ring vs. cage? - Page 3 - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

the king · 12-14-2006, 01:57 PM

I have to say I agree the cage does favor charging psychos. I think its true that the cage and ring favor 2 different styles and some fighters can use that to an advantage.
this fight in question about koscheck I think is correct the cage helped him alot without it it might go another way.

Daniel · 12-14-2006, 02:06 PM

Cage cage cage.

Normo · 12-14-2006, 02:10 PM

I personally think the cage is much better than the ring mainly because you cant fall out of it, if an opponent runs at another opponent for the take down quickly (like Matt Hughes) then they could both easily fall out the ring. You then say it stops opponents from rolling on the floor, if they rolled over in a ring they could very easily fall out if near the edge. A GnP fighter could easily adapt there technique to pin there opponents nr the fench and GnP them.

Whilst it gives the strikers a better advantage because its easily to move around than a square and the cage can help when trying to stand back up.

So it gives advantages and disadvantages to different styles in my opinion.

I8URV8 · 12-14-2006, 03:05 PM

I prefer the cage because I hate seeing the fight being interupted by guys trying to hold to fighters from falling out of the ring. Granted the cage does seem to give an advantage to the wrestlers in some matches, but I am not sure if that is always the case. Look at champions in all the weight classes: Sylvia, Chuck, and Silva are all primarily stand up fighters that rarely take their opponents down. GSP is good everywhere so he doesnt really count, so that leaves Sherk as the lone champion that is primaily a grappler. I don't think the advantage is as big for grapplers as it is made out to be.

MTKrav911 · 12-14-2006, 03:40 PM

Simple. Cages favor the grappler, Rings favor the striker.

The reality? There arent any ropes in a bar or on the street. But there are plenty of walls. That's why Cages are the most realistic for fighting.

You have no where to run. Just like a street fight.

In the ring a fighter can retreat to the ropes and use them to bounce off to avoid any onslaughts. The problem I have with the ropes is stupid stuff like ending up in the front row or on the scorers table happens. I hate that, it looks dumb and frankly is dumb.

Howver, a really good decent fighter with good tactics knows how to control the cage and circle away or stay in the center. The Iceman is the perfect example of how to control the Octagon. He cuts grapplers angles off and nullifies the takedown. If they do stuff him near the fence, he buries his butt into the fence and bounces off, or he sits up uses the cage to shoot back up standing when a takedown does occur.

GeorgeXVX · 12-14-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTKrav911

Simple. Cages favor the grappler, Rings favor the striker.

The reality? There arent any ropes in a bar or on the street. But there are plenty of walls. That's why Cages are the most realistic for fighting.

You have no where to run. Just like a street fight.

In the ring a fighter can retreat to the ropes and use them to bounce off to avoid any onslaughts. The problem I have with the ropes is stupid stuff like ending up in the front row or on the scorers table happens. I hate that, it looks dumb and frankly is dumb.

Howver, a really good decent fighter with good tactics knows how to control the cage and circle away or stay in the center. The Iceman is the perfect example of how to control the Octagon. He cuts grapplers angles off and nullifies the takedown. If they do stuff him near the fence, he buries his butt into the fence and bounces off, or he sits up uses the cage to shoot back up standing when a takedown does occur.

although i disagree with almost everything you said... you do bring up a good point with chuck... he is a striker who uses the cage very well.. he rarly gets caught on it and knows how to stay in the center of the cage.

JoeRoganismyhero · 12-14-2006, 03:45 PM

From a viewing standpoint for a fan, the Ring is much better because you can see a lot more but from a fighting standpoint I think the cage is best. I hate all the middle of the ring restarts and people on the outside pushing the fighters back into the ring. The cage contains all of the action so no one falls out!

Jenkins83 · 12-14-2006, 04:21 PM

For boxing and pro-wrestling the ring is fine, but for MMA the cage is definatley best.

MuStAnG12687 · 12-14-2006, 04:46 PM

I like the cage too, but the only problem is with the fencing around...the holes are too big so where fighters can put their fingers/ties through to change positions and gain unfair advantages...Remember Sherk vs Ken...Sherk was about to punish Ken with a slam and Ken resorted to grabbing the fence causing Sherk to almost lose total balance...now Sherk did recover and eventually slammed Ken to the ground, but that doesn't always happen...I would prefer a tighter woven fence so that toes/fingers cant go through for unfair advantages....now that would be bad for the cameras because there would bee too much fence to see anything so there in lies the dilemma...

MTKrav911 · 12-14-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuStAnG12687

I like the cage too, but the only problem is with the fencing around...the holes are too big so where fighters can put their fingers/ties through to change positions and gain unfair advantages...Remember Sherk vs Ken...Sherk was about to punish Ken with a slam and Ken resorted to grabbing the fence causing Sherk to almost lose total balance...now Sherk did recover and eventually slammed Ken to the ground, but that doesn't always happen...I would prefer a tighter woven fence so that toes/fingers cant go through for unfair advantages....now that would be bad for the cameras because there would bee too much fence to see anything so there in lies the dilemma...

I never thought of that, you have a point.

Hell let's put them in a reinforced plastic cage kinda like on Best of the Best II.

HAHAAHAH..

MuStAnG12687 · 12-23-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTKrav911

I never thought of that, you have a point.

Hell let's put them in a reinforced plastic cage kinda like on Best of the Best II.

HAHAAHAH..

lol...or the plastic they use at hockey games

subgenius · 12-23-2006, 04:01 AM

Wow, this is an old thread.

I still prefer the cage over the ring because the cage is larger.

MTKrav911 · 12-28-2006, 04:01 PM

You know, watching the Liddell/Rampage fight in 2003 in Pride over and over again on YouTube, I can't help but wonder if the reasopn why Chuck couldnt just pop back up after Jackson kept slamming him is because there is no cage.

If you watch the fight carefully, every single time Jackson scored a take-down, Chuck seemed out of sorts when he scooted closer to the ropes and realized, it's ropes, not a cage.

It'd be interesting to see if Tito and him fought in Pride how if anything, would it change the dynamic on Chuck's takedown defense.

MuStAnG12687 · 12-28-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTKrav911

You know, watching the Liddell/Rampage fight in 2003 in Pride over and over again on YouTube, I can't help but wonder if the reasopn why Chuck couldnt just pop back up after Jackson kept slamming him is because there is no cage.

If you watch the fight carefully, every single time Jackson scored a take-down, Chuck seemed out of sorts when he scooted closer to the ropes and realized, it's ropes, not a cage.

It'd be interesting to see if Tito and him fought in Pride how if anything, would it change the dynamic on Chuck's takedown defense.

Good point...each venue has it's advantages/disadvantages...it would be interesting to see Pride fighters fight in an octagon full time and UFC fighters to fight in a ring full time and see how their records would differ…

Master Jones · 12-29-2006, 12:10 PM

I like watching it in the cage better myself. I like watching them get cheese grated up against the fence with a good solid take down. With the ring they always have to be aware of the fact they could both go straight threw the ropes and down onto the floor. The cage also paints more of a picture of the whole MMA fighting that where watching also.

Ring_Raider_07 · 12-29-2006, 01:19 PM

Someone said something about fighters using the cage to hold opponents down. But, fighters can also use the cage to get up, so I think it nullifies that argument.

MTKrav911 · 12-29-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ring_Raider_07

Someone said something about fighters using the cage to hold opponents down. But, fighters can also use the cage to get up, so I think it nullifies that argument.

I totally agree. Watching like I said the Jackson/Liddell fight in Pride it was odd seeing Chuck kinda scoot towards the ropes and nothing being there for him to help him lean against to get back up.

Jackson slammed Chuck at will in that fight.

MuStAnG12687 · 12-29-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ring_Raider_07

Someone said something about fighters using the cage to hold opponents down. But, fighters can also use the cage to get up, so I think it nullifies that argument.

Fighters should not have any advantages or disadvantages because they can grab a cage. For example, say a fighter likes to slam their opponents down, like Sherk...if the opponent keeps grabbing the cage--is that fair? Of course not--unless you let Sherk grab the cage as many times as his opponent does and this situation all of a sudden gets complicated. So your point doesn't make much sense and plus, fighters are NOT allowed to grab the cage--yet they do it anyway and it can be significant at times...yet if the cage netting was too tight, the cameras can't see well...there are problems with every venue, some worse than others...

AmErIcAnPsYcHo11 · 03-26-2007, 11:08 AM

I say the ring needs to be left for the boxing. I watched ifl and it was the condors vs. the silverbacks. And one of the condor guys was caught in a gulletien (sorry if I spelled that wrong) and drug himself to the ropes and fell through which is a total crap move.