Swinny
12-07-2012, 09:30 AM
TWITTER MAILBAG: FOWLKES ON THE DIAZ BROTHERS, B.J. PENN AND PEDS
BY BEN FOWLKES ON DEC 06, 2012 AT 5:30 PM ET
With the UFC on FOX 5 event just a couple days away, the Twitter Mailbag looks at all the possible consequences and repercussions of a potential Nate Diaz title reign, especially one that may begin on live network TV.
We also get deep into questions about Nick Newell's career prospects, what to do about violent felons in MMA and what's to become of B.J. Penn after Saturday night's Seattle showdown.
To ask a question of your own, head on over to Twitter and search for @BenFowlkesMMA. But first, let's get busy with this week's crop of brilliant dispatches from the land of 140 characters.
* * * *
Chris Manning @cwmwrites
@benfowlkesMMA If Nate Diaz beats Benson Henderson on Saturday, is he a more marketable champion than Henderson in the short & long term?
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, and isn't that kind of sad, in a way? I understand why fans haven't really warmed to Benson Henderson as the lightweight champ. He's looked great ever since coming to the UFC, but he's yet to put anyone away inside the octagon, and the two title fights he's been in so far have been so painfully close. You could argue that he lost one or maybe even both of those fights, and plenty of people do. Even if you think he won, he did it by such slim margins, and with such a tactical, careful approach, that he still seems like he has something to prove. If he steps out in the main event on network TV and beats Diaz the same way – winning rounds and scoring takedowns until the judges just barely tip in his favor – let's just say he won't wake up in his hotel on Sunday to a cheering throng of brand new fans who are just dying to carry him to the airport on their shoulders.
So yes, because of his fighting style and his general Diaz-ness, Nate Diaz would be a much more popular/polarizing/marketable champion for the UFC's purposes. Which, if you're Henderson, should make you depressed about what kind of world you're living in. Think about it: here's a nice, polite, respectful professional athlete who loves Jesus and his mother with equal public fervor, and most fight fans would much rather see the bird-flipping, mean-mugging, post-fight brawler who treats his peers like they're all enemies he has yet to make. I'm not saying that fans should warm to one over the other, but I wouldn't blame Henderson if he started to feel like it just didn't pay to be a gentleman in this business.
The good news is, he could help out his own cause here, and he wouldn't even have to flip any birds to do it. If he went out and smashed Diaz inside of the distance, even the fans who didn't particularly like him would have to respect him. Nothing puts a stamp on a title reign quite like beating up and putting away a top contender, especially one who's known for being tough to finish. Whether Henderson has it in him to do that, and whether he cares enough about public opinion to try for it, we'll have to wait and see.
Raptors4life @luvtheraps
@benfowlkesMMA Of today's fighters, i. whose swag is most reminiscent of "Classic Era" circa ~'93; ii. who'd fare best vs them legends? #TMB
I guess it depends what you mean by "swag," but based on what I think I know about what that word means, I have to go with Lyoto Machida. I mean, look at him. Karate dude who takes himself super seriously at all times? He would have fit right in with the early '90s MMA crowd. He also probably would have murdered every single one of them in the cage, with the possible exception of Mark Coleman. Back when headbutts were still legal, it was hard to mess with "The Hammer."
John Oakes @Johntoakes
@benfowlkesMMA #tmb Fans are sad for Cruz, but is in not best now to upgrade Barao's strap to full champ strappiness?
Let's say the UFC took your advice. Say that, in light of Dominick Cruz's ongoing injury woes, it decided to strip him of the UFC bantamweight title while making Renan Barao's interim belt the new real belt. What then? Would we all be forced to start referring to Barao as the undisputed UFC bantamweight champ, in much the same we were gradually forced to call Jose Aldo "Joe-say" Aldo? Probably. But would we start thinking of him as the one and only champ, just because the UFC says he is? I doubt it.
That's because championship titles are ideas more than they are things. They are not rental cars to be "upgraded" with the push of a button. Even if you have the physical belt around your waist, and even it says all the magic words on it, it doesn't mean anything unless the public agrees that it does. In this case, I can't see MMA fans just forgetting about Cruz for the sake of convenience. He's the champ until somebody beats him. In the meantime (you might even say, in the interim) the fighters who pass the replacement belt around are just keeping busy until the real champ can come back.
Max de Vries @MaxWdeVries
@benfowlkesMMA TMB: Will a win for Nate on Strdy boost Nick's chance of fighting GSP? Brothers as champs could be a 'thing' for UFC mrktng.
Brothers as champs could indeed be a "thing," but I think Nick Diaz is still going to have to make his own luck with the UFC. He's got a lot going for him. He's a great fighter with an exciting style, the champ seriously hates him and would like to beat him up, plus his fan base is passionate to the point of being rabid. All of that should equal title shot, but he'll probably have to wait his turn. While Diaz has been sitting out with a suspension, Johny Hendricks has been making his case as No. 1 contender. Let Diaz prove he can beat a top welterweight and do it without torching his own career in any of a dozen ways, then he'll likely get a shot at the welterweight title. If he happens to win it, and if his brother happens to be the UFC lightweight champ at the same time, that's just a bonus. Or a nightmare for the UFC staff. Depends on your perspective.
Robert Schlicker @RSchlicker
@benfowlkesMMA If Nick Newell wins on Friday, how much longer until he starts getting some offers from the big leagues (UFC, Bellator)? #tmb
When I asked UFC President Dana White whether he'd consider signing Nick Newell if he kept winning fights, he at first replied, "That's a tough one." You could almost hear him doing the math in his head, as if trying to figure out whether it was even possible for a fighter with only one hand to compete at the UFC level, and, if so, whether the UFC would then be looked upon as a sideshow or an equal opportunity employer as a result. Ultimately, White concluded, "The UFC's tough enough with two hands." It's difficult to argue with that.
If Newell beats Eric Reynolds on Friday night, that's when I suspect the larger organizations will have to start paying attention to him. Reynolds is a fighter who seems almost at the Bellator level, though not quite, and if Newell wins that puts him in pretty decent company. I doubt it will lead to an immediate contract offer, but it will put him on the map for something other than his physical differences. As Newell put it when I spoke to him, it's easy for him to get attention but hard to get respect. This is the fight that could change that.
Rumpo @xx_Rumpo_xx
@benfowlkesMMA Why do folks say Sonnen doesn't deserve shot? He earned it by saying yes to short notice fight and being marketable. #TMB
I don't know. Maybe some silly purists are still of the opinion that you should earn a title shot by fighting for it. But hey, anybody can do that, right? It takes a special kind of person to talk into a camera or say yes to an opportunity they have in no way earned. I guess it all depends what you think the word "deserve" means, Rumpo.
Daoud Shuja @Daoud_S
@benfowlkesMMA If BJ Penn loses, does he fight again?
Trying to predict whether a fighter will retire and stay retired is like trying to predict whether two people who are bad for each other will break up and stay broken up. You want to say yes, because that would probably be better for everybody, but experience tells you that just because something's a good idea doesn't mean people will do it.
For Penn, I think a lot depends on how this fight goes. If he gets blown away and beaten down by Rory MacDonald, it's more likely that he'll decide there's no point in continuing to take this kind of punishment. But if he loses by decision after giving as good as he gets, who knows? He might figure that there's some life in those bones yet, especially if the decision is at all close enough to fire up the old B.J. Penn sense of indignant outrage. It'd be hard to talk him into staying home on the island if he thinks he got screwed by the judges in his last professional fight.
Josh Kuipers @kuipjak
@benfowlkesMMA Can the UFC risk letting Nick Diaz into the ring and on network TV if Nate wins? Remember what happened on CBS? #tmb
No, I don't remember what happened. Scott Coker and I stepped out to get a soda from the vending machine in the hallway right after the main event. What'd we miss?
OK, I'm lying. I saw what happened, and I shall never forget it. It was just so, well, something. And, in light of that, I see the point you're trying to make here, but have you forgotten that this is not Nate Diaz's first time on FOX? He beat Jim Miller in the main event of a FOX show back in May, and the Diaz camp managed to get in and out of there without incident. As long as nobody tries any funny stuff – and, in the UFC, access to the cage is controlled much better than it was in Strikeforce – I think we'll be just fine.
Bryan Girard @Bryan_Girard
@benfowlkesMMA #tmb Diaz, Shogun, and Swick are making their 2nd straight appearances on FOX. Is UFC trying to build seperate FOX/PPV stars?
I don't think it's so much separate stars as it is an attempt to build some type of recognition among the network TV audience, which seems smart. It's kind of like what the UFC first started doing with the Spike TV "Fight Night" events, only on a much larger scale. Fans get acquainted with certain fighters on free TV, and then when they move over to pay-per-view there's more motivation to pony up the 60 bucks because, hey, you know this guy. Whether you like him or not is another question.
Lee Futcher @Futch6
@benfowlkesMMA #Mailbag What do u think Is the most interesting/controversial topic in MMA today?
I'll tell you what I think are the two most troubling topics in MMA, for very different reasons: 1) performance-enhancing drug use, as well as the sport's drug policy in general, and 2) injuries.
I know I've already gone on at length in this space about PED use (and about the nonsensical practice of testing for marijuana metabolites and then forcing the users into a ceremonial rehab), so I'll spare you the usual diatribe. Instead I'll just ask, what could be more damaging to the sport's image, perched as it is just outside the mainstream of American consciousness, than to have a legal (or illegal) testosterone/steroid user seriously injure or kill someone on live television? Just think about the consequences of that for a second. While I agree that MMA is generally safer than boxing and football, it's still cage fighting. It's still people punching, kicking, elbowing and kneeing each other in the head with the intent to do bodily harm. People get hurt that way, and occasionally even killed. All it would take is for that to happen at the hands of one of MMA's "therapeutic" testosterone users, and we'd have a problem on our hands.
The good news there is, the UFC and the state athletic commissions have the power to do something on that front. They just haven't done it yet. The issue of injuries is a little tougher to deal with.
Some of it is the nature of the sport. Some of it is the culture of MMA gyms, where the "iron sharpens iron" mentality leads to some brutally competitive sparring sessions, which in turn leads to cut faces, broken hands and shredded ligaments. To some extent, you're always going to have the threat of the injury withdrawal in any fight sport. But when it happens so often it can't help but dampen fan enthusiasm and make the sport harder to follow. The UFC can ask fighters to tone it down in the gym, but it can't make them. It can't do anything except hope that fighters and trainers figure out how to get ready without getting injured, and the sooner they figure it out the better.
Dennis Sangler @dennissangler
@benfowlkesMMA #tmb would the ufc consider a stadium show in Sweden if Gustafsson get's a titleshot? or is the timedifference a dealbreaker
After the UFC's event in Stockholm last spring, Dana White was peppered with questions about the possibility of a Gustafsson title shot on Swedish soil. All the UFC president would say at the time was, such a fight "would not suck." Gustafsson helped the UFC pack the Ericsson Globe Arena in Stockholm as the main event of a sold-out event, so he and Jon Jones (assuming the champ gets by yet another middleweight challenger in 2013) would probably do huge live gate numbers anywhere in Sweden. But then, as you mentioned, there's a six-hour time difference between Stockholm and New York. The UFC is usually reluctant to put a title up for grabs on anything but pay-per-view, which would mean either asking people to pay to watch live in the middle of the afternoon, or asking them to pay to watch on a delay on Saturday night, which is even worse.
Also – and I'm not trying to be a jerk here – why should Gustafsson get to fight for a title on his home soil? I get that it would be a bigger fight in Sweden than it would be in the U.S., but shouldn't that type of hometown advantage be reserved for an existing champion? Shouldn't that be something a fighter has to earn, like when Georges St-Pierre defends his belt in Canada or Anderson Silva does it in Brazil? Maybe if Gustafsson becomes the champ, he'll get his stadium show. But as long as he's still trying to prove himself, it seems slightly unfair to make the defending champ fly all the way over there for the sake of his challenger's local popularity. Although, I guess you could do worse than having to travel to Sweden for work. At least Gustafsson's not from Detroit.
Jason Rule @JasonRule
@benfowlkesMMA Regarding criminal records. Where should the commissions draw the line on giving licenses or promotions giving contracts?
Tough question, and one I thought a lot about as I was working on the story about Dan McGuane. On one hand, if you commit a crime and then serve your sentence, you should be allowed to move on with your life. That's how it's supposed to work. On the other, who says you get to move on as a professional fighter, especially if your crime involved using your fighting skills to take another person's life, whether intentionally or not?
But then, look at Jeremy Stephens. Say he eventually gets convicted of the felony assault he was arrested for in Minneapolis (but which he insists he is totally innocent of). Say he even does prison time for a beating where, according to reports, the victim briefly stopped breathing. Should he then get banned as well? It's a similar situation, just with a slightly different outcome. Is it fine for a pro fighter who merely beat someone up very badly to continue to make a living with his fists, as long as the victim didn't die? What about Brett Rogers, who pled guilty to assaulting his wife? The actual physical damage might not have been as severe, but don't we, as a society, recognize that there's something much more heinous about assaulting a partner, especially if you're a heavyweight pro fighter and that partner is the mother of your children?
I'm not sure where we should draw the line on these issues. I believe in giving people second chances, but I also believe that getting to fight for a living is more a privilege than a right. In the case of McGuane – and, depending on how things shape up, maybe also Stephens – I think it's fitting for the public to decide when a fighter has forfeited his fighting privileges. McGuane was able to get a license, but if fans don't want to see him fight because of his criminal history then promoters probably aren't going to hire him. Maybe that's the way it should be.
BY BEN FOWLKES ON DEC 06, 2012 AT 5:30 PM ET
With the UFC on FOX 5 event just a couple days away, the Twitter Mailbag looks at all the possible consequences and repercussions of a potential Nate Diaz title reign, especially one that may begin on live network TV.
We also get deep into questions about Nick Newell's career prospects, what to do about violent felons in MMA and what's to become of B.J. Penn after Saturday night's Seattle showdown.
To ask a question of your own, head on over to Twitter and search for @BenFowlkesMMA. But first, let's get busy with this week's crop of brilliant dispatches from the land of 140 characters.
* * * *
Chris Manning @cwmwrites
@benfowlkesMMA If Nate Diaz beats Benson Henderson on Saturday, is he a more marketable champion than Henderson in the short & long term?
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, and isn't that kind of sad, in a way? I understand why fans haven't really warmed to Benson Henderson as the lightweight champ. He's looked great ever since coming to the UFC, but he's yet to put anyone away inside the octagon, and the two title fights he's been in so far have been so painfully close. You could argue that he lost one or maybe even both of those fights, and plenty of people do. Even if you think he won, he did it by such slim margins, and with such a tactical, careful approach, that he still seems like he has something to prove. If he steps out in the main event on network TV and beats Diaz the same way – winning rounds and scoring takedowns until the judges just barely tip in his favor – let's just say he won't wake up in his hotel on Sunday to a cheering throng of brand new fans who are just dying to carry him to the airport on their shoulders.
So yes, because of his fighting style and his general Diaz-ness, Nate Diaz would be a much more popular/polarizing/marketable champion for the UFC's purposes. Which, if you're Henderson, should make you depressed about what kind of world you're living in. Think about it: here's a nice, polite, respectful professional athlete who loves Jesus and his mother with equal public fervor, and most fight fans would much rather see the bird-flipping, mean-mugging, post-fight brawler who treats his peers like they're all enemies he has yet to make. I'm not saying that fans should warm to one over the other, but I wouldn't blame Henderson if he started to feel like it just didn't pay to be a gentleman in this business.
The good news is, he could help out his own cause here, and he wouldn't even have to flip any birds to do it. If he went out and smashed Diaz inside of the distance, even the fans who didn't particularly like him would have to respect him. Nothing puts a stamp on a title reign quite like beating up and putting away a top contender, especially one who's known for being tough to finish. Whether Henderson has it in him to do that, and whether he cares enough about public opinion to try for it, we'll have to wait and see.
Raptors4life @luvtheraps
@benfowlkesMMA Of today's fighters, i. whose swag is most reminiscent of "Classic Era" circa ~'93; ii. who'd fare best vs them legends? #TMB
I guess it depends what you mean by "swag," but based on what I think I know about what that word means, I have to go with Lyoto Machida. I mean, look at him. Karate dude who takes himself super seriously at all times? He would have fit right in with the early '90s MMA crowd. He also probably would have murdered every single one of them in the cage, with the possible exception of Mark Coleman. Back when headbutts were still legal, it was hard to mess with "The Hammer."
John Oakes @Johntoakes
@benfowlkesMMA #tmb Fans are sad for Cruz, but is in not best now to upgrade Barao's strap to full champ strappiness?
Let's say the UFC took your advice. Say that, in light of Dominick Cruz's ongoing injury woes, it decided to strip him of the UFC bantamweight title while making Renan Barao's interim belt the new real belt. What then? Would we all be forced to start referring to Barao as the undisputed UFC bantamweight champ, in much the same we were gradually forced to call Jose Aldo "Joe-say" Aldo? Probably. But would we start thinking of him as the one and only champ, just because the UFC says he is? I doubt it.
That's because championship titles are ideas more than they are things. They are not rental cars to be "upgraded" with the push of a button. Even if you have the physical belt around your waist, and even it says all the magic words on it, it doesn't mean anything unless the public agrees that it does. In this case, I can't see MMA fans just forgetting about Cruz for the sake of convenience. He's the champ until somebody beats him. In the meantime (you might even say, in the interim) the fighters who pass the replacement belt around are just keeping busy until the real champ can come back.
Max de Vries @MaxWdeVries
@benfowlkesMMA TMB: Will a win for Nate on Strdy boost Nick's chance of fighting GSP? Brothers as champs could be a 'thing' for UFC mrktng.
Brothers as champs could indeed be a "thing," but I think Nick Diaz is still going to have to make his own luck with the UFC. He's got a lot going for him. He's a great fighter with an exciting style, the champ seriously hates him and would like to beat him up, plus his fan base is passionate to the point of being rabid. All of that should equal title shot, but he'll probably have to wait his turn. While Diaz has been sitting out with a suspension, Johny Hendricks has been making his case as No. 1 contender. Let Diaz prove he can beat a top welterweight and do it without torching his own career in any of a dozen ways, then he'll likely get a shot at the welterweight title. If he happens to win it, and if his brother happens to be the UFC lightweight champ at the same time, that's just a bonus. Or a nightmare for the UFC staff. Depends on your perspective.
Robert Schlicker @RSchlicker
@benfowlkesMMA If Nick Newell wins on Friday, how much longer until he starts getting some offers from the big leagues (UFC, Bellator)? #tmb
When I asked UFC President Dana White whether he'd consider signing Nick Newell if he kept winning fights, he at first replied, "That's a tough one." You could almost hear him doing the math in his head, as if trying to figure out whether it was even possible for a fighter with only one hand to compete at the UFC level, and, if so, whether the UFC would then be looked upon as a sideshow or an equal opportunity employer as a result. Ultimately, White concluded, "The UFC's tough enough with two hands." It's difficult to argue with that.
If Newell beats Eric Reynolds on Friday night, that's when I suspect the larger organizations will have to start paying attention to him. Reynolds is a fighter who seems almost at the Bellator level, though not quite, and if Newell wins that puts him in pretty decent company. I doubt it will lead to an immediate contract offer, but it will put him on the map for something other than his physical differences. As Newell put it when I spoke to him, it's easy for him to get attention but hard to get respect. This is the fight that could change that.
Rumpo @xx_Rumpo_xx
@benfowlkesMMA Why do folks say Sonnen doesn't deserve shot? He earned it by saying yes to short notice fight and being marketable. #TMB
I don't know. Maybe some silly purists are still of the opinion that you should earn a title shot by fighting for it. But hey, anybody can do that, right? It takes a special kind of person to talk into a camera or say yes to an opportunity they have in no way earned. I guess it all depends what you think the word "deserve" means, Rumpo.
Daoud Shuja @Daoud_S
@benfowlkesMMA If BJ Penn loses, does he fight again?
Trying to predict whether a fighter will retire and stay retired is like trying to predict whether two people who are bad for each other will break up and stay broken up. You want to say yes, because that would probably be better for everybody, but experience tells you that just because something's a good idea doesn't mean people will do it.
For Penn, I think a lot depends on how this fight goes. If he gets blown away and beaten down by Rory MacDonald, it's more likely that he'll decide there's no point in continuing to take this kind of punishment. But if he loses by decision after giving as good as he gets, who knows? He might figure that there's some life in those bones yet, especially if the decision is at all close enough to fire up the old B.J. Penn sense of indignant outrage. It'd be hard to talk him into staying home on the island if he thinks he got screwed by the judges in his last professional fight.
Josh Kuipers @kuipjak
@benfowlkesMMA Can the UFC risk letting Nick Diaz into the ring and on network TV if Nate wins? Remember what happened on CBS? #tmb
No, I don't remember what happened. Scott Coker and I stepped out to get a soda from the vending machine in the hallway right after the main event. What'd we miss?
OK, I'm lying. I saw what happened, and I shall never forget it. It was just so, well, something. And, in light of that, I see the point you're trying to make here, but have you forgotten that this is not Nate Diaz's first time on FOX? He beat Jim Miller in the main event of a FOX show back in May, and the Diaz camp managed to get in and out of there without incident. As long as nobody tries any funny stuff – and, in the UFC, access to the cage is controlled much better than it was in Strikeforce – I think we'll be just fine.
Bryan Girard @Bryan_Girard
@benfowlkesMMA #tmb Diaz, Shogun, and Swick are making their 2nd straight appearances on FOX. Is UFC trying to build seperate FOX/PPV stars?
I don't think it's so much separate stars as it is an attempt to build some type of recognition among the network TV audience, which seems smart. It's kind of like what the UFC first started doing with the Spike TV "Fight Night" events, only on a much larger scale. Fans get acquainted with certain fighters on free TV, and then when they move over to pay-per-view there's more motivation to pony up the 60 bucks because, hey, you know this guy. Whether you like him or not is another question.
Lee Futcher @Futch6
@benfowlkesMMA #Mailbag What do u think Is the most interesting/controversial topic in MMA today?
I'll tell you what I think are the two most troubling topics in MMA, for very different reasons: 1) performance-enhancing drug use, as well as the sport's drug policy in general, and 2) injuries.
I know I've already gone on at length in this space about PED use (and about the nonsensical practice of testing for marijuana metabolites and then forcing the users into a ceremonial rehab), so I'll spare you the usual diatribe. Instead I'll just ask, what could be more damaging to the sport's image, perched as it is just outside the mainstream of American consciousness, than to have a legal (or illegal) testosterone/steroid user seriously injure or kill someone on live television? Just think about the consequences of that for a second. While I agree that MMA is generally safer than boxing and football, it's still cage fighting. It's still people punching, kicking, elbowing and kneeing each other in the head with the intent to do bodily harm. People get hurt that way, and occasionally even killed. All it would take is for that to happen at the hands of one of MMA's "therapeutic" testosterone users, and we'd have a problem on our hands.
The good news there is, the UFC and the state athletic commissions have the power to do something on that front. They just haven't done it yet. The issue of injuries is a little tougher to deal with.
Some of it is the nature of the sport. Some of it is the culture of MMA gyms, where the "iron sharpens iron" mentality leads to some brutally competitive sparring sessions, which in turn leads to cut faces, broken hands and shredded ligaments. To some extent, you're always going to have the threat of the injury withdrawal in any fight sport. But when it happens so often it can't help but dampen fan enthusiasm and make the sport harder to follow. The UFC can ask fighters to tone it down in the gym, but it can't make them. It can't do anything except hope that fighters and trainers figure out how to get ready without getting injured, and the sooner they figure it out the better.
Dennis Sangler @dennissangler
@benfowlkesMMA #tmb would the ufc consider a stadium show in Sweden if Gustafsson get's a titleshot? or is the timedifference a dealbreaker
After the UFC's event in Stockholm last spring, Dana White was peppered with questions about the possibility of a Gustafsson title shot on Swedish soil. All the UFC president would say at the time was, such a fight "would not suck." Gustafsson helped the UFC pack the Ericsson Globe Arena in Stockholm as the main event of a sold-out event, so he and Jon Jones (assuming the champ gets by yet another middleweight challenger in 2013) would probably do huge live gate numbers anywhere in Sweden. But then, as you mentioned, there's a six-hour time difference between Stockholm and New York. The UFC is usually reluctant to put a title up for grabs on anything but pay-per-view, which would mean either asking people to pay to watch live in the middle of the afternoon, or asking them to pay to watch on a delay on Saturday night, which is even worse.
Also – and I'm not trying to be a jerk here – why should Gustafsson get to fight for a title on his home soil? I get that it would be a bigger fight in Sweden than it would be in the U.S., but shouldn't that type of hometown advantage be reserved for an existing champion? Shouldn't that be something a fighter has to earn, like when Georges St-Pierre defends his belt in Canada or Anderson Silva does it in Brazil? Maybe if Gustafsson becomes the champ, he'll get his stadium show. But as long as he's still trying to prove himself, it seems slightly unfair to make the defending champ fly all the way over there for the sake of his challenger's local popularity. Although, I guess you could do worse than having to travel to Sweden for work. At least Gustafsson's not from Detroit.
Jason Rule @JasonRule
@benfowlkesMMA Regarding criminal records. Where should the commissions draw the line on giving licenses or promotions giving contracts?
Tough question, and one I thought a lot about as I was working on the story about Dan McGuane. On one hand, if you commit a crime and then serve your sentence, you should be allowed to move on with your life. That's how it's supposed to work. On the other, who says you get to move on as a professional fighter, especially if your crime involved using your fighting skills to take another person's life, whether intentionally or not?
But then, look at Jeremy Stephens. Say he eventually gets convicted of the felony assault he was arrested for in Minneapolis (but which he insists he is totally innocent of). Say he even does prison time for a beating where, according to reports, the victim briefly stopped breathing. Should he then get banned as well? It's a similar situation, just with a slightly different outcome. Is it fine for a pro fighter who merely beat someone up very badly to continue to make a living with his fists, as long as the victim didn't die? What about Brett Rogers, who pled guilty to assaulting his wife? The actual physical damage might not have been as severe, but don't we, as a society, recognize that there's something much more heinous about assaulting a partner, especially if you're a heavyweight pro fighter and that partner is the mother of your children?
I'm not sure where we should draw the line on these issues. I believe in giving people second chances, but I also believe that getting to fight for a living is more a privilege than a right. In the case of McGuane – and, depending on how things shape up, maybe also Stephens – I think it's fitting for the public to decide when a fighter has forfeited his fighting privileges. McGuane was able to get a license, but if fans don't want to see him fight because of his criminal history then promoters probably aren't going to hire him. Maybe that's the way it should be.