The UFC is currently focused on deciding who will challenge Ilia Topuria next, with fighters like Justin Gaethje and Max Holloway often mentioned as contenders. However, Dan Hooker offers a different perspective, suggesting the organization may favor a matchup between Topuria and Paddy Pimblett instead. Hooker argues that while Pimblett may not present the toughest challenge, this fight would generate significant attention and revenue, making it a practical choice for the promotion.
In an interview with Sky Sports, Hooker emphasized the business logic behind this potential pairing. He noted that although Arman Tsarukyan would pose a far more difficult challenge for Topuria, Paddy Pimblett attracts more interest and financial gain. Hooker explained that this approach allows Topuria to maintain his title longer while maximizing his earnings, making it a low-risk, high-reward situation for all parties involved.
Dan Hooker Discusses Why Paddy Pimblett vs. Ilia Topuria Could Be a Strategic UFC Decision
Hooker expressed strong opinions on the possible fight, stating,
“They might actually do Paddy [vs Ilia], which is an absolute piss take. But who cares — at the end of the day, he’s not gonna hold the belt for very long. Logically, Ilia should be fighting Arman, but he won’t, as Arman is a really tough fighter.”
—Dan Hooker, UFC Fighter
Despite acknowledging that Topuria’s logical opponent would be Tsarukyan, Hooker believes the UFC will prioritize entertainment value and business benefits by pairing Topuria with Pimblett. Both fighters stand to gain from such a bout: Topuria retains his belt with less risk, and Pimblett has the chance to increase his visibility on a big stage.
Ilia Topuria himself appears reluctant to face Tsarukyan without the Armenian fighter first proving he deserves the title shot. However, he seems far more open to fighting Pimblett, viewing that matchup as one that offers clearer advantages and likely happens in the near future.
Dan Hooker Notes Reluctance Among Top Lightweights to Face Arman Tsarukyan
Hooker has observed that many leading lightweight contenders try to avoid fighting Arman Tsarukyan, a top-tier Armenian competitor known for his effectiveness and consistent victories. Hooker explained that this avoidance is not due to personal dislike but because Tsarukyan represents a challenging stylistic matchup. According to Hooker, this makes Tsarukyan a risky opponent, prompting several top fighters to seek other options.
UFC President Dana White has previously conveyed that Tsarukyan needs to earn his shot at the championship by securing more wins. This context suggests that a fight between Tsarukyan and Dan Hooker himself could be a suitable next step. Such a bout would allow Tsarukyan to solidify his standing while giving Hooker the tough encounter he desires.
Pimblett, by contrast, is seen as a more marketable opponent who can generate buzz without posing as much competitive threat to Topuria. This balancing act highlights the UFC’s interest in fights that maximize both sporting merit and financial return.
Implications and Future Prospects in the UFC Lightweight Division
The consideration of a Topuria vs. Pimblett matchup reveals the UFC’s ongoing strategy of weighing sporting challenges against promotional appeal. This fight would provide a spectacle likely to attract wide attention and pay-per-view buys, benefiting both fighters and the organization. At the same time, it allows Topuria to defend his title under manageable conditions, possibly extending his reign.
Meanwhile, Tsarukyan remains a significant figure in the division, with many top lightweights hesitant to face him, which could delay his title shot unless he proves his merit further. Dan Hooker’s expressed interest in fighting Tsarukyan also points to potential future high-stakes matchups inside the division.
Fans can anticipate more developments soon as the UFC continues to balance competitive integrity with market demands, shaping the trajectory of several fighters’ careers in the lightweight category.