Tweet
Am I the only one who sees a pattern here with the IBF? If you look at their rankings, No's 1 and 2 are almost always vacant - so they can hype up endless 'elimination bouts' and charge more sanctioning fees for the privilege.
They are also the biggest threat to the longevity of having undisputed champions, for unless their champion is a cross-over star like Golovkin, AJ, Canelo, etc they tend to strip or order unpopular defences such as this one when everybody else assumed a Charlo v Castano rematch was the popular course.
The IBF ought to be outed and shamed for its anti - sportsmanship, putting its own profits ( funny how you forget they're all non-profit organisations ) before the overall good of the sport.
They stripped Crawford of his 140 pound IBF strap a mere two weeks after he won undisputed status after beating Indongo.
Many fans focus on the WBC and WBA's multi belt BS bonanza, but this is how the IBF fills its pockets.
They are also the biggest threat to the longevity of having undisputed champions, for unless their champion is a cross-over star like Golovkin, AJ, Canelo, etc they tend to strip or order unpopular defences such as this one when everybody else assumed a Charlo v Castano rematch was the popular course.
The IBF ought to be outed and shamed for its anti - sportsmanship, putting its own profits ( funny how you forget they're all non-profit organisations ) before the overall good of the sport.
They stripped Crawford of his 140 pound IBF strap a mere two weeks after he won undisputed status after beating Indongo.
Many fans focus on the WBC and WBA's multi belt BS bonanza, but this is how the IBF fills its pockets.
Comment