Joshua Buatsi Questions the Officials Before Willy Hutchinson Rematch — But His Best Answer Is a Decisive Win

Joshua Buatsi and Willy Hutchinson will meet again on November 7 at Manchester’s AO Arena, this time with the vacant WBC light-heavyweight championship at stake. Their rematch offers Buatsi an opportunity to become a world champion, but it also gives him a chance to settle unfinished business from a first fight that produced two knockdowns, three dramatically different scorecards and a split decision.

Buatsi won their September 2024 meeting at Wembley Stadium after dropping Hutchinson in rounds six and nine. The WBC records the official scores as 117-108 and 115-110 for Buatsi, while the third judge scored the fight 113-112 for Hutchinson. That was enough disagreement to keep the rivalry alive even though Buatsi produced its two clearest moments.

Now the officials have become part of the conversation before either fighter has thrown a punch.

According to Boxing 247’s account of Buatsi’s interview with talkSPORT, he said the announced referee and judges would raise “eyebrows.” The report did not identify a particular official he opposed or explain the basis for his concern. Hutchinson dismissed the issue, saying he “couldn’t care” who judges the fight because he believes he can complete a difficult but achievable job.

Boxing’s scoring deserves scrutiny, especially when championship fights are close. But Buatsi has not publicly established a specific problem with these appointments. His strongest argument will therefore have to come inside the ring.

He needs to make the judges less important.

Buatsi Has Raised a Concern Without Identifying the Problem

There is nothing unusual about a fighter paying close attention to the officials before a major championship bout. Referees can influence how much inside fighting is permitted, while judges may differ in how they value aggression, clean punching, defense and control of the ring. Those differences matter when rounds contain prolonged exchanges without an obvious winner.

Buatsi’s concern cannot simply be dismissed because he has not expanded upon it. Fighters and their teams are entitled to examine appointments and raise objections through the proper channels when they believe there is a legitimate issue.

The limitation is that vague suspicion does not give the public enough information to evaluate his position.

According to Boxing 247, Buatsi predicted that the referee and judges would raise eyebrows, but the report did not specify which appointment concerned him or why. Without that information, there is no basis for concluding that an official is biased, unqualified or otherwise unsuitable. There is also no evidence in the reviewed reporting that any misconduct has occurred.

That distinction matters. Boxing has enough documented scoring failures without turning every unexplained concern into proof that something improper is about to happen.

Hutchinson’s response was simpler. He told talkSPORT that he did not care who judged the rematch and acknowledged that winning would be difficult. His confidence places the focus back on performance, but it does not prove that all concerns about judging are automatically invalid. It means only that Hutchinson wants the fight framed around what he believes he can control.

Buatsi would benefit from doing the same.

If he has a specific objection, he should explain it. If he does not, continuing to emphasize unnamed officials risks distracting from the more important question: whether he can produce a cleaner and more disciplined performance than he did in their first meeting.

The Split Decision Does Not Tell the Entire Story

Calling the first fight a split decision accurately describes the verdict, but it does not explain how the bout unfolded.

The official scores recorded by the WBC were unusually far apart. Two judges had Buatsi winning by margins of nine and five points, while the third gave Hutchinson a one-point victory. That disagreement alone ensures that the scorecards will remain part of the rematch narrative.

Buatsi’s two knockdowns provide essential context. He put Hutchinson down in the sixth and ninth rounds, creating the most decisive scoring moments of the contest. Those knockdowns did not prevent one judge from favoring Hutchinson, but they gave Buatsi meaningful separation on the other two cards.

The result should not be called a robbery without evidence supporting that conclusion. Nor should Hutchinson be treated as though he was clearly outclassed simply because Buatsi scored the knockdowns. A split verdict indicates that one official saw enough competitive work from Hutchinson to give him the fight, while the other two reached substantially different conclusions.

That is precisely why the rematch matters.

Hutchinson has an opportunity to demonstrate that the favorable scorecard was not an outlier but a reflection of success he can reproduce and expand upon. Buatsi has an opportunity to prove that the first result understated his superiority—and that he can impose it without allowing the contest to become difficult to interpret.

A decisive victory would do more for Buatsi than another week of debate about the officials. Another close fight filled with extended exchanges could preserve the same questions even if his hand is raised again.

The Jab Gives Buatsi a Route Away From Another Argument

Sergio Mora has identified the tactical adjustment that could make the rematch much clearer.

In comments made to DAZN Boxing and reported by BoxingNews24, Mora argued that Buatsi should establish his jab, operate at longer range and resist the temptation to brawl with Hutchinson. The logic is straightforward: Hutchinson is comfortable counterpunching, so Buatsi should avoid providing him with unnecessary opportunities by leading recklessly or remaining in range after completing his attacks.

The jab would serve several purposes. It could disrupt Hutchinson’s timing, establish Buatsi’s preferred distance and give the judges an easily recognizable pattern of control. It would also allow Buatsi to score without repeatedly entering the kind of exchanges that create subjective rounds.

That does not mean Buatsi should become passive.

The objective would be controlled aggression: win the geography of the fight, make Hutchinson cross distance and punish him when he does. Mora suggested that banking the early rounds could force Hutchinson to advance more aggressively, potentially creating openings for Buatsi to hurt or stop him. That is a tactical projection rather than a guaranteed outcome, but it reflects the central challenge Hutchinson would face if Buatsi builds an early lead.

A counterpuncher becomes less comfortable when he is required to initiate.

Hutchinson’s task will be to prevent Buatsi from settling into that rhythm. He must interfere with the jab, vary his entries and create enough uncertainty that Buatsi cannot simply dictate the fight from outside. If Hutchinson can force Buatsi backward or persuade him to exchange for longer than necessary, he may be able to reproduce the competitive stretches that kept the first fight open to interpretation.

The danger for Buatsi is emotional rather than technical. The pressure to produce a decisive result can tempt a fighter into chasing one. If he interprets “leave no doubt” as a demand to attack constantly, he could abandon the very discipline that offers him the safest route to a clear victory.

A knockout would remove the judges entirely. A reckless pursuit of that knockout could bring them back into the fight.

The Championship Raises the Standard for Both Fighters

The WBC confirmed that the rematch would be contested for its vacant light-heavyweight championship after David Benavidez informed the organization that he would continue at cruiserweight. That development transforms the bout from a repeat of a domestic rivalry into a career-defining championship opportunity.

Some WBC event material has continued to use interim-title wording, but the organization’s later divisional update identified the full championship as vacant. Regardless of that inconsistent language, the stakes described by the WBC for November 7 are clear: a new champion is expected to emerge.

The WBC’s October 2 rankings placed Buatsi at No. 4 and Hutchinson at No. 7. It lists Buatsi with a record of 20-1 and 13 knockouts, while Hutchinson enters at 20-2 with 14 knockouts. BoxingScene reported that both made the light-heavyweight limit at the November 6 weigh-in, with Buatsi at 174.9 pounds and Hutchinson at 174.5.

DAZN will carry the event from the AO Arena in Manchester. No confirmed purse figures were available in the reviewed sources.

For Buatsi, winning the belt would be significant. How he wins it may shape the immediate judgment of what that championship means.

A disciplined performance built around distance, timing and the jab would suggest that he learned from the first fight. It would show that he can adjust to a familiar opponent rather than relying upon superior physical moments to separate himself on the scorecards. That kind of victory would strengthen his standing beyond the title itself.

Another exchange-heavy fight would send a different message. Buatsi could still win, but he would leave open questions about why he repeatedly accepted unnecessary risk against an opponent whose strengths he already understood.

Hutchinson has even more to gain. He can overturn the only result directly connecting the two men, validate his belief that he belongs at championship level and leave Manchester with the WBC title. His confidence about the officials will matter only if he can prevent Buatsi from controlling the terms of the fight.

Neither man needs the rematch to resemble the first one.

Buatsi needs to reduce uncertainty. Hutchinson needs to create it.