The world of boxing was recently stunned by a significant upset: Canelo Alvarez's defeat at the hands of Terence Crawford. While the match itself was a spectacle of skill and strategy, the official scorecards have ignited a wave of debate and analysis among fans and experts alike.

Canelo Alvarez, a name synonymous with boxing excellence, entered the ring as the reigning super-middleweight champion. His second reign, a testament to his dominance in the division, was anticipated to be a showcase of his power and ring generalship.

However, Terence "Bud" Crawford, known for his versatility, speed, and exceptional boxing IQ, had other plans. The Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas became the stage for a masterful performance that would rewrite the narrative of the super-middleweight division.

Crawford's victory was more than just a win; it was a coronation. Over twelve grueling rounds, he outboxed and outmaneuvered Canelo, showcasing his ability to adapt and control the fight's tempo. The judges' scorecards, however, revealed a narrative that wasn't quite as straightforward as the fight itself.

Two judges, Tim Cheatham and Max De Luca, scored the fight 115-113 in favor of Crawford. This suggests a close contest, where Crawford edged out Canelo in a majority of the rounds. However, the third judge, Steve Weisfeld, saw a wider margin, scoring it 116-112 for Crawford, indicating a more decisive victory.

The disparity between the scorecards, particularly De Luca and Weisfeld's early round scoring, has raised eyebrows and fueled discussions among boxing enthusiasts. Some have questioned the consistency of the judging, while others have pointed to the subjectivity inherent in evaluating boxing matches.

Specifically, Max De Luca's scorecard, which favored Canelo in some of the early rounds, has drawn scrutiny. Boxing is a sport of momentum and adjustments, and early rounds can often set the tone for the entire fight.

Similarly, Steve Weisfeld's decision to award Canelo rounds two and three has been met with some surprise. These rounds were generally perceived by commentators and observers as belonging to Crawford, adding fuel to the debate surrounding the judging.

Adding another layer to the controversy, Cheatham and De Luca both saw the fight as a very close contest, a sentiment not universally shared by those who witnessed the event. Their scorecards indicated a nail-biting affair, while many believed Crawford established a clear advantage as the fight progressed.

For Terence Crawford, the victory was deeply emotional. At 37, achieving undisputed status in a third weight class is a monumental accomplishment, and the tears he shed after the fight were a testament to the dedication and sacrifice he poured into his career.

Crawford's triumph is especially significant because he becomes the first male fighter in the four-belt era to achieve undisputed champion status in three different weight divisions. This accomplishment places him in a rare echelon of boxing legends, solidifying his legacy as one of the sport's all-time greats.

Despite the intensity of the competition, Crawford was gracious in victory, praising Canelo's strength and acknowledging his status as a great champion. This display of sportsmanship further enhanced his image and resonated with fans.

Canelo, a future Hall of Famer himself, also displayed remarkable composure in defeat. He acknowledged the risks he takes in his career and emphasized his pride in competing at the highest level. Canelo stated, "I'm a winner for being here. There's no defeat here. I've done everything in my career, I take risks.”

Boxing scorecards are always a source of contention. The scoring system itself, based on a 10-point must system, can often lead to close and controversial decisions. Each round is independently scored, with the winner receiving 10 points and the loser receiving 9 or fewer.

This system, while seemingly straightforward, leaves room for interpretation and subjectivity. Judges must assess factors such as effective aggression, ring generalship, clean punching, and defense, making their decisions based on what they perceive to be the most impactful moments of each round.

The Canelo-Crawford fight serves as a prime example of how diverse perspectives can influence the scoring process. While some judges saw a closely contested battle, others believed Crawford's dominance was more pronounced.

It's important to remember that judges are human, and their vantage points and interpretations of the action can vary. This inherent subjectivity is what makes boxing debates so passionate and enduring.

Ultimately, the scorecards reflect the judges' individual assessments of the fight, and while they may be subject to debate, they are the official record of the contest. They serve as a reminder of the complexities and nuances of boxing, a sport where victory and defeat can often be separated by the slimmest of margins.

The legacy of the Canelo-Crawford fight will undoubtedly be shaped by both the in-ring action and the controversy surrounding the scorecards. The fight has further cemented Crawford’s legendary status.

Canelo, despite the defeat, remains one of the biggest names in boxing. The defeat may make him consider future strategies and opponents. His willingness to take risks will continue to draw interest.

Regardless of the scorecards, the event has generated significant discussion about the judging in boxing and served as a reminder of the sport’s capacity to generate intrigue. The nuances will ensure lively debates among fans.

The Canelo-Crawford fight will surely be remembered as one of the landmark events in modern boxing. It will be looked at for its competitiveness, and for further exploration in the future.