The RING devalues it´s Championship - another sign of it´s decline?

[bodhi]

The new rules:

NEW CHAMPIONSHIP POLICY
Championship vacancies can be filled in the following two ways:
1. THE RING’s Nos. 1 and 2 contenders fight one another.
2. If the Nos. 1 and 2 contenders choose not to fight one another and either of them fights No. 3, No. 4 or No. 5, the winner may be awarded THE RING belt.
CHAMPIONSHIP RETENTION
THE RING also wants to encourage its champions to face worthy opponents. With that in mind, here are the six situations in which a champion may lose his belt:
1. The Champion loses a fight in the weight class in which he is champion.
2. The Champion moves to another weight class.
3. The Champion does not schedule a fight in any weight class for 18 months.
4. The Champion does not schedule a fight at his championship weight for 18 months (even if he fights at another weight).
5. The Champion does not schedule a fight with a Top-5 contender from any weight class for two years.
6. The Champion retires.

[URL]********ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/172677-the-ring-updates-championship-policy[/URL]

[lufcrazy]

How is that a devaluation?

It makes the championship more worthy surely!

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

How is that a devaluation?

It makes the championship more worthy surely!

So, if the championship goes to the winner of the number 2 fighting the number 5 that´s more worthy than the winner of one vs. two?

[lufcrazy]

They should actually go a step further and transfer the belt incase of robberies. I.e. Casamayor - santa cruz.

This way the belt doesn't just trace a lineage (a moot point anyway because it's history is skewed from the generally accepted lineage) it will now genuinely represent the best fighter.

It's almost as if they saw my premiere fighter series and took it global!

This is quality by any definition!

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by bodhi

So, if the championship goes to the winner of the number 2 fighting the number 5 that´s more worthy than the winner of one vs. two?

If number 2 refuses to fight number 1, and number 1 instead fights number 4, he should be credited as the top man, clearly.

[lufcrazy]

Also, please can you change the colour of the text in the op? Not very friendly on the eyes!

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Also, please can you change the colour of the text in the op? Not very friendly on the eyes!

I didn´t change it, just used the standard colour?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by bodhi

I didn´t change it, just used the standard colour?

Yeah I figured you had, that's with i'm asking if you will change it

From black to white

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

If number 2 refuses to fight number 1, and number 1 instead fights number 4, he should be credited as the top man, clearly.

He should be credited as the top man and he already was moving past the number one to the number one spot. But he isn´t the champ, or shouldn´t be.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by bodhi

So, if the championship goes to the winner of the number 2 fighting the number 5 that´s more worthy than the winner of one vs. two?

I saw that myself. Wondered about that also. Giving the fighters themselves the decision who is the champion by who they want to fight rather than following the rule that one and two have to fight to get a championship.

[MAG1965]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

If number 2 refuses to fight number 1, and number 1 instead fights number 4, he should be credited as the top man, clearly.

wouldn't it be easier to take number 2 out of the ranking if he refuses to fight one, then number 3 moves to number 2 where number one has to fight him, and that guy become champion. I don't get it. Looks like a bypass of 2,3 and 4 if 1 was to fight 5. Maybe I reading it wrong.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

They should actually go a step further and transfer the belt incase of robberies. I.e. Casamayor - santa cruz.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

This would be a disaster.

[Kalasinn]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

They should actually go a step further and transfer the belt incase of robberies. I.e. Casamayor - santa cruz.

This way the belt doesn't just trace a lineage (a moot point anyway because it's history is skewed from the generally accepted lineage) it will now genuinely represent the best fighter.

It's almost as if they saw my premiere fighter series and took it global!

This is quality by any definition!

This would've been ideal for the Spinks-Holmes II robbery.

Then Mike would've tapped Larry's ass in late '86. (Instead of WBC Berbick.)

[The Mongoose]

Probably too much work but never understood why they just didn't shift their rankings if a top fighter isolates himself from other contenders.

[PowerPuncher]

Agree with your Bodhi (rare for the Classic). The Ring Championship has just lost any credibility by doing this. I do wonder if it's been done to favour a GBP fighter, does this mean Mayweather-Cotto is for The Ring Belt? Or Khan-Peterson for The Ring Belt? Or Pacquaio-Bradley? The Ring was supposed to be lineage, this is as bad as the alphabet soup orgs

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

If number 2 refuses to fight number 1, and number 1 instead fights number 4, he should be credited as the top man, clearly.

Take this scenario, a fighter get's upto no2 in division where he is clearly not the best, he avoids number 1 and fights number 4, he then get's the Ring Championship, he goes onto defend it once every 2 years while fighting the number 5 guy but none of the top4. He still maintains his Ring Championship of the division for as long as he fights a top5 fighter, ie not necessarily a top 4 fighter

And no it's nothing to do with your 'Premier Fighter' threads because no one is stripped in the above scenario.