Bad Decisions or Bad Judges? Should Boxing Officials Have Ring Experience?

Boxing is a sport where the difference between victory and defeat can come down to the opinion of three people sitting ringside. And yet, how many of them have ever actually taken a punch?

It’s an uncomfortable question, but a necessary one. Controversial scorecards are as much a part of boxing as left hooks and knockdowns. From Canelo vs. GGG I to Fury vs. Ngannou, fans have been left shaking their heads at decisions that seem impossible to justify.

And when it happens, the same argument resurfaces—how can someone who’s never laced up a pair of gloves truly understand what’s happening inside the ring? Should boxing judges be required to have actual in-ring experience? Or would that create more problems than it solves?

The Case for Fighter-Turned-Judges

The argument in favor is simple—judges who’ve actually fought understand the sport on a deeper level. They know what it feels like to take body shots, to be pushed back on the ropes, to feint, slip, and counter. They can distinguish between effective aggression and wasted energy, between a glancing blow and a shot that does real damage.

Too often, judges reward the wrong things. A fighter marches forward but lands nothing, yet still wins rounds for "aggression." Another picks off clean counters all night but doesn’t get credit because they’re moving backward. A former fighter would recognize the difference.

Look at some of the most respected voices in boxing—Paulie Malignaggi, Andre Ward, Tim Bradley. They see things casual fans (and maybe even some judges) miss. Why? Because they’ve been there.

If other sports require officials to have experience—former players becoming referees in football or basketball—why should boxing be any different?

The Problem with Limiting the Judge Pool

But here’s the counterargument—if we only allow ex-fighters to judge, do we risk creating an even bigger problem?

Boxing careers are short, and not every retired fighter wants to sit ringside filling out scorecards. If commissions limit judging to former boxers, how many will actually step up? Could we end up with even worse judging due to a shallow talent pool?

And let’s not forget the potential for bias. Former fighters have histories—grudges, friendships, alliances. If ex-fighters become the primary judges, do we risk decisions being influenced by personal rivalries or old gym connections?

There’s also the issue of perspective. Just because someone fought doesn’t mean they know how to judge. Playing football doesn’t automatically make you a great referee. Being an artist doesn’t mean you’d be a great critic.

Maybe what boxing needs isn’t exclusively ex-fighters as judges—but better training, higher accountability, and a system that ensures competence over credentials.

So What’s the Solution?

Maybe there’s a middle ground. What if boxing implemented a hybrid system?

• Mandatory training from ex-fighters: Judges wouldn’t need to be former boxers, but they’d be required to learn from those who were. Training camps with retired pros, seminars breaking down what really matters in scoring a fight.

• Ex-fighters on review panels: Even if they’re not ringside, former fighters could serve on commissions that review controversial decisions and hold judges accountable.

• Stricter judging standards: Boxing doesn’t necessarily need fighters to judge—it just needs better judges. More transparency, clearer criteria, and immediate post-fight explanations for questionable cards.

Because at the end of the day, the real issue isn’t who the judges are—it’s how they judge.

So here’s the real question: Would ex-fighters at the judges' table fix boxing’s biggest problem? Or is bad judging a deeper issue that goes beyond experience?