My theory on Dan Hooker's downfall in MMA

Dan Hooker lost in pretty spectacular fashion against a guy that has never found in the UFC this past weekend and there are now calls for him to either put up or shut up as far as his inclusion in UFC is concerned. PS. I don't know if anyone is actually saying anything like that, but it is my personal opinion.

Hooker has won an MMA fight since August of 2024 and at that time he was on a tear that looked like he would be a top guy in the Lightweight division.

src

He won an underdog performance against Gamrot and at that point he was on a tear of 2 years without a loss. His victories were not usually terribly exciting though as most of them come from decisions unless he is fighting an unknown.

Part of the reason why he is in the limelight though, and I think this is worth talking about, is because he is from New Zealand, and the NZ/AUS market is something that UFC really wants to maintain as they continue to want to dominate combat sports on the other side of the planet. The same is true for Japanese, Chines, and Korean fighters who often get hand-selected opponents they are meant to defeat. Hooker was the NZ version of this (controversial opinion that is exclusively my own) and once he started to get pushed towards real top contenders, he quickly fell from grace.

Two losses in a row to Tsarukyan and Saint-Denis, both of where he was finished by KO or submission, didn't look much like he really belonged in the top ranks of the Lightweight division in UFC and then the next thing happened where I think with or without his permission, he became the fall guy for upcoming talent and in this case it was untested UFC signee, Salahdine Parnasse.

src

it took a mere 2.5 minutes for this to happen and Hooker has almost certainly been relegated to the sidelines where he might headline a Fight Night if it takes place over near Australia and New Zealand, but other than that he will be a long undercard.

This happens to a lot of guys but in the case of Dan Hooker there is a theory that I have about his "turn" and that coincides with getting really shitty tattoos.

src

Hooker went from having virtually no tattoos to being absolutely covered in them. Although I have only 1 tattoo, I looked at his transformation and thought that this was utter shite. In just a few years the guy went from wholesome to streets and when he went all in, boy did he ever.

The tattoo world was in particular making fun of his shin tats and I join them in this.

src

What is that exactly? Medieval armor?

Well apparently these leg tats took 6 days and that was 6 days in a row where he was not going to be practicing training for MMA because you can't do both. It would fuck up the expensive tatt work. Then the rest of his body you would have to presume was the same.

Yes, I realize that when he had his win over Gamrot that he had the upper tatts, but that was the last time he won. After that, his look may have contributed to him getting the bigger fights even though that is a stupid reason to get a fight.

I don't understand why all fighters feel as though they have to be covered in tattoos but I guess that is the time we live in.

I know it is just a coincidence but once Hookers tatts were done, that was exactly the time that he started to slip as far as talent was concerned. He has been convincingly beaten 3 times in a row now and when that happens, you aren't very likely to be anything more than a springboard for Dana White to use to promote up-and-comers.

I think Hooker is done. There is no talk about his getting another shot and the odds are against him that he can make that happen. In his next fight he better do something absolutely spectacular to put the focus back on himself and one of those things is going to be dramatically improving his defense.

Maybe the tattoo armor isn't doing all that he had hoped it would.