The scorecards are in and the internet is absolutely losing its mind. Half the boxing world thinks Bud Crawford outworked Canelo for most of the night, while the other half says Canelo's pressure and big rounds down the stretch earned him the win. Was this a legitimate decision, or one of the shadiest nights in recent boxing history?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentMy dad called me after the decision was read and said 'mijo this is why I stopped watching boxing in the 90s' lol. He's not wrong honestly.
Rematch clause. That's all I care about. Run it back in neutral territory, different judges, let's settle this properly.
Bro one judge had it 117-111. 117-111!!!! Do you understand how absurd that number is? That means that judge thought Canelo won NINE rounds. Nine. I watched the same fight and I genuinely cannot identify nine rounds Canelo clearly won. That single scorecard should disqualify that judge from ever working a title fight again.
117-111 is not a defensible card. That is not a 'different read.' That is incompetence or corruption and I'm done pretending there's a third option.
I watched every single round twice. Crawford won rounds 1 through 5 clean, rounds 7 and 9 were close but I gave them to Bud too. There is no honest scorecard that has Canelo winning this fight. None. The judges should never be allowed near a boxing ring again.
The fact that one judge had it 117-111 for Canelo tells you everything you need to know. That is not a close reading of that fight. That is a fabrication.
Was at the arena last night. The crowd was PRO-Crawford even in Vegas which surprised me. When the decision was announced there were genuine boos from people who paid thousands for those seats. This wasn't just online outrage.
The real tragedy here is that we got a genuinely great fight — technically excellent, two all-time great fighters at high levels — and the legacy of that fight will be the judging controversy. Not the craft. Not the tactics. Not the heart shown by both men. Just the controversy. Boxing does this to itself constantly.
If this decision stands without any serious investigation or reform, I honestly might be done with boxing. I've said that before but this one actually feels like a tipping point for a lot of fans. The sport cannot keep surviving on controversy.
Crawford is pound for pound best in the world and everyone knows it. This result just confirms that fighting in Vegas when your opponent is basically the city's cash cow is a losing proposition before you even throw a punch.
ok so genuine question — has ANY high profile boxing judge EVER faced real consequences for a bad scorecard? not suspended, not fined, not fired. they just... keep judging fights. that's the actual problem. zero accountability.
Everyone's screaming about corruption but nobody's talking about SOLUTIONS. Mandatory open scoring after every four rounds. At least two judges from countries with no financial stake in either fighter. Retired elite fighters on judging panels. Computer-assisted tracking as an advisory input. None of this is radical. Other combat sports have moved in this direction. Boxing just refuses because chaos and controversy sell PPVs. Fix it or stop complaining.
Crawford actually landed more total punches AND more power punches according to CompuBox. When the stats and the eye test both say the same thing and the judges still disagree... yeah that's a problem.
I don't even care about the result anymore. What I care about is that I paid $79.99 for a PPV and the outcome was potentially predetermined. That's consumer fraud. Someone should be filing a class action, not tweeting about it.
Crawford moved up TWO weight classes to fight this man on his home turf and still arguably won. The disrespect of that decision will follow boxing for years.
Asking a 14 year old who has never watched boxing to score a fight and using that as evidence is maybe the funniest argument I've ever seen on this forum. Truly remarkable reasoning.
Hot take that nobody wants to hear: Crawford's style is genuinely hard to judge. He does a LOT of work that doesn't look flashy — the angles, the feints, the way he controls distance. Judges who aren't technically sophisticated see Canelo walking forward with bad intentions and think 'that's aggression, that's a man winning rounds.' They're not corrupt. They're just not good enough to score elite technical boxing. That's almost scarier than corruption honestly.
People forget that championship rounds matter more. Canelo turned it on after round 8 and hurt Crawford twice. When the champion hurts you in the late rounds and you're trying to survive, the judges notice that. Close fight, could've gone either way, stop acting like it was a robbery.
Crawford handled himself with more class in that post-fight interview than I would have managed. If someone handed me a robbery like that I would have burned the building down. The man is ice.
The people defending this result aren't even making scoring arguments anymore. They're just saying 'boxing is subjective' over and over like that's a rebuttal. Subjectivity doesn't mean all outcomes are equally valid. A doctor diagnosing cancer involves judgment too but 'it's subjective' isn't a defense when they're consistently wrong.
unpopular opinion: the real loser last night was boxing itself. mainstream casual fans tuned in expecting a definitive answer on who's better and instead got a controversial decision that just sends everyone back to their corners arguing. nobody wins when it ends like this
NINE years since Floyd-Canelo and boxing fans are still relitigating judging controversies the exact same way. The sport has genuinely learned nothing. Not one structural reform. Just outrage, then the next fight, then more outrage.
Wobbled twice ≠ losing the rounds leading up to it though? You can't spot a guy 8 rounds and expect two late knockdowns that didn't even happen to erase all of it. By your logic you could literally lose every round except the last two and still 'deserve' to win the fight. That's not championship boxing, that's just wishful thinking dressed up as analysis.
The 'Canelo walks through fire' narrative is exactly why judging gets corrupted lol. You're literally describing a bias — judges FEELING Canelo's pressure as a narrative rather than scoring what they SEE. That's the whole problem in one paragraph.
My entire group chat is made up of people from different countries — US, UK, Mexico, Nigeria, Australia. Every single person except the two Mexican guys thought Crawford won. Make of that what you will.
Canelo is a generational talent and none of this changes that. But generational talents deserve clean legacies. If his team was involved in shaping this outcome at any level, they've done more damage to his name than any loss ever could have. A true champion should want to win on merit. Full stop.
'Surviving' isn't the right word for what Crawford was doing in those rounds. He was controlling distance, making Canelo miss, landing clean counters. That's not survival, that's advanced defense. Watching for knockdowns doesn't mean you understand what you're watching.
The point about judges not having replays is technically true but also kind of irrelevant? The live view of this fight was STILL Crawford. You didn't need a rewind to see him controlling range, landing the cleaner shots, making Canelo miss repeatedly. The replay argument is a cope for a bad decision.
You want to know how bad this looks internationally? I'm from the UK. Boxing has a huge following here. My timeline this morning was not about the fight. It was entirely about whether American boxing can be trusted. That perception damage is real and it crosses borders.
regardless of who you thought won the fight can we all agree that Crawford looked INCREDIBLE physically at 168? the man was sharp, fast, composed. he belongs at this weight. that's the real story here
Canelo has lost exactly one professional fight and that was to Floyd. He keeps beating everybody put in front of him. At what point do people just accept that he's one of the greatest fighters ever instead of screaming robbery every time he wins a close one?
I scored it 7-5 Crawford and I genuinely tried to be objective, watched with the sound off so the commentators couldn't influence me. Still Crawford. The commentators watch it the same way and came up Crawford. The CompuBox came up Crawford. At some point the null hypothesis has to be that the judges were wrong.
I've been saying for YEARS that Nevada Athletic Commission judge selection is a black box. Nobody knows how they're chosen, what their qualifications are, whether they get any ongoing training. We just trust random people with the outcomes of multi-million dollar events. Wild.
ngl i went into this fight as a canelo fan and even I thought crawford edged it. saying that out loud in my family group chat was… not a great experience. but honesty matters more than my pride. bud won that fight.
ok but nobody's talking about how Crawford's corner made TERRIBLE adjustments between rounds 6 and 7. you can cry robbery all you want but Crawford also let Canelo back into the fight by standing flat footed trying to exchange. that's a tactical error not just a judging error
boxing is so cooked bro. MMA just decides things so much cleaner. there's no 'well the judges thought...' when someone gets their leg kicked 47 times and can't stand up anymore lol
So Crawford should just... never fight the best guy available because the politics might screw him? That's your solution? Just stay in your lane and protect your record? That's a coward's sport.
For everyone saying 'wait for the rematch' — the rematch isn't coming. The money isn't there now that the controversy has poisoned the well. Casual fans who might have bought a rematch on PPV are now skeptical the result will be clean. You've actually killed the golden goose. Hope the decision was worth it.
lmao at people acting surprised. this is vegas. canelo is a vegas cash cow. the machine protects the machine. been this way since before any of us were born and it'll be this way long after we stop caring
Open scoring is the answer and I will die on this hill. Give both fighters and their corners the score after every round. Transparently. Changes the dynamics of the fight yes, but at least everyone knows where they stand and judges are publicly accountable IN REAL TIME.
I grew up watching my uncle box in Albuquerque, never made it past regional level but he taught me how to score. He texted me after the decision like 'they stole that boy's night' and my uncle is NOT the type to be dramatic. When the old heads who've been in gyms their whole lives say robbery, you listen.
Genuinely cannot believe some of y'all are out here saying Canelo won 9 rounds. I sat down, got a piece of paper, watched the full fight, scored every round, and I had Crawford winning 6 of the first 8. SIX. Not close rounds, not coin flips, Crawford winning. The back four were closer but not 9-3 Canelo close.
There won't be a rematch because Canelo's team knows what happened. Why would you risk the belts again? They got the W, they'll milk it, move on to the next fight. That's the business.
What frustrates me most is that this result actually HURTS Canelo's legacy more than a loss would have. If Crawford wins, Canelo rematch sells 2 million PPV buys, both men get richer, boxing looks credible. Instead we get this. I truly believe Canelo's team miscalculated here.
I've been a boxing fan for 35 years. I have watched fights get stolen before. This wasn't the worst I've ever seen. The Pac-Bradley decision in 2012 was worse. The problem is social media makes every controversy feel like the biggest one ever.
Serious question for the people saying this was fine: what would an ACTUAL robbery look like to you? Genuinely asking. Because if Crawford winning the eye test, the punch stats, the ring generalship, and the crowd reaction still isn't enough to call it wrong, what standard are you applying?
This wasn't a split decision though. Two judges gave it to Canelo. A split would mean one judge for Canelo, one for Crawford, one somewhere else. When TWO judges produce scorecards that the entire boxing media finds indefensible, that's not just 'close fight goes the other way.'
I bet on Crawford and I'm devastated but I'll be honest — Canelo's body work in rounds 10 and 11 was genuinely elite. He was landing clean. I still think Bud won overall but this wasn't the cut-and-dried robbery Twitter is making it out to be.
He's been robbed before, remember the first Spence fight controversy? Bud knows how this sport works. The composure isn't shocking it's just who he is. Makes it sadder honestly.
The amount of money exchanged in Nevada boxing promotion that never gets publicly disclosed is staggering. I'm not alleging anything specific. I'm just noting that transparency does not exist and we're expected to trust the process anyway.
MMA has had some of the most controversial and clearly wrong decisions in combat sports history so let's not pretend it's some meritocracy. Jon Jones vs. Dominick Reyes would like a word.
Crawford's jab was a WEAPON last night. He was using it to set up literally everything. The way he established the jab in rounds 2 through 5 and completely neutralized Canelo's hook was textbook. People talk about the knockdowns but the sustained jab work was the real story of this fight.
I actually scored it live, round by round, writing it down on paper like my grandfather taught me when I was eight years old. I had Crawford by four rounds. Not a blowout, not a robbery in the brutal sense, but a clear Crawford win. Anyone who had Canelo winning overall wasn't watching the same fight I was.
What would reform even look like though? More judges? Open scoring? Computer scoring? Every solution creates new problems. Open scoring changes fighter behavior. Computer scoring can't capture ring generalship. More judges just means more chances for bias. I don't have an answer and I don't think anyone does.
Crawford's team took a fight they didn't have to take, on terms they didn't have to accept, and got the result that anyone paying attention to boxing politics could have predicted. This is on Bud's management as much as anything. You don't walk into someone else's house and expect a fair count of the silverware.
Nobody seems to be mentioning that Crawford's punch selection was elite. He wasn't just landing more punches, he was landing the RIGHT punches at the RIGHT time. Body work in round 4, overhand right in round 7, switching stances to throw off timing. That's a chess match and Crawford was Bobby Fischer.
I genuinely don't understand how people score a boxing match. Like what exactly are the judges looking at? Clean punches? Aggression? Effective defense? Because depending on which criteria you weight, I could see arguments for both guys.
people keep saying 'neutral site' like that would fix anything. judges in madison square garden have given hometown decisions too. the problem is the judging system itself, not just where the fight is held.
Canelo won rounds 9, 10, 11, and 12 convincingly. That's not opinion, that's just what happened. You give Crawford the early rounds, fine, but championships are won and lost in the final stretch and Canelo DOMINATED the back half. 115-113 Canelo is a perfectly defensible card.
Boxing judges score the fight live with no replays. People watching at home with pause and rewind think they have some superior view. It's a subjective sport. Has always been. Always will be.
Can we talk about the ref for a second? Some of those clinch breaks came at really convenient moments when Crawford was setting up combinations. I'm not saying the ref threw the fight but the pattern was noticeable enough that I rewound it three times.
The Mexican guys in your group chat probably just saw their guy dig deep and outwork the challenger down the stretch and scored it accordingly. That's not bias that's just a different read. People act like national pride automatically makes your take invalid.
Watching with the sound off is actually really smart. Commentary shapes perception more than people realize. Gonna try that with the replay tonight.
The criteria are literally printed in the rules lol. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, defense. Crawford won the first three by miles. The fact that you're confused is why people shouldn't be casual about this stuff.
Hot take: Crawford is the more complete boxer but Canelo is the better fighter. There's a difference. Canelo walks through fire, takes whatever you give him and keeps coming. That psychological pressure is real and judges feel it even if they won't admit it.
My brother is a professional boxer — regional level, nothing famous — and I called him right after. He laughed for about ten seconds straight and then said 'welcome to the sport.' He's been telling me for years that judging is the dirty secret nobody fixes because too many people have too much money tied up in the current system. I never fully believed him until last night.
Unpopular opinion incoming: Canelo ALSO threw more punches in the second half of the fight. Effective aggression isn't just about accuracy, it's about who's forcing the action. Rounds 9-12 Crawford was backing up and surviving. You can score that for Crawford all you want but don't pretend Canelo was passive.
CompuBox has been proven to be inaccurate multiple times and boxing analysts know this. You cannot use it as the final word on who won a fight. Just putting that out there.
everybody calm down. close fights get split decisions. split decisions sometimes go the wrong way. it has happened since the 1800s. it will happen until boxing ends. screaming 'corruption' every time your guy loses is how you lose all credibility when actual corruption happens.
Crawford fans are genuinely insufferable with this. Canelo landed some BOMBS in rounds 10, 11, and 12. Crawford was hurt. HURT. You want to hand the fight to a guy who was wobbled twice in the championship rounds? That's not how championship boxing works. The champion showed heart and turned the tide when it mattered. That is a legitimate path to winning the scorecards.
My 14 year old nephew scored it 8-4 Crawford. He's never watched a professional fight before in his life. Sometimes the untrained eye actually sees more clearly because it's not clouded by narrative.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments