+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Ring or Octagon?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anderson, Indiana
    Posts
    101

    Lightbulb Ring or Octagon?

    Let me get the obvious part out of the way for everyone before we really debate this. Yes, the octagon is much cooler than a standard ring.

    Now, here’s a real argument.

    Would it not be a million times easier to convince the narrow minded media and traditionalists that MMA is certainly a legitimate sport if they used a ring? Sure, they would be throwing away a lot of tradition as far as the UFC goes, and this will never happen as long as we live.. But I feel the UFC would find itself on ESPN a lot faster if they could find a way to make that happen. When you look or hear about a cage fight, you automatically think of the word gimmick, a word UFC wants to avoid as a way of avoiding any comparison to wrestling. I was a pro wrestling fan before I was a fan of any sport, as I had been a fan since somewhere around age 2. You aks me just about anything about wrestling past, or wrestling inner workings and 9 times out of 10 I can give you the correct answer. Since I started getting into MMA completely, I can’t even look at a wrestling show without cringing. (Though that might have something to do with the decline of quality in their programming)

    My point? As a wrestling fan, I used to have my doubts on whether UFC was real or not. I mean, it was obvious they hurt each other. It was obvious people suffered legitimate injuries. It was obvious that they weren’t trying as hard to make it super entertaining 100% of the time, but when you are looking at a cage, along with a slogan that says “As real as it gets” you begin to wonder who they are trying to convince with that slogan.

    Anyway, around 1999 I went to a fight in person and learned right away that it was a whole new ball game. Would it not be a lot more simple if not everyone had to go through the same transition that I did? Pride and K-1 will always appear more legitimate to the media and the untrained eyes of the narrow minded people as long as they reside in a ring, while UFC remains in a cage.

    My opinion. What’s yours?
    "If there's a little blood, people like to see blood, it makes it interesting." - Forrest Griffin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    So you're saying people will relate to UFC being more like WWE because they're in a "gimmicky" cage instead of a ring....LIKE WWE USES?!?! lol!!!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anderson, Indiana
    Posts
    101

    Default

    You can look at it like that. I tend to look at more like what boxing, karate, kick boxing, Pride, K-1 and just about any other legitimate combat sport uses. I didn't even really think about wrestling using a ring. However, WWE uses cages and other gimmicky things as well. I doubt the promoter of the Tarver/B-Hop fight is going to come out and announce that, to settle the fight the right way, that teh ring is going to be surrounded by a 12 foot steel cage so no one can escape or interfere. A cage is what sounds gimmicky, not the ring.
    "If there's a little blood, people like to see blood, it makes it interesting." - Forrest Griffin

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,502

    Default

    lol I didn't say a ring sounds gimmicky, just thought it was funny you used WWE as your example when they're in a ring.

    Still, I don't really know why you had such a hard time believing UFC is real, I mean how hard is it to tell even if you're not sure? As soon as one clean punch or knee or something lands, you should know they ain't playing around.

    And regardless, and this isn't just to disagree, I prefer the cage. The only thing I like better about a ring is the camera angles and shots and shit since the fence don't get in the way. It's not even the 'brutal image' thing about the cage either that I like, I hate when fighters get tied up in the ropes it annoys the shit out of me. I lose focus on the fight and just focus on why the referee isn't restarting them yet. Always had that with PRIDE, just had that with IFL on their last show.

    Other than getting tied up in the ropes though, I could care less what the fights take place in.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anderson, Indiana
    Posts
    101

    Default

    The only thing I was sceptical of in the beginning was wether or not it was predetermined. I mean, I knew the strikes were landing clean, but wrestler kick the shit out of each other with the match still being predetermined and all of that garbage. But let's forget wrestler, it's garbage.

    I'm not saying I prefer a ring. I like the cage as much as the next guy. I'm just asking, hypothetically, if the U.S would latch on and get behind MMA more than it has already (Meaning, more news, ESPN like coverage) if they battled in a cage. I debated this last Saturday with some friends when we watch K-1 DVD's, it just looks slightly more like a legitmate sport. UFC is sanctioned in whatever state they do their shows in, so I don't question it's legeitimacy of course, I just wonder what everyone else's interpretations are when they are not fans. I guess I just wonder why MMA isn't bigger than it is sometimes, to me it should be the number 1 sport in the country. Perhaps the NFL (Which I love just as much) is not able to be surpassed in the U.S.
    "If there's a little blood, people like to see blood, it makes it interesting." - Forrest Griffin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Channel Islands, GB
    Posts
    682

    Default

    I know what you're saying but IMO the biggest problem with Pride is in fact the ring. Fights are constantly stopped, fighters often embarressingly dragged to the center of the ring to restart, then we watch as they crawl themselves back to the edge of the ring again. Also fighters have a natural habit to grab the ropes in Pride (or in people like Silva's case, blatently wrap their arm around the top rope to avoid a takedown).

    Don't get me wrong, it's a small annoyance for me & I do like Pride, but I'd prefer fights in a self contained arena like a cage.

    Unfortuantely as I live on a remote island I've yet to see a cage fight live, so I can't comment on this too much, however I've heard that the cages tend to block the views of the spectators.

    The gimmick side of things to me is that we have a fledgling sport in mma that are run with conflicting rules, such as rings & cages, kicks & elbows etc. The sport needs a uniform set of rules to remove any gimmick aspect, however I can't see this ever happening.

    However I still prefer the cage.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    I prefer the Octagon myself. It sets UFC apart from the rest of the combat sports. Makes it much more unique. And the fact that there is more square feet of fighting room in the octagon makes it much better. And it is a more realistic fighting environment then the ring. If you get in a real fight getting pushed against a wall is much more realistic then fighting near a set of ropes.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    341

    Default

    Alvin- first the point about the grabbing of the ropes its the same in the cage. how many fights have we complained about laitly were people have grabbed the cage to get an advantage. thats something that no matter were the fight is its gonna happen.

    i prefer the ring for a few reasons. first is it levels the playing field as such for the guy on the bottom compaired to the guy on the top. all the guy on the top does everytime is drag the guy to the fence were he doesnt have to worry about a submission because the guy is just jammed up against the fence. and when everyfight on the ground goes against the fence it really hurts the spectaors view.

    on the stopages in the ring honestly how many times does it happen? maybe once or twice a fight and it takes two seconds.

    the rule differences in pride and the ufc is another thing because thats were the real differences are. i prefer the pride rules and really the only thing the ufc has is elbows which i could care less about the stop fights early and punches and forearms can be used in their place. the ufc is to wrestler friendly as they have no consiquence for the shoot as they cant be kneed when on the ground. the stomps and soccer kicks are not as important but the ufc really does need to allow keees from the north south to the head and on a downed opponed for the fights to be fair in all aspects.
    Fabricio Werdum, The Future

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Miami FL
    Posts
    12,487

    Default

    as a Boxer I prefer the Ring

    the cage seems useless, it basically for looks.. Genki Sudo has proven that the ring can be used effectively, im sure not all organizations allow what he does though.

    Overall I like the Ring better, its more traditional although it would hurt less to get knocked back into a cage rather then ropes.

    Wheres the Poll?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Joplin,Missouri
    Posts
    5,016

    Default

    I'd have to go with the cage.In a cage there's only one way out.Plus i think it adds an extra element to the fight game.Fighters can use it to their advantage.Chuck uses it to standback up a lot of times and hughes uses it to smash his opponents next to it so they don't have as much room to pull off a submission.I like the cage.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •