Wacky Wrestling Theory 5.15.08: The 3-Sided Ring

Three-sided ring… wacky, wacky, wacky… blah, blah, blah… right? Maybe. But this time there is the promise of a diagram. So if you like pictures, keep reading. If you like reading then start thinking because I’ve got a theory so wacky here it’ll flatten the curvature on the underbelly of a chicken egg.

TNA brought the six-sided ring to America. Although the fans’ dream of an X-division that utilized these alternative angles in matches were soon dashed, the six-sided ring did stand to serve one important, yet sadly symbolic, purpose. TNA Wrestling wanted to visually state that they were offering an alternative to the WWE. If a casual viewer skimmed past Spike TV and saw wrestlers in a six-sided ring, then they would at least have to stop to figure out if this was RAW or Smackdown, and maybe, just maybe, this show would provide pro-wrestling that was unique and more suited to their appetites. Whether or not TNA has provided this type of product to the public is debate for other writers, but if they have one can be sure that it isn’t due to the two extra sides on their wrestling ring.

Thinking about the six-sided ring, and TNA’s self-proclaimed reputation for producing match innovations, made me wonder what some real innovations to the pro-wrestling environment could be. The biggest thing that the six-sided ring has proved is that pro-wrestling matches are not contingent on having a four-sided enclosure. Certainly there is nothing being done in a TNA ring that can’t be done in a WWE ring. The best use of that extra angle, I could think of, was probably Monty Brown’s finisher, ‘The Pounce,’ which he could unleash in a more visually violent way in the TNA ring than in ECW. Maybe there are others, but nothing too groundbreaking, right? So why exactly is the six-sided ring so pointless?

From my point of view, every new concept TNA comes up with is still focused on the middle of the ring area. The Ultimate X match, the Elevation X match, and most recently the Terrordome match, all make the central cylinder of the ring as the focal point for the match action. Basically they are giving you new twists on the ladder match format, which puts the finish of the match above the ring rather than flat on the surface.

One wrestler pinning another in the center of the ring determines the outcome of any wrestling match. Struggling to make this happen is the source of the action and the drama of the match, which no matter where it all occurs eventually comes back to end in that middle spot. The ladder match has taken that point and elevated it, thus making the actions to win the match different, yet the same themes in the same visual area still exist. “Blank” on a pole matches takes this same concept and shift the axis to one specific turnbuckle, while the ‘Falls Count Anywhere’ type matches take the concept axis and spotlight it around the arena. The TNA ‘innovations’ take the same route as the ladder match and just use some bells and whistles to elevate the axis point above the flat tradition of the ring. Nothing new is gained by having extra sides on the ring because the audience still focuses on that one central axis in the middle of the ring/arena.

If you are the WWE, why suggest anything? Pro-wrestling is just fine as it is, isn’t it? Of course, yet that hasn’t stopped TNA from gaining a reputation for innovations, deservedly or not, and the WWE could eventual find itself in the position of defending against stagnation. I think it’s one thing to purposely and blatantly try to attract customers to your product, as was the nWo, and it’s another to attempt to truly innovate, as was the Attitude era. Therefore, if the WWE were to take up the TNA mentality of match innovation, what could they do?

At first I wondered why the WWE hasn’t tried to build their own wrestling-specific building for matches, at WWE Connecticut headquarters, like the TNA Impact Zone, or located within the most popular wrestling cities in the country, much like Sumo-wrestling gyms in Japan. This cuts down on transportation fees for equipment and sets up WWE wrestling to have it’s own imprint on the architectural fabric of big city North America. Actually, Sumo-wrestling gyms provide a great template for pro-wrestling since they have a custom made stage for the ring, located in the center of building, and with all seats elevated and facing intimately downward into the ring, somewhat similar to the TNA Impact Zone.

More specifically though, I think the first inclination to change the wrestling ring would be to go with a circular elevated ring without the ropes. This has been tried in the past, I remember a Dean Malenko vs. Billy Kidman match from late WCW, or even the Big Show vs. Akebono Sumo-style match from Wrestlemania 22. The lack of ropes could encourage more free play amongst the wrestlers but is ultimately still tied to the center of the ring. What intrigues me most is the casket match, or even some cage matches, where the struggle is focused onto completing the match at one side of the ring. The casket match works best for those people in the audience facing the casket, but not so much those on the other sides.

Pro-wrestling is technically theater in the round set up to duplicate the viewing experience of a sports contest. Yet, William Shakespeare did not design his plays to be theater in the round, so our Shakespeare, Vince McMahon, should learn from this. Since the ‘sport’ of pro-wrestling has been exposed as mainly ‘athleticism’ why continue to present the show in the mock-sports format and why not present it like real theater?

Instead of putting the ring in the middle of an arena, put the ring against a wall at one side of the building and have the entire audience face toward that side. This would be similar to the arena set-up used for music concerts. In this case, with one side of the ring being against the wall, ropes would not be necessary thus creating a three-sided pro-wrestling ring. The benefits of this ring set-up would be to allow the wrestlers to present moves directly to all members of the audience, it would tie the entrances, video screen and ring all into one base, and would allow for real innovations in the presentation of the pro-wrestling event.

As promised, figure 1:

With a wall as one side of the ring, it would be of primary importance to make sure the wrestlers always face the audience. Therefore, it might seem detrimental to whip wrestlers forward, since they’d basically turn away from the audience once they hit the ropes, but I think it puts the focus on the wrestler performing the offense and could heighten the visual appeal of a clothesline, shoulder block, back body drop, etc. Although, definitely some moves would be hurt visually like drop kicks or a rolling power slams, but leap frogs would take on a whole new dangerous dimension. Some moves would then be known as moves used for forward swings, and some would be known as moves that would be used only on side to side running. I think this is a fantastic environment for shoring up the usefulness of certain moves and creating space for innovations in move creation.

Obviously a body slam would be more effective if done with the momentum facing towards the audience. A move like Triple H’s ‘Pedigree’ would need to be administered with HHH facing the crowd. As these numerous changes would start to take effect in a three-sided ring the matches would begin to appear tremendously different. The significance of this kind of change would be the challenge for wrestlers to construct stories using new strategies and with a different set of limitations. Although it’s hard to predict exactly how this would evolve, one must foresee the ultimate differences in innovation a three-sided ring would have over a six-sided ring.

Some problems with this set-up are evident. Without turnbuckles on the wall-ed side of the ring, jumping off the ropes would be difficult, therefore small platforms could be set up, along with grips, on the wall to allow for jumping moves. This is especially important because I don’t think the wrestlers would want to jump off the remaining turnbuckles because their backs would be to the audience. I also foresee that any action taking place close to the wall could happen in a blind spot to those watching from the floor. To counter this problem, a very slight forward tilt could be added to the construction of the three-sided ring, not too much to throw off wrestlers’ balance but just enough to clear the sight line of the back row floor seats. Since this is all speculation, if it was impossible for wrestlers to adjust to only being able to run the ropes in three different directions, then a bounce could be added to the back wall, although that might be a bit ridiculous. From the television production standpoint, a new system would be needed for the mobile cameramen, since without the 360 degrees of mobility it would be hard to hide the cameraman, as the WWE is able to do so magically. With robotics and digital capabilities, I think technological innovations are just as possible as those artistic in nature.

The three-sided ring idea creates an environment where the wrestler entrances would occur in the same place as the ring. No ramp through the audience is required, just doors in the wall that act as the backdrop of the ring and the ‘jumbotron.’ Some familiar aspects of wrestling as we know it would change, for example, the run in or surprise appearance would be much more shocking or mysterious since the wrestlers could come right in on top of the ring without needing to run from the entrance ramp or ‘disguise’ themselves in the crowd. Also, all outside of the ring action would take place in front of the ring, but still in front of the audience, making for an enjoyable experience for the entire crowd rather than just those in the vicinity.

With the large screen as a backdrop for the matches, many different video elements could be added as special effects, for example an explosion or tracer effect could be shown in conjunction with the impact of a wrestler’s finishing move. Each wrestler could have unique video and/or pyrotechnics incorporated into their move set. The back wall could also fade into transparency and reveal the backstage conversations and meetings, which now have to be presented as fourth-wall-breaking skits. Certain types of gimmick matches, such as street fights or cage matches, could have accompanying footage, like a real street, alley, or prison, that rolls throughout the background of the match, creating an artistic and immersive experience for the live audience.

Once a system like this was firmly set in place, then the true innovations could begin. First of all, I envision that a number of rings could be set up side by side, like at festival music concerts, or even more interestingly, on top of one another. If one ring was set up on the ground and a second one some meters higher, then two stacked matches could be going on at the same time. This would be an interesting way to run a tournament, especially if the wrestling timing could be arranged so that major moments in each match did not overlap.

Under these circumstances, eventually even the wrestling itself could be phased out completely. And don’t think that the WWE isn’t already contemplating this in some regard. Once the action of the match is fully focused in one direction, and not the central axis of the building, the audience could become conditioned to watching dramatic presentations on the stage rather than the way it is produced now. When there is an argument or speech being delivered in the ring, as is in (roughly) more than half of televised wrestling programs these days, the audience behind and to the sides is relegated to watching the performance from an odd angle. The intimacy of the performance suffers, and this could be fixed with a three-sided ring. Although the physical wrestling itself is presented as theater in the round, the new story oriented pro-wrestling to which we have become accustomed is shot like it is on a sound stage. The live audience has adapted to this accordingly, but would it not be more effective if everyone could see the drama from a preferential viewpoint? Then feuds and rivalries could start out in true soap opera fashion, with real dramatic stage shows. Even championships and pinfalls might disappear as the matches are then more like scenes in an overall narrative and not so much like fake athletic contests that have no true bearing on standing or storyline progression.

If the action and tension of shows like Law & Order, The Soprano’s or Buffy the Vampire Slayer could be combined with the live production capabilities of the WWE and its wrestlers, and mixed together with physical action, but properly displayed as art rather than farce, then I think pro-wrestling will seriously start to look as innovative and evolved as the wrestling from the 80s did compared to the wrestling of the 50s. And all this change does not start with a six-sided ring or some cables in the sky, but by moving the ring from the center to the side. A three-sided wrestling ring could very well be the natural evolution of sports entertainment.