Trading Shots: Was Dustin Poirier right to turn down a late replacement?

Dustin Poirier

In this week’s Trading Shots, retired WEC and UFC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss late-notice fights and last-minute changes at UFC Fight Night 76.

Downes: Ben, the UFC’s return to Ireland was fraught with problems. First the card lost its heavyweight fight between Ben Rothwell and Stipe Miocic. Then Joseph Duffy had to pull out of his main event fight with Dustin Poirier due to a concussion suffered in training.

Poirier was offered Norman Parke as a last-minute replacement opponent in an interesting turn of events, but he turned it down. What do you think of his decision? Don’t “real” fighters fight anyone, anywhere at any time? If Jon Jones and Greg Jackson are sport-killers, can we put “Diamond” Dustin in their squad, too?

Fowlkes: I can think of a lot of good reasons for Poirier not to accept that extremely late change of opponent, and only one good reason for him to say yes and take his chances.

The best reason to do it is to stay on the good side of the UFC brass (and, to a lesser extent, the fans). As we know, they like fighters who are down for whatever, and who don’t think too much about risk-versus-reward. When you’re the promoter and it’s your job to make sure the show goes on no matter what, it makes sense that you’d value that “yes, and…” mentality above all else. The question is, how much do you value it, and how are you willing to show your appreciation?

The problem of getting fighters to accept short-notice bouts or last-minute changes of opponent seems like a question of incentive. You’re asking a fighter to do something he doesn’t have to do, and something that may not be in his best interest. So how do you make that seem like a good idea?

Money seems like one good way. Security is another. Just asking him to go ahead and do you a solid, which, history tells us, may or may not be reciprocated later on down the line, that seems like a tough sell.

How about you, Danny? Did you ever take a short-notice fight or accept a late replacement? Would you make the same decision, knowing what you know now about how it all turned out?

Downes: My first WEC fight against Chris Horodecki was a short-notice fight. I was in Brewski’s Bar and Grill when I got a call on Tuesday for the fight on Saturday. It was a shame, because I missed out on 25-cent chicken wing night.

When I got the phone call, a couple things ran through my head: 1) Great, finally my big shot! and 2) Dammit, I’m not even close to making weight.

So I talked to my jiu-jitsu coach Eric Schafer and asked if it was possible to cut 25 pounds by Friday. He said, “Yeah, I suppose it’s possible.” That’s all I needed to hear. That lead to a series of events including spending $1,500 just to get licensed by Edmonton, plus the worst weight cutting experience of my life, and Bellator calling my agent as I was sitting in the airport to fly to Canada, claiming I was in breach of a contract.

The point is, it was worth it. I had to balance all the pros and cons and I made my decision. My coaches and I knew I wasn’t in peak condition, but it was a calculated risk. We still thought I had a good chance of winning, but the main idea was that I would definitely get a second fight and I would be ready for that one. But that strategy puts you in a tough position, because you rarely get a third shot. At the same time, you don’t have a lot of leverage when you’re some guy fighting in the regional promotions.

The Poirier case is totally different. He’s an established name with a proven record. A loss against a last-minute replacement, whether it’s Parke or anyone else, has greater ramifications. As long as he’s in the position where he can afford to wait, he should.

Do you think he’ll suffer from this? Jones still gets heat for UFC 151. Is that because we expect more from champions, or because people just want another reason to dislike Jones? Can’t you imagine certain instances when fighting on short notice could be the best thing whether you win or not?

Fowlkes: I think it depends how much you’ve got to lose. For instance, your situation with the Horodecki fight. All you were out was some 25-cent chicken wings and the money for the Canadian licensing (plus, OK, your pain and suffering or whatever). You were in a situation where what you needed more than anything was a shot. You got it, even if it cost you in some other ways, but not taking it probably would have been worse.

But Poirier was basically put into a no-win situation. Here he is, rebuilding himself as a lightweight, and doing a pretty good job of it. This fight with Duffy was a chance to beat a highly touted young fighter, and maybe get one back in his personal battle against the Republic of Ireland.

Once he lost Duffy as an opponent, though, the upside to the fight pretty much disappeared. Parke came into this weekend on a two-fight losing streak. If Poirier beats him, so what?

If he loses, however, which is entirely possible, since he didn’t prepare for this particular fighter at all, it’s a momentum-killer. Remember when Rick Story was supposed to fight Nate Marquardt, who ran into a bit of a licensing problem of his own, on account of his testosterone use? Story accepted Charlie Brenneman as a replacement opponent, and he lost in a major upset. That snapped a six-fight winning streak for Story. He hasn’t had any success even close to that ever since.

I guess what I wonder is, where do we draw the line? The show must go on, and fight cards can’t keep falling apart every time someone gets hurt. It’d be bad for the sport, not to mention the livelihoods of the fighters. But how do we know the difference between stepping up and doing something stupid?

Downes: We don’t know the difference. We usually just use hindsight to determine it. If you win, it was smart. If you lose, it was a stupid choice. I think fighters have to be honest with themselves. You have to concede that there is a possibility that you could lose. I did the same thing when I fought Jeremy Stephens on short notice. I still thought I could win, but I also considered the repercussions if I lost.

You clearly seem to think that Poirier made the right decision. Does that change your opinion of Donald Cerrone? If Poirier is smart, does that make Cerrone reckless? Can you laud both courses of action?

Fowlkes: I don’t think there’s any question that “Cowboy” Cerrone is reckless. That’s kind of his thing. It’s a big part of what people love about him, but also an impulse he’s had to restrain in order to finally get a UFC title shot, which has required some patience on his part. And you’re right, this is another situation where winning solves everything. I just wonder if fans don’t see guys like Cerrone and assume that, if he’s willing to do it, so should everyone else.

And frankly, that’s unfair to guys like Poirier. He weighed the pros and cons and made what he thought was the best decision for his future. I can’t blame him for that, even if it was a bummer for the card as a whole. Still, this is a selfish business. If he doesn’t look out for his interests, who will?

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.