UFC on FOX: Dustin Poirier vs. Pablo Garza Head-to-Toe Breakdown

While the whole world will watch the main event of Saturday’s UFC on FOX headliner between heavyweight champ Cain Velasquez and challenger Junior Dos Santos, there’s plenty to be excited about on the less-publicized undercard.

One such matchup will see two featherweights with upward mobility lock horns, as Dustin Poirier will meet Pablo Garza. Here’s a look at how the two stack up.

Striking

While Garza entered the UFC with a perfect jumping knee KO of Fredson Paixao a year ago, striking isn’t really his game. He can hang if need be, but opponent’s aren’t entering the cage thinking about how badly he’ll batter them on the feet. That knee lent credibility to his standup game, but it still needs work.

Poirier, on the other hand, had been lauded for his ability to put together crisp Muay Thai combos and maintain a good pace on his feet. He utterly pounded Josh Grispi, who many thought would be fighting Jose Aldo at the time, and has secured half of his wins by (T)KO to this stage in the game.

Neither man has been knocked out in their career, making that side of the striking game a wash at this point, but you’d have to give it to Poirier based on the offensive advantage.

Grappling

Poirier has proven serviceable in his career when it comes to grappling, however there’s little doubt that Garza has the advantage here. He’s finished seven of his 11 wins by submission, and only used the same submission twice along the way.

That’s a remarkable accomplishment, especially when you factor in that a flying triangle and a tap to strikes is on that list, probably the two most opposite ends of the submission spectrum you could find in MMA.

Garza takes grappling by a wide margin.

Stamina

When you’re looking at guys who are coming in at 145 lbs, it’s safe to say that gassing isn’t going to be an issue. Perhaps the biggest benefit that the smaller weight classes have is that they’re so exciting, and much of that excitement comes from the ability of the athletes to go all night and seemingly never tire.

It’s hard to give an edge to one man over the other in this case, as the difference is minuscule if it exists at all. We’ll call this a wash.

Intangibles

Intangibles to be considered in a fight like this would have to be quality of opposition faced, as well as motivation going in. Both are young guys trying to work their way up the ladder in the UFC, and they’re fairly evenly matched, so there isn’t much outside of the physical traits and technical skills that one can break down.

In terms of quality of prior opponents, Poirier would have to get the nod. He’s had more fights on the big shows (this is his fifth fight for Zuffa as compared to Garza’s fourth), and has been in there with Danny Castillo and Josh Grispi, who are both well-respected competitors.

Garza has fought tough guys as well, most notably Yves Jabouin, but he’s less experienced on the big stage and has lost to middling guys like Tiequan Zhang and Michael Johnson (unofficially, on The Ultimate Fighter).

While both are likely equally motivated for the fight in front of them, Poirier probably believes he’s closer to a title shot than Garza does. He dethroned Grispi from contendership, and convincingly beat Jason Young over the summer.

A win Saturday will be his fourth straight, and in a shallow division that may be enough to get him into the mix. For that reason, he may dig a little deeper or fight a little harder if it’s close or the going gets tough.

The Verdict

Based on what one sees here, Poirier is likely to emerge victorious. Should he keep it on the feet, the potential is there for him to make it a long night on Pablo Garza. Then again, that’s what people said about Garza’s fight with Yves Jabouin and he ended that with a Submission of the Year candidate in front of 55,000 people.

It’s tough to say with any certainty who comes out on top when two men who are so closely matched and yet so differently skilled enter the cage. Still, take Dustin Poirier if you’re basing it off of this breakdown, as there’s too much evidence not to.