Crawford vs Spence 3 — is the boxing world still interested?

---

The honest answer is: somewhat, and declining. The first fight was culturally significant because the rivalry had been built for five years before it happened. The second fight resolved the competitive question cleanly — Crawford won both by comfortable margins once the first fight's size-and-ring-rust factors were accounted for. A trilogy has diminishing commercial logic because there's no open narrative thread. Spence hasn't fought in a way that rebuilds his credentials as a genuine threat. Unless Spence goes on a run against top opposition that rebuilds doubt, Crawford-Spence 3 is an exhibition for hardcore fans, not a mainstream event.

The honest answer is: somewhat, and declining. The first fight was culturally significant because the rivalry had been built for five years before it happened. The second fight resolved the competitive question cleanly — Crawford won both by comfortable margins once the first fight's size-and-ring-rust factors were accounted for. A trilogy has diminishing commercial logic because there's no open narrative thread. Spence hasn't fought in a way that rebuilds his credentials as a genuine threat. Unless Spence goes on a run against top opposition that rebuilds doubt, Crawford-Spence 3 is an exhibition for hardcore fans, not a mainstream event.

Tsarukyan is a better fighter than people give him credit for but you're right that the clock is his enemy in this fight. Makhachev improves with each round.

Tsarukyan is a better fighter than people give him credit for but you're right that the clock is his enemy in this fight. Makhachev improves with each round.

The Belal point is fair. He's essentially suffered for fighting his style honestly rather than manufacturing exciting moments for highlight packages.