The World Boxing Organization (WBO) has dismissed an appeal from American fighter Marlen Esparza and her team, who lost her WBO title to Argentinian champion Gabriela Alaniz on April 27th after being defeated by split decision (SD), resulting in the loss of all three of her world titles. Their April bout was a rematch of their 2023 unification bout, which saw Esparza win the WBO flyweight title [alongside retaining her WBA & WBC titles] by majority decision.
According to the WBO, Marlen Esparza (14-2, 1 KO) and her team had petitioned the sanctioning body to demand an immediate rematch following the result of April 27th, citing blatant fouls perpetrated by Gabriela Alaniz (15-1, 6 KO) and the opinions of the DAZN commentary and social media of Esparza having won to justify their appeal. Esparza’s team also sought to instate Esparza as the mandatory challenger to Alaniz’s WBO title alongside requesting a rematch.
However, these arguments were dismissed by the WBO, which used an independent judging panel—requested by Team Esparza—with specific scoring criteria to rule Alaniz as the rightful winner by 6 rounds to 4, as they stated in the 6-page letter sent to both parties.
Interestingly, all five judges of the independent panel ruled the fight in favor of Alaniz, unlike the actual official scorecards for the April 27th bout, which saw one judge score the fight 98-92 in favor of Esparza, while two other judges scored it 97-93 and 96-94 for Alaniz.
The scorecard of 98-92 for Esparza is also heavily under question, as the April 27th bout had been largely considered competitive; something that the judge’s scorecard in favor of Esparza appears to starkly contrast. However, the dubiousness of the scorecard went unmentioned by the sanctioning body.
What was noted was that while Gabriela Alaniz was accused of blatant fouls, it was Marlen Esparza who committed an actual violation by missing weight for her April 27th fight, disbarring her from winning the WBO flyweight (112 lbs) title. Fortunately for Esparza, her failure to make weight did not affect the WBO’s decision-making process, as the rules do not deny future opportunities due to weight violations.
The only downside of the WBO’s analysis of the fight was their emphasis on the validity of the referee’s and judges’ decisions, which leaves both types of officials impervious to any real repercussions if they make significant errors.
“This Committee is not convinced by the ‘Foul’ argument raised by Team Esparza. For starters, the argument is highly speculative. Further, we must highlight that per the Association of Boxing Commissions’ (ABC) Unified Rules of Boxing, the referee is the sole arbiter of the bout and is the only individual authorized to stop a contest. Simply put, Mr. Colantes [the referee who presided over the April 27th Esparza-Alaniz bout], within his discretion, determined that only an admonishment was warranted in the instances referenced by the petitioner.”
“As to the ringside media and social media arguments asserted by the petitioner, this Committee is not
WBO
moved by such as we rely exclusively on the official bout scores rendered by the judges in addition to the
independent panel of judges appointed for the review and scoring of the fight as requested. Proceeding otherwise would be opening the door for review in every instance whereby fans, boxing media, or broadcast commentators are unsatisfied with official bout scores, which are subjective in nature.”
While the WBO did clarify their trust in the judges’ decisions, arguing that the commentary of ringside media commentators and individuals on social media were less substantial, the sanctioning body also failed to address the aforementioned example of the judge’s wide and controversial scorecard of 98-92 towards Esparza, thus failing to recognize that similar occurrences have been rife within boxing and potentially ruined several matches over the past 12 months due to this.
Their trust in the referee’s decision may also be misplaced. Referees in boxing have recently made crucial decisions that changed the course of a match before, and generally speaking are not as stringent as they could be when it comes to blatant fouls. Prior examples of other fights illustrate this, with redundant holding/clinching by fighters often going completely overlooked and unpunished, while rabbit punches are also regularly committed with few repercussions.
The latter is more egregious, as in the case of Puerto Rican former super welterweight (154 lbs) contender Prichard Colon, who fought his last boxing match in 2015 after enduring multiple rabbit punches by his American opponent, Terrell Williams, that were ignored by the referee. Colon ended up losing the match by disqualification after his corner removed his gloves following the 9th round; though this was arguably done to save Prichard Colon’s life as it was later revealed he endured brain bleeding during the fight, likely due to Williams’ rabbit punches.
Colon suffered a mental disability due to the brain bleeding following his match, which forced his retirement and left a clear message to the referees to be more stringent when it comes to such fouls. Unfortunately, rabbit punches do often occur, whether accidentally or on purpose, and rarely result in fouls. While the intention of these blows is often in dispute, as fighters tend to be most often hit in this manner when ducking, neither referees nor judges have proven to be reliable officials as of yet.
Ultimately, the WBO decided to reject Team Esparza’s appeal, using the aforementioned arguments to dictate that they would not order an immediate rematch.
However, Marlen Esparza and her team can still petition the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) for a rematch, under whose authority the April 27th fight fell—as it was held in the Save Mart Arena in Fresno, California. With state athletic commissions having not necessarily shown the ability to be particularly stringent or consistent, Esparza’s chances of getting a rematch seem to be as likely as they are unlikely at this point in time.
