UFC Fight Night: Dustin Poirier vs. Michael Johnson Toe to Toe Preview – A Complete Breakdown

Phil and David break down everything you need to know about Poirier vs. Johnson for UFN 94 in TX and everything you don’t about bad boxing analogies.

Dustin and Michael do the usual ‘who can sniff title contention’ shuffle this September 17, 2016 at the State Farm Arena in Hidalgo, Texas.

One sentence summary:

Phil: Swiss army knife takes on rapier

David: It’s boxer versus puncher to find out whose ‘Grito’ will be heard in Hidalgo.

Stats?

Record: Poirier 20-4 Johnson 16-10

Odds: Poirier -165 Johnson +145

History / Introduction to the fighters

David: Dustin’s progress has been a modest revelation. At featherweight he was a Cub Swanson type fighter: someone with a sense of action, but not ambition. Since his loss to Conor McGregor, he’s acknowledged his own failings. While his list of wins isn’t the most impressive, it’s the ‘how’ that’s catching everyone’s attention.

Phil: He also lost to Swanson, of course, and I think of that loss as laying some of the groundwork for what we’d see in the future. BE’s Zane Simon was the first person that I can think of that really started banging the drum for how much power Poirier was packing after that fight; he pointed out that the fight hadn’t been the match of a well-rounded young gun against a powerful striker that everyone read it as; instead that Poirier had actually scared Swanson off exchanging. It was still unrefined, but the guy who would be smashing people into meat paste in a few years was beginning to take shape.

David: It’s fitting that Derek Brunson is on the same card since Johnson is the spiritual predecessor. He’s been an underrated all violence fighter just on the strength of his boxing mechanics: few fighters display his level of acumen inside the cage. He’s truly risen above the residue of specialist virtue despite not being a highlight in the hierarchy of lightweight.

Phil: If Poirier has represented the steady coalescing of a style, Michael Johnson is the very rare example of a fighter who’s developed into someone who looks almost nothing like he did when he started out. He was the best athlete on the Kos-GSP season of TUF, but was a fairly standard aggressive clinch wrestleboxer. As one of the first Blackzilians fighters, he became a prototypical “break’em’down and rebuild” Hooft product, remade in the style of a pure kickboxer. His grappling suffered, very badly at times, but it left him as one of the cleaner and more underrated technicians in the division, and possibly in the UFC as a whole.

What’s at stake?

David: There are stakes both physical and spiritual for both. Unlike the co main event between fighters battling to see which Panther rules the plateau, Dustin and Johnson have grown enough as fighters to display something more than just growth in the division but growth within. Poirier more than Johnson obviously, given their recent displays. Despite a potential three losses for Johnson, he’d be as sexy a free agent as there is outside the UFC so I doubt he’ll do much complaining the grand scheme of things.

Phil: Both of these guys have had their ups and downs, so there’s a risk of the loser being tarred as a bust or chronically inconsistent. I don’t believe in that read: they’re both really good, and it’s a really good division, and when lots of good fighters get together, then some of them will rack up losses. It is what it is.

Where do they want it?

David: Dustin has always been that action fighter capable of more than just highlight reels. But he never quite put it together. The Jung fight was a great example of his mercurial limitations. In the past he was kind of a headhunter but now his rhythm has the scent of the Vasudeva. He’s excellent at range, chambering a high impact straight left that networks around clinch brutality and an aggressive philosophy. He’s experiencing something similar to Donald Cerrone: their subtle improvements (Cerrone’s boxing activity versus Dustin’s defense) are accentuated at their respective move up in weight thanks to a speed advantage, which has begat better striking accuracy. In turn, Dustin looks more comfortable handling the pressure of his opponents. It’s no wonder that he’s improved defensively at lightweight. His ground game is solid, and as opportunistic as they come. He’d be wise to take advantage of it against Johnson.

Phil: That touch more accuracy, relative speed, and willingness to line up the shot has been transformative. Instead of a grab-bag of decent offensive tricks, Poirier can now arrange said tricks up around the big cannon of his left hand. This provides the entry point for the nasty clinch game, where he mixes up between the double collar and the single collar and just bombs in knees and uppercuts. He’s a strong wrestler, but his real bread and butter in the grappling is how dangerous he is from the top: ground and pound, choke subs.

Poirier is still not a defensive marvel. His tendency to shell up is still present, but it’s a bit more about parries and catch-and-pitch: he’s no longer 100% offense / 100% defense. Still, he does have some worrisome tendencies to get so hungry to get rolling that he’ll literally walk himself into punching range while extending a stiff-arm or a lazy jab. His offense is so spectacular that he can overcome those flaws against all but the most iron-willed counterpuncher, though.

David: Johnson is at home running the kind of game Burgess Meredith endorsed (wait…was Balbao his only stallion because that doesn’t reflect on his defensive skills as a coach). I’ve used this boxing comparison before and I’m using it again for god knows what reason but Johnson reminds me of Terry Norris – focusing so hard on technique that the tunnel vision is both a blessing and a curse. Like Norris, Johnson boxes like he’s always got something to hide. Johnson doesn’t have a questionable chin like Norris (an overblown criticism) but he’s still skittish when faced against pressure. All of this MMA talk in the context of Norris is disrespectful because the guy was legit, whereas Johnson may not even have a UFC license this weekend, but I mention him to stress Johnson’s distinct understanding of punching science. It’s automatic for him to shift strike to strike, each one appropriate for the punch’s corresponding distance. The fact that he can keep it vertical as long as he wants allows him to play the necessary fight jazz.

Phil: Johnson has in some ways been perpetually underrated, because he’s always been forcing slight tweaks on his essentially narrow skillset in order to fight a diverse array of opponents. That he can actually do this with a solid measure of success is a mark of how technically gifted he is. He is the rare example of the All-Terrain Fighter- he can circle and counterpunch, as against Tibau and Lauzon, or he can pressure and push back as against Dariush and Barboza. He can fight against southpaw or orthodox

His specialization also contains him, though. He can’t get too close or overcommit, or risk getting taken down. His TDD has held up for three years now, but that’s a trade-off as much as it is a mark of his defensive improvements. His bottom game has been hidden from view for a while now, but there’s no reason to assume that it’s not still a sizable liability.

So essentially we have a fight which is quite similar to the co-main in the broad strokes of movement and where the combatants want to be: there’s a diverse, hyper-aggressive fighter on one side who can be rather hittable on the step-in, and a more classical stand-up technician on the other side, who must attack that step-in as efficiently as possible. Even moreso than the co-main, I think this one will be decided by where the fighters can position themselves: Poirier must force Johnson to the cage, and Johnson must stay off it at all costs.

Insight from Past Fights?

David: It’s not hard to articulate Johnson’s issues amidst his strengths. He’s the kind of fighter who does everything with a regal acumen but has the demeanor of the proletariat: his pugilism doesn’t have the necessary swagger. Not that I think Johnson was secretly the superior fighter to Dariush and Nate Diaz, but at minimum, he could have benefited from better decision making. He’s owned the mastery of certain techniques, but not the mentality.

Phil: Joe Duffy stung Poirier on a few occasions. The interesting thing here isn’t just the reductive fact that a good boxer could land on Dustin, but that Poirier was able to wade in on him and take him down regardless. That’s largely because Duffy is not particularly quick on his feet. As with Bobby Green, Duffy is something of a fencer, standing and using his reach. Johnson is much faster, and if he can land; and move; and land; and move, Poirier’s tendency to get over-eager for offense can be used against him.

X-Factors

David: Johnson’s been off for awhile. And yea, I hate these lazy narratives too. As if he hasn’t just recovered from that injury with grueling training camps for the last several months but still.

Phil: He also still seems very cross with himself for the Diaz fight. So I guess I’m doubling down on the “lazy narratives” here… but he was really mad at the weigh ins!!1

Prognostication

David: Poirier will truly benefit from this being a five round fight. I don’t believe Johnson is the right kind of aggressive against opponents with dynamic ways of ending a bout. His strengths are attritional in nature. Would I be shocked if Johnson won? Not at all. He’s more technical on the feet, which is where this fight will be won. But MMA tends to be unforgiving to the technicians. Dustin Poirier by Decision.

Phil: I’m very torn on this one. I really do think Johnson can win. Not only win, but due to Poirier’s all-in style, I think MJ can not only win but actually dominate. However, Poirier has so many different tools to cycle through, most particularly the clinch and the ground game. If he can hit a single effective takedown over 25 minutes, I just don’t trust Johnson’s ground game. Dustin Poirier by submission, round 3

Phil and David break down everything you need to know about Poirier vs. Johnson for UFN 94 in TX and everything you don’t about bad boxing analogies.

Dustin and Michael do the usual ‘who can sniff title contention’ shuffle this September 17, 2016 at the State Farm Arena in Hidalgo, Texas.

One sentence summary:

Phil: Swiss army knife takes on rapier

David: It’s boxer versus puncher to find out whose ‘Grito’ will be heard in Hidalgo.

Stats?

Record: Poirier 20-4 Johnson 16-10

Odds: Poirier -165 Johnson +145

History / Introduction to the fighters

David: Dustin’s progress has been a modest revelation. At featherweight he was a Cub Swanson type fighter: someone with a sense of action, but not ambition. Since his loss to Conor McGregor, he’s acknowledged his own failings. While his list of wins isn’t the most impressive, it’s the ‘how’ that’s catching everyone’s attention.

Phil: He also lost to Swanson, of course, and I think of that loss as laying some of the groundwork for what we’d see in the future. BE’s Zane Simon was the first person that I can think of that really started banging the drum for how much power Poirier was packing after that fight; he pointed out that the fight hadn’t been the match of a well-rounded young gun against a powerful striker that everyone read it as; instead that Poirier had actually scared Swanson off exchanging. It was still unrefined, but the guy who would be smashing people into meat paste in a few years was beginning to take shape.

David: It’s fitting that Derek Brunson is on the same card since Johnson is the spiritual predecessor. He’s been an underrated all violence fighter just on the strength of his boxing mechanics: few fighters display his level of acumen inside the cage. He’s truly risen above the residue of specialist virtue despite not being a highlight in the hierarchy of lightweight.

Phil: If Poirier has represented the steady coalescing of a style, Michael Johnson is the very rare example of a fighter who’s developed into someone who looks almost nothing like he did when he started out. He was the best athlete on the Kos-GSP season of TUF, but was a fairly standard aggressive clinch wrestleboxer. As one of the first Blackzilians fighters, he became a prototypical “break’em’down and rebuild” Hooft product, remade in the style of a pure kickboxer. His grappling suffered, very badly at times, but it left him as one of the cleaner and more underrated technicians in the division, and possibly in the UFC as a whole.

What’s at stake?

David: There are stakes both physical and spiritual for both. Unlike the co main event between fighters battling to see which Panther rules the plateau, Dustin and Johnson have grown enough as fighters to display something more than just growth in the division but growth within. Poirier more than Johnson obviously, given their recent displays. Despite a potential three losses for Johnson, he’d be as sexy a free agent as there is outside the UFC so I doubt he’ll do much complaining the grand scheme of things.

Phil: Both of these guys have had their ups and downs, so there’s a risk of the loser being tarred as a bust or chronically inconsistent. I don’t believe in that read: they’re both really good, and it’s a really good division, and when lots of good fighters get together, then some of them will rack up losses. It is what it is.

Where do they want it?

David: Dustin has always been that action fighter capable of more than just highlight reels. But he never quite put it together. The Jung fight was a great example of his mercurial limitations. In the past he was kind of a headhunter but now his rhythm has the scent of the Vasudeva. He’s excellent at range, chambering a high impact straight left that networks around clinch brutality and an aggressive philosophy. He’s experiencing something similar to Donald Cerrone: their subtle improvements (Cerrone’s boxing activity versus Dustin’s defense) are accentuated at their respective move up in weight thanks to a speed advantage, which has begat better striking accuracy. In turn, Dustin looks more comfortable handling the pressure of his opponents. It’s no wonder that he’s improved defensively at lightweight. His ground game is solid, and as opportunistic as they come. He’d be wise to take advantage of it against Johnson.

Phil: That touch more accuracy, relative speed, and willingness to line up the shot has been transformative. Instead of a grab-bag of decent offensive tricks, Poirier can now arrange said tricks up around the big cannon of his left hand. This provides the entry point for the nasty clinch game, where he mixes up between the double collar and the single collar and just bombs in knees and uppercuts. He’s a strong wrestler, but his real bread and butter in the grappling is how dangerous he is from the top: ground and pound, choke subs.

Poirier is still not a defensive marvel. His tendency to shell up is still present, but it’s a bit more about parries and catch-and-pitch: he’s no longer 100% offense / 100% defense. Still, he does have some worrisome tendencies to get so hungry to get rolling that he’ll literally walk himself into punching range while extending a stiff-arm or a lazy jab. His offense is so spectacular that he can overcome those flaws against all but the most iron-willed counterpuncher, though.

David: Johnson is at home running the kind of game Burgess Meredith endorsed (wait…was Balbao his only stallion because that doesn’t reflect on his defensive skills as a coach). I’ve used this boxing comparison before and I’m using it again for god knows what reason but Johnson reminds me of Terry Norris – focusing so hard on technique that the tunnel vision is both a blessing and a curse. Like Norris, Johnson boxes like he’s always got something to hide. Johnson doesn’t have a questionable chin like Norris (an overblown criticism) but he’s still skittish when faced against pressure. All of this MMA talk in the context of Norris is disrespectful because the guy was legit, whereas Johnson may not even have a UFC license this weekend, but I mention him to stress Johnson’s distinct understanding of punching science. It’s automatic for him to shift strike to strike, each one appropriate for the punch’s corresponding distance. The fact that he can keep it vertical as long as he wants allows him to play the necessary fight jazz.

Phil: Johnson has in some ways been perpetually underrated, because he’s always been forcing slight tweaks on his essentially narrow skillset in order to fight a diverse array of opponents. That he can actually do this with a solid measure of success is a mark of how technically gifted he is. He is the rare example of the All-Terrain Fighter- he can circle and counterpunch, as against Tibau and Lauzon, or he can pressure and push back as against Dariush and Barboza. He can fight against southpaw or orthodox

His specialization also contains him, though. He can’t get too close or overcommit, or risk getting taken down. His TDD has held up for three years now, but that’s a trade-off as much as it is a mark of his defensive improvements. His bottom game has been hidden from view for a while now, but there’s no reason to assume that it’s not still a sizable liability.

So essentially we have a fight which is quite similar to the co-main in the broad strokes of movement and where the combatants want to be: there’s a diverse, hyper-aggressive fighter on one side who can be rather hittable on the step-in, and a more classical stand-up technician on the other side, who must attack that step-in as efficiently as possible. Even moreso than the co-main, I think this one will be decided by where the fighters can position themselves: Poirier must force Johnson to the cage, and Johnson must stay off it at all costs.

Insight from Past Fights?

David: It’s not hard to articulate Johnson’s issues amidst his strengths. He’s the kind of fighter who does everything with a regal acumen but has the demeanor of the proletariat: his pugilism doesn’t have the necessary swagger. Not that I think Johnson was secretly the superior fighter to Dariush and Nate Diaz, but at minimum, he could have benefited from better decision making. He’s owned the mastery of certain techniques, but not the mentality.

Phil: Joe Duffy stung Poirier on a few occasions. The interesting thing here isn’t just the reductive fact that a good boxer could land on Dustin, but that Poirier was able to wade in on him and take him down regardless. That’s largely because Duffy is not particularly quick on his feet. As with Bobby Green, Duffy is something of a fencer, standing and using his reach. Johnson is much faster, and if he can land; and move; and land; and move, Poirier’s tendency to get over-eager for offense can be used against him.

X-Factors

David: Johnson’s been off for awhile. And yea, I hate these lazy narratives too. As if he hasn’t just recovered from that injury with grueling training camps for the last several months but still.

Phil: He also still seems very cross with himself for the Diaz fight. So I guess I’m doubling down on the “lazy narratives” here… but he was really mad at the weigh ins!!1

Prognostication

David: Poirier will truly benefit from this being a five round fight. I don’t believe Johnson is the right kind of aggressive against opponents with dynamic ways of ending a bout. His strengths are attritional in nature. Would I be shocked if Johnson won? Not at all. He’s more technical on the feet, which is where this fight will be won. But MMA tends to be unforgiving to the technicians. Dustin Poirier by Decision.

Phil: I’m very torn on this one. I really do think Johnson can win. Not only win, but due to Poirier’s all-in style, I think MJ can not only win but actually dominate. However, Poirier has so many different tools to cycle through, most particularly the clinch and the ground game. If he can hit a single effective takedown over 25 minutes, I just don’t trust Johnson’s ground game. Dustin Poirier by submission, round 3