I think I'd recommend the opposite. If you have a pension, you can take more risk, since it acts like a bond. If you don't have a large nest egg, you can and should incur more risk early, but taking on more risk late, you risk never retiring. Just my opinions here...
Example: if I stick around for my full 20 years in the military, I start gathering a healthy COLAed pension at age 42. In that regard, once I'm locked into a pension, I plan on adjusting my portfolio back to 90/10 (currently 75/25), in hopes of being able to fully retire (and/or raise my standard of living in retirement) no later than age 50. After retirement, there's a good chance I'll reduce the allocation again, but I don't see ever become heavily bond invested (assuming I have the pension). In theory, either I'll be able to retire earlier, raise my standard of living, or leave the kids I don't have yet a nice starter fund. In theory...
Not everyone has a sweet pension/medical deal like that, but if they do, I think they can tolerate somewhat more risk than someone who's relying solely on investment returns with a smaller nest egg, particularly as retirement approaches. Of course, the right answer is to FIREcalc different scenarios and see which gives the best chance for success.
Just my opinions.
Good luck to us all, indeed.