Crawford outclasses Canelo to make history in Las Vegas super-fight

Something fascinating happened in the 11th round of Canelo Alvarez’s undisputed title defence against Terence Crawford. After so many questions about whether the Mexican idol could slowly break his American challenger, the opposite happened. Crawford broke Canelo.

Crawford, who had already proven himself too slick, too smart, and too elusive for Canelo over the course of the preceding rounds, began unloading extended clips of leather ammo on the champion, who had no substantial retort but to shake his head.

Yet this wasn’t the trademark shake of the head that fans have become accustomed to seeing from the 35-year-old – the dismissive shake that tells opponents they haven’t dented or even scratched his armour. Canelo was not shaking his head at Crawford; he was shaking his head to himself, in disgust.

Over, and over, and over, the 37-year-old Crawford was landing southpaw lefts: straights, uppercuts, hooks. Unable to slip or roll these punches as he usually would, Canelo settled for sighs. The realisation had set in: It was too late. Those sporadic body shots and hooks to the arms had not paid off. Crawford’s early bursts of offence in the rounds – and sensible evasion late – had paid off. For Canelo, the fight had gone. His titles had gone. 

More pointedly, perhaps, he had suffered the humiliation of seeing Crawford ambitiously venture into his territory – both the 168lb division and Las Vegas on Mexican Independence Weekend – and triumph. The result was not yet official, of course, and there was always the prospect of a fortunate scorecard, but surely the boxing world would understand, regardless, that Crawford had won this fight.

It was expected that the stylistic strand to this match-up would be yanked back and forth, in the ultimate tug of war: Canelo’s plodding but powerful and spiteful pressure, against Crawford’s fleet footwork, impeccable timing, and shrewd shot selection. And that was indeed the case, with the latter skillset and approach winning out.

All that was left was for Michael Buffer to confirm it, and as he did, even the thousands of Mexicans in Allegiant Stadium had to accept the reality and offer praise to Crawford.

It is also worth saying that, in the build-up, the phrase “a fight we never thought we’d see” was forcefully twisted like a wrung towel. No, we did not think we’d see it, but not because it was an enthralling-but-elusive match-up; rather, it had barely crossed fans’ minds due to the massive weight disparity between the protagonists. In this sense, Canelo vs Crawford was perhaps the first real example of Saudi matchmaker Turki Alalshikh prioritising his wishes over those of fans – and over what made sense.

It was a colossal clash, yes, but also a contrived one. However, that would be forgotten if it delivered in the ring or if Crawford’s gamble paid off in a city made for gambling. The fight came to life late on, it gave way to Crawford’s ultimate victory, and so any faults with the matchmaking will not be remembered.

This was history. That term is often thrown around like a haphazard overhand, but here, it fits like the gloves that dealt Canelo defeat. Crawford is now the first three-weight undisputed champion of the modern era. Furthermore, he is a five-weight champion, going one better than Canelo, whose second undisputed reign at 168lb ended here. But most impressively, Crawford achieved this feat by going two weight classes above his previous maximum, risking resembling a pugilistic Icarus gliding too close to the scorching Nevada sun.

Still, Canelo took a risk, too, putting his pride and legacy on the line against a smaller man. That should not be forgotten, and as easy as it is to talk up Crawford’s performance and achievement, Canelo fought well in stints and played his part on this era-defining night. If only he took more risks in the fight itself, as Crawford did.

But in truth, Canelo’s legacy is already secure. Many times he has taken risks, and he has come back from defeats before. His activity is one of his greatest assets, and he is due back in the ring twice in 2026. The numbers are fuzzy, but if he did not earn $100m tonight, he will have done by the end of his deal with the Saudis.

Whether Crawford will ever step foot in a ring again remains to be seen. On this night, in showing that he is simply on another level to Canelo, he also took his legacy to another level.

Five-weight champion. Three-weight undisputed king. Unbeaten. Terence “Bud” Crawford took everything from Canelo, and there may be nothing left for him in this sport.

Liverpool to make decision on Isak debut ahead of trip to Burnley

Burnley host Liverpool in the Premier League as the champions look to continue their 100 per cent start at Turf Moor.

Liverpool could hand a first appearance to new record signing Alexander Isak, who arrived at the Reds on deadline day after Arne Slot’s side made it three wins out of three to start the new season.

Newly promoted Burnley defeated Sunderland to mark their top-flight return at Turf Moor, with Scott Parker’s side denied a point late on at Manchester United after a controversial VAR decision at Old Trafford.

Liverpool required Dominik Szoboszlai’s stunning free-kick to extend their winning start while Slot will also hope for improved performances after the mixed displays in the wins against Bournemouth and Newcastle.

And how Slot fits Isak into his attack will be fascinating as Liverpool return to action. Follow team news and updates ahead of Burnley v Liverpool, below

Woody Allen says Jeffrey Epstein ‘couldn’t have been nicer’ at dinners

Woody Allen said Jeffrey Epstein “couldn’t have been nicer” when he was invited to a series of dinners at the home of the paedophile financier.

The director said he had not met Epstein before he was among the guests at a dinner in December 2010, which also included the Duke of York.

Allen, 89, told The Sunday Times he and his wife Soon-Yi Previn had been invited by a publicist to the dinner with “one of those British royals” and other guests.

Epstein had just finished a prison term for soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.

“We didn’t know Jeffrey at all then, but we see all these people there and they all embraced him, so we figured, ‘OK, he’s a substantial character’,” said Allen.

“He told us he’d been in jail and that he had been… falsely put in jail in some way.

“He told us he was trying to make up for it now by being philanthropic and giving money to cutting-edge scientists and universities. He couldn’t have been nicer.”

Allen said his wife, the adopted daughter of his ex-wife Mia Farrow and her previous husband Andre Previn, had wanted to meet the duke.

She told The Sunday Times she “could not stand” Andrew, describing him as “such a dullard”.

Allen said he and Soon-Yi became regular guests at Epstein’s house, where “there was always a table of illustrious people”.

“We never, ever, saw Jeffrey with underage girls. He always had a girlfriend but never an underage girlfriend,” he said.

He said Epstein’s former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year term for sex trafficking, was not at any of the dinner parties.

Epstein was found dead in his cell in a New York prison in 2019 after being arrested on sex trafficking charges.

The Duke of York stepped down from public life after the furore over his friendship with the paedophile financier, and paid millions to settle a civil sexual assault case with Virginia Giuffre, a woman he claimed never to have met.

Thomas Skinner admits to cheating on wife weeks after their wedding

Strictly Come Dancing 2025 contestant Thomas Skinner has admitted that he cheated on his wife just weeks after their wedding.

The former Apprentice star, 34, said that he had a “fling” with an “attractive” single mum who gave him free cosmetic treatment after meeting at a pub.

“I’m just so lucky that she forgave me. When I told my wife, I fully understood if she were to never speak to me again.

“It just shows you that 10 minutes can just ruin your whole life,” Skinner told The Sun.

The newspaper said the woman in question is Amy-Lucy O’Rourke, 35, and their affair took place three and a half years ago.

Skinner added: “I had a fling, I suppose, it was nothing more than that, it was the one time, it was a mistake, then I woke up feeling absolutely terrible about it”.

The married couple were not arguing or having relationship troubles but it was “just me in a moment of madness”, Skinner said.

The aftermath “was a very, very dark time”, he said, adding that his wife “never deserved that, she’s such a good person, without her I wouldn’t be where I am today – she made me”.

He advised anyone who has made a mistake to “be honest and own up to it”, and said “we are in an incredible place. It’s forgotten about and we’ve moved on from it now”.

In a statement to the paper, a spokeswoman for Ms O’Rourke said: “This has been an incredibly stressful chapter in her life.

“She did not have a fling with Mr Skinner, she had a relationship with him.”

This comes days after Skinner apologised for picking up a journalist’s phone and walking out of a Strictly Come Dancing press event.

He later said his departure from Tuesday’s event was not related to the BBC dancing show, and claimed he did so because he had seen messages about his past on the reporter’s phone.

Skinner was reported to have grabbed the phone and walked out after objecting to being recorded by a journalist.

He has previously drawn strong criticism for X/Twitter posts saying it is “not far-right” to be “flying your flag and loving your country”, and complaining “it ain’t safe out there any more” in London, saying the city is “hostile” and “tense”. He was also pictured with JD Vance during the vice president’s recent holiday in the Cotswolds.

Skinner will join fellow stars such as Love Island winner Dani Dyer-Bowen, Gladiators star Harry Aikines-Aryeetey and CBBC actress Ellie Goldstein, who is to become the first contestant with Down’s syndrome to take part in Strictly’s full series, when the show returns later this year.

Additional reporting by PA.

I wish my mum had contacted Macmillan Cancer Support

I wasn’t at my mum’s side when she learned she had breast cancer, but that made me determined to be there the day she was getting the all-clear 18-months later. However, things didn’t go to plan that day.

Mum’s cancer journey started over a decade ago, a few months after a routine mammogram – when she developed “a pain”. She told herself it was probably nothing, because the scan she’d just had was fine. When she mentioned it to her GP – a small lump that didn’t feel quite right – she convinced herself that she was just being silly. The biopsy begged to differ.

In the list you keep in your head of the cancers you worry your mum might get, breast wasn’t that high on mine. Yes, it’s long been the number one cancer affecting women, with Macmillan Cancer Support reporting that about 55,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK each year  – the risk factor only increasing with age. But my mum had other health concerns to contend with.

As a schoolgirl in swinging London, she’d been a back-of-the-bikeshed smoker, which had graduated into a lifelong habit. Lung cancer seemed like a possibility.

Mum’s also the biggest sun worshipper I know. Long before any of us had heard of SPF, she would think nothing of spending an afternoon in the garden, stretched out on a blanket, slathered in baby oil. So, given what we know now about UV radiation, I wondered about skin cancer too.

Mum went on to have a series of lumpectomies to get rid of three spots of malignant tissue. She would also have lymph nodes removed as a precaution, as well as undergo extensive chemotherapy.

For me, her diagnosis was as though a stopwatch had been started. How long might she have left? She did her best to be stoic. Which was just as well, given what government austerity measures at the time were doing to the NHS: budget cuts, hapless reorganisations, and an end to the “gold-standard” two-week referral from detection to the start of treatment.

All mum could do was wait for the brown envelopes to drop on the doormat detailing appointments at unfamiliar hospitals many miles away, sometimes after the appointment had been and gone.

If she felt let down by the bureaucracy of our health service, the same could not be said for the army of individuals involved in her care. On a human level, she found her nurses and doctors to be uniquely composed and compassionate throughout her treatment.

When the day finally came for her oncologist to tell her that all the signs of her cancer had gone, I was invited along to hold her hand. “The scans are back,” he began. “And I need to discuss your options for the next course of action.” It seemed the cancer hadn’t quite gone after all. She had fought so hard to get to this point, she was expecting good news, and was unprepared for the knockback.

But she did go on to beat cancer – and has been in remission for more than five years, which we couldn’t be more grateful for. However, should it ever come back, there’s one thing we’d do differently from the off: make a call to Macmillan Cancer Support.

Only with hindsight, did we realise how much help Macmillan would have been. Someone to provide her with a calming companion for the journey, someone to help with the cancer admin – the appointments, the prescriptions, the test results – and someone to explain what all the scans and tests were for, what the results might mean, and what to expect next.

I couldn’t always be around while mum was living with cancer, and that’s where Macmillan steps in. Now, enjoying a slice of cake at a Coffee Morning, which is raising money to fund the work they do, seems like the least I can do.

Find out how you can help raise vital funds by hosting a Macmillan Coffee Morning. Sign up now on the Macmillan website

Macmillan Cancer Support, registered charity in England and Wales (261017), Scotland (SC039907) and the Isle of Man (604). Also operating in Northern Ireland.

With £60bn to spend, how can the UK still be so unprepared for war?

On the night of 9 September, Russia fired hundreds of suicide drones and dozens of ballistic and cruise missiles against Ukraine, a regular event for the Ukrainian population. As with many such attacks, Ukrainian air defences shot down over 75 per cent of the Russian weapons. On this occasion, around 20 drones also went into Poland. Warsaw was able to mobilise its defences, and many were shot down by fighters or ground-based SAMs. A similar attack against the UK would see the vast majority of drones/missiles getting through. The uncomfortable truth is that the UK is more or less defenceless against the sort of missile attack that is commonplace in Ukraine.

Why, more than three-and-a-half years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the UK still not buying the equipment that is so obviously needed for the basic defence needs of the nation?

This was what many of those who attended last week’s DSEI defence exhibition were asking. The defence secretary, John Healey, in his closing speech, lauded defence cooperation between London and Kyiv. One issue he highlighted was innovative work on new families of long-range attack drones, but also of a new class of extremely low-cost drone interceptors, aiming to defeat Russian swarm attacks without having to use expensive SAMs. What was missing in the speech, or in the questions that followed, was any sign that the British armed forces were going to buy any of these weapons – drones produced in UK factories will be shipped to Ukraine.

At the same show, two years previously, the then-chief of the defence staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, had expressed a wish to see the British Army set up a “suicide drone regiment”, copying the success and rapid innovation of the Ukrainian Army. Two years later on, no such unit(s) exists. And even if there are numerous trials and tests of suicide drones and the like, nothing has been bought in any significant numbers to be of military use in the event of a large-scale war.

The Ukraine war has shown that artillery is still “queen of the battlefield”, a proven war winner. Having supplied Kyiv with all of the old (but still highly effective) AS90 155mm self-propelled howitzers, the British army has only 13 new Archer 155mm howitzers (one crashed on exercise), and will not get major numbers of this vital type of weapon until 2028.

And during last week’s conference, various defence chiefs were vocal that their mission was to get their services ready for an all-out war in two to three years. If there is a serious prospect of a war in a few years, then 2028 or 2029 isn’t “just in time” – it is “too late”.

It was clear to me that the army wants faster delivery of artillery guns, but have been told “no money”, a common phrase throughout the event last week. Lack of funds has held up the procurement of the hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles that the UK needs to protect itself against the sort of drone attack that Ukrainians live with daily – “accidental” drone attacks on Poland (and Romania, and the Baltic states) today, could well be ones even nearer to the UK tomorrow.

Wise heads studying any lessons of war in Ukraine are not jumping to conclusions, and are not making simplistic judgements about what new capabilities, what innovations have been vital. But in possibly the best summation of the conflict and any lessons, the current chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton, in his speech, stated that there was a dichotomy: innovation in defence equipment and technology by both Moscow and Kyiv has been at an unprecedented pace, but the battlefield still resembles the Western Front in the First World War. He added, “Innovation and technology have not proved decisive for either side.”

Yes, it is true that use of a huge range of drones, spiralling capabilities on an almost weekly basis, has kept Ukraine in the fight. It is also true that Ukrainian start-ups have brought AI onto the battlefield, with results that have astounded Western observers. Innovation has been at the heart of Ukraine’s fight – but also that of Russia.

No one should dismiss the massive range of new technologies that exist while planning for the wars of tomorrow. It will be impossible for any Army to go into any war tomorrow without tens of thousands of drones of all types and different types of drones, or “uncrewed systems” will undoubtedly be vital for future wars in the air and at sea.

But despite enthusiastic words, progress in the UK is close to glacial. Process and paperwork certification has meant that no decisions on new capabilities are leading to any significant advances in capabilities, and certainly not at speed. There are baby steps here and there – but urgency is not visible.

A phrase that was used by all of the service chiefs, as well as the political heads of the MoD at the DSEI show was “transformation at the speed of war”. In essence, this was saying that rather than having procurement cycles that last for eight, 10, 15 years, the MoD has to think in months – “at worst” a few years. Several defence chiefs at DSEI made explicit reference to the speed of innovation seen in World War Two, marking it as the reference point for how the UK should be operating today.

But the current UK equipment procurement system is very much an oil tanker – it can take a very long time to turn around. How to change the current cumbersome (and wasteful) system to one able to react at Elon Musk-like speeds is very much an open question.

The war in Ukraine does provide important lessons: the nature of war hasn’t actually changed – ground has to be held; troops have to attack and defend. Drones might be used, and they might have AI in their night vision goggles – but the soldier with the AK-74 still has to “go over the top”.

Innovation is not everything – magazine size, stocks of weapons, shells, bullets, “old-fashioned” equipment are still absolutely vital. The UK has incredibly low stocks of almost everything – and somehow is still finding it difficult to place the sort of orders required to create and sustain credible and reliable armed forces.

The question is this: how can a country with a defence budget of over £60bn, one of the largest in the world, be in this situation? And how can it be so difficult to turn the supertanker around, to create the armed forces that will be required for the wars of tomorrow? These will need a mixture of current technologies, with an injection of new ones. Everyone seems to know this – but getting from understanding to action is proving incredibly difficult even when the threat is rising every day.

Francis Tusa is editor of Defence Analysis

Who really thinks Labour’s problems would be solved by changing PM?

What a paradox. Angela Rayner had long been poised to seize Keir Starmer’s crown, and yet the moment she left the government, the speculation about his future intensified.

She was too canny a politician to show overt disloyalty, and had even taken in recent months to saying that she didn’t want to be prime minister, but she was always the one that Starmer feared. All prime ministers worry about their job security more than outsiders think is justified. They imagine that they are going to be toppled at any moment, even when there are no outward signs of a threat to their position.

Suddenly, those inner fears are writ large in public, and Labour MPs are talking about when Starmer will go. The speculation is both vacuous froth and deeply damaging at the same time.

Who is the Labour MP who has said that Starmer “doesn’t seem up to the job” and that the party cannot carry on with him? It is Clive Lewis, a member of the 19-strong Socialist Campaign Group, which is always opposed to the leader, except when it was one of their own, Jeremy Corbyn.

And who is the Labour MP who is being touted in The Guardian as Starmer’s replacement? It is Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, who is not an MP. For him to become an MP and therefore eligible to take over would require him to win a by-election, and I am not sure that there is any seat in the country in which a Labour candidate would be safe from Nigel Farage’s party.

The closest Burnham is likely to get to No 10, it seems to me, would be getting Lucy Powell, his ally, elected as deputy leader of the party, which would give her a platform but no power.

What, above all, is the alternative programme that this spasm of discontent would like to see brought in to restore the government’s popularity and see off the threat from Farage? According to Emily Thornberry, it is to “stop making mistakes”, which at least has the virtue of making logical sense, but she had to withdraw from the deputy leadership contest after securing fewer nominations than the Campaign Group candidate.

Otherwise, the ideological challenge to Starmer comes from a new group called Mainstream, which is supported by a roll call of the so-called soft left, starting with Burnham, taking in a range from former Corbynite Clive Lewis to former Blairite Geoff Mulgan, and ending with Neil Kinnock. It wants to lift the two-child limit on benefits, tax the rich even more and embrace “pluralism”, which I think means proportional representation.

Forgive my scepticism. Everyone is for reducing child poverty, even Farage, but few are keen to pay for it, preferring to tax Other People instead. Unfortunately, Rachel Reeves ran out of Other People to tax last year, so it is unclear what Mainstream’s programme would mean in practice.

Luke Akehurst, the Blairite MP for North Durham, got it right: “This project seems to be an attempt to revisit the political strategy that led Labour to a tragic general election defeat under Ed Miliband in 2015.” He said: “Soft-left politics might well pile up big Labour majorities in major cities and university towns, but it does not address the concerns of voters in middle England, the red wall or Scotland.”

That, then, is the plot to bring down Starmer. It doesn’t have a candidate, or a policy, or anyone to speak for it in public who isn’t a Corbynite.

So what is all the fuss about? It is about the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy: that power lies with whoever commands the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons. It seems extraordinary, but we have already reached a point, 14 months after a huge election victory, where the confidence of Labour MPs in Starmer is so weak as to threaten his ability to get the normal business of government through parliament.

He has already U-turned on cutting pensioners’ winter fuel payments and making savings from disability benefits. Now he has appeared to vindicate the many Labour MPs who opposed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. One moment, Starmer showed a sure political touch, turning Rayner’s fall into a chance to set the agenda with a bold reshuffle; but the next, he seemed unable to read a piece of paper under his nose, defending Mandelson on Wednesday before sacking him on Thursday.

Most Labour MPs have a survival instinct strong enough to refuse to put their names to their dismay in public, but enough of them are prepared to say what they think to journalists unattributably to reveal the true state of the party’s morale. Some of them do not even say what they think, criticising Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, who made himself vulnerable by urging Starmer to appoint Mandelson, one of his mentors, in the first place and then to defend him, when Starmer had his doubts.

Criticising the king’s adviser is only an indirect way of criticising the king, however, and Starmer has to take responsibility for his choice of chief of staff.

Starmer’s situation is serious. The opposition to him in the party has no candidate and no policy. It has a semi-mythical king of the north on whom it projects its soft-left fantasies, and it has no policy on the one thing that really would cut the ground from under Farage’s feet, namely, stopping the boats.

For the moment, Starmer is the best placed to defeat Farage at the next election, but Starmer’s own MPs in parliament do not believe in him any more, and are beginning to think that he will not last long as prime minister. Once that idea takes hold, anything can happen. With a Budget coming up and no majority in the Commons for the spending cuts or tax rises needed, it could start to happen quite soon.