What does it say when a champion like Terence Crawford is stripped right after making history? This is about more than Crawford — it’s about how boxing’s structure can be as punishing as any opponent.
Crawford Makes History, Then Politics Gets Involved
Terence Crawford should be basking in his latest triumph. After already becoming undisputed at super-lightweight and welterweight, he went and did it again at super-middleweight, dethroning Canelo Álvarez. Three divisions, three undisputed reigns in the four-belt era — something no man had done before.
You can read our full report on that history-making night right here.
But as ever with boxing politics, the celebration barely lasted. Within days the sanctioning bodies were back to doing what they do best: stripping belts. It’s happened to Crawford before, and it’s happened to plenty of others. The sport just doesn’t let “undisputed” mean what it should.
Titles Matter… But Legacy Lasts
Now, don’t get me wrong. Titles aren’t meaningless. They give prestige, they make fights marketable, they help fans understand what’s at stake. But they don’t live forever.
When you talk about Muhammad Ali, George Foreman or Larry Holmes, you don’t list which belts they held and when. You talk about the Rumble in the Jungle, the Thrilla in Manila, those nights that transcended boxing.
That’s what I mean when I say it’s not about how many titles you collect — it’s about the memories you leave. Years from now, people won’t be debating Crawford’s WBA paperwork. They’ll be remembering Crawford–Spence, Crawford–Canelo, and what those fights meant to the sport.
Boxing Politics and the Cycle of Stripping
The sad thing is, Crawford isn’t the first and won’t be the last. Josh Taylor, Jermell Charlo, Oleksandr Usyk — all became undisputed, all stripped soon after. It’s the cycle. Mandatories, sanctioning fees, boardroom rulings. Belts aren’t built to stay together for long, because the business model depends on them splitting apart.
That’s the reality of boxing politics titles: champions are punished for making history, and fans are left confused instead of celebrating greatness.
What Fans Really Remember
Think about it. In twenty years, nobody’s going to talk about the IBF’s decision to strip Crawford. But they’ll talk about big nights that brought the sport together: Klitschko–Joshua at Wembley, Fury–Wilder, Crawford–Canelo. Some were great fights, some weren’t, but they were all moments.
And that’s the truth. Titles are part of the sport, but legacy is what gets remembered. Legacy is what gets spoken about down the pub when a boxer’s name comes up.
Final Word
Crawford’s achievement — undisputed in three divisions — is set in stone. The sanctioning bodies can reshuffle belts all they like, but they can’t erase what happened in the ring.
Belts matter, yes. But legacy is bigger. Legacy is the thrillers, the rumbles, the Wembley nights — the moments that stick when the belts are long forgotten.
What about you? Do you care about boxing politics titles, or is legacy what really matters? Share your thoughts and join the debate at CMBoxing.