Issue 044
December 2008
Sports are often built on great rivalries: blue or red, hoops or stripes, David vs Goliath. Without something or someone for fans to pledge their allegiance to, sport is no longer a theatre of dreams but merely a sterile athletic competition.
Division exists at every level. Whether two great characters have entered the arena to do battle in a contest that has polarised the audience, or two unknowns step up to represent rival communities, the nature of conflict isn’t just confined to the area in which they compete: audience also fight, by proxy, pouring their energy into the combatants in the hope they will act as vessels for their passion and channel that force into victory.
MMA has had plenty of rivalries in its short lifespan: Shamrock-Gracie, Gracie-Sakuraba, Fedor-Nogueira, Sylvia-Arlovski, Liddell-Ortiz, Rampage-Wanderlei. Memorable feuds are the lifeblood of the sport, injecting added drama and emotion into already exciting encounters.
There is one endless battle that has raged since the very beginning of the sport, one that transcends cultures and continents, and still ignites heated argument among fans and fighters alike. It often starts with one seemingly innocuous question: which is better, ring or cage?
Few topics have incited such division among those who follow the sport and those who are involved with it. Fans will opine long and hard about the merits and pitfalls of both, often in a biased manner favouring their preferred choice of fighting arena. Fighters will have a preference often based on their style of fighting, with no clear loyalty to either unless it suits them best. Promoters and those who guide the sport will have much invested in their events, and so their support is directed clearly, yet understandably, toward their own side.
The one group of people who can hopefully offer an unbiased appraisal of the topic are the honest journalists. Though the media is often used as a tool to purport propaganda and is easily swayed by factions who court their favour, there are plenty of persons and publications able to offer a summary that is square.
In my time as a reporter and photographer I’ve spent hundreds of hours sat or crouched next to both ring and cage. I’m no closer to offering an answer on the topic, but I can, hopefully, provide an assessment of both.
The cage is a symbol of our sport that is unique. Boxing and fake wrestling both use the squared, roped ring, yet the cage is ours and ours alone. Initially devised for the first UFC in November 1993, it was a bold and controversial creation that was designed to provoke a reaction as much as provide a suitable enclosure for fighting. Alternative designs, suggested as the UFC was being devised, featured barbed wire at the top of the cage and a moat filled with alligators.
Though conceptualised by an MMA movie producer with no inkling of what the sport would later become, the cage has proved to be a robust design that has changed little in the 15 years since it was unveiled. Apart from a few cosmetic enhancements, the basic principle remains the same.
The ring had been used for MMA events long before the UFC was ever dreamed of. Brazilian vale tudo fights took place in a traditional boxing ring, as did the Japanese Pancrase and Shooto events that predated the UFC.
In terms of suitability, arguments rage over which is best. The ring will never be able to properly contain fighters, and examples of combatants falling over, between, or rolling under the ropes are common. The cage will never allow the same degree of visibility as a ring, with the numerous supports and thick mesh obscuring the views of crowd and camera alike.
Some events have based their whole identity on the cage. Many events use it in their name, and it would be hard to imagine that an event titled Extreme Ring Warriors would sell quite as well. The UFC have even gone so far as to trademark their octagon-shaped design so that to use a copy in the United States or Canada you must have a license permitting you to do so.
Japan and Brazil are the two countries where the ring is still more popular than the cage. Why this is the case is unclear – the cage has made appearances in both, yet hasn’t risen to the same level of popularity as it has in North America or Europe.
The main argument presented in opposition to the sport having multiple arenas of combat is that other sports all have a standardised field of play. Whether it is soccer, basketball, or even boxing, there are strict guidelines as to what dimensions the pitch, court, or ring must take. My feeling on the matter is that much like tennis, where the size of the court remains the same yet the surface can differ (and dramatically alter the players’ chances), MMA does not suffer any detraction by having more than one type of environment in which to host fights.
The ring and the cage are as much a part of MMA as striking and grappling, and are equally at odds with one another. Like different expressions of the same face, they force fundamental shifts in how the sport is presented and received. But to lose one or the other would alienate fans and major sections of the industry. For now we have the best of both worlds, and should enjoy it as long as we can.
