Shawn Porter is upset about Terence Crawford being stripped of his IBF welterweight title and no longer being undisputed champion because he thinks he should have been permitted to sit on his belt without defending it against his mandatory Jaron Boots Ennis until after his rematch with Errol Spence.
The International Boxing Federation doesn’t recognize rematch clauses to allow champions to put mandatory challengers on hold, so Crawford was out of luck. He either defended against Boots or else would lose the belt, and he opted for the rematch with Errol.
Some feel that rematch clauses have become a cancer in the sport, allowing champions to play tea party with their unifications or voluntary defenses, going around and around forever.
The IBF choosing not to recognize rematch clauses is a good thing for the sport because it prevents a champion from freezing the careers of their mandatory.
Crawford’s decision to go with the rematch with Spence gave the IBF no choice but to strip him of his title because his mandatory Jaron ‘Boots’ Ennis was waiting for his title shot, and they wouldn’t let Terence put him on hold.
“Still undisputed. Did anybody ask why?” said Shawn Porter to Fighthype about Terence Crawford being stripped of his IBF title for making it clear that he would be fighting Errol Spence Jr. in a rematch rather than defending against the mandatory Jaron ‘Boots’ Ennis.
“You can’t talk to Bozy [Ennis]. He put the request in way back in July. It still don’t make sense. There’s a request for him [Boots Ennis] to fight for the IBF championship world title that’s being held before that fight [Crawford-Spence] happens, which is held by Errol Spence.
It’s unclear why Porter is unhappy about it because Crawford (40-0, 31 KOs) has already made it 100% clear that he was going in this direction:
1. He wouldn’t be fighting Boots Ennis, and he’s looking for only bigger paydays for the remainder of his career.
2. Crawford is moving up to 154 or 168. He wasn’t going to fight Ennis, so it was a good thing that the IBF stripped him.
“Undisputed [fight], what can you do? Now, within that contract [between Crawford & Spence], there’s a rematch clause in that contract. Everybody has got to sit still,” said Porter, failing to understand that the IBF doesn’t recognize rematch clauses, which fighters and champions have used to lock out mandatory challengers recently.
Ideally, rematch clauses should be done away with entirely because it’s unfair to the mandatory challengers. In other sports like the NFL or NBA, you don’t have rematch clauses in the Super Bowl or the final game. You can’t just put the season on hold until you play a team again and again. It’s silly, and it shouldn’t be allowed.
“If you decide not to sit still, it means you’re being biased to something, to someone, to some other entity. It’s simply put. I love the Ennis family, and Boots is next, but it wasn’t supposed to come that way, and I speak for them. They didn’t want it that way,” said Porter.
