I had it a draw and I agree. I gave Madrimov two early rounds that I thought were extremely close and could go either way. I easily could have had it 8-4 in Crawfords favor, but I couldn't get to 7-5 in Madrimov's.
Porter said it during the fight: because when someone you're not familiar with does better than you thought they were going to, you have a tendency to give them more credit than they deserve. People give them rounds when they didn't actually win them, they just fought more competitively than they were expected to.
It's the same reason some people still think Derevyanchenko beat Golovkin (for the record, that was a super easy fight to score; 6 rounds to 6 with a knockdown, 114-113 GGG).
Last round is debatable, Crawford started strong but clipped and buckled in the last minute of the round. In my opinion that could have been enough to swing it to Madrimov.
Porter said it during the fight: because when someone you're not familiar with does better than you thought they were going to, you have a tendency to give them more credit than they deserve. People give them rounds when they didn't actually win them, they just fought more competitively than they were expected to.
It's the same reason some people still think Derevyanchenko beat Golovkin (for the record, that was a super easy fight to score; 6 rounds to 6 with a knockdown, 114-113 GGG).
However the same can be said that close rounds are given to the more familiar fighter just do to perception.
There were several dead even rounds that swung to Crawford due to the perception that Madrimov, while still being the champion, had to take the fight from Crawford.
This is a likely scenario as Porter was pretty bias throughout due to being Crawford being both a friend but also a former victim of his.
Comment