“Bunch of Bulls***”: Keeping Aside His Ongoing Beef, Oscar de la Hoya Rips IBF for Striping Terence Crawford’s Title

One man’s loss is another man’s gain, it is often said. The boxing world saw it happen yesterday. Terence Crawford created history this year as he became the first male two-division undisputed champion. In the four-belt era, that means he held the belts of all the associated sanctioning bodies (WBC, WBC, WBO, and the IBF). However, per the latest move, IBF decided to take away their belt. Jaron Ennis, the interim IBF Welterweight title holder, is now the IBF Welterweight champion.

The ruling has undoubtedly jolted many across the realm. Former world champion and Golden Boy Promotions’ Oscar De La Hoya for one appeared seethingly unhappy. The boxing legend called the IBF’s decision a sad and weak judgment. He mentioned that The Ring accredited Terence Crawford as a champion. It might come as a surprise to many, given the differences between the Welterweight champion and the former boxer-turned-promoter.

A golden critique of a controversial decision

On his X account, Oscar De La Hoya wrote that the IBF’s ruling is distasteful. If you ask The Ring magazine, Terence Crawford is the ‘Man,’ and their reigning champion. Three months ago, ‘Bud’ became the undisputed Welterweight champion. The action is undoubtedly witnessing reverberations all across. While some, like ‘The Golden Boy,’ are questioning it, many fans, on the other hand, seem to have welcomed it. Per their view, it paves the way for bigger fights.

When it comes to mandatory defenses, a set schedule follows. Additionally, the governing bodies have provisions for optional defenses. Nonetheless, room for flexibility exists when it comes to a select number of unification matches and other major battles. But after his win over Errol Spence Jr., Crawford received a deadline of September 24 to close negotiations with Jaron Ennis since they couldn’t consider an optional defense.

But in the meantime, Errol Spence Jr. initiated his rematch rights. Now Crawford is bound by the agreement to follow it through, even if he wanted to fight ‘Boots.’ Unfortunately, the IBF doesn’t consider a rematch clause an exception to mandatory defense.

Managing the Ring: Oscar De La Hoya versus Terence Crawford

Oscar De La Hoya never minced words when he picked Terence Crawford to defeat Errol Spence Jr. during their epic battle on July 29. Even in a hypothetical fight against undisputed Super Middleweight champion Canelo Alvarez, ‘The Golden Boy’ stood clear: where he’d put his money. However, later, the duo’s disagreements over boxers and management became another storyline.

When it boiled down to the importance of having competent management watching out for a boxer’s career, the Nebraska native and the ace promoter held divergent views. The champion batted for the athletes to have a larger role in policymaking. According to him, it is only fair that fighters have a voice in the decisions that affect their careers. However, according to De La Hoya, quality management is essential. Letting boxers make decisions was a sure-shot recipe for disaster, ruinous for their careers.

Read More: Gennady ‘GGG’ Golovkin’s Former Trainer Brands Terence Crawford Moving Up to Fight Canelo Alvarez as “Dumb Idea”

Do you think a more lenient approach could have been adopted while considering Crawford’s IBF title? Please share your views with us in the comments below.

Watch This Story: Five Potential Opponents for Terence Crawford After Dominant Win Against Errol Spence Jr.