Dana White: The UFC is considering a smaller Octagon
by Jesse Holland on Oct 8, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
Email
Print
Props: Yahoo Sports
Quoteworthy:
"Actually, we’ve been talking about making the Octagon smaller. We’re considering making it smaller. [UFC matchmaker] Joe Silva wants it. I think he wants to turn the thing into a [expletive] bathtub. Have them fight in a little tollbooth."
UFC President Dana White discusses the possibility of eliminating a repeat of Kalib Stanes vs. Nate Quarry from UFC 83 by making the Octagon smaller. Would less real estate give elusive fighters like Lyoto Machida more problems inside the cage? Or would we just see a fenced in version of rope-a-dope? Smaller Octagon -- are you pro or con?
179 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
instead of smaller, maybe add some trap doors or barb wire or even go with that old moat idea around the edge…or maybe other fighters perched above dropping anvils on top of the combatants…G-A-Y…if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it
by McArthur on Oct 8, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
the doomsday vs superman pic was the best photoshop
by ruanfiy on Oct 8, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
The photoshop of Fedor getting married was funny too…what? that was real?! lol
by McArthur on Oct 8, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
They should make the floor a trampoline.
by El Mexicutioner, formerly The Mexicutioner on Oct 8, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yea that Superman/Doomsday photoshop was epic. Bj’s priest was pretty cool too. Jesse, you guys should create a link for all your photoshop work!
by MikeD on Oct 8, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Horrible idea, the UFC needs to stop hiring losers like Starnes, that is the problem not the cage. No idea why they want to change something that has been a success, the octagon is perfect for MMA so there is no need to lessen the space they have to fight. Fights are exciting anyway, trying to make them more interesting just takes away from the legitimacy of the sport and it makes me wonder how far they will go. This sport will only be mainstream if it keeps the set rules, chopping and changing for entertainment value will make it look like a joke.
by David W-S on Oct 8, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
ITs tough to have an opinion without more info… how much smaller? Like a foot on each side? 3 feet on each side? What are we talking here?
by ---Caesar--- on Oct 8, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t mind if they trim it up a bit, it’ll be interesting. but why not wait to see how DREAMs new hexagon will be. Thats a much smaller size and we can see if there is a good flow. To be honest changing the size of the arena means very little to me, I look at this as if I were fighting would I give a crap where I’m fighting? No not really just put the other guy in there with me and if tries to run I’ll hunt him down.
by Cogito Ergo Sum on Oct 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
What do you guy think about that cage where the floor slopes up slightly a couple of feet from the wall. I thought it was an interesting idea cause it means if you push a guy against the fence standing, you give him higher ground. and it makes it harder for GnP fighters to push the bottom guy up the hill to the cage, which gives more opportunities for reverses and escapes. I thought it was kinda clever.
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
WEC cage is smaller. Thats the size I think they are talking about.
FYI: Junie has been cut from the UFC and Shawn tOMKINS believes Junie’s overdose was a suicide attempt!
by john G on Oct 8, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Well now that he’s been cut, prepare for attempt number 2. And thanks for the info John on the WEC cage, maybe all these girls can stop complaining. Maybe it actually will give us a little more action inside the cage, I have a lot of faith in Joe Silva’s ability to pick fights so why not trust him here. Just sayin
by Cogito Ergo Sum on Oct 8, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
But the UFC is supposed to be the big stage.. .why can’t it be the big cage as well?
by haglnuts on Oct 8, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
WEC size works for them because their roster these days are smaller and they don’t compete in as big arenas. I honestly don’t see the point of changing the size of the cage at this stage, it’s going to take a while for the fighters to get used to it and in the short-term will cause less exciting fights whilst they acclimatise. Messing around with the rules of a sport is risky, but doing so to make an entertaining sport more entertaining to the masses worries me, it isn’t the sort of attitude a legitimate sports organisation should have.
O/T Kos has seen Jessie’s article on Hughes, he posted a screencap on Twitter and bashed him for it. I’ve commented on it and I’ll let you know if he replies.
by David W-S on Oct 8, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with making the cage smaller. I hate guys like Machida who run. (And yes he ran away a lot before his last couple of fights.)
by ProKev on Oct 9, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess they want more action so it’s good.
And I didn’t know the WEC had a smaller cage, thanks for the info.
Now, Starnes has nowhere to run, and MAchida’s classic stick-and-move will now be just stick-stick-stick. I pity Machida’s opponent if this were to come into fruition.
by Syd on Oct 9, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions
If it aint broke don’t fix it. Leave it as is.
by TaPouT on Oct 8, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. I really don’t see how this will make it better. Maybe less room for Kalib Starnes to run around, but that’s about it.
by LJ on Oct 8, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
+2!~
why change it? it’s fine the way it is..
by stinky~fingers on Oct 8, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
it could possibly benefit him though..
by stinky~fingers on Oct 8, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I think there should be no cage or ring at all, we should just pick drop spots and let them fight there. We’d find a good valley where people can mound up on the hillside to see one hell of a butt kicking. If you step on a rock or something you better not let it affect your performance.
by Cogito Ergo Sum on Oct 8, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
haha that would be so much better it’s not even funny. Awesome idea.
by frosnt on Oct 8, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I know it might actually resemble a real fight. Something like the gladiator dome would rock as well. No soft padding.
by Cogito Ergo Sum on Oct 8, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, thats exactly why I am against a smaller cage. The bigger the more realistic to the real thing, I think. Which is also why I prefer a cage to ropes; a cage is just a safer version of a chain link fence, right?
Had to get my two cents / vote in.
by poyb on Oct 8, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude, the vast majority of real fights happen in homes or bars or the halls of public highschools, not out in open valleys. Boundaries are a part of most fights. If realism is your true goal, you need to put some lamps and barstools and coffee tables in the cage and get the fighters drunk before the fight.
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I think they should make it bigger!! by about 10ft.
by JRE on Oct 8, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe we could just tie people together while we are at it
by Tyler on Oct 8, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, a ten foot chain around each fighter’s neck!!
by Conan the Barbarian on Oct 9, 2009 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions
this is a terrible idea. wrestlers already have a huge advantage seeing as how they can push an opponent up against the cage and work for a takedown, something thats not an option in a ring. if the cage is made smaller then we will see wrestlers have an even bigger advantage(which doesnt help when refs rarely stand the fight up, even when little to no damage is being done and there’s no attempt to pass guard). This WILL NOT make the fights more exciting unless you enjoy watchin guys like GSP and grey maynard work their cautious wrestling towards a decision. A smaller cage just trades the advantage of cautious defensive stand-up for cautious defensive wrestling. one usually ends in a KO (ie: Machida, A. Silva) and one usually ends in a decision (ie: Grey Maynard, GSP)
by ktfo on Oct 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
You might want to look at the ratio of Decision/Finishes for GSP before you comment.
by MM_Eh on Oct 8, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
GSP has finished 67% of his fights compared to Machida’s 43% finish rate. Machida has only finished 3 of his last 8 fights and 1 of those was by grappling.
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Ya GSP is all about working caucious wrestling to squeak out decisions. I don’t think he’s ever finished anyone has he? He never passes guard, has no jits or standup and is clearly just a lay n prayer. That was the dumbest comment anyones ever posted on here dude.
by GSP4Prez on Oct 8, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Hehehe. Yeah it just goes to show you, 4Prez, that most of the so-called “fans” on this site can’t remember anything further back than a fighter’s last 2 fights and/or think nothing that happened more than a year ago has any relevance.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Bad idea, I like the gameplan of a Lyoto and a Anderson Silva, part of being a great fighter is using your enviornment and they do that. creating a smaller cage is a waste.
by alphamega on Oct 8, 2009 12:36 PM EDT reply actions
Let’s see, you have 1 fight out of how many thousand of fights over the years, where one guy runs like a little girl(I’ll exclude Tito running from Wand on this one)
No need to change anything, enough room to avoid the cage, and close enough to use the cage as an ally.
by the Slovak on Oct 8, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
was Tito turning his back and literally running away from wanderlie for dear life as if wand was chasing him with an axe, not the best moment in UFC history? I swear that was my favorite moment of all time. PRICELESS! That is the 1st thing that comes to mind whenever Jacob Ortiz comes up!
As or making the cage smaller…what a stupid idea! Especially when Japan and other organizations are finally all conforming to the cage over the SMALLER ring!
Making the cage smaller just strips fights of strategy and turns it more into a brawl than an actual sport! I HATE the idea!
by john G on Oct 8, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
it looked like he wet his pants and had to run home to change. Cripes, and he got the decision too.
you turn your back and run, should be the same as a tapout.
by the Slovak on Oct 8, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree, running away is a form of quitting so it should be an automatic loss, you’re not intelligently defending yourself if you run away or turn your back to your opponent, you’re just taking the cowards way out.
by David W-S on Oct 8, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends though. I can see someone turning and running across the cage but not for a whole round or in Kalib’s case a whole fight. You have to be able to get away to clear your head and refocus.
by jay on Oct 8, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
turning and running is not only an intellegent defense, against “The Axe Murderer” it is the MOST intellegent defense.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions
The Octagon is already a small size. For those of you who don’t know it looks bigger than it really is. Once you get in there it is pretty snug. Making things smaller wont help with situations like Kalib running. It will change too much for the fighters and not give them the room they need to execute some of their game plan. Terrible idea.
by bluepit on Oct 8, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
if part of being a great fighter is using your environment, than as great fighters they would need to adjust to a smaller cage as that would be their new environment. I don’t mind the idea, its clearly being made to engage more action. I think they might be scared of fighters adopting the fighting style that Lyoto was using until recent fights (he has gotten more aggressive). But if you have two fighters fighting like machida did against tito, that would be verrrrrrrry boring. So they are trying to make a preemptive strike because they don’t want there fighters in karate matches. I don’t mind either way about the cage, but I can see why they are doing it
by ffffff on Oct 8, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
my thoughts exactly, ffffff. And being a truly great fighter means being able to use whatever environment you’re in.
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Smaller cage equals two more rows of $2,000 seats. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, just a thought is all.
by the Slovak on Oct 8, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that’s the question isn’t it? Every professional sport has changes. Baseball isn’t the game it was years ago, football, basketball and hockey are much different also. It would be arrogant to assume that MMA is perfect as is. I don’t think a smaller cage is the answer though. I think the next stage in MMA is going to be more defensive fighters like Machida and Silva. To me the most boring part of MMA is when fighters get pushed against the cage and fight for position. I think that will happen more with the smaller cage. I think UFC should do some testing with some smaller promotions and see how it pans out before they make changes on their highest level. If they can work that out somehow, I don’t see why they shouldn’t see what happens.
by Doc Martin on Oct 8, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you on everything completely! Besides, I think they should find a way so that everyone stops slipping so much in the octagon! lol
by pbdb on Oct 8, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
i dont agree w/ everything, though it is a pretty good post. football fields, basketball courts and hockey rinks are the same size they have always been. baseball diamonds are unique to each field. the changes have been to the rules not the size of the playing surfaces.
JOE SILVA NEEDS 2 WORRY ABOUT SETTING UP THE BEST FIGHTS POSSIBLE, NOT TINKERING WITH THE SIZE OF THE OCTAGON. start by letting rashad fight someone that jardine hasn’t already. no wonder we end up with sh!t like thales leites fighting for titles!
by buttcrack obama bin laden on Oct 8, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
good point pbdb. They have to find some way to stop these guys from slipping on the Mat.
by jay on Oct 8, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
WORD! I hate it when fights turn into “Ice Capades”. I think whatever they’re using to clean up the blood is leaving the mat slick, cause it always seems like the slippery fights are later in the night and on nights where a lot of blood was spilt in the prelims/undercard.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions
What they need to do is interchange the mats (if that’s possible) but it seems that everytime someone throws a high kick they almost slip and hurt themself! lol
Back on topic though I don’t think football fields and basketball courts were always the same at least in the beginning (could be wrong though) but things have changed like basketball rims were lower back in the day so if the octagon should be bigger, smaller, the same we should just try and see what happens
by pbdb on Oct 9, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
What are the pro’s and con’s from the UFC’s standpoint? I doubt any fans are really going to KNOW if it would be an advantage or not. If there were a bunch of Kalib Starnes in the UFC then yes, I could see a smaller Octagon to keep fighters engaged, but why is there a need to change?
by VNDK8 on Oct 8, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions
CON, don’t change a winning formula. The small cages all remind me of the cheap local shows all over the US and UK. Plus more room for advertising.
by Nick J on Oct 8, 2009 12:39 PM EDT reply actions
That is a great pic Mania!
I agree, a smaller cage is not going to make anything better.
by MMA Junkie on Oct 8, 2009 12:39 PM EDT reply actions
Bad bad idea…The cage is good how it is. The last thing they want is to make it smaller, everyone hate it, and then make it bigger again. For the amount of Starnes v Quarry fights, its not at all worth it.
by Dave on Oct 8, 2009 12:43 PM EDT reply actions
I like the idea of keeping it the current size and adding more advertisements… maybe it will start to keep the cost of PPVs down.
by CG#s on Oct 8, 2009 12:47 PM EDT reply actions
Like Gracie said, have electric fences, and sharks around it.
by fonx on Oct 8, 2009 12:48 PM EDT reply actions
a smaller cage would bring in the casual fan with more knock outs, but it would really put more skillful fighters at a dis advantage…i agree with the rest of you…leave well enough alone
by jc on Oct 8, 2009 12:49 PM EDT reply actions
Bad idea. It’s not like we see a bunch of Kalib Starnes situations on a regular basis. If anything, the casual fans bitch about the “lay and pray” fights. I don’t see how a smaller ring would change that.
Bottom line, it’s fine the way it is. Don’t change a thing.
by Feel Da Riddum on Oct 8, 2009 12:49 PM EDT reply actions
Does anyone have a link for the Kalib fight this is talking about. For some reason I can’t even remember this fight. I am assuming he ran the whole time…
__
-JH
by Irishmikey on Oct 8, 2009 12:50 PM EDT reply actions
the amount of running he did would have comepleted the boston marathon in record time.. he could give usain bolt a run for his money
by randy murders on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
He claimed to have broken his hand or his foot early in the first round, then spent the rest of the fight refusing to engage Quarry. Every judge gave it to Quarry 10-8 or 10-7 every round. It was that bad. Then Quarry mocked him at the end.
by PW on Oct 8, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
and to top it all off, kalib got booed hardcore in his own country..
they fought in canada and quarry[whos american] got cheered like crazy, while kalib got disowned by his fellow canadian peeps..
that shit was funny!~ lol
by stinky~fingers on Oct 8, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow I am going to have to find the fight and watch it. I never liked him anyway I always thought he was full of himself but man what a moron. Someone in another thread mentioned he ran to piss Dana off or something but I don’t see the point in that.
by Irishmikey on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I unfortunately was there. The crowd started out pro Kalib, by the second round we were booing a little. By the end of the fight we loved Quarry and KAlib was disowned as a Canadian. That was some funny stuff. PW is was a claimed broken foot. I know when I break my foot the first thing I feel like doing is running laps. Seeing as how IrishMickey asked for a clip he hadn’t seen and got it, I have never seen any of the Octagon girls naked, got any pics or clips or links Mr. Holland?
by jay on Oct 8, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Smaller cage also = less advertising space :P Dana should know this!
by VNDK8 on Oct 8, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
or just more room for the exec’s to stretch out…
by McArthur on Oct 8, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
good point intro but I don’t think Joe Silva is concerned with additional seating…Dana maybe but not Silva…interesting to think about why they’re considering it
by McArthur on Oct 8, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Joe Silva has no say in anything to do with the UFC. He’s just a guy who gets paid so Dana and Co. can say “it was Joe’s decision”.
If anyone even thinks for one minute that Joe silva makes decisions on who’s fighting who without Dana giving the okay…you need to give your head a shake.
This is how it works….
Joe Silva writes down his match-ups, then walks into Dana’s office. Dana reads what Silva put on paper, then writes down what he wants…hands it back to Joe and says “come back when your fights look exactly like this.”
by introvert on Oct 8, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
How they get the caramel in the center of a Caramilk Bar.
by introvert on Oct 8, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Right again intro, scary I’m agreeing with u more and more. What were “the kimbo slice shoe’s” ratings last night? I’ve been working 12 hr shifts (shoulda taken another few months off) but am thinking of you maniacs! LMAO, actually got a few texts seeing if I was alive! I’m alive and well men!
by kevin on Oct 8, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
What about issuing yellow cards like in Pride to penalize fighters for inactivity? Does anyone think that might work better?
by bobby o'shea on Oct 8, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions
I think I’d like it. Engage or else. The World Combat League does a similar thing, and it seems like it increased their knockout rate. Of course it’s an entirely different event from MMA with no ground game.
by Fred on Oct 8, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
As long as they don’t stand the fighters up to issue a yellow card to the guy on the bottom. Pride did some BS like that. I remember when Rampage had Wandy down and the ref warned Wandy to improve position and when he didn’t the ref stood him up and gave him the yellow card. He lost a point but he got back on his feet where he could win the fight. Rampage had him right where he wanted him and then lost the fight because of the stupid Ref. Mazagatti pulled the same BS on Lesnar in the first Mir fight (but with a different excuse)
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
of the topic, but pretty funny; When they had celebrity boxing with william ‘the fridge’ perry and manut bhol, they werent fighting each other so the ref got in the middle of them and said “fight or you won’t get paid” lol.
by bobby o'shea on Oct 8, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The yellow card should be going to the guy on top. He took the opponent down. If he intends to just sit there and not inflict damage, work for a sub or improve position then they should be stood up. Do it again, and it costs you a point.
by PW on Oct 8, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
If the guy gains dominant position, he did so on purpose. Why should the guy who actually did something get punished? If the guy is clearly just holding position, that’s one thing, but if he’s working, that’s not his problem that the bottom guy is just holding on for dear life. It should be a judgement call.
by Doc Martin on Oct 8, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
When was the last time you saw Huggie Bear actually use dominant position for something other than a tool to win a decision? Or Fitch? These LnP douchebags are the scourge of the UFC. If they can have precious decision-rendering points deducted for their stall tactics then I’m all for it.
by PW on Oct 8, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Leave it the way it is. It simulates an actual fight that way. The whole point is to see who the best fighter in the world is, in a cage or on the streets. It’s more realistic that way.
by Josh H. on Oct 8, 2009 1:01 PM EDT reply actions
how “realistic” the cage is depends how wide your street is, I guess
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I think to many on here or getting there panties tied in knot if they made the cage a foot in diameter smaller most wouldn’t know if they were told besides the fighters that are use to the space. I’m not sure on the diameter of the cage but lets say its 18ft X 18ft making it just a little harder to dance in they change it to 17ft X 17ft I think it’s a great idea and won’t change the fight to much for most fighters and the action would pick up slightly not a drastic change like most are making it seem like?
by Puck Head on Oct 8, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Puck great point but you know anything to with Dana guys on here will get envious over and argue.
by Beaver on Oct 9, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Firmly against it. The Heavyweights are definately getting bigger and bigger and seems to me that each weight class has a group of larger sized fighters than there used to be. When we watch Lesnar-Carwin just imagine them in a smaller cage.
by Punch Drunk on Oct 8, 2009 1:04 PM EDT reply actions
oh yeah, and Mania, please get rid of gay guys on the top, thanks
by thetuf75 on Oct 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT reply actions
if anything those 3 dudes up there are deterring anyone from buying their product
by McArthur on Oct 8, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the dumbest idea ever. Just when you think Dana White can;t say any dumber shit he comes out with crap like this.
by thedude on Oct 8, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions
ducknow said “anything for more blood”. Its not a blood sport any more. Your watching it for all the wrong reasons.
by pierre on Oct 8, 2009 1:16 PM EDT reply actions
No keep it the same size…it gives all the different types of martial arts space to use their art effectively.
by AfroSamurai on Oct 8, 2009 1:30 PM EDT reply actions
Yes the gay freaks on top are annoying too, we need to rally.
by nathan on Oct 8, 2009 1:33 PM EDT reply actions
smaller cage = closer to the cage = more pushing each other up against the cage and exchanging foot stomps, which is already too prevalent in the UFC.
by prokstar on Oct 8, 2009 1:42 PM EDT reply actions
I know the UFC pays close attention to blog sites like Mania and really listen to what the fans want (scrapping Hendo/Franklin 2 is an example of this). I’m sure they won’t do this, because it appears unanimous that it would be horrible for the sport. . . Introverts opinions never count anyway. lol ;) jk. Introvert
by haglnuts on Oct 8, 2009 1:45 PM EDT reply actions
Do away with the cage altogether. I want to see the mat/stage they used in the Kumite on Bloodsport lol.
by tiger_style on Oct 8, 2009 1:49 PM EDT reply actions
con. leave it how it is making it smaller would just work against certain fighters and take away from the strategic part of the sport.
by matt on Oct 8, 2009 1:51 PM EDT reply actions
finally, that thing is like 10000 kilometers, make it smaller and there will be more action
but instead build a ring if you call it ‘martial arts’ cause that where martial arts are held
by beatingupkittens on Oct 8, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions
no, that’s where most striking arts are held. Grappling arts do not use ropes because they cause innumerable complications. (see PRIDE). The cage is the perfect venue for MMA until they invent invisible forcefields.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions
a very valid point, ferg! What good is more action if it’s harder to see what’s happening!
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
The WEC has a smaller cage….coincidence?
Really though, keep it the same size. Any smaller and you will have to deal with some really tight camera angles which could take away from the ‘epic’ feel a wide view gives you.
by A Lynch on Oct 8, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions
i kind of like how the WEC has a smaller cage, it requires more action.
however if its too small, it’ll just go from one cage side to the other and vice versa with the big boys.
maybe smaller than the actual size now, but larger than the WEC?
by killer on Oct 8, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
WEC has a smaller cage because it has smaller fighters. Anyone want to see Lesnar-Barney in a phone booth?
by PW on Oct 8, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
the ufc needs to just sack up and put a show on in a ring…you cant see anything through the fence at live events, plus ropes allow submission fighters to pop their hips where the cage give no wiggle room. im super butt hurt that dream is putting their fights on in a cage this month
by snicket916 on Oct 8, 2009 1:58 PM EDT reply actions
Dude, a ring is totally wrong for MMA. That was the one thing I hated about PRIDE, all that BS of people getting tangled up in the ropes and having to be dragged by refs back to the center of the ring. It was horrible! Rings only work for standing-only events like boxing, Karate, or MuyThai
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Nick spot on reminds me of the s**t local shows (everyone in the UK that is :)) there are cheap and nasty
by Tony on Oct 8, 2009 1:58 PM EDT reply actions
one word
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
by Lestat on Oct 8, 2009 2:02 PM EDT reply actions
Stupid idea. What problem are they trying to fix? Dumb.
by MMACrossfire on Oct 8, 2009 2:03 PM EDT reply actions
three words
UFC ACTING STUPID!!!!
ok that’s it =)
by Lestat on Oct 8, 2009 2:04 PM EDT reply actions
Now that I think about it, I can see why Joe Silva would want a smaller octagon. :) They guy’s what? Three foot tall? :)
by MMACrossfire on Oct 8, 2009 2:04 PM EDT reply actions
Hahaha yea exactly , I can see how big it must seem to him when he steps in there.
by Lestat on Oct 8, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
The last thing the UFC needs is a smaller cage. Having less room to avoid Brock’s bum rush does no good for anyone, expect Brock, so leave that alone. If the UFC wants to change something for the better get ride of the foot stomp. That tactic is so weak, leave it to 3rd grade girls where it belongs.
by The_Sheriff on Oct 8, 2009 2:05 PM EDT reply actions
I think they should get rid of foot stomps for safety reasons. It’s a legitimate way to win a real life-or-death fight, but then so are eye-gouging, headbutts, and small-joint manipulation. But all of those things can cause permanent damage, so they’re not appopriate for sports. The bones and ligaments in the top of the foot are extremely vulnerable and very difficult to heal and damage there can permanently affect a dude’s ability to walk or work for the rest of his life.
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here and argue the other side. Since they implemented the new rules, (5 minute rounds, standing fighters for inactivity, 10-point must, etc.) Grapplers have been at a HUGE disadvantage. The bigger the cage, the more room strikers have to run both from strikers and from takedowns. It’s not just Starnes, as many have said, until his last 2 fights watching Machida was like watching paint dry. Cutting off their escape options forces more engagment and evens the odds a little for grapplers.
I don’t really care about the cage size, but the 10-point must has got to go! If neither fighter showed a clear superiority over the other, there should be a draw. Fighters shouldn’t get losses on their record for a fight they didn’t really lose! And to prevent fighters from intentionally fighting for a draw, there should be big “finishing” bonusses, so a fighter has a $20,000+ incentive to take risks and keep the fight out of the judges hands. And finally, new rounds should be started in the same position they were in when the finished the previous round. Why should strikers get a “get out of jail free” card every five minutes and grapplers be robbed of their hard-earned positional advantage? I know most of you will disagree, but that’s my 2 cents!
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions
I can agree with you on the last point, that following rounds should begin in the same position as previous round ended, even though it may not work well in some scenarios, for example:
- what if fighter 1 catches fighter 2 in some kind of chokehold or hyperextension, and the fighter 2 managed to finish the round in that position, even if they begin with fighter 2 under a chokehold or hyperextension position (note that fighter 1 wont be able to apply pressure till ref gives the go), as soon as the ref gives go fighter 1 will rather immediately yank himself out. Also, that’s the whole point of fighting to finish your opponent and not just fight for points, and if you couldn’t do it in round 1 you gotta strive to achieve that position again in round 2.
As far as 10 point must system in MMA, it may be more useful to award round ‘win/lose’ as opposed to points, because a knockdown doesn’t immediately give you a 10-8 round like it does in boxing, so maybe instead they can award the round to the winner and base the decision on most rounds won.
by alex on Oct 8, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
but awarding a win based on most rounds won is one of the big problems with the current system. We’ve often seen fights where the first two rounds were almost dead even, but since the judges had to give it to someone, they give the round to Fighter A by a hair. Then in round 3, Fighter A is completely gassed and checks out and/or Fighter B turns up the heat and unloads more damage than both of them have inflicted in the first 2 rounds combined, and it’s obvious that if the fight went 2 more minutes, Fighter B would finish it. Now in PRIDE, Fighter B would win the decision based on viewing the fight as a whole. But in the UFC Figher A would win based on “winning” more rounds, even though he barely got out of the cage alive. That there’s some buuullll!
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sure if it’s true or not, but I though judges could score rounds even…they just usually elect not to. It may be a case of educating the officials better with regards to scoring.
by MM_Eh on Oct 8, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you may be right about that. If so judges definitely need to change their thinking, cause there are a LOT of rounds that are dead even, but they never get scored that way. I think to get a W, a fighter should really have to prove his dominance. And to get a Loss, a fighter should have to earn it. So many great fights have ended with misleading W/L when the fight should’ve been a draw. I know some people think allowing draws allows fighters to fight defense-only and not try to end fights, but that’s why you provide big monetary incentives for finishing. Look at that last UFC card. There were what 5 or 6 knockouts, but only the one KOOTN got a bonus. All those guys acheived the same success and gave the fans what they wanted, and all of them should’ve gotten bonuses.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
This is the STUPIDEST thing I’ve ever heard. It will really be like “cock fighting” then. You need the extra space to be able to implement your game plan and create spacing from your opponent. If you make the cage smaller, all it will do is make it more of a brawling match. DANA, if your reading this please take my advice: YOU NEED TO HAVE BAD MATCHES IN THE UFC SO THAT PEOPLE CAN APPRECIATE THE GOOD MATCHES. IF EVERY FIGHT WAS EXPLOSIVE AND ENDED WITH A KNOCKOUT OR SUBMISSION, THEN PEOPLE WOULD JUST EXPECT THAT EVERY TIME AND THEY WOULD NOT BE IMPRESSED WHEN IT HAPPENS. THE BAD FIGHTS ARE WHAT MAKES THE GOOD FIGHTS INTO GOOD OR GREAT FIGHTS. NOT EVERY NBA GAME ENDS IN A BUZZER BEATER, SO CHILL OUT! TELL THAT LITTLE MIDGET SILVA TO CHILL OUT TOO.
by MMANIAC on Oct 8, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions
Dana, if you guys wanna make something smaller, how about the RING GIRLS’ UNIFORMS! Those could definitely use some downsizing!!! Plus think of all the money the UFC could be saving on fabric!
by Titor Belfortiz on Oct 8, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions
LOL! Good one, Titor! I’m actually a HUGE fan of the current UFC ring-girls uniforms. They’re sporty, classy, and sexy as hell! I’m so glad they don’t wear trampy high heels and thongs and have giant boobs hanging out of tied-off blouses or cut-off tank tops like they used to have, or goofy skittles-colored mini-skirts like some of the Japanese orgs. They look so much more professional than the ring girls in most other orgs. They look like NFL cheerleaders instead of wet-Tshirt contestants in bar. Good call on that one, ZUFFA! Smokin’ hot!
by shonuff on Oct 8, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Sporty and classy are overrated. Cheap and slutty is where it’s at.
by PW on Oct 8, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Relax, PW, nobody’s talkin’ bout yer mama!
by Titor Belfortiz on Oct 9, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Why don’t the ring girls wear thongs like in boxing? What about some Brazilian women too? Half the fighters are from Brazil bring on the thick booty Brazilian women the world need more of them.
Can I get a plus 1?
by hatteras on Oct 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT reply actions
this is bullshit. Just because of ‘1’ Kalib vs Quarry fight, the UFC is wanting to shrink the size of the octagon? by far the dumbest thing I ever heard. Personally, I don’t enjoy watching fights in smaller cages like some of the little mma leagues have, and I don’t think fans sitting there live would want it either, its hard enough as it is to see the exact moves being made on the ground, a smaller cage would worsen this more. Wonder why, the UFC can’t afford their standard cage no more?
by alex on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions
guys lets send UFC mass mail rejecting this idea. This will be a true test as to whether they do, in fact, listen to their fans. We shall see whether Franklin vs Hendo 2 was indeed changed due to fans disliking it, and that Ken vs Tito 3 was made free on spike indeed due to fan demands
by alex on Oct 8, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions
I agree with the yellow card system and the taking of 10% of there fighter’s purse for every yellow card they get.
Just like Pride FC(RIP) used to do.
Cheers
David
by David Nilsson on Oct 8, 2009 3:07 PM EDT reply actions
I’m glad to see pretty much no one here supporting this stupid idea. Even if there is a feeling that grapplers are at a disadvantage in the current size ring, if the style is as useful as they claim, they don’t need walls to make it work.
I’d say that in most cases, the ring is too small. Sure there are a few exceptions here and there, but the cage walls are very much a part of many fighters strategy. I’d like to see less wedging people up against the cage, and more room for people to use whichever style they have.
by aelhues on Oct 8, 2009 3:32 PM EDT reply actions
dude, you’re post is so biased! Can you not see that! By “whichever style they have” you clearly mean “whichever standup striking style they have”. Obviously if your style is Greco-Roman or GnP, using the walls is an important part of your style, just like using space is important part of a boxer or karateka’s style. Whatever decision they make is gonna play to someone’s advantage. It’s absurd to say, “If the style(grappling) is really useful, they dont’ need walls to make it work”. I could just as easily say the reverse of strikers, “If the style is as useful as they say, it should work in a phone booth.”
by Titor Belfortiz on Oct 9, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Switch to a ring…the cage sucks ass anyway, and is only used because the Gracies wanted “shock value” originally.
by introvert on Oct 8, 2009 5:29 PM EDT reply actions
Are you saying the ring is better than the cage? Nonsense.
by jay on Oct 8, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Which doesnt surprise me judging from introverts dumbass posts.
by mma guru on Oct 8, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Intro give me a reason. Besides better view for the live audience.
by jay on Oct 8, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Jay Intro has no reasons besides he hates the ufc and dana white and will complain about everything they do no matter what, you should know this by now.
by mma guru on Oct 8, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Problem with the ring is that too often guys get caught in the ropes during grappling exchanges and the ref has to stop it and move them to the centre. It ruins the momentum of the fighter in the dominant position and kills the mood of the fight, there are enough pauses from eye pokes and groin shots nevermind the number there would be if all fights were in a ring.
Whilst the ring looks a lot nicer and would be easier to sell to the masses than a cage, I personally think that the cage works better for the sport and produces better fights, as there are less breaks in the action.
by David W-S on Oct 8, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Spot On again, David!
Ya know, I don’t always agree with your opinions, but your posts tend to be far more intellegent and well thought out than most on here.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
DO NOT CHANGE THE CAGE SIZE! Instead of making the cage smaller in order to get them to fight, why not implement a penalty system like Pride had? It makes much more sense than downsizing the area of the fight. Not only would this eliminate the Kalib Starnes’ of MMA, but it could also be used for to deter entire rounds of pushing up against the cage and/or LnP. Making the Octagon smaller lessens the importance of the word “Mixed” in Mixed Martial Arts for some of the fighters strategies are based on movement and elusiveness (Machida) around the ring. Just my opinion.
by Marz on Oct 8, 2009 5:31 PM EDT reply actions
“but it could also be used for to deter entire rounds of pushing up against the cage and/or LnP”
Only way to rid the UFC of this problem is getting rid of the cage.
by introvert on Oct 8, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I check this site out a lot but rarely post. This time i’ve got too! A smaller cage is the worst idea/suggestion the UFC have come up with in a long while. It’s great to see so many people are against it because it will change the whole nature of the sport. Guys like Kalib Starnes will come and go, but why change something that works for the other 99.9% of fighters and matchups. Worst suggestion ever!!!!
by Rilly on Oct 8, 2009 7:00 PM EDT reply actions
i think they would have to drastically shrink the cage to avoid the runners, unless both guys can have there back to the cage and still able to land punches there will always be room to run. the only legit way i can see then making the fights more fast paced is to implement the yellow card system, that way it’ll cover the runners, cage leaners, and the L’n’P guys.
by R.J. St.Croix on Oct 8, 2009 8:14 PM EDT reply actions
terrible idea small cage benefits wrestlers and the cage shouldnt benefit anyone
by fuck on Oct 8, 2009 9:50 PM EDT reply actions
and a big venue benefits strikers, as do the standing round starts. And the time limits severely disadvantage BJJ guys like the Gracies who never lost a fight until MMA went to 5 minute rounds. Whatever they choose, every arena choice and rule choice benefits SOMEONE at someone else’s expense. And since the SAC’s got involved, all the advantages have gone to the strikers.
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
just a thought, imagine matt hughes frank trigg 2 in a small cage!
by robbo on Oct 9, 2009 12:03 AM EDT reply actions
if they ever change anything..change the rules!!..i wanna see soccer kick and knee on downed opponent just like the pride days..it was beautifull..but i guess the rules its up to NSAC..
by indoMMA4609 on Oct 9, 2009 3:57 AM EDT reply actions
Man I never wanna see soccer kicks and stomps again! I loved most things about PRIDE. Everything but the ring and the kicks on the ground. Wanderlei turned PRIDE into a freakin slaughter house. Allowing that stuff would only push MMA back to the dark ages and the fringes of society and bring a hundred John McCains down on us trying to outlaw the sport. And what’s the freakin’ point of kicking a guy in the head when he’s face down on the mat?
by shonuff on Oct 9, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
worst idea yet in the history of the ufc. whats wrong with the cage anyway?
by crocop1 on Oct 11, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions
I’m not sure how i feel about that idea since there’s pros and cons with having a smaller cage and having the cage the same size that its always been.
by Daniel Contogiannis on Oct 16, 2009 10:30 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
