Get ready for a fight that’s bound to spark heated debates—because when it comes to the upcoming UFC Fight Night 265 main event, opinions are as divided as they get. Ali Abdelaziz isn’t holding back, boldly predicting that Arman Tsarukyan will not just defeat Dan Hooker, but dominate him in a way that leaves no doubt about who the superior fighter is. And this is the part most people miss: Abdelaziz isn’t just talking trash—he’s breaking down what he sees as a glaring mismatch in skill levels. But here’s where it gets controversial: Abdelaziz doesn’t just critique Hooker’s fighting ability; he calls out his character, accusing him of dishonesty in past disputes, particularly involving Islam Makhachev. Let’s dive in.
On November 22 at ABHA Arena in Doha, Qatar, Dan Hooker (24-12 MMA, 14-8 UFC) steps into the octagon against Arman Tsarukyan (22-3 MMA, 9-2 UFC), a top lightweight contender. The stakes are high, but according to Abdelaziz, the outcome is all but certain. In a recent interview with Submission Radio, Abdelaziz didn’t mince words: ‘Arman’s going to beat the sht out of Dan Hooker.’* He argues that there are ‘levels’ to this sport, and Tsarukyan operates on a tier Hooker simply can’t reach. But it’s not just about skill—Abdelaziz takes it a step further, questioning Hooker’s integrity, particularly over past comments involving Islam Makhachev and IV use. ‘I don’t respect Dan Hooker because he lied,’ Abdelaziz stated bluntly. ‘He has nothing to lose, but Arman is just going to torture him.’
Here’s the backstory that adds fuel to the fire: Hooker was swiftly submitted by Abdelaziz-managed fighter Islam Makhachev at UFC 267, a bout that left no room for debate about Makhachev’s dominance. Tsarukyan, meanwhile, has his own history with Makhachev, losing to him in his UFC debut and later withdrawing from a scheduled title rematch at UFC 311 just a day before the fight. These intertwined narratives make this matchup more than just a fight—it’s a clash of reputations, legacies, and, according to Abdelaziz, moral character.
But let’s pause for a moment. Is Abdelaziz’s take fair, or is he letting personal biases cloud his judgment? While he claims to have ‘nothing against’ Hooker, his criticism goes beyond the octagon, raising questions about whether this is a professional assessment or a personal vendetta. And that’s the real controversy here: Can we separate a fighter’s skill from their personal conduct? Or does one inevitably influence how we perceive the other?
As we count down to fight night, one thing is clear: this isn’t just about who wins or loses—it’s about respect, reputation, and the blurred lines between sport and personal integrity. So, here’s the question for you: Does Abdelaziz have a point, or is he crossing the line? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—because this is one debate that’s far from over.
