|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 15, 2014 2:33:22 GMT -5
My father said it when I first saw the RSR by JAKKS in the Macon, GA Toys R' Us at age 13 with my father beside as I scored a CS King Kong Bundy & an RA Nunzio during a BOGO free sale after church.
"The ring is too big, but the regular ring's too small."
Dad: What is the measurement of the little one?
Me: a foot by a foot.
Dad: Why don't they make an 18x18? Not too big, not too small.
Me: A look of astonishment. He was absolutely right, & that's why I've been developing 18x18 design ideas since I was cheering for Batista to beat JBL at my first houseshow.
I built one last year & it's the best ring I've ever had at any figure scale. It's easier to store than any RSR/ESR, but still posesses plenty of space for basic figures to tear it up. I reenact matches between pairings of Big Show, Kane, Undertaker, & Mark Henry periodically & never run out of room. So the question is simple.
Why have companies insisted on rings that are too big, & too expensive at the 20x20+ scale, when 18x18 has been the ideal since the Titan Tron Live scale?
|
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Feb 15, 2014 2:45:15 GMT -5
I really don't know why they refuse to make a ring of those dimensions. I think most would agree that it would be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask of Truth on Feb 15, 2014 2:47:57 GMT -5
I agree 18x18 is the ideal perfect scale for a ring. Having both the ESR and RSR, Royal Rumble matches are great, display space and storage not so much.
|
|
June
Main Eventer
High Fives All Around!!!
Joined on: May 31, 2009 10:54:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by June on Feb 15, 2014 2:52:59 GMT -5
18x18 is not official scale, which is why it was not made. I don't understand the outcry for smaller rings.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 4:29:39 GMT -5
18x18 is not official scale, which is why it was not made. I don't understand the outcry for smaller rings. So people have room to display them. I thought that was made perfectly clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 15, 2014 6:02:45 GMT -5
Why have companies insisted on rings that are too big, & too expensive at the 20x20+ scale, when 18x18 has been the ideal since the Titan Tron Live scale? Because an 18 x 18 ring would not be scaled properly. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 6:22:41 GMT -5
I'm fine with my 22x22 ring, I think its perfect. Although I would like to see your ring Phil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 15, 2014 9:08:42 GMT -5
Why have companies insisted on rings that are too big, & too expensive at the 20x20+ scale, when 18x18 has been the ideal since the Titan Tron Live scale? Because an 18 x 18 ring would not be scaled properly. Why would a minor deviation from exact scale be unacceptable with the ring itself, when figures often vary from their real life counterparts, even various MATTEL creations. That also never stopped any company from pumping out 12x12s which aren't scale properly in the least. So what am I missing? |
|
|
|
Post by D.B.K. on Feb 15, 2014 9:11:24 GMT -5
Scholar(W's Phil): Can we see some pics of your ring, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prophet of Ash on Feb 15, 2014 9:20:01 GMT -5
WWE's rings are in fact, 22 feet by 22 feet. It's one of the things guys have to adjust to when coming from the indies, where they're used to working in a 16x16 ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Feb 15, 2014 9:44:39 GMT -5
Steve Austin uses the phrase "that 20 by 20 ring" several times during his podcast
|
|
oneil4life
Superstar
Joined on: Mar 11, 2004 22:14:30 GMT -5
Posts: 757
|
Post by oneil4life on Feb 15, 2014 9:51:45 GMT -5
18x18 is not official scale, which is why it was not made. I don't understand the outcry for smaller rings. Neither is 22 x 22, most WWE rings are 20' x 20' which would translate to a 20" x 20" scale, not 22 x 22 |
|
|
|
Post by skribbel24 on Feb 15, 2014 10:19:38 GMT -5
Are those small rings selling so much that they can't stop making them?
|
|
NikeGuy
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 21, 2013 19:33:51 GMT -5
Posts: 1,355
|
Post by NikeGuy on Feb 15, 2014 10:21:46 GMT -5
Can we see pics of this ring?
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 15, 2014 11:59:28 GMT -5
18x18 is not official scale, which is why it was not made. I don't understand the outcry for smaller rings. Neither is 22 x 22, most WWE rings are 20' x 20' which would translate to a 20" x 20" scale, not 22 x 22 I'd like to see the calculations you've done to arrive at that statement. An actual WWE ring, each side is 3.4 times the size of Daniel Bryan's height... 2.9 times Undertaker's height... 3.3 times John Cena's height. So in figure terms, the ring should also be that same size in comparison to the figures. So if Undertaker's figure was 6.9 inches, then 20 x 20 would be more accurate. If Undertaker's figure is 7.5 inches, then 22 x 22 would be more accurate. I don't have a tape measure or an Undertaker figure to hand, so I can't check. But anyone who can measure an Undertaker can find out which is the closest to real scale. Of course, there are a few deviations across the range in terms of figures being too tall or short anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 15, 2014 12:00:43 GMT -5
Because an 18 x 18 ring would not be scaled properly. Why would a minor deviation from exact scale be unacceptable with the ring itself, when figures often vary from their real life counterparts, even various MATTEL creations. That also never stopped any company from pumping out 12x12s which aren't scale properly in the least. So what am I missing? You're missing the fact that they don't call the 12x12 rings scaled. |
|
|
|
Post by ricflair4ever on Feb 15, 2014 12:19:35 GMT -5
This is one of the most debated things you'll find on here. And rightly so. It does appear to be too big when you stand a figure in the center of the ring. It seems like there would be no way for a guy to run from one corner, diagonally, to the other without being winded by the time he gets there. So I decided to try an experiment, far from scientific mind you, but just a little something to work with. I posed a few figures in a generic running stance. All figures of differing height. I took the figures from one corner,spinning them at their feet, and counted the amount of steps it would take for them to go across to the other corner diagonally. The average was 8 steps. This is pretty close to the amount of steps a wrestler takes while running across. I still think the dimensions would be slightly closer to real life at 20x20, however the current model is fairly close to the real deal. Its still very debatable and open to interpretation. But no matter what, when you're standing right up on the thing, it still looks as if its too big. Another thing, the size of mattel figures in terms of width and girth, may be what makes it seem oversized. Jakks larger proportions made the RSR look pretty accurate to me. And ,with Jakks figures in the ESR it does sort of seem to make it less spacious looking. At the end of the day though, when I photograph my mattels in it, the pics come out with it looking appropriately sized. So I still love the damn thing. Its sort of the reverse of seeing it on tv vs in person. On tv the rings look huge. When you go to your first live event,you kinda think.....is that really it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 15, 2014 17:36:33 GMT -5
Why would a minor deviation from exact scale be unacceptable with the ring itself, when figures often vary from their real life counterparts, even various MATTEL creations. That also never stopped any company from pumping out 12x12s which aren't scaleed properly in the least. So what am I missing? You're missing the fact that they don't call the 12x12 rings scaled. So what's the point of having an official scale, if it's not as ideal as something smaller? |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 15, 2014 18:05:02 GMT -5
You're missing the fact that they don't call the 12x12 rings scaled. So what's the point of having an official scale, if it's not as ideal as something smaller? I guess they think "Authentic Scale Ring" is a more marketable name than "Ring That Turnbuckle Scholar (W's Phil) Thinks Is The Best Size." |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 16, 2014 0:01:31 GMT -5
So what's the point of having an official scale, if it's not as ideal as something smaller? I guess they think "Authentic Scale Ring" is a more marketable name than "Ring That Turnbuckle Scholar (W's Phil) Thinks Is The Best Size." That's funny as syphilis. Seriously though, I've been part of the figure community for almost a decade & the vote is unanimous. The 18x18 serves the most purposes of any ring size. Practicality Playability Cost efficiency So the question remains "Why has no one produced one?" |
|
