Crashsti

the UFC has the Octagon and Pride fights in a traditional ring, although there is an extra rope down low. i would have to say that the cage is the way to go and can think of no good reason to fight in a ring. in the Pride events that i have seen the ropes are often a cause for a break in the action when the fighters end up under the ropes and have to be moved back inside the ring. i think the cage offers a much more realistic barrier and is safer for the fighters involved. in Pride its illegal to grab at the ropes but who can say that if they're about to be taken to the ground you're not going to grab the ropes? i heard the ring is better for the audience because it offers better viewing but at the fighters safety. my 2 cents.

AikaImmortal

Cage.. in a street fight enviroment, you wont have the luxury of getting your arm caught in the rope and being stood back up, possibly giving the underdog the advantage.

LastExit34

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. If you look at it from the standpoint of MMA being a sport, then I would say you should go with a ring. Since it is a sport, you want an arena that enables fighters to display their abilities and gives no advantage to either fighter. In a cage you are able to stack your opponent against a cage and give a grapler less room to work. Guys like Evan Tanner, Randy Couture, and Matt Hughes use this tactic almost every time they fight. To me, I don't want the type of arena people are fighting help decide the fight. I want the skills and abilities of the fighters to decide the fight. Because of this, I think the ring is a better choice.

I don't agree with the argument that in a ring fighters are able to grab to the ropes to prevent a takedown. Fighters grab the ropes in a ring just like they grab the fence or top of the fence in a cage. In both cases these actions are illegal and dealt with accordingly if excessive. Unfotunately grabbing the ropes or fence is not something we can get rid of beacause it is just natural instinct to grab on to something if you are being taken down.

To me it just seems that the ring provides the most level playing field for fighters.

__________________

AikaImmortal

A good point, but NOT having something to be pinned against can have the same argument but in a reverse way. Say you and I, god forbid, have too many beers one night and step outside into the alleyway. Not much room between this bar and another building, as we decided to fight in an alleyway. You hit me, knocking me against the wall. I am stuck against that wall until I find some way to evade you, leaving you with the advantage. Unless there is a large area to fight in, we would eventually end up against something or another. The old addage 'if a fighter wants the game to go to the ground, it will go to the ground' should also hold true to 'if a fighter wants the game to go against the wall/fence, it will go against the wall/fence'

Why handicap these fighters who ARE skilled in clinch and pound and or ground and pound by taking away one of the key elements of thier style.. would you ban knee strikes in a Muay Thai match?

LastExit34

Again, it all depends on how you look at it. I can understand your opinion and where your coming from, but I don't compare streetfighting to MMA. To me they are two very different things.

To me your not handicapping fighters who are skilled at ground and pound. They can still use ground and pound very effectively in a ring. The question to me is why handicap all the other fighters by giving the ground and pound guy something to aid in his style. To me, by this logic, then we should have a sword hanging in the octagon to make sure not to handicap the fighters who are skilled with the sword. Obviously a ludicrous example, but I think it gets my point across.

Would I ban knee strikes in a Muay Thai match? Of course not. Using knee strikes in a Muay Thai match is not using any outside agent to aid you in the fight.

We can agree to disagree here, but to me a ring is just a more suitable arena.

__________________

AikaImmortal

I think that is what we are going to have to do, because the cage provides as many advantages as it does disadvantages, same for the ring.

Does Pride stand the fighters up if one pushes the other into a corner and is ground and pounding? Can't say I have seen enough events to know

LastExit34

In Pride any time the fighters get close to the ropes, they restart the fight in the center of the ring in the exact position it was in before the stoppage.

__________________

Crashsti

its this restarting that really kills the action. it gives the guy on the bottom, who in most cases has used the ropes to stall the action, a chance to breathe, maybe think about what he's going to do. at most the break in action is 30 seconds but to me thats enough to put the guy on top at a disadvantage. in the Pride events i have seen, mostly older events, after the restart the guy on the bottom almost always tries to jump the gun.
the idea that MMA is a sport and should be fought in a ring is an interesting point, mostly from a marketing standpoint. put MMA in a ring like boxing and its now a sport. where as in a cage its somehow no longer a sport?

LastExit34

I didn't say MMA in a cage is no longer a sport. Sure it is and I enjoy it just the same. But the question was which is better, a ring or cage. I think a ring is better because in my opinion it creates a more level playing field.

__________________

Billdolfski

They both seem to have distinct advantages over each other and can see the argument on both sides. I feel that the cage makes a little more sense considering the nature of the sport, especially after seeing Rutten vs. Shamrock (Frank) in a Pancrase match. They went flying, and i do mean flying, out of the ring. Cage just is more practical and it adds the feature of having something to mash them into, which i consider to be a viable strategy.

jonnywildboar

I guess when it started they fought in a ring - because there were so many about, but the sport seems much more suited to an octagon type 'ring'

the boxing ring is for just that - boxing mabie kickboxing

to fight you need a cage !!!

pride would be much better in an octagon, with mabie zero gravity boots.

Master Jones

I like the cage, theres nowhere for sally's to run and hide. They can't look for and escape from their soon to be ass whoopin!!

Brandon_Dicken

Which is hard to compete in the UFC cage or the Pride Ring I'm not talking the fighters I mean the actual cage or ring its self. I think the Ring is hard to fight in heres why:

The cage allows fighters to push the opponents up againest and hold them there working as an aid. Fighters also use the cage to help them stand up. Also most ground and pound fighters in the UFC use the cage to keep there opponents still. Overall the cage assist the fighters more making it more of an aid.

The Pride Ring however works against you in alot of ways you can't hold the ropes and there is no way you can use it to press your opponent up against it like they use the cage in UFC. The Ring works completely against you as opposed to the cage.

Now that you know this there is a poll and just take a look at the pride matches and you'll see what I mean.

Brandon_Dicken

yo admin I messed in the poll put pride ring and ufc cage

[Danny]

I picked Pride because it's also smaller and wont allow too much movement between fighters where you have more area to work in the UFC.

__________________

AikaImmortal

the wording of the poll is quite confusing.. are we to pick which one we think provides a better competition, or which one provides a worse competition?

Crashsti

cage vs. ring was discussed a little while ago and people brought up good and bad points for both. i like the cage myself. its more solid and YES it can be used to an advantage by the guys who favor "ground and pound" tactics. it also is more realistic. i would hate to see Combat sports be so diluted that the realism is removed. in a real fight it is quite possible to be pinned against a wall or a bar or any other solid object. the ring does'nt do that. fighters can sneak out under the ropes to avoid a submission attempt or despite the rule against it, hold the ropes to prevent a takedown. i think for the general public who does'nt follow MMA the cage invokes thoughts of barbaric animal fights where as a ring might make them think of Mohamad Ali. so in that respect the ring is better because it makes people feel they are watching something human.

Brandon_Dicken

What I mean By this poll is the environment of the cage and ring it has nothing to do with the fighters just which do you feel is harder to compete in due to the amount of space, shape, rules, etc. and you'll base your poll vot off of this.

Sorry I couldn't put the full question in the small space.

SeikanJudanski

I prefer Pride Fighting Championships. I can´t say much on what is better, the cage or a ring. I have never been in a cage.. but in a ring.

I can say for sure.. that a ring won´t help you as much as a cage.

Pride is another Level.. them boys need to leave that cage alone, and come fight with the big boys.

SeikanJudanski

And where are you supposed to run in a Ring? step outside of it? if anything.. if you crawl under the ring ropes.. the judge is going to put you back in the middle of the ring.. for your opponent to continue the ass whoopin.

__________________