|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 16, 2014 0:05:52 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. I know they are, but the scale doesn't create the same look when you put your figures in an official scale ring.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 16, 2014 0:06:38 GMT -5
Steve Austin uses the phrase "that 20 by 20 ring" several times during his podcast Not to mention his induction speech.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 16, 2014 7:20:30 GMT -5
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?" Because "Authentic Scale Ring" is a more marketable name than "Ring That Turnbuckle Scholar (W's Phil) Has Decided That Wfigs Unanimously Wants." Do you seriously have trouble understanding why the concept of authentic scale is a selling point for big rings?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 16, 2014 9:19:21 GMT -5
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?" Because "Authentic Scale Ring" is a more marketable name than "Ring That Turnbuckle Scholar (W's Phil) Has Decided That Wfigs Unanimously Wants." Do you seriously have trouble understanding why the concept of authentic scale is a selling point for big rings? I get it. It's just not as good a selling point as a price tag with less 9s, 8s, & 7s on it. Imagine that there are no toy rings. You get to make one scale for everyone. Which scale would you use to meet the three pieces of criteria I mentioned the best? Practicality Playability Cost efficiency/ middle ground for consumer & producer
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 16, 2014 14:07:40 GMT -5
Because "Authentic Scale Ring" is a more marketable name than "Ring That Turnbuckle Scholar (W's Phil) Has Decided That Wfigs Unanimously Wants." Do you seriously have trouble understanding why the concept of authentic scale is a selling point for big rings? I get it. It's just not as good a selling point as a price tag with less 9s, 8s, & 7s on it. Imagine that there are no toy rings. You get to make one scale for everyone. Which scale would you use to meet the three pieces of criteria I mentioned the best? Practicality Playability Cost efficiency/ middle ground for consumer & producer No point in a "middle ground" ring. It'd be like combining basics and elites into one half-pregnant chimera. The purpose of the 12 x 12 rings is shelf space and low price.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 16, 2014 17:53:52 GMT -5
I get it. It's just not as good a selling point as a price tag with less 9s, 8s, & 7s on it. Imagine that there are no toy rings. You get to make one scale for everyone. Which scale would you use to meet the three pieces of criteria I mentioned the best? Practicality Playability Cost efficiency/ middle ground for consumer & producer No point in a "middle ground" ring. It'd be like combining basics and elites into one half-pregnant chimera. The purpose of the 12 x 12 rings is shelf space and low price. The three criteria I mentioned above are the point. They're superior to the basic ring design. I hated my JAKKS basic rings as a kid, because they left no room for the figures to move. The minute you put the Referee in the corner, the ring was overcrowded. So it's reasonable to think that kids would also prefer a larger ring just as collectors/adult players would. Great Greek Mythology reference by the way. Kudos.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 16, 2014 19:52:09 GMT -5
The three criteria I mentioned above are the point. They're superior to the basic ring design. Absolutely, but that also means they'd cost significantly more than the basic ring. And the basic ring is kind of what it has to be to hit a price point.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 17, 2014 1:08:59 GMT -5
The three criteria I mentioned above are the point. They're superior to the basic ring design. Absolutely, but that also means they'd cost significantly more than the basic ring. And the basic ring is kind of what it has to be to hit a price point. You really think I haven't established that? Only an idiot would sell them for under 25.99. 35.99 would be a good price point for everyone involved. Can we get back to the question I proposed earlier? Why has no company even tried it in the market place?
|
|
|
Post by Epic Z on Feb 17, 2014 3:39:12 GMT -5
Pics of the ring you made?
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 17, 2014 5:08:33 GMT -5
Can we get back to the question I proposed earlier? Why has no company even tried it in the market place? Because the smaller rings sell fine. They sell fine because they don't cost $35+.
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Feb 21, 2014 1:35:16 GMT -5
I've been saying this for a long time... bigger than the spring ring, but not to scale would be a major improvement. That said I'm close to pulling the trigger on the ASR.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 28, 2014 0:46:53 GMT -5
Can we get back to the question I proposed earlier? Why has no company even tried it in the market place? Because the smaller rings sell fine. They sell fine because they don't cost $35+. What does that fact amount to when there's no alternative to buy for the average consumer?
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 28, 2014 0:54:27 GMT -5
Because the smaller rings sell fine. They sell fine because they don't cost $35+. What does that fact amount to when there's no alternative to buy for the average consumer? It amounts to Mattel's realisation that the price point and size of those rings do quite well with the average consumer.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 28, 2014 11:02:46 GMT -5
What does that fact amount to when there's no alternative to buy for the average consumer? It amounts to Mattel's realisation that the price point and size of those rings do quite well with the average consumer. We've established that. It doesn't change the fact that they're inferior to the 18x18 scale as far as playing is concerned. I think it's becoming apparent we're just going in circles at this point. You seem stuck in the mindset of someone who doesn't like change.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 28, 2014 11:46:59 GMT -5
We've established that. It doesn't change the fact that they're inferior to the 18x18 scale as far as playing is concerned. I think it's becoming apparent we're just going in circles at this point. You seem stuck in the mindset of someone who doesn't like change. No, I'm just explaining to you that whining about "inferior for play" is irrelevant and that there's a reason why the 12 x 12 rings have been more successful than the bigger ring, and that there's a reason Mattel doesn't feel a need to change them. You're happy with your custom ring, and that's good. I'm happy with my elite ring. Evidently, most customers are happy with the small ring.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2014 16:21:46 GMT -5
I'm with you on this one. and 18 x 18 ring would be really nice to see. I personally think that the hardcore ring by Jakks during the BCA days is still the closet thing to being accurate in size that has ever been created. I think it was 16 x 16? Wish I still had one.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Feb 28, 2014 17:59:33 GMT -5
We've established that. It doesn't change the fact that they're inferior to the 18x18 scale as far as playing is concerned. I think it's becoming apparent we're just going in circles at this point. You seem stuck in the mindset of someone who doesn't like change. No, I'm just explaining to you that whining about "inferior for play" is irrelevant and that there's a reason why the 12 x 12 rings have been more successful than the bigger ring, and that there's a reason Mattel doesn't feel a need to change them. You're happy with your custom ring, and that's good. I'm happy with my elite ring. Evidently, most customers are happy with the small ring. Whining? Really? This is why no one likes you. You belittle people for no reason. We won't know if the 18x18 will sell better until one is mass produced & put on the market.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s No 503K on Feb 28, 2014 19:48:45 GMT -5
We won't know if the 18x18 will sell better until one is mass produced & put on the market. Bingo. So let's not assume it would, particularly since Mattel has more data available than we do and they haven't put one out. ![:)](http://www.wrestlingfigs.com/images/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
Post by East Coast on Feb 28, 2014 22:29:11 GMT -5
what size is the Jakks Monster Ring?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2014 22:31:59 GMT -5
what size is the Jakks Monster Ring? It's huge. Don't have the exact size on hand, but the LJN ring mold was used for this. I had one when I was younger and the BCA figures head came up to the top rope.
|
|