Historic Ring Sizes

[The Old LefHook]

In the footage I just viewed the apron looked narrow, perhaps only 1 foot. The ring has a 1 foot apron on all four sides, giving 576 sq ft of useable space.

One bdrm, one bath, kitchen, lounge, dining area. Walk-in closet.

[Slugfester]

From the house archives


Howard Cosell often used to give the ring size in fights he called. It is a good number to know, especially if you are a bettor! I just wanted to add a few contributions to your discussion.

Ring Sizes—linear dimensions, big time fights

_______________________________


Shavers/Norton 18.5² ft

Hagler/Duran 20² ft

Duran/Viruet 11 18.5² ft

Griffith/Paret 1 20² ft


A little more information and these figures would be more meaningful, like size of apron and whether their figures measure the ring inside or out.

[Dr. Z]

I just watched Jeffries-Fitz in another thread. Boy that ring looked small.

That is a using actors to play Fitz and Jeff. Sorry to spoil it for you.

Jeffries fought in some huge rings. He beat Corbett is 1900 in a 25 by 25 ring which helped the mobile Corbett have lots of room to move around. A normal ring today is 20 x 20 or 400 square feet. A 25 x 5 ring is 625 square feet!

I pay action to ring size. So did Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Hagler.

[Willie Pep 229]

Do you know --> Dempsey-Tunney (I) vs Tunney-Dempsey (II)?

I had read that Dempsey bullied Tunney into a small ring in '26 and that Tunney bullied Dempsey into a large ring in '27. But never was able to confirm either claim with a second source.

‐-----‐------

The Corbett-Fitzsimmons ring was so large that Corbett, attempting to regain his feet, crawls out of frame.

They used the most advanced wide-angle lens they had but still found fhe ring a touch too wide to film rope-to-rope.

----------------

About the fake film.

From Wikipedia:

"Siegmund Lubin created a film the same year known as Reproduction of the Corbett and Fitzsimmons Fight, staged on a rooftop with two freight handlers from the Pennsylvania Railroad."

P.S. Loved the Fitzsimmon's bald cap in the fake film.

[Slugfester]

That is a using actors to play Fitz and Jeff. Sorry to spoil it for you.

Jeffries fought in some huge rings. He beat Corbett is 1900 in a 25 by 25 ring which helped the mobile Corbett have lots of room to move around. A normal ring today is 20 x 20 or 400 square feet. A 25 x 5 ring is 625 square feet!

I pay action to ring size. So did Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Hagler.

What do all those numbers mean though? How large was the apron? Are the figures given representative of the entire ring platform or just the part enclosed by the ropes. A 24 ft ring still has to have an apron. Until we know the dimensions of the apron we can't really know the square footage. A foot seems too small for an apron offering protection. I would suggest 18" as a minimum, making the actual square footage inside the so-called 24 ft ring 506.5 sq ft, instead of 576. That is more than a 12% reduction in functional area.

Do the same thing to a listed 20 ft ring, and now you have an 18.5 ft ring inside the ropes. The area is 342.5 sq ft.

18.5²x18.5² =342.5. 342.5÷400=.8556, about a 14.5% reduction in moving space. Not insignificant.This trend would continue for smaller and smaller rings, until on the last reduction you would be eliminating half or more of whatever is left.

Jefferies's 25 ft ring was probably the full 625 sq ft, since I doubt they had ever heard of an apron yet. That is roped off parking lot.

[Dr. Z]

What do all those numbers mean though? How large was the apron? Are the figures given representative of the entire ring platform or just the part enclosed by the ropes. A 24 ft ring still has to have an apron. Until we know the dimensions of the apron we can't really know the square footage. A foot seems too small for an apron offering protection. I would suggest 18" as a minimum, making the actual square footage inside the so-called 24 ft ring 506.5 sq ft, instead of 576. That is more than a 12% reduction in functional area.

Do the same thing to a listed 20 ft ring, and now you have an 18.5 ft ring inside the ropes. The area is 342.5 sq ft.

18.5²x18.5² =342.5. 342.5÷400=.8556, about a 14.5% reduction in moving space. Not insignificant.This trend would continue for smaller and smaller rings, until on the last reduction you would be eliminating half or more of whatever is left.

Jefferies's 25 ft ring was probably the full 625 sq ft, since I doubt they had ever heard of an apron yet. That is roped off parking lot.

Large rings benefit good mobile boxers ( 22 x 22 or greater ) . And they benefit fighters who can out maneuver their man and fight off the back foot big time.


Small rings benefit (18 x 18 or less ) punchers and increase the action based on limited ring space. Increasing the punchers chance.

Ring size can matter as much as the tale of the tapes. A true X factor! IMO, Hagler would have beaten Leonard in a small ring , but Leonard wisely negotiated a bigger one while Hagler focused on the cash.

One reason Lewis vs. Mercer was real close was an 18 x 18 ring. That benefited Mercer.

[Slugfester]

Large rings benefit good mobile boxers ( 22 x 22 or greater ) . And they benefit fighters who can out maneuver their man and fight off the back foot big time.


Small rings benefit (18 x 18 or less ) punchers and increase the action based on limited ring space. Increasing the punchers chance.

Ring size can matter as much as the tale of the tapes. A true X factor! IMO, Hagler would have beaten Leonard in a small ring , but Leonard wisely negotiated a bigger one while Hagler focused on the cash.

One reason Lewis vs. Mercer was real close was an 18 x 18 ring. That benefited Mercer.

We know 18 is smaller than 20 but we still don't know the dimensions of the actual fighting area. Yes, bigger rings assist boxers and runners, but impede cutting off the ring by the pursuer. But we still don't know what is normally being referred to when ring size is given. I wish there were a widely accepted convention for this stat.

[Willie Pep 229]

This doesn't answer the question at hand, ring size and apron . . . but

I always thought it funny that the MQB Rules are quite specific that a ring be 24 by 24 feet.

I wonder if arguments over the size of bare knuckle pitches was the motivation to standardize the size.

They say that very early bare knuckle fights would have a pitch created by a rope held by spectators, and swell and ebb with the crowd's excitement.

[Slugfester]

This doesn't answer the question at hand, ring size and apron . . . but

I always thought it funny that the MQB Rules are quite specific that a ring be 24 by 24 feet.

I wonder if arguments over the size of bare knuckle pitches was the motivation to standardize the size.

They say that very early bare knuckle fights would have a pitch created by a rope held by spectators, and swell and ebb with the crowd's excitement.

That must help him throw his body weight into a punch!!

[Dr. Z]

We know 18 is smaller than 20 but we still don't know the dimensions of the actual fighting area. Yes, bigger rings assist boxers and runners, but impede cutting off the ring by the pursuer. But we still don't know what is normally being referred to when ring size is given. I wish there were a widely accepted convention for this stat.

Yes we do. A ring is square.

16 x 16 = 256 square feet

18 x 18 = 324 square feet

20 x 20 = 400 square feet.

22 x 22 = 484 square feet

25 x 25 = 625 square feet