Thoughts on new ring magazine championship criteria?

**lordbd** · Posted On: 5/05/2012 3:44pm

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/1...ionship-policy

The ring has made slightly more lenient criteria so they wont keeping having so many vacant thrones. On the other hand there are plenty of less diligent bodies out there crowning world champions. Opinions? Thoughts? Will this affect the sport?

**Colin** · Posted On: 5/05/2012 10:39pm

The changes are terrible.
All it will accomplish is filling the vacancies for the sake of filling them, having say, #2 fight #5 to take the title without #1 even being involved? That's just fucking ridiculous.

**lordbd** · Posted On: 5/06/2012 12:15am

Originally Posted by Colin

The changes are terrible.
All it will accomplish is filling the vacancies for the sake of filling them, having say, #2 fight #5 to take the title without #1 even being involved? That's just fucking ridiculous.

No more truly 'world' champions that are unambiguous.

**Colin** · Posted On: 5/06/2012 2:06am

Originally Posted by lordbd

No more truly 'world' champions that are unambiguous.

Well, at least we still have the UFC :)

**Eddie Hardon** · Posted On: 5/06/2012 1:22pm

Thanks to the OP for that. I'll read it more carefully later. I still buy The Ring and got the latest yesterday. Haven't read it yet (nor Boxing News - UK weekly) cos I was watching the FA Cup Final yesterday. I'm a Chelsea man.

I also remember the scandal with Johnny Bos who used to 'fix' their Ratings. I was appalled by that and it spoiled their status and legacy.

Thanks again (especially as I didn't know about that link). :-)