|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Sept 23, 2014 8:53:53 GMT -5
When it was announced they were going back to 6 sides. There was a freak out online about how horribly unsafe and dangerous the ring was. Flash forward to now, it's not like everybody is getting injured on the roster.
2 people IIRC got hurt. Rebel due to hitting her forearm on the ring steps and Davey got a broken leg at a house show.
The ring itself isn't at fault. But the idea that the 6 sided ring was some dangerous, death machine was promoted online like it was the absolute truth. Only thing I've heard is the ring is a bit harder and the ropes are tighter, not that it's injuring a bunch of folks. Basically wrestling in general is dangerous not the amount of sides the ring has.
So what say you?
|
|
Magnus the Magnificent
King Koopa
didn't want one.
I could write a book about what you don't know!
Posts: 12,453 
|
Post by Magnus the Magnificent on Sept 23, 2014 9:07:09 GMT -5
I don't think the issue is that you get insta-injured at the first bump you take in the 6-sided ring, but rather that because it is stiffer, the combined number of bumps will affect you more on a long-term basis than the same number of bumps in a 4-sided one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Sept 23, 2014 9:09:19 GMT -5
I don't think the issue is that you get insta-injured at the first bump you take in the 6-sided ring, but rather that because it is stiffer, the combined number of bumps will affect you more on a long-term basis than the same number of bumps in a 4-sided one. Interesting perspective, because of the stiffer ring I guess that does make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Sept 23, 2014 9:26:04 GMT -5
I don't think the issue is that you get insta-injured at the first bump you take in the 6-sided ring, but rather that because it is stiffer, the combined number of bumps will affect you more on a long-term basis than the same number of bumps in a 4-sided one. Exactly. It's an issue of wear-and-tear. Each bump hurts a little bit more than it would in a 4-sided ring. |
|
jagilki
Patti Mayonnaise
Nobody notices him; No, we noticed him
f*** Cancer
Posts: 33,594
|
Post by jagilki on Sept 23, 2014 9:38:20 GMT -5
We can't really tell the long term effects yet can we? Sure it's been several months worth of TV, but it's actually been what? 3 nights? 2? of actual use?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Sept 23, 2014 21:50:53 GMT -5
Where is the I dont really care either way option?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 24, 2014 4:41:15 GMT -5
We can't really tell the long term effects yet can we? Sure it's been several months worth of TV, but it's actually been what? 3 nights? 2? of actual use? Ha, that's actually a fair point. They crammed in so many tapings into a short space, it wasn't actually all that many nights they used it. |
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Sept 24, 2014 5:55:08 GMT -5
It's not a big deal either way, but the ring is the least of their worries.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,896
|
Post by Sephiroth on Sept 24, 2014 8:48:35 GMT -5
I always liked it because it gives them feel that is different from WWE; a unique look, some different types of camera angles, and the wrestlers can come up with some different types of moves. But if it really is that much harder on their bodies I really would prefer they just use a regular four sided one and only break the six sided one out for special matches.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 24, 2014 9:02:54 GMT -5
I think it's an optical anomaly. People cite the multi-sided UFC 'octagon' but the sides in UFC play little or no part in the contest. Wrestling relies on the ropes being used for speed and leverage and a six-sided ring is just not pleasing to the eye and it looks a bit messy IMO. Were they to have a UFC style 'cage' it could would but it'd mean having to forego the wrestling traditions of using ropes to bounce off of during manoeuvres. A multi-sided ring while still employing the ropes for their traditional means is like the worst of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Sept 24, 2014 12:09:33 GMT -5
Bringing it back was even stupider than getting rid of it in the first place. It was an admission of fault. 'Well, shit, I guess we f***ed up getting rid of this. PLEASE COME BACK OLD SCHOOL FANS! While we're at it, here's Chris Harris in good shape, and Jeff Jarrett as champ for 14 years! Anyone got Randy Savage's number?'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 19:21:43 GMT -5
f*** that 6 sided ring. They need a 3 sided tri-force ring
|
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Sept 24, 2014 19:36:27 GMT -5
2 sided Madagascar ring FTW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 20:17:14 GMT -5
It doesn't add anything to the matches. I can see different if it's actually different, this is a difference that manages to change nothing.
Thus, it is pointless. 4 sided ring it is.
|
|
Andy Martin
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,052
Member is Online
|
Post by Andy Martin on Sept 24, 2014 20:32:22 GMT -5
It's horrendous.
|
|
Emmet Russell
King Koopa
Quieter
The best wrestler on earth.
Posts: 12,526
|
Post by Emmet Russell on Sept 24, 2014 21:40:07 GMT -5
It's a gimmick, and not a good one.
I'd love the idea that it makes them stand out from WWE if that was true, but it's not. You tune in and you see Jeff Hardy, Bully Ray, Lashley, MVP, and a bunch more ex WWE guys; the sides don't help it look unique. It still looks like a poor mans WWE and the ring will never change that, no matter how many or how few sides they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bram wants to 'urt you on Sept 28, 2014 6:46:45 GMT -5
While the number of sides to the ring shouldn't be as much of an issue as, say, what's actually happening inside it, I do like the six sided ring, not least because a "cage match" is just a cage match, but a "six sides of steel" match sounds badass  |
|
