EXCLUSIVE | Dan Hooker On Featherweight Weight Cut: “Not A Concern”

Dan Hooker

Dan Hooker is all systems go ahead of his return to 145 pounds against Arnold Allen on the upcoming UFC London card.

Hooker announced the move back to featherweight after his loss to Islam Makhachev at UFC 267. Before that, he had earned a big win over Nasrat Haqparast at UFC 266 preceded by back-to-back losses to Michael Chandler and Dustin Poirier.

Hooker is looking forward to a new chapter in his career back where it all started. His first run at featherweight featured mixed results before he made a name for himself at lightweight.

During an exclusive interview with LowKickMMA’s James Lynch, Hooker described how he’s handling the move back down to featherweight.

READ MORE:  Brandon Moreno welcomes Kai Asakura’s UFC invasion: 'Positive thing for the division'

“It’s been good and straightforward,” Hooker said. “It hasn’t been very difficult for me. It’s not very hard to do the cut when you’re not in a training camp. The question is how you’re fueling your body in training camp. But yeah, it’s been fine and it’s actually been really well. I’m a month ahead of schedule and it’s not a concern of mine at all just yet.”

Dan Hooker Is Set To Make His Featherweight Return

Hooker will face a tough test in Allen, winner of 10 in a row including most recently over Sodiq Yusuff and Nik Lentz. He has wanted an opportunity like this for a while and could present some challenges to Hooker for his 145-pound return.

READ MORE:  Chuck Liddell Talks Dream Showdown Beating Jon Jones: 'He couldn't take me down'

The other question mark regarding Hooker’s move is what will happen next for his City Kickboxing teammate Alexander Volkanovski. He was non-committal in addressing the rumors that Volkanovski might be contemplating a future move to lightweight.

Hooker is looking to get back in a UFC title picture and is hoping to get off to a good start to his second stint at featherweight in 2022.

How do you think Dan Hooker will perform at featherweight?