Should a Wrestling Ring Look Different Than a Boxing or MMA Ring?

[D-Man]

Football has a 100-yard football field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseball has their own baseball field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the same time, the WWE and almost all other wrestling promotions have stuck to using the traditional four-sided ring, similar to that of a boxing ring.

The first square ring was introduced by the Pugilistic Society in 1838. That ring was specified as 24 feet square and bound by two ropes. For these and other reasons, the boxing ring is commonly referred to as the "square circle."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1993, a new sport was born in the form of mixed martial arts (MMA).

The Semaphore Entertainment Group (SEG; a pioneer in pay per view sporting events) contacted video and film art-director Jason Cusson to design the trademarked "Octagon", a signature piece for the MMA events. Cusson devised the name for the events as The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).

To this day, the Octagon is the trademarked ring for MMA contests held by different promotions throughout the world.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen a lot of discussion in regards to TNA's choice to go back to the traditional 4-sided ring. For those on this site that have been living under a rock, they began as a company with a four-sided ring, changed it to a six-sided ring from 2004-2010, and then changed it back to a four-sided ring at the Genesis PPV last weekend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal, pugilistic events (such as boxing) have traditionally been known to take place in a four-sided ring. The UFC and the sport of MMA wished to set themselves aside from tradition and create the Octagon. But professional wrestling failed to ever set themselves apart from the rest of sports with their own ring. Instead, they decided to stick with the traditional four-sided ring, since it's still considered to be a one-on-one pugilistic sport similar to that of boxing (even though it's a scripted event).

In lieu of the changes being implemented by TNA with their ring, I often wondered why professional wrestling never decided to set themselves apart from all other sports with their own unique form of a battlefield for their combatants. It seemed as if TNA was on the right track, but I think their largest failing point was the fact that they were trying to reinvent the wheel by bringing in a new style of wrestling ring too many years after the invention of the sport. A great idea such as this one should have been utilized from day one. Instead, tradition took over and the four-sided ring has become the norm.

Knowing all of this, do all of you feel that a professional wrestling ring should be different like other sports' playing fields, rings, and playing areas? Do you feel the four-sided, traditional boxing ring served its purpose and is the perfect battleground for pro-wrestling? Or do you feel it doesn't really matter?

NOTE: This thread is not intended to be an extention of the thread in the TNA section in regards to the changes to their ring. Any attempt to do so will result in possible infraction and post deletion.

(Please remember this is a Non-Spam forum. All replies must be on-topic and backed up with reasoning. If you are unsure of the definitions of Spam, please read the rules before posting, otherwise risk infraction.)

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

This is a thread that makes you really ponder.

At the same time, why do any other "sports" not alter any of their playing fields or rings? Why is a football field all horizontal in nature? Why doesn't it have 90 degree angles for the field to make it interesting?

Baseball has 4 bases. Why does it have to look like a diamond instead of a square?

Plain and simply because of "tradition". For each one of those sports, they have always traditionally had those playing fields/arenas because they are established and expected from the fanbase. So they keep them in place. Why ruin a good thing?

As far as whether or not wrestling should look different from a boxing ring, it does in so far as there are three ropes for a wrestling ring, where as a boxing ring has 4. Granted, that may not sound like a big difference, but a 4-sided ring is simply what wrestling fans have come to expect what a wrestling ring is supposed to look like.

Anything else other than that, it simply doesn't look normal, and isn't taken seriously by the fanbase, such as with the 6 sided ring in TNA.

The 4 sided ring allows for the greatest mobility inside the ring for the talent, so that is why I would have to stick with it ... along with knowing that this is what fans expect a wrestling ring to look like based on tradition and expectations.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Baseball as 4 bases. Why does it have to look like a diamond instead of a square?

Hey geometery major, you do realize that a baseball diamond is just a square that stands up on one of its angles, right? If you look at a baseball diamond from the third or first base side, it's a square.

Anyway, Sidious does have a point on tradition. The accepted method of professional pugilism has always been the "squared circle" with the ropes. But there are several differences.

1. Pro wrestling's ropes are tight and bouncy. Boxings are loose and are merely designed to keep the fighters in the ring.

2. Pro wrestlers use the turnbuckles, the outside of the ring, etc.

3. Some wrestlers even use the ropes as part of their offense, such as the Tarantula and 619.

Etc.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Hey geometery major, you do realize that a baseball diamond is just a square that stands up on one of its angles, right? If you look at a baseball diamond from the third or first base side, it's a square.

Anyway, Sidious does have a point on tradition. The accepted method of professional pugilism has always been the "squared circle" with the ropes. But there are several differences.

1. Pro wrestling's ropes are tight and bouncy. Boxings are loose and are merely designed to keep the fighters in the ring.

2. Pro wrestlers use the turnbuckles, the outside of the ring, etc.

3. Some wrestlers even use the ropes as part of their offense, such as the Tarantula and 619.

Etc.

Thank you, IC. I would have never known that had you not pointed that out to me. However, what I was referring to was a "solid flat square" that did NOT stand on one of its sides. But I appreciate your input.

But yes, the wrestling ring as 4 sides is at its most efficient state for performers to make the best use of the ring. The square provides the most area for maneuvers and mobility during the action .... more so than an octagon or a hexagon.

I think the square is also easiest on the eyes and does the least to distract viewers from the actual action, as opposed to a dynamic shaped ring.

 

[Shanks18]

I think a couple of factors come into play. But I think it comes down to tradition and that was first established as a means of cutting costs.

It's my understanding that a lot of promoters back in the early days promoted both wrestling and boxing events, from a logistical and financial point of view it is more logical to use the same ring for both cards.

Back then there wasn't a need to differentiate themselves by using a different platform to showcase the sport, because the market wasn't as saturated or competitive as it is today.

As others have mentioned, because of this, a tradition is born and people work around that tradition, even if a six-sided ring is more practical (or note), and perfect it. Now it's unmanageable to think of a wrestler not running the ropes or climbing the turnbuckle, they're staples of the performance.

 

[Ferbian]

hmm good question D-man.. what first comes to mind when i read this was.. "what other looks are there?" considering first of all it'd look weird as hell having a triangle ring, which would've been another look, but it would definatly not serve a proper purpose of a ring, because it would kill off alot of the bouncing back and forth in the rings that some wrestlers do.. imagine the rock doing a people's elbow on a triangle ring....

besides personally i wouldn't really want it any other way than it looks now.. i don't mind the TNA's 6 sided rings (all thou they transformed into a regular 4 sided ring.. which brings me to..) and i don't mind the wwe's 4 sides ring, because even if their different, even if their the same as the MMA or the rings of the boxing world, i would find it hard to see a proper looking match in any other kind of ring.. unless you give us a 8 sided ring.. but then again even that wouldn't look "legit"

so no.. keep the rings like it is.. besides as you showed off the football field and the baseball field.. it wouldn't be right having those fields look alike, cause the game in itself is completely different, while wrestling, boxing and MMA isn't far from eachother looking at what the whole idea of it is... fighting.. they don't need HUGE spaces to move around and attempt to score points.. they need a "tight" space where there's lots of constant contact to keep the match exciting.. and most importantly, score pinfalls.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Thank you, IC. I would have never known that had you not pointed that out to me. However, what I was referring to was a "solid flat square" that did NOT stand on one of its sides. But I appreciate your input.

Hahahaha, you're welcome. You realize that if you lob me a softball like that, 99 times out of 100 I am going to knock it out of the park, right? You expected me not to swing?

I think the square is also easiest on the eyes and does the least to distract viewers from the actual action, as opposed to a dynamic shaped ring.

Honestly, I think this is the BEST point I've read on this topic. I never considered this. For a while, TNA was known for "The Six Sided Ring" and whatnot. When two men enter WWE's "Hell in a Cell" the focus tends to be at least partially on the "demonic structure." It's the reason a patterned tie looks best against a solid colored dress shirt - a boring backdrop enables the tie to be fashionable.

Sid, you make a terrific point.

 

[Shanks18]

but it would definatly not serve a proper purpose of a ring, because it would kill off alot of the bouncing back and forth in the rings that some wrestlers do.. imagine the rock doing a people's elbow on a triangle ring....

The ring, as a platform to perform in came first. The running-of-the-ropes, came as a result of the ring. It is because of the ring in it's traditional form that many of these exercises which we see in every matches these days developed. If the ring had developed in a different way we would be seeing different staples of the wrestling match etc.

As Sid said, it is properly the easiest on the eye, but also, this is a fake sport trying to be taking as real, so it makes sense to copy something which is real to give it some credibility. If the ring had started of as something very over-the-top or gimmicky, they it wouldn't of been taken as seriously as Boxing.

I don't think MMA is a fair comparison, as it came much later than any of the sports mentioned in the opening post. They had the benefit of hindsight for starters as well as a clear intention of setting themselves apart from a fake sport.