Canelo Reclaimed the WBC Title Against Christian Mbilli — But De La Hoya Says the Doubts Remain

Canelo Álvarez returned to the championship column on October 31, defeating Christian Mbilli by unanimous decision in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and reclaiming the WBC super-middleweight title. The official scores of 115-112, 116-111 and 117-110 established a clear winner over 12 rounds.

The result restored something tangible. According to the WBC, Canelo is once again its champion at 168 pounds after losing his undisputed status to Terence Crawford in September 2025. MMA Fighting recorded Canelo’s post-fight record as 64-3-2, while Mbilli fell to 29-1-1 after suffering his first professional defeat.

What the victory did not restore automatically was the perception of Canelo as one of boxing’s most dominant fighters.

Oscar De La Hoya has now attacked the performance, calling the Mbilli fight a “snoozefest” and arguing that Canelo’s low-output approach is putting fans to sleep. De La Hoya’s language was predictably provocative, especially considering the long-running hostility between the former promoter and his former fighter. His criticism nevertheless raises a legitimate sporting question.

Did Canelo’s controlled victory represent the beginning of a genuine resurgence, or did an experienced champion simply know enough to remain one step ahead of an aggressive but less proven opponent?

The WBC belt returned. The questions left by Crawford did not.

De La Hoya’s Criticism Is Personal, but It Cannot Be Dismissed Entirely

According to Boxing News 24/7, De La Hoya described Canelo-Mbilli as “another snoozefest against another opponent nobody asked for.” During his “Clapback Thursday” commentary, he complained about the lack of activity and claimed Canelo’s recent performances were putting boxing fans to sleep.

De La Hoya also acknowledged Canelo as the most popular Mexican fighter of the current era while characterizing that era as the worst in Mexican boxing history, according to Izquierdazo. That assessment is De La Hoya’s opinion, not an independently established conclusion about the quality of contemporary Mexican boxing.

It also arrives with considerable baggage.

The relationship between De La Hoya and Canelo deteriorated years ago, and their public exchanges have rarely been restrained. Any criticism from De La Hoya must be evaluated with that history in mind. He is not approaching Canelo as a neutral observer, and his commentary often appears designed to provoke a response as much as to analyze a fight.

That does not mean every underlying point is invalid.

Entertainment and effectiveness are separate standards. Canelo did not need to produce a furious pace or a dramatic knockout to deserve the decision against Mbilli. He needed to control enough rounds, land the more meaningful punches and prevent Mbilli’s pressure from determining the fight. The three judges agreed that he accomplished that.

But Canelo is not judged like an ordinary titleholder.

His reputation, drawing power and place in Mexican boxing history create expectations that extend beyond winning a decision. When a fighter has spent years operating as one of the sport’s defining stars, the public naturally looks for evidence of authority: sustained offense, visible damage, tactical control and the ability to separate himself decisively from a challenger.

De La Hoya presented the harshest possible interpretation of what happened. Canelo’s victory deserves a more balanced reading, but the performance did not make every concern disappear.

Canelo Beat an Unbeaten Champion With Experience and Control

Calling the fight boring does not change the legitimacy of the result.

Reuters reported that Canelo relied on counterpunching and attacks to the body against Mbilli, whose aggression gave the former undisputed champion opportunities to respond rather than forcing him to lead exchanges. That approach may not have delivered constant action, but it reflected Canelo’s experience and understanding of distance.

Mbilli entered the contest with 29 victories and one draw. He was not an opponent arriving with a history of professional defeats, nor was he simply handed a championship designation for the Canelo fight. Reuters reported that Mbilli had been elevated from interim champion to full WBC super-middleweight champion in January 2026 following Crawford’s departure from the division.

Canelo therefore defeated an unbeaten titleholder and did it over the full championship distance.

Sky Sports reported that Mbilli was deducted one point in the eighth round for striking Canelo behind the head. That penalty affected the scoring, particularly on the closest card, but it does not explain the entire outcome. Canelo still convinced all three judges that he had won enough of the fight to reclaim the championship.

There is value in that accomplishment.

Canelo had not competed since Crawford defeated him by unanimous decision on September 13, 2025. Returning from a decisive loss against a highly accomplished opponent can expose more than physical decline. Fighters must also rediscover confidence, timing and the willingness to execute under pressure after an opponent has disrupted their established identity.

Against Mbilli, Canelo showed that he could still manage an aggressive fighter, operate for 12 rounds and win a clear decision. MMA Fighting reported that Canelo said regaining the title felt like winning his first championship. He also said he intended to take two weeks away before returning to training.

Those are not meaningless developments. Canelo remains a major force at super middleweight, and De La Hoya’s criticism should not be used to rewrite a legitimate championship victory as a failure.

The more difficult question is what level of championship form Canelo actually demonstrated.

The Mbilli Victory Did Not Answer What Crawford Exposed

Crawford’s victory changed the way Canelo’s performances must be evaluated.

Before that defeat, Canelo’s championship status and commercial power could make it tempting to treat every successful defense as confirmation that he remained at the top of the sport. Crawford disrupted that assumption by defeating him through superior execution over 12 rounds. Reuters recorded the result as a unanimous decision that cost Canelo his undisputed super-middleweight championship.

Beating Mbilli proved that Canelo could become a world champion again. It did not prove that he had solved the problems Crawford created.

That distinction matters because championship status and peak performance are not the same thing. Boxing’s collection of sanctioning bodies allows a fighter to hold a recognized title without necessarily being the clear best competitor in a division. A belt confirms that Canelo defeated the man placed in front of him for that championship. It does not establish that he has returned to the level he occupied during his strongest years.

Mbilli deserves fairness in this comparison. He was unbeaten, aggressive and physically capable of forcing Canelo to work. His first professional loss should not suddenly reduce him to an opponent who never belonged in the ring.

His résumé, however, had not established him at Crawford’s level.

Crawford entered the Canelo fight with an elite record of solving high-level opponents and adjusting across divisions. Mbilli entered his title defense with ambition, pressure and an unbeaten record, but without the same proven history against the sport’s best fighters. Canelo’s ability to control Mbilli therefore answered a different question from the one Crawford presented.

The victory showed that Canelo remains too experienced and technically composed for a dangerous but less accomplished champion.

It did not show that he can still defeat the very best opponent available.

De La Hoya blurred that distinction by focusing almost entirely on entertainment. A fight can be low in activity and still feature intelligent, effective boxing. Without verified official punch totals in the reviewed reporting, there is no basis for inventing statistics to support either the claim that Canelo was unusually inactive or the argument that he produced more offense than viewers recognized.

The objective record is simpler. Canelo won clearly on the official scorecards. Whether the performance was exciting remains subjective. Whether it demonstrated a complete return to peak form remains unresolved.

Canelo’s Next Opponent Will Tell Us More Than De La Hoya Can

The most useful response to De La Hoya will not come through another public argument.

It will come through matchmaking.

Canelo’s first defense of the reclaimed WBC title has not been established in the supplied reporting. It is also unclear whether he intends to pursue the other super-middleweight championships and attempt to rebuild the undisputed status Crawford took from him.

Those decisions will reveal how Canelo and his team view this stage of his career.

If Canelo faces a leading contender with the ability to challenge him tactically and physically, the result will provide a stronger measure of his remaining level. A more authoritative performance against a proven opponent would support the idea that the Mbilli fight was a disciplined first step after a major defeat rather than evidence of continuing decline.

If the next opponent is limited, another victory may protect Canelo’s championship position without answering the larger question.

Canelo has earned the right to approach his career strategically. His record, championship history and commercial importance guarantee that every decision will carry financial and legacy considerations. But those accomplishments also mean ordinary victories will no longer generate extraordinary conclusions.

Defeating Mbilli was enough to regain a belt.

It was not enough to erase Crawford.