Cage better than ring?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Cage better than ring?
Chec22
2/6/07 11:41:28AM
Was just watching some Cro Cop fights on Youtube. Is it just me or does the ring suck for MMA? It has to be smaller, and it looks like they almost fall out of the ropes whenever they touch them. I read somewhere that some like the ring better due to visibility, but I think you see just fine in the cage. Anyway, I am sure this has been discussed before, just wanted to hear any other reasons people have one way or the other.
Stickan
2/6/07 1:31:13PM
This is a neverending discussion. Some people prefer the ring, some people prefer the cage.

I personally like the cage more but it's mainly because there is more space to move on. At least in UFCs octagon.

I don't care though. Cage, ring, just a mat.. I'll watch it.
madmarck
2/6/07 2:01:05PM
Ill wathc either or. But for some fighters the Ring is better (strikers who want to corner people) others like the cage (strikers who like to keep a distance). Grapplers have learned how to use the cage to pina opponent in and how to use it to get up.
I personally like the Cage keeps the fighters in. You dont get fighters fallin otu and it being ruled a NC.
Trapt1nw0nder
2/6/07 2:39:44PM
i think Cage is the best...i hate those restarts in the middle of the ring when they too close to the ropes...holding fighters against the fence is a good advantage for wrestlers and Jiu Jitsu guys to take and controls strikers....not just 4 corners
Chec22
2/6/07 4:07:42PM
Yeah, I will watch either. Sounds like they each have some strategy to go with or against it. I havent seen much of Pride so it stuck out.
ghosty82
2/6/07 7:51:48PM
Either really. Both have bad and good points about them.

I think the cage adds to the image certain people have of the sport being brutal though. Which can't be a good thing in the long run but thats probably down to alot of peoples general ignorance though.
Trapt1nw0nder
2/6/07 8:42:38PM
Ring has advantages and disadvantages....for example....

a strong puncher can corner a fighter in a corner and give them no where to go...in where in a cage.....NO CORNERS to get stuck in




JimiMak
2/6/07 8:43:47PM
Both are good. Cage is great but it can be a weapon and take away from just the two guys 1 on 1. Ring's visibility issue has more, i believe, to do with live attendance than camera angles. I've always liked the ring, but....

I really think the answer is the open mat. I wish I could find the link, it should be somewhere on sherdog, I saw video of Sergei against someone I never heard of but with some kind of slavic name and it was not only a great fight but it demonstrated the way the fighters tend to respect the "unwritten" boundry. It's the setup they've always used for grappling events. In this case there was like a 2 ft high curb around them with the audience anoter20 ft back (?), And the entire area looked bigger than the octagon. They had plenty of room to work and no ring cage for any unnatural advantage. Chuck norris' promotion (WCL?) uses a smaller version of the same idea, I think. It doesn't have a lot of exposure but I think it could be THE answer.
JunCTion
2/6/07 8:47:01PM
the ring is one of the reasons why rampage won, he cornered chuck. the cage and his experience in it is why i think chuck will win
hippysmacker
2/6/07 9:04:27PM

Posted by Trapt1nw0nder

i think Cage is the best...i hate those restarts in the middle of the ring when they too close to the ropes...holding fighters against the fence is a good advantage for wrestlers and Jiu Jitsu guys to take and controls strikers....not just 4 corners



I agree, and the falling out of the ring thing is scary too.
Trapt1nw0nder
2/6/07 11:50:34PM

Posted by JunCTion

the ring is one of the reasons why rampage won, he cornered chuck. the cage and his experience in it is why i think chuck will win



good point......but i still think Rampage can outstrike Chuck
Trapt1nw0nder
2/6/07 11:54:24PM

Posted by JimiMak

Both are good. Cage is great but it can be a weapon and take away from just the two guys 1 on 1. Ring's visibility issue has more, i believe, to do with live attendance than camera angles. I've always liked the ring, but....

I really think the answer is the open mat. I wish I could find the link, it should be somewhere on sherdog, I saw video of Sergei against someone I never heard of but with some kind of slavic name and it was not only a great fight but it demonstrated the way the fighters tend to respect the "unwritten" boundry. It's the setup they've always used for grappling events. In this case there was like a 2 ft high curb around them with the audience anoter20 ft back (?), And the entire area looked bigger than the octagon. They had plenty of room to work and no ring cage for any unnatural advantage. Chuck norris' promotion (WCL?) uses a smaller version of the same idea, I think. It doesn't have a lot of exposure but I think it could be THE answer.



lol...next UFC should be at the 50 yard line in the middle of a football field...no cage..no ring..

i can see it now....GSP running after Matt Sera all over the field
crimethinc
2/7/07 1:32:45AM
I think this is always going to be a matter of personal preference. A cage guy is going to say that a ring causes to many unnecessary stoppages from fighters getting tangled and falling out. A ring guy is going to say that a cage presents to many oppurtunities to slow the pace by pinning someone against it. I think we're starting to move past the whole bad image with the UFC going mainstream. After all these guys aren't referred to as "Cage Fighters" anymore. Longtime supporters of the UFC probably support the cage because that is there perception of MMA and Vice Versa with Pride guys and the ring. I've been a long time UFC fan and realatively newer Pride fan (just go into it within the last five years or so). I can see pros and cons in both arenas, but I've never watched a fight, Pride or UFC, and thought to myself, "Man, this would be so much better if it was in a ring/cage."
mrsumo
2/7/07 3:02:57AM
On tv, I perfer to see the cage, I like when the action goes up against the cage. Some fighters can really use it to their advantage. It also helps the fighter on his back to get up in some cases, if he knows how to do it. But at a live promotion, I would prefer the ring because I never get the good seats and it is easier to see the action.
strikefirstgear
2/7/07 4:17:15AM
Ring was great for boxing but a cage adds so much to this sport.

Cage for sure.
Baz
2/7/07 6:04:13AM
I prefer the Ring over a cage, I know it sounds daft but I feel it gives it more of a sporting contest feel.
pv3Hpv3p
2/7/07 6:57:36PM
I really think the answer is the open mat. I wish I could find the link, it should be somewhere on sherdog, I saw video of Sergei against someone I never heard of but with some kind of slavic name and it was not only a great fight but it demonstrated the way the fighters tend to respect the "unwritten" boundry. It's the setup they've always used for grappling events. In this case there was like a 2 ft high curb around them with the audience anoter20 ft back (?), And the entire area looked bigger than the octagon. They had plenty of room to work and no ring cage for any unnatural advantage.

I think I was watching old videos of Igor Vovchanchyn fights where he was in a similar setup... I thought they were old sambo championships, but that was just a wild guess.

It did provide the most open area for fighters, but there is a certain sense of neccesity to keep the fighters enclosed in some sort or another (ring or cage)... Adds to the decisiveness of one on one combat, IMO.
JimiMak
2/7/07 7:38:31PM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p

I really think the answer is the open mat. I wish I could find the link, it should be somewhere on sherdog, I saw video of Sergei against someone I never heard of but with some kind of slavic name and it was not only a great fight but it demonstrated the way the fighters tend to respect the "unwritten" boundry. It's the setup they've always used for grappling events. In this case there was like a 2 ft high curb around them with the audience anoter20 ft back (?), And the entire area looked bigger than the octagon. They had plenty of room to work and no ring cage for any unnatural advantage.

I think I was watching old videos of Igor Vovchanchyn fights where he was in a similar setup... I thought they were old sambo championships, but that was just a wild guess.

It did provide the most open area for fighters, but there is a certain sense of neccesity to keep the fighters enclosed in some sort or another (ring or cage)... Adds to the decisiveness of one on one combat, IMO.



I see your point, but I think that the necessity is a common misconception. Fighters do tend to respect a given area, which I think ppl think they'll just run (if someone wants to run they can still do it). I think it takes away some of the decisiveness to say it wasn't just the combatants it was: being trapped against a cage, or in ropes, or they "shoul've/shouldn't have" stood them or all the other arguments after fights. The two guys just decide it on their own. Course I do realize the general conception is they "need" to be locked up.

And yeah I know grappling,sambo etc use it.. The video I'm talkin about is the only time I saw mma in that format, wish I knew where to find it.
OchoCinco
2/7/07 7:43:29PM
I just hate the restarts in Pride because they are falling out of the ring. Let them fight use a cage.
pv3Hpv3p
2/7/07 8:12:03PM

Posted by JimiMak


Posted by pv3Hpv3p

I really think the answer is the open mat. I wish I could find the link, it should be somewhere on sherdog, I saw video of Sergei against someone I never heard of but with some kind of slavic name and it was not only a great fight but it demonstrated the way the fighters tend to respect the "unwritten" boundry. It's the setup they've always used for grappling events. In this case there was like a 2 ft high curb around them with the audience anoter20 ft back (?), And the entire area looked bigger than the octagon. They had plenty of room to work and no ring cage for any unnatural advantage.

I think I was watching old videos of Igor Vovchanchyn fights where he was in a similar setup... I thought they were old sambo championships, but that was just a wild guess.

It did provide the most open area for fighters, but there is a certain sense of neccesity to keep the fighters enclosed in some sort or another (ring or cage)... Adds to the decisiveness of one on one combat, IMO.



I see your point, but I think that the necessity is a common misconception. Fighters do tend to respect a given area, which I think ppl think they'll just run (if someone wants to run they can still do it). I think it takes away some of the decisiveness to say it wasn't just the combatants it was: being trapped against a cage, or in ropes, or they "shoul've/shouldn't have" stood them or all the other arguments after fights. The two guys just decide it on their own. Course I do realize the general conception is they "need" to be locked up.

And yeah I know grappling,sambo etc use it.. The video I'm talkin about is the only time I saw mma in that format, wish I knew where to find it.



I was wrong... Just searched around for it... The fights I was watching were definitly not sambo, they had boxing-style gloves on... Not sure what it was...

I understand what you're saying, there shouldn't be elements outside the fighters mentality and their skillsets coming into play, but IMO fighters adjust said skillsets to their environment. Be it a wrestler smashing someone against a cage or a striker trapping someone in the corner of the ring, the environment is really just another asset (or hindrence) in the fighters arsenal...

Very good point though... It does seem to take the game to it's purist form, but IMO the cage/ring adds a feeling of structure to the fight game, and that is something that ultimately lends to the sports credibility...
JimiMak
2/7/07 8:21:55PM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p


Posted by JimiMak


Posted by pv3Hpv3p



Very good point though... It does seem to take the game to it's purist form, but IMO the cage/ring adds a feeling of structure to the fight game, and that is something that ultimately lends to the sports credibility...



Point taken, and I can't argue with the idea that structure leads to public credibility. I kinda hope we have to argue which is better forever. There should always be dif orgs, rules, setups etc
pv3Hpv3p
2/8/07 12:14:59PM

Posted by JimiMak


Posted by pv3Hpv3p


Posted by JimiMak


Posted by pv3Hpv3p



Very good point though... It does seem to take the game to it's purist form, but IMO the cage/ring adds a feeling of structure to the fight game, and that is something that ultimately lends to the sports credibility...



Point taken, and I can't argue with the idea that structure leads to public credibility. I kinda hope we have to argue which is better forever. There should always be dif orgs, rules, setups etc



Agreed, I don't think a monopoly of MMA by any one org could end up being a good thing... Of course, everyone has a couple of dream cross-promotional fights, but maybe after MMA's growing pains subside, and the sport is seen as 'mainstream' we'll see more of these orgs working together as apose to against eachother...

Funny, a couple of years ago I would have thought this would all be wishful thinking...
JunCTion
2/8/07 1:45:40PM
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyythjyuju7yhhhbgnm,uyhgbgytghbhygtrfrhy. sorry, i just spilled chili on my keyboard. i agree with the growing pains point of view but i think it will always be dana thats against it. how would he handle a losing record agaist pride or if they had a champion / champion fight and ufc lost. dana doesn't like losing face
pv3Hpv3p
2/8/07 2:02:06PM

Posted by JunCTion

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyythjyuju7yhhhbgnm,uyhgbgytghbhygtrfrhy. sorry, i just spilled chili on my keyboard. i agree with the growing pains point of view but i think it will always be dana thats against it. how would he handle a losing record agaist pride or if they had a champion / champion fight and ufc lost. dana doesn't like losing face



I guess what I meant was, that after the smoke has cleared and the playing fields are more level then there really is no face to be lost. Both org will have an excellent stabel of fighters, and if things are going the way they are now, why not give the fans what they want...

With that being said, he would probably do the same thing he did when Rampage beat Chuck.

I do see your point though, hopefully after the competition between rival orgs settles down a little, we will only have to worry about bruises on fighters as appose to some suits ego.
JunCTion
2/8/07 2:20:00PM
i agree, as long as dana white doesn't become vince mcmahon.
to keep the orgs happy, couldnt they agree to pay equal base fight salaries to both fighters and split the winners purse
OB_Juan
2/8/07 5:58:31PM
The cage was made for MMA.

The ring was made for boxing.


When you introduce aspects like grappling a ring simply isn't efficient. Fighters need a totally enclosed environment.

The main arguement against the cage is that it's beneficial to wrestlers. Try telling that to Chuck Liddell. With proper training the cage can be utilized for getting back to your feet. When Rampage put Chuck on his back in Pride Chuck didn't have anything to help him get back up.
Trapt1nw0nder
2/8/07 9:32:51PM

Posted by OB_Juan

The cage was made for MMA.

The ring was made for boxing.


When you introduce aspects like grappling a ring simply isn't efficient. Fighters need a totally enclosed environment.

The main arguement against the cage is that it's beneficial to wrestlers. Try telling that to Chuck Liddell. With proper training the cage can be utilized for getting back to your feet. When Rampage put Chuck on his back in Pride Chuck didn't have anything to help him get back up.




what would of chuck done if he got back up? get beat down again...Rampage was dominating chuck anywhere the fight took place
JimiMak
2/9/07 5:42:10PM

Posted by OB_Juan

The cage was made for MMA.

The ring was made for boxing.


When you introduce aspects like grappling a ring simply isn't efficient. Fighters need a totally enclosed environment.

The main arguement against the cage is that it's beneficial to wrestlers. Try telling that to Chuck Liddell. With proper training the cage can be utilized for getting back to your feet. When Rampage put Chuck on his back in Pride Chuck didn't have anything to help him get back up.



This is actually one of the biggest arguments against the cage. Incase you didn't realize it... that is technically cheating. Granted it's the kind of minor infraction that if you don't prolongedly grab it usually doesn't get called. I think it would be good if you grabbed the fence to get up, if they made you get back down (this is only 1/2 serious, but I don't see how saying you can use it to get up is a good thing).
Related Topics