Terence Crawford left with a unanimous decision over Israil Madrimov on August 3, 2024. The official verdict settled the championship, but not the argument over how the swing rounds should have been scored or whether the result would have changed if Madrimov had been the bigger draw.
The official scorecards read 116-112, 115-113 and 115-113 for Crawford after a tactical contest filled with swing rounds. Crawford finished with a narrow edge in total punches landed, 95 to 84, while throwing considerably more punches. Madrimov connected at a higher percentage and repeatedly landed the cleaner power shots, particularly with his looping overhand right. Depending on whether a judge favored activity or impact, many rounds were open to interpretation.
Madrimov never accepted that he had lost. Afterward, he said he believed he had done enough as the defending champion to deserve another opportunity. Promoter Eddie Hearn went further, criticizing the widest scorecard. He argued that the cleaner, more damaging punches largely came from Madrimov. In Hearn’s view, the challenger did not receive the benefit of close rounds because he shared the ring with one of boxing’s biggest attractions.
That argument is difficult to dismiss entirely because boxing has a long history of razor-close championship fights falling in favor of the established attraction. Judges are instructed to score only the action inside the ropes. When neither fighter clearly separates himself, reputation often becomes part of the conversation afterward. Crawford entered the bout as one of boxing’s biggest stars and one of the sport’s premier attractions. Madrimov was the defending champion, yet he remained an unfamiliar name to much of the audience.
The closeness of the contest keeps that discussion alive. If the exact same punches were thrown with Madrimov cast as the established superstar defending his title against a challenger moving up in weight, several of those swing rounds may have landed on the opposite side of the scorecards. A draw or narrow decision for Madrimov would not have been difficult to justify under that scenario.
That does not mean Crawford lacked a legitimate case for winning. His jab controlled long stretches of the fight. He maintained the higher work rate. Many viewers believed he closed stronger over the final rounds. Those factors gave the judges a reasonable foundation for their verdict, even if the margins remained controversial.
Perhaps that explains why Crawford-Madrimov still generates discussion two years later. This was not a fight where one boxer clearly outclassed the other. The official verdict will never change, but the discussion probably won’t either. In a fight decided by several swing rounds, Crawford’s jab and higher work rate gave judges a defensible path to his victory. Just as easy to imagine, however, is Madrimov keeping his title if those same close rounds had been judged without the weight of Crawford’s reputation hanging over them.
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter
Related Boxing News:
Last Updated on 2026/08/03 at 5:16 PM
