1 Answer

UFC's trademarked Octagon measures 30 feet across its interior, more than any other organization's cage or ring. Zuffa's other mixed martial arts promotion, World Extreme Cagefighting, uses a cage with a 25-foot diameter.

Traditional rings for boxing or kickboxing are even smaller, with the specifics varying by state. Among three of the most influential state commissions, Nevada mandates a square ring of 20 feet across, New Jersey specifies 18 to 24 feet and California calls for a minimum of 17 feet, though no maximum is set.

Theoretically, shrinking the Octagon would make it easier for aggressive fighters to find their prey. WEC's press materials tout a smaller cage as "leading to more intense and faster-paced fights."

There's only so much that a smaller cage can do. A fighter determined to run can still circle or slide away in a six-sided or eight-sided cage that lacks the corners of a ring, and a fleet-footed fighter with the skill to cut off opponents can do so regardless of the cage size.

Consider the performances of Mirko Filipovic. The Croatian striker became a star in Japan's smaller square rings by circling to his left while waiting for openings, yet he couldn't get away in UFC's cage, even though it should be tailor-made for his style.

Viewers might be the biggest beneficiaries of a reduced cage — it's easier to capture photos and video when there's less to shoot. Live audiences on the floor or lower tiers would particularly appreciate having better views of the action on the cage side away from them.

Yet you have to wonder if the tinkering is worth it. After a decade and a half, the Octagon is entrenched as a UFC hallmark. Why change it now?

(Posted by Sergio Non)

READERS: Should UFC shrink its cage? What kind of fighting surface would you prefer?

TAGS: OCTAGON