watch. But I think that can be explained away as simply a poorly worded piece of commentary. If taken literally, all parties understand the Board to impose no objective standard of competence on its officials whatsoever. I would be surprised if a Court accepted that is the case for the regulatory body of a dangerous sport. What are all the grades of official for, if not (in theory) reflecting their level of competence?

[tony1234]

All IJL has to say why wasn't Tewwy O'Connor demoted after all the shockers he was involved in down the years ? Seems that the Catterall decision got so much publicity he was the scapegoat despite Loughlin scoring it for Taylor too

[1143850]

Has Lewis actually worked a BIBA promotion yet?