It was murdered.
Is Crawford - Spence 2 dead in the water?
Collapse
-
Not so long ago there's always news article about Spence almost every day or three. And now the "media" has basically abandoned him. Yeah, that's how it is in this sport. You lose once, no one would object if you announce retirement.
Question is who do you want for Crawford next?Comment
-
Comment
-
I said this in the other thread and someone got mad at me, accusing me of hating on Crawford.
Comment
-
Spence was in a video looking like a potbelly pig, purchasing a new dog, completely out of shape. Crawford needs a tune-up at 154 but the fight to see is Tim and it's massive money if he goes on the road to Australia. Spence already said, he's here for a good time, not a long time.Comment
-
Most of the mandatory time frames are within the span of a year. It's not even been 14 weeks. Maybe focus some of that energy on getting WBC to order a mandatory for Tyson Fury or Jermall Charlo, who's getting to fight a welterweight in a non title fight despite having sat out for more than two years.Comment
-
Yet no one wants to close the chapter so this sport can move on. This media can't be relied upon. They won't reach out to Spence, his manager, adviser Haymon, Floyd... ask them about the rematch. Nothing. They'd rather want to place the cart ahead of the horse. Or talk about Crawford/Canelo when the rematch hasn't been resolved yet.Comment
-
Yeah, it doesn't even make sense. I mean if I'm in the media aka youtube business and I'm obsessed with Canelo/Crawford I'd of course find out if the Spence/Crawford 2 is happening or not. It's like painting a coarse surface without first applying sand paper on it, make it smooth, get rid of the kinks.Yet no one wants to close the chapter so this sport can move on. This media can't be relied upon. They won't reach out to Spence, his manager, adviser Haymon, Floyd... ask them about the rematch. Nothing. They'd rather want to place the cart ahead of the horse. Or talk about Crawford/Canelo when the rematch hasn't been resolved yet.
Comment
-
-
It's the immediate thing that's a piss off, especially due to how inactive guys are. You had PBC Fans saying Inoue needed to give Fulton a rematch to prove it wasn't a "one off" meanwhile Inoue won every second of the fight and stopped his opponent. If they met in a few years at 126, nobody would care. Immediate rematch? MF's smoking rocks.
There's a lot of famous trilogies, and not all of them had the closest fights.
Patterson v Johannson, Ali v Frazier, Ali-Norton, Duran v De Jesus, Chocolatito v Estrada Carbajal v González, Fullmer v Tiger, Holyfield v Bowe, Griffith v Paret, Ward v Gatti, Zale v Graziano, Barrera v Morales, even Gans v Nelson back at the start of the 1900's all come to mind as famous trilogies. So it's not like rematches didn't happen.
That being said, I think one major difference is the modern propensity for immediate rematches. I think most of us would have fewer issues if fighters fought more and fought their way back into contention, and only did immediate rematches when the result was controversial. That would be way more fan friendly, but also less career friendly in this era in which fighters fear losing their '0'.Comment
Comment