Robbed In The Ring? Should Fighters Be Allowed To Appeal Judges’ Decisions?

By Billie Sloane, IFL TV

Boxing is no stranger to controversy—especially when it comes to judging decisions. You’ve heard it all before: “He was robbed!” or “Worst decision I’ve ever seen!” But here’s the million-dollar question: should fighters have the right to formally contest those dodgy scorecards?

In a sport where careers—and sometimes livelihoods—hang on a single decision, shouldn’t fighters have some form of recourse when they believe they’ve been wronged? Or would an appeal system just open Pandora’s box, turning every split decision into a drawn-out legal circus?

The Case for Appeals: Fairness, Accountability, and Justice

Let’s get one thing straight—boxing has a long and storied history of questionable decisions. Josh Taylor vs. Jack Catterall (2022) is one of the most glaring examples in recent memory. Catterall, the underdog, fought a near-perfect fight, dominating the early rounds and outboxing Taylor. By the time the final bell rang, the boxing world had crowned Catterall the new champion. Only… he wasn’t. Taylor was awarded a controversial split-decision victory that sent social media into meltdown.

The outcry was immediate and brutal, with even Taylor’s fellow professionals questioning the decision. Had Catterall been able to appeal, perhaps that decision would have been overturned—or at least formally reviewed. But in boxing’s current system, there’s no such option. Once the scorecards are read, fighters are left to lick their wounds and move on. 

An appeals process could add much-needed accountability to judging. Right now, there’s little oversight or consequence for a judge who delivers a shocking scorecard. Fighters train for months—sometimes years—for their big moments, only to have them snatched away by a judge’s incompetence or bias.

Take Jermell Charlo vs. Brian Castaño I (2021)—a thrilling fight that ended in a controversial draw. Had Charlo or Castaño been able to appeal, we might have seen a resolution before the rematch was necessary. An appeal system could be the safeguard boxing desperately needs, ensuring the right winner walks away with the belt.

And let’s not forget the human element. Judges are human, and humans make mistakes. An appeals process would give governing bodies a chance to review contentious decisions and correct any obvious errors. In other sports like tennis or football, officials’ decisions can be reviewed—so why not boxing?

The Case Against: Chaos in the Making?

But before you start drafting new rules, let’s pause. Introducing an appeals system might sound good on paper, but in reality, it could create more chaos than clarity. Boxing is already complicated enough with multiple sanctioning bodies, conflicting rules, and political agendas. Adding an appeals process could bog the sport down in endless disputes and delays.

Imagine every close decision being dragged into a review process. What would that do to the sport’s momentum? How long would it take to finalize fight outcomes? Would belts be handed back weeks—or even months—after the fight? It’s a logistical nightmare.

Take Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin I (2017)—another controversial draw that divided the boxing world. If both fighters had filed appeals, how long would it have taken to resolve? The rematch might’ve been postponed for months—or worse, canceled altogether.

Then there’s the slippery slope argument. Once you allow appeals, where do you draw the line? Should fighters be able to contest every decision, or only the most egregious ones? Who decides which appeals are valid? You can already hear the cries of favoritism and corruption from miles away.

What Would This Mean for Fighters?

For fighters, an appeal system could be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers a safety net—a chance to correct a wrong and protect their records, rankings, and earning potential. On the other, it could create uncertainty. Imagine stepping out of the ring thinking you’ve won, only to have your victory overturned days later.

Financially, appeals could be a game-changer. A bad decision can cost a fighter millions in missed opportunities. If a loss is overturned, it could open doors to new contracts, sponsorships, and title shots. For fighters like Jack Catterall, who was left out in the cold after his controversial loss, an appeal system could have been career-saving.

But would appeals become a tool for wealthier fighters to protect their status while less-connected boxers are left in the cold? Would it widen the gap between boxing’s haves and have-nots?

Accountability or Chaos? What’s the Right Move?

Boxing has always thrived on its unpredictability, but maybe it’s time for change. Should the sport evolve, or is this just another attempt to sanitize boxing’s rough edges?

The case for appeals is strong, but so are the potential pitfalls. The danger lies in over-regulation—turning a sport built on raw drama into a bureaucratic maze. Could boxing find a middle ground, where only the most controversial decisions are reviewed without turning every fight into a court case?

And what about the judges? Should they face stricter scrutiny? Some have suggested mandatory post-fight reviews for all major decisions. Others believe in rotating international judges to reduce home-cooking. But would that be enough?

What Do You Think?

Should fighters have the right to appeal bad decisions? Would it bring fairness to the sport, or would it slow down the action and create even more politics?

Is boxing’s chaotic nature part of its charm, or is it time for change? Would an appeal system prevent future incidents like Taylor vs. Catterall—or just make everything more complicated?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. Because in boxing, the debate is just as fierce as the fight.

Billie Sloane takes a ‘no holes barred’ approach as he has his say on some of the major talking points in the crazy world that is boxing.