Terence Crawford could not have thrashed Errol Spence Jr with any more certainty than he did back in July. The ninth-round TKO win ‘Bud’ pulled off for the undisputed welterweight championship was a one-sided mauling. A work of boxing art, the victory was one of the most dominant displays ever exhibited in a 50-50 fight. It was an occasion. A true one-off.
But because boxing is a sport fought in small print and legalese as much as it is in rings with gloves, it looks like we’re getting Crawford vs Spence II. Speaking to Travis Hartman, Crawford seemed to confirm the fight saying, “He exercised his rematch [clause] and that’s the fight that’s supposed to happen next,” Crawford said. “We shall see how negotiations go. We’re supposed to fight in December, and yeah, I’m back in training.”
READ MORE:
Of course, the fighters aren’t really to blame here. Crawford is legally mandated to take the rematch due to the clause in the contract for the first fight. Who can blame Spence for activating it? It obviously isn’t a savvy move given the beatdown he endured in the first bout, but the fighter is acting within his legal rights. But this is a wider issue in boxing. Rematch clauses are used now not only as a safety net but as a way out of bad performances by fighters.
Chris Eubank Jr performed brilliantly in stopping Liam Smith earlier this month. The ten-round TKO victory put Eubank back on the path towards big fights and world titles. But should he have realistically got that chance? ‘Next Gen’ had been destroyed in his last outing, also against Smith. That fourth-round stoppage in Smith’s favour did not warrant a rematch. It was far too one-sided. But the contract called for one and now Smith is on the outside looking in. Their first fight was rendered completely irrelevant by an unnecessary second.
Dillian Whyte was knocked out by former heavyweight champion Alexander Povetkin in 2020. It was a decisive finish that should have set the Russian on the path to a fight with Tyson Fury, having won Whyte’s interim WBC championship in the process. But instead, despite going down in five rounds of their first meeting, Whyte enacted his rematch clause and won a return in four rounds. His challenge to Fury was then devoid of value as ‘The Gypsy King’ easily outboxed him.
These rematch clauses are rarely if ever used to give the fans a second helping of a fight they really want. As in the cases above, and with Crawford-Spence II in particular, they are guilty of providing fights nobody wants outside the boxer who lost the last one. In Spence’s case, taking such a fight may even be unwise. It is impossible to imagine ‘The Truth’ getting on Crawford’s level so soon after being decimated by him. Surely a warm-up against a fighter further down the pecking order could at least restore his confidence before he faces his lone conqueror?
But rematch clauses aren’t about nuance. They aren’t about credibility or commerciality. They aren’t even really about boxing. They are a toxic element of the modern fight game and one that robs us of greater fights. Of fighters capitalising on the momentum of a big win. What is the point in a statement victory, after all, if all you earn from it is a fight against the same foe again?
*18+ | BeGambleAware | Odds Subject To Change
