Terence Crawford is no longer the undisputed champion of the welterweight division after reports indicated that he has been stripped of his IBF title, resulting in Jaron Ennis being elevated to the status of a full champion. Apart from the lack of transparency surrounding this decision, as no outlet of the IBF seems to have effectively communicated these developments to the public, the IBF’s decision is controversial, especially given their history of allowing champions to retain their titles for twice as long as Crawford has.

Following Terence Crawford’s (40-0, 31 KO’s) undisputed welterweight bout with Errol Spence Jr. (28-1, 22 KO’s), Jaron Ennis (31-0, 28 KO’s) became the mandatory challenger to Crawford as the IBF interim welterweight champion. However, Crawford has now been stripped of his IBF title due to his apparent inability to fulfill his mandatory obligations against Ennis, as he is reportedly set to face Errol Spence Jr. in a rematch. Jaron Ennis is now acknowledged as the IBF welterweight champion, while Crawford will retain his other three titles in the WBA, WBC, and WBO at 147 lbs.

While it is not irregular for a fighter to be stripped if circumstances justify it, such as long-term injuries, there is no doubt that this decision is not grounded in the IBF’s own rules, which state that a fighter must fulfill their mandatory defense obligation within nine months, as outlined in IBF’s Article 5.

As roughly three and a half months have passed since Crawford won the IBF title on July 29th, the IBF’s decision is not consistent with their own rules. Though the IBF has argued that rematches don’t supersede their mandates, regardless of whether these rematches are obligated to be fulfilled through contracts, it still seems too early to outright force Crawford to relinquish his IBF title.

The IBF’s inconsistency in this matter can also be observed by how its former IBF welterweight champion, Errol Spence Jr., was not obligated to defend his title during his long absence from the ring from April 16th, 2022, to July 29th, 2023. During this period, Spence was not stripped even though he did not fight for over a year.

The same can also be said about unified super welterweight champion Jermell Charlo (35-2-1, 19 KO’s), who was stripped by the WBO for not defending his title since becoming undisputed on May 23rd, 2022, only to fight at super middleweight against Canelo Alvarez (60-2-2, 39 KO’s) on September 30th, 2023, thereby denying Tim Tszyu (24-0, 17 KO’s) an opportunity to fight for the WBO belt. Due to Charlo’s prolonged duties to fight his mandatory opponent, the decision by the WBO seemed justified, and Tim Tszyu, who was promoted to full champion, defended his title successfully approximately a month after gaining it.

However, the IBF itself did not intervene in this matter when it came to Jermell Charlo. As of now, Charlo continues to hold the IBF title, in addition to being the WBA and WBC super welterweight champion. This is despite the fact that he last defended the IBF title in 2022 and has not defended it in over a year, as he briefly moved up this year to face Canelo Alvarez at 168 lbs.

The inconsistency by the IBF in regards to Terence Crawford and Jaron Ennis seems to be a clear case of bias, corruption, or favoritism and cannot be interpreted without including the aforementioned. Three fighters have not been enforced with any mandate, all while they did not fight for over a year, and in the case of at least two fighters, they had not fought since last winning their IBF titles.

It should also be noted that Jaron Ennis petitioned to fight for the IBF title in October of 2022, yet the IBF did not make any steps to order Errol Spence Jr. to face Ennis. Instead, the IBF remained radio silent for over a half year until after the Crawford-Spence fight when they announced Ennis to be the mandatory, making it roughly eight months until they made any noise surrounding the IBF title at 147 lbs.

The fact that Crawford was stripped after less than four months, with the explanation that he could not fight Jaron Ennis due to a supposed rematch with Spence rumored to occur in February, acutely ignores the IBF champions that held on to their titles for longer than a year without being mandated to fight at any point during this time.

Jaron Ennis has also not been purported to be defending his title against anyone, again putting the IBF in the crosshairs of the wrong attention as the WBO acted similarly with Tim Tszyu but set the condition that he would have to fight Brian Mendoza (22-3, 16 KO’s) a month after being promoted to full champion.

The IBF chose to inform the renowned boxing writer and journalist Dan Rafael’s website, Fight Freaks Unite (FFU), of their decision to strip Terence Crawford, citing one of their rules as follows:

“On August 25, the IBF sent a letter to (Crawford’s) TBC Promotions directing Terence Crawford to begin negotiations with interim champion Jaron Ennis,” as revealed by FFU.

“Negotiations were to be concluded by September 24. On September 22, the IBF received an email from (attorney) Harrison Whitman representing Crawford indicating that the agreement for the Spence v. Crawford bout contains an immediate rematch provision which Errol Spence has exercised. As such, Terrence Crawford is unable to engage in negotiations with Jaron Ennis.”

FFU further reported that the IBF cited one of their rules, specifically Article/Rule 3B, titled “Clauses in Championship Contracts,” to justify their decision to strip Crawford.

The IBF’s decision to strip Crawford is rooted in the aforementioned Rule 3B, acting as if the anticipated rematch between Crawford and Spence is a significant barrier justifying the relinquishment of Crawford’s IBF title.

However, their decision to strip Crawford still appears unjustified, considering previous examples of IBF champions who were not stripped while remaining inactive for over twelve months. The IBF seems contradictory in this case compared to how they typically treat other champions. They chose to strip Crawford for engaging in a rematch, but made no attempt to forcibly relinquish Spence of his IBF title when he remained inactive for over a year following his fight with Yordenis Ugas (27-6, 12 KO’s).

While Crawford’s obligations to rematch Spence may be the cause of this decision by the IBF, it is particularly rare for such circumstances to occur for any world champion who has held their title(s) for roughly three months.

The justifications by the IBF do not truly add up when looked at objectively, especially when considering other instances of IBF champions who were not (or still aren’t) obligated to fight any mandatory challenger. This example is made more vivid in the welterweight division, particularly when Errol Spence Jr. was not obligated to fight any mandatory challengers by the IBF while holding the title, despite not fighting for nearly three times as long as three months.