WBO Announces Decision Following Navarrete vs Suarez Controversy

On May 10 at the Pechanga Arena in San Diego, Emanuel Navarrete vs Charly Suarez headlined a Top Rank Promotions card, with Navarrete’s WBO super featherweight world title on the line. It was a competitive fight until it was stopped due to a cut sustained by “Vaquero.” However, replays suggested the cut was caused by a punch. In response, many called on the WBO to take action. Now, WBO president Gustavo Olivieri has confirmed that the fight has officially been declared a no-contest, and an immediate rematch has been ordered.

Emanuel Navarrete vs Charly Suarez Declared No Contest by WBO

Immediate Rematch Ordered After Controversial Stoppage

An X post from Olivieri confirmed the ruling: “Re: WBO Jr. Lightweight Division The California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) has officially ruled the bout between Navarrete/Suarez as a ‘No Contest.’ In light of the foregoing, the World Boxing Organization (WBO) is hereby ordering an immediate rematch.”

The rematch should be full of plenty of action if the first fight was anything to go by. Both fighters started aggressively last time, throwing wildly at times in the opening few rounds. Navarrete (39-2-1, 32 KOs) had the power, but Suarez put his punches together well. The exchanges between the two were entertaining, both fired back continuously making it a back-and-forth fight. The more eye-catching work came from “Vaquero,” but Suarez (18-0, 10 KOs) had his moments.

Emanuel Navarrete vs Charly Suarez: Controversial Ending

The controversy came in round six, when Navarrete was cut above the left eyebrow. At the time, the ruling was that the cut came from an accidental clash of heads. However, replays showed that a well-timed hard left hook appeared to cause the damage.

Suarez was buoyed by the cut and found much more success in the following two rounds. Just as the Filipino fighter was closing the gap, the ringside physician recommended that the fight be stopped. Navarrete retained his WBO title by technical decision, with the judges’ scorecards reading 77-76, 78-75 and 77-76.