Do We Need A Pereira Vs. Ankalaev Trilogy?

Daniel Cormier is rushing to the defense of Magomed Ankalaev after fans were skeptical of the injury claims made after the fighter’s championship loss at UFC 320 against Alex Pereira.

Ankalaev’s reign as the UFC Light Heavyweight Champion ended when Pereira knocked him out in the first round of their rematch. Shortly after the loss, Ankalaev’s manager disclosed that the fighter had been carrying a rib injury. A video clip showed Ankalaev receiving injections in the weeks leading up to the UFC 320 fight. However, some fans have accused Ankalaev and his team of creating a “convenient excuse.” Cormier, though, says the seriousness of the rib issue was such that Ankalaev’s team had actually encouraged him to withdraw from the fight.

Cormier Reacts

“Magomed Ankalaev did have a rib injury, this is not a lie, and this is not an excuse. I know this because prior to the fight, I saw video of him getting injections into his rib to try to help him get to the fight. He was able to hit pads, and do cardio, essentially, for a month and a half before the fight. With that being said, I don’t know if the result changes if he was healthy, because of the way Pereira fought him.

“I know some people who are really close to [Magomed] who told him not to fight, but he wanted to fight. He wanted to beat Pereira again because he understood how important it was for him to have two wins over Alex, and a stronger statement for why he is who he is. He wasn’t 100 percent, but I don’t know if he would’ve been at 120 percent if he’d beaten Pereira that night,” Ankalaev said

The debate over whether a third fight between Alex Pereira and Magomed Ankalaev is warranted is deeply polarizing, largely because both fights were definitive but also surrounded by legitimate injury claims from both sides. With the series tied 1-1 and the circumstances of each victory questioned, the argument for a “true” rubber match is strong, even though the definitive nature of the recent knockout loss typically argues against an immediate trilogy.

The Case For a Trilogy

The most compelling argument for an immediate trilogy rests on the fact that both title fights were, arguably, fought by compromised athletes. Pereira also revealed he fought at an estimated 40% capability due to a prior injury (hinted to be a hand injury) in his five-round decision loss to Ankalaev at UFC 313. This creates a rare situation where both losses in the 1-1 series have an asterisk attached, meaning neither fighter has truly settled the score against a healthy opponent.

The primary and most traditional argument against a trilogy is the conclusive nature of the second fight at UFC 320. Ankalaev, who won the title in his first fight with Pereira but had no successful defenses, does not fit the profile of a dominant champion who is entitled to an immediate rubber match after such a one-sided defeat. The speed and brutality of the knockout suggest a significant difference in power that an injury, even a rib issue, may not completely account for.