Last week on CMBoxing, we broke down how referees are chosen for professional bouts in the UK — who appoints them, what training they go through, and why the same officials often end up in the biggest fights. If you missed it, that explainer is worth a read before this one, because it sets the groundwork for what follows.
This piece picks up where that left off — because while referees control the action, judges control the outcome.
And if you’ve ever watched a fight knowing exactly who won… only to hear a baffling scorecard read out, you’re not alone.
So how does boxing judges selection actually work? Who picks them? Why do the same names keep popping up? And does the system protect boxing’s credibility — or quietly undermine it?
Let’s get into it.
Who Selects Judges for Major Boxing Fights?
The first thing to clear up is this: judges are not chosen by promoters. At least, not officially — and not directly.
In the UK: The British Boxing Board of Control
For professional boxing in Britain, judges are appointed by the British Boxing Board of Control.
For:
- British title fights
- Commonwealth title fights
- Licensed professional bouts under their jurisdiction
The Board selects judges from its approved and licensed officials list. Fighters, managers and promoters don’t get to pick who scores the fight — the appointments are made centrally.
One important UK wrinkle: some non-title fights are still scored solely by the referee, rather than three judges. It’s a system that confuses international viewers, but it’s been part of British boxing for decades.
If you want the full context on how officials are appointed more broadly, this follows directly on from our explainer on how referees are selected in UK boxing, which lays out the wider structure behind officiating appointments.
What About World Title Fights?
Once you move beyond domestic boxing, boxing judges selection becomes more layered.
Host Commissions Do the Appointing
For world title fights, judges are usually appointed by the local athletic commission where the fight takes place — whether that’s in Las Vegas, New York, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere.
These commissions work from approved international panels of officials, often with input from the sanctioning body whose belt is on the line.
Sanctioning Bodies Still Have Influence
Organisations like the:
- WBC
- WBA
- IBF
- WBO
don’t technically appoint judges themselves — but they approve panels, flag concerns, and expect certain standards to be met. In practice, commissions and sanctioning bodies collaborate closely on big fights.
This is why world title judging panels are often:
- International
- Neutral in nationality
- Made up of highly experienced officials
On paper, the aim is fairness. In reality, it’s also about trust and predictability.
What Criteria Are Judges Chosen On?
This is where boxing judges selection becomes less mysterious — and more frustrating.
Experience Comes First
Judges don’t just turn up on a world title panel out of nowhere. To get there, they typically need:
- Years of judging at lower professional levels
- A clean disciplinary record
- Active licensing with recognised governing bodies
- Strong assessments from supervisors and commissions
Big fights don’t reward potential — they reward proven reliability.
Neutrality Matters (At Least in Theory)
At international level, judges are usually chosen to avoid obvious conflicts:
- No judges from the same country as the fighters
- No recent involvement with either boxer’s camp
This doesn’t guarantee impartiality — but it’s designed to reduce accusations of bias before the first bell even rings.
Availability and Trust
This is the part fans don’t always like hearing.
The pool of judges trusted to score elite-level fights is surprisingly small. When a major card comes around, commissions often turn to the same officials simply because:
- They’ve handled pressure before
- They understand judging criteria at speed
- They’re less likely to be overwhelmed by the occasion
That’s why certain names keep resurfacing on big nights.
Why Do the Same Judges Keep Appearing?
If you follow boxing closely, you’ll recognise recurring judges on world title cards — and that’s no accident.
From the sport’s perspective:
- Familiar judges reduce risk
- Consistency is valued over experimentation
- Big fights aren’t treated as training grounds
From a fan’s perspective, though, it can feel like a closed shop — especially when controversial decisions stack up with no obvious accountability.
And that’s where confidence in the system starts to wobble.
Does the Current System Protect Boxing’s Credibility?
This is where opinions split — sharply.
What the System Gets Right
- Judges are qualified, licensed, and experienced
- Appointments are not made by promoters
- Neutrality is at least considered
- There is a formal structure behind selections
Where It Falls Short
- Transparency is minimal — fans rarely know why judges were chosen
- Accountability is weak after poor scorecards
- The same small pool creates stagnation
- Communication with fans is almost non-existent
When decisions go wrong, boxing tends to shrug and move on — which does nothing to rebuild trust.
Why This Matters More Than Ever
In an era of:
- Close fights
- High-stakes unifications
- Global audiences
- Instant replays and social media scrutiny
Judging isn’t just a technical role anymore — it’s a credibility issue.
Boxing doesn’t need perfect judges. It needs confidence in the process. And right now, that confidence is fragile.
Final Bell: Over to You
Judges don’t appear by accident — they’re appointed through a structured system built on experience, licensing, and trust. But whether that system is evolving fast enough is a fair question.
Do you trust the current approach to boxing judges selection?
Should boxing widen the pool — or protect consistency at all costs?
Drop your thoughts in the comments, share this piece with fellow fight fans, and explore more explainers like this at CMBoxing — where we actually dig into how the sport works, not just who won.