The International Boxing Federation (IBF) has finally come forward to clarify the situation regarding the IBF heavyweight title. With the sanctioning body having initially refused to confirm whether Oleksandr Usyk voluntarily vacated his title or if this was a decision it made itself—given that the IBF’s rules dictated Usyk should have been stripped—the IBF’s rare show of transparency still leaves many questions about the consistency in how they apply their rules.
In their official press release, the IBF revealed the circumstances that led to Daniel Dubois (21-2, 20 KOs) being elevated from interim champion to IBF world heavyweight (200+ lbs) champion:
“On Tuesday, June 25, 2024, IBF President Daryl Peoples received notification that Oleksandr Usyk was relinquishing his IBF World Heavyweight Title. Usyk conveyed his gratitude to the IBF, especially for having the opportunity to become the Undisputed Champion in two weight divisions. The IBF was honored to have Oleksandr Usyk as its champion and wishes him continued success.
“Daniel Dubois, former IBF Interim World Heavyweight Champion, was sent notice on June 26 that he is recognized as the organization’s World Heavyweight Champion effective immediately. The IBF has received the request for Dubois’ first defense of the Heavyweight title to be against Anthony Joshua.“
International Boxing Federation
Despite Oleksandr Usyk (22-0, 14 KOs) having displayed a high standard of professionalism and sportsmanship throughout his career, a forced relinquishment by the IBF of his heavyweight (200+ lbs) title would have been warranted as he had failed to face former IBF interim champion and mandatory challenger Filip Hrgovic (17-1, 14 KOs) since the IBF mandated the two heavyweights to face each other in 2022.
A match Oleksandr Usyk held against then-World Boxing Association (WBA) “regular” champion Daniel Dubois last year should have technically already resulted in the vacation of Usyk’s title. Contrary to what many other media outlets reported, the Usyk-Dubois match was not a mandated bout; as any WBA “regular” champion is acknowledged by the sanctioning body as a world champion.
The confusion stems from the WBA’s “regular” and “super” titles, which recognize both holders of these belts as world champions. Thus, Usyk’s decision to fight Dubois was voluntary and prevented Hrgovic from receiving a deserved opportunity to face him.
Usyk’s recent decision to vacate his IBF belt exemplifies his forthrightness but also highlights the IBF’s inconsistency in enforcing its own rules. The sanctioning body had the opportunity to stand firm but failed to do so.
When Usyk opted to face Dubois in August 2023, the IBF was notably absent, refusing to mandate a Usyk-Hrgovic bout a year after their first mandate.
In 2024, following Usyk’s May 18th victory over Tyson Fury (34-1-1, 24 KOs), where he was crowned as the undisputed heavyweight champion, the IBF again failed to assert its authority by not elevating Hrgovic to world champion prior to his June 1st bout against Daniel Dubois.
This was due to a rematch clause Usyk had with Fury to stage a rematch after their first match. Notoriously, the IBF stripped another champion, Terence Crawford (40-0, 31 KOs), in 2023 for the same reason.
The IBF’s own rules also dictated that Usyk should technically have been stripped, and Saudi minister Turki Alalshikh further made mention of a deadline following May 18th that would see the winner stripped regardless of the outcome.
The IBF can avoid criticism by never reordering a Usyk-Hrgovic bout, thus avoiding responsibility for their inconsistent decision-making. Without an organization to regulate the main four sanctioning bodies in the sport, the IBF will continue to ignore or enforce their rules at their discretion, preventing fighters from getting deserved opportunities promptly.
The circumstances surrounding Usyk’s willing relinquishment of his IBF title further highlight this, as Usyk had actually filed a petition to retain the IBF title in anticipation of being stripped. This move suggested the IBF was expected to enforce its rules, and their failure to do so has exposed the organization as erratic and procrastinate.
