Jason Silva – USA TODAY Sports
Phil and David breakdown everything you need to know about Valentina Shevchenko vs. Katlyn Choogagian for UFC 247, and everything you don’t about
Valentina Shevchenko vs. Katlyn Chookagian co-headlines UFC 247 this February 8, 2020 at the Toyota Center in Houston, Texas.
One sentence summary
David: Tiny Dancer versus Maybe (the) Answer (but probably not)
Phil: Bullet vs leafblower.
Stats
Record: Valentina Shevchenko 18-3 | Katlyn Chookagian 13-2
Odds: Valentina Shevchenko -1000 | Katlyn Chookagian +650
History / Introduction to the fighters
David: Shevchenko continues to lord over her dominion like some sort of gang boss in an afterschool special. She did what was needed against Liz Carmouche in a forgettable affair, nailed the coffin shut on Eye, and it’s been a consistently dominant, but mostly just consistent journey ever since. There’s not much to add to the Shevchenko story. She’s a ridiculous athlete. She’s well rounded. And her opponent is none of that. She’s like Matthew Connaughey to Chookagian’s Josh Lucas. They look like the same species, but they’re not. Of course, that doesn’t the wildebeest can’t take down the lion. My analogies suck. But you know what I mean…
Phil: Why was the women’s strawweight division made? It’s hard to say why- perhaps due to the UFC needing to fill the gap between 135 and 115, perhaps because they needed more programming space. One potential reason seems to be that the UFC saw the chance for a minor Rousey-esque star. Shevchenko does seem to be that: people seem to enjoy the dancing, and the guns, and the skill. She’s not the most exciting fighter in the world (no matter what my Heavy Hands co-host Connor might say) but there’s some joy to be found in watching a skilled professional ply their craft. Just, you know. Not from me.
David: Chookagian, who thankfully is a better fighter than her nickname would suggest, is your classic case of journeywoman makes good. There’s nothing really special about her game except that she’s technically well-coached, and well…that’s about it? I hate to sell her short, but she’s basically just a quality fighter in a division not deep enough to expose her flaws and therefore put her in a position to fight way out of her league, with a good camp and not much else. This is probably a bloodletting, but that’s why they fight – you just never know. As someone who picked Rampage confidently against Fedor, I’m an expert on these matters.
Phil: “Holly Holm without the size and athleticism, but with a better coach” about covers it. Chookagian is never going to blow anyone out of the water, but she’s also never going to give up, and she’s going to steadily get better, dragging her way steadily towards the asymptote which represents every UFC fighter’s ceiling: they can never quite get there, and the effort taken to get closer to it just keeps increasing.
What’s at stake?
David: The belt. And hopefully a highlight reel to mask an otherwise awful ass card.
Phil: As with most terrible mismatches, a chance to make history.
Where do they want it?
David: Shevchenko is perfectly fine from distance. She’s not uniquely aggressive. But it doesn’t matter. Shevchenko gets by because she’s an excellent craftswoman, but also because a lot of the techniques that get thrown her way by opponents require a collective yawn. It’s embarrassing at times (for the opponent). There’s also a rhythm to her strikes. While she’s not high on volume, she’s a good mixer. That complete scalping of Jessica Eye was entirely due to body-body-head. There’s not much I need to say about this, to be honest. You’re only gonna make Shevchenko look bad if you don’t do anything (like Carmouche). If you do, do the math: she’s one of the world’s elite counterstrikers, would be elite in that category at any weight class, and probably any era. For sloppy, offense-first fighters, Shevchenko, to quote Billy Bob Thornton, is “the worst parts of the Bible.”
Phil: Shevchenko is a genuinely skillful counterstriker, one who is primed to take advantage of a lot of the lazy habits which permeate MMA. In a world of throwaway jabs and barrelling overhands, she has a tight counter hook, from southpaw no less. A good hook was enough to take any number of Brits to decent UFC careers, and shielded Luke Rockhold from many of his striking flaws for long enough for him to take the MW belt. Combine that with excellent distance control, a strong clinch and top game, and a genuinely masterful counter-kicking game (up there with Jorge Masvidal as one of the best at parrying and sweeping kicks out of the way for counters) and you have a remarkable difficult fighter to close down with a typical MMA toolset. Unless Chookagian can pull off something remarkable, the strawweight division just isn’t there yet.
David: Chookagian is the kind of fighter who looks like amateur to the layman. She throws with her arms. She makes a lot of tennis grunts, and comic book panel hissing to make it seem like she’s going at it with everything she’s got. And she does! But…her offense is limited to close-quarter Holly Holmisms, adjustments, and Mark Henry. However, beneath the awkwardness is a genuine fighter who understands the flow of any particular fight. The Carmouche fight is a good example, not to mention, a good example of why five round fights should be mandatory — as her combinations began to get through, she would slowly mix in other strikes, like the head kick that nearly finished an otherwise extremely tough fighter. Variation striking still feels like an unformed art in MMA, so it’s nice to see someone at least try.
Phil: Chookagian is, as mentioned, a perfectly serviceable fighter. She circles to set up the jab, and keeps a steady diet of kicks going. It’s a picture of a Mark Henry coached fighter, and as such some of the problems endemic to, say, Edson Barboza are still present. Primarily, she doesn’t sit down on her punches, and she can be forced into defensive movements where she just bails out and runs away. This is compounded by the way that she’s not much of a puncher (or a kicker) and thus finds herself in the unenviable situation of being in an underdog fight where there’s no real puncher’s chance available.
Insight from past fights
David: There’s not much to assess here. Chookagian won’t just give Shevchenko one punch to counter – she’ll give Shevchenko 3-4 chances to counter within one exchange. Outlook does not look good.
Phil: Eye and Carmouche both split decisioned Chookagian and looked utterly lost against Shevchenko. Jedrzejczyk is far more skilled and fights an approximately similar volume and outside striking game, and also lost handily to Valentina. It looks bleak.
X-Factors
David: Nothing to report here.
Phil: The real thing is: does Chookagian go for broke if she’s losing the fight? I suspect not. This is probably the thing which might make this particular fight watchable.
Prognostication
David: Chookagian is like the hired gunman in Killing Them Softly: good enough to get the job done, but don’t leave them out there against a trained assassin. Valentina Shevchenko by armbar, round 3.
Phil: Shevchenko is an elite fighter, and as of now, Chookagian is just a good one. She has no puncher’s chance, no obvious chance to get a submission, and so needs to win a points decision against a far more skilled counterstriker. Valentina Shevchenko by unanimous decision.