Each week, ESPN.com writer Brett Okamoto provides his take on the hottest topics in the world of mixed martial arts.

This week, Okamoto speaks with current UFC lightweight champion Eddie Alvarez. A former Bellator MMA champion, Alvarez (28-4), 31, defeated Rafael dos Anjos by first-round TKO in July to capture his first UFC title.

1. With UFC 202 fast approaching on Aug. 20, who are you currently leaning toward winning Nate Diaz-Conor McGregor II?

Nate Diaz will look to defeat Conor McGregor for the second time this year. John Locher/AP Photo

Eddie Alvarez: I think Conor gets deflated again. He's going to trip over his own shoelaces like he did the last fight. I feel like Nate does the same thing to him, puts him away the same kind of way. The reason I think so is I don't think Conor has made enough changes. I watched some of the stuff he has put online, some short videos, and that was all I needed to see. It looks like he's fighting the exact same. He didn't innovate. He feels he has the right style and all he needs is better conditioning ... I beg to differ. So I think he loses again.

Brett Okamoto: I'll have a prediction ready for next week's UFC 202 Picks section. In the meantime, I'll admit I don't completely co-sign Alvarez's opinion of McGregor. I think there's strong evidence he has made adjustments. He has tailored a camp specific to Diaz (something he hasn't done in the past). He has abandoned some of the (probably unnecessary) cardio methods he has used in the past for a more scientific approach. He's working very closely with nutritionist George Lockhart and will do so all the way up to the fight, which he didn't do in March. He has always believed he's better than Diaz, so he was never trying to reinvent anything -- just fine-tune. Whether he has done enough of that (and whether he can prevent old habits once the fight starts), we'll see.

2. UFC middleweight champion Michael Bisping says his first title defense will come against Dan Henderson at UFC 204 on Oct. 8. Love it or hate it?

Alvarez: I like that fight. I think Dan has more than earned his keep in this sport. Any good that happens to Dan Henderson is deserved, because this guy has put his time in. The thing is, when we're looking at rankings, it's tough to say they're really subjective. No. 1 doesn't always deserve to be there. So it's hard to say one guy deserves a shot over another based on these subjective rankings. I just feel like you make the biggest fights possible and at this point, that's the biggest fight possible. To say that Dan Henderson doesn't deserve something, no matter what it is, seems crazy to me. I give him a huge chance against Bisping. And Bisping doesn't like me. He has got something against me, so I actually hope Dan knocks him out.

Okamoto: I definitely don't love it. I really don't hate it either, but if I have to pick a side, I guess I'm more "hate" than "love" on this one. Call me old-fashioned -- title shots should be based on merit, not storylines. Don't get me wrong, this is a great storyline. Not only do you have Henderson, at 45, getting one final crack at the belt he has never won. You get their UFC 100 history added to it. Plus, the fact it's Bisping in Manchester? Plus, Hendo saying he'll retire, win or lose? It doesn't get better than that. But I can't get past the other contenders of this division who are so clearly more deserving of a shot than Henderson. I really don't agree with the message this sends to somebody like Ronaldo "Jacare" Souza. Apologies for being a buzzkill on this one, but I'm against it.

3. As a brand-new welterweight champion, does Tyron Woodley deserve to pick his first title defense?

Tyron Woodley defeated Robbie Lawler for the welterweight title at UFC 201. Daniel Shirey/Zuffa LLC/Getty Images

Alvarez: I think it's really up to the promotion to make the fight. At the end of the day, the UFC is the one who makes the decision. He can have a preference. I have a preference. Every champion has a preference, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if the promotion is leaning toward a certain guy, you go with that guy. It's not really up to us. It would be cool to see Georges St-Pierre come out of retirement to fight Woodley, to see how he's able to fare in the new world. He has been out of the sport for a while. I've always been a fan of GSP so seeing him come back and take that fight would be cool, for sure.

Okamoto: Woodley deserves to have an opinion on who he fights next. Every fighter deserves that. Every fighter should have that. Say who you want to fight. Good things happen when you do. Does he deserve to handpick who he fights next? I would say no. As the champion, especially a new champion, you have to fight the No. 1 contender. Right now, the No. 1 contender is Stephen Thompson. I spoke to Thompson last week and he said something I agreed with and I'll repeat it here: If Woodley had already defended the title three or four times, then he'd have my support in calling his next opponent. At that point, he has earned the right to say, "I've clearly established I'm No. 1, I've separated myself from the pack -- now, I want a money fight against a big name who maybe isn't ranked No. 2." But as a brand-new champion with zero title defenses? I think he needs to fight the No. 1 contender.

4. If WSOF bantamweight champion Marlon Moraes signs with the UFC, how would he do and who should he fight first?

Alvarez: [Note: Alvarez and Moraes train together under striking coach Mark Henry.] He will kill everybody who stands in his way. He should fight [UFC champion] Dominick Cruz right away. Marlon doesn't need to prove himself. Marlon is proven. If fans don't believe he's at the top because of who he has fought, surely they should base it on who he trains with daily. From what I've seen him do in the gym, even against myself, Marlon has the ability to destroy any 135-pounder. He could move up in weight, he's that talented. If he didn't get a title shot, I think T.J. Dillashaw would be an amazing matchup. I would love to see that. I just don't see anyone in that division matching Marlon's power. And usually when guys have power, they lack technique. Marlon has both.

Okamoto: Alvarez described it -- what makes Moraes fun is the power. He's a hard hitter with some of the nastiest kicks in the division, regardless of promotion. The talent level he has fought against in WSOF hasn't been awful, but it's simply nowhere near the level he'd face in the UFC. That's just reality. I really enjoy watching Moraes fight. Do I think he'd be a champ in the UFC? That's a pretty stacked division at the moment. The addition of former flyweights John Lineker and John Dodson, the return from injury of Raphael Assuncao, the emergence of Cody Garbrandt, Aljamain Sterling and Bryan Caraway -- 135 pounds is deep. If Moraes signs with UFC, I think he'd prove to be a top-10 bantamweight, and I'd pair him with Dodson in his debut.

5. The Association of Boxing Commissions has approved a new scoring criteria. Changes include a finer definition of 10-8 rounds and added emphasis on "aggression" as a secondary scoring tool, not primary. Will these changes lead to better scoring?

Alvarez: I wasn't aware that happened. The thing that could work better, I feel, is rewarding the guy who's trying to push the fight and finish the fight -- be a little more violent. That should be scored on heavily. If they're saying score that less, I don't like that. When I fought back in Japan years ago, that was a big factor. A big percentage of who won the fight was which guy was willing to push forward and look for a finish. If that's not pushed, you're not leaning toward action. You're not making rules in favor of what fans want. Fans tune in to see two guys be violent and go after each other. What you're doing with that new rule is making a fighter actually be a little more hesitant and calculated and that could be bad for the entertainment aspect.

Okamoto: I think it makes scoring less vague, which is a plus. For years, takedowns were overvalued. Fighter A would land far more significant offense, but Fighter B would score a takedown, hold top position for one minute of a five-minute round and win the round. That's not how it's supposed to work. The new criteria asks judges, very definitively, to score "impact," which is a nice way of saying "damage." The change concerning 10-8 rounds is positive as well, in that it essentially encourages judges to use 10-8s. For a long time, 10-8 rounds were something judges avoided. A fighter had to come within a breath of ending the fight to earn a 10-8. More liberal use of that score is a very good thing, in my opinion. I don't think fans will necessarily notice real obvious shifts in how fights are scored, but long-term, I do think this is an improvement.