This could potentially be a really deep subject... I don't want to be the one to start it, but there's the whole point about MMA or traditional Martial Arts in general being a great way to develop your real character. In most cases, people who train seriously, even if just for a short while, in those arts tend to develop discipline and respect on their own.
That being said, I can't say that I think the UFC should prohibit criminals from competing in their events... It's a touchy subject, since many jobs require criminal record checks, and a lot of them won't consider anybody with even the slightest case of criminal activity of any kind. However, a fighter's "job" is to fight... I believe someone with a history of armed robbery and someone with a history of chronic J-walking have an equal right to perform in MMA - Why do I feel that they're on equal ground? Well, why not? Do they expect the former armed robber is more likely to create some sort of misconduct? Do they believe that the armed robber is a bigger threat? If so, a threat to what? His opponent, who they've tentatively scheduled him to face in unarmed combat? He may be a former criminal, but put him in the Octagon and he's the same as the person he's staring at across the cage... that's my opinion, anyway.
The only "line" I could see being drawn is in front of criminals who may not be in a proper state of mind... but those are pretty easy to weed out.
__________________
Toshinden's Current Favourites:
1) Randy Couture 2) Georges St. Pierre 3) Dan Henderson
4) Lyoto Machida 5) Patrick Cote
    
|