UFC Predictor

Both fighters operate in similar style territory — Sean O'Malley as a striker and Aiemann Zahabi as a striker. The model sees Sean O'Malley coming out ahead when stylistic tendencies clash, primarily through the decision path. With output rates of 6.0 vs 4.5 significant strikes per minute, expect this to be decided on who can establish range control and output consistency.

Recent form is actually a concern — Aiemann Zahabi is 100.0% in their last 3 fights, but the model still favours Sean O'Malley on the overall career profile. UFC experience is lopsided (15 vs 10 fights in the organisation) — octagon experience and having been in high-pressure situations before matters.

Striking output: Sean O'Malley lands 6.0 sig. strikes/min (absorbs 3.4/min) vs Aiemann Zahabi at 4.5/min landing and 4.1/min absorbed. Sean O'Malley has a clear volume advantage — more output means more chances to land something significant. Accuracy: Sean O'Malley connects on 60.0% of attempts vs 47.0% for Aiemann Zahabi. Sean O'Malley is noticeably more precise — landing a higher proportion of what they throw. Defence: Sean O'Malley avoids 60.0% of strikes thrown at them, Aiemann Zahabi avoids 69.0%. Aiemann Zahabi has the meaningfully better head movement and defensive output. Strike targeting — Sean O'Malley targets head 36.5% / body 14.9% / legs 9.1%; Aiemann Zahabi head 30.7% / body 8.0% / legs 5.8%.

This fight projects to go the distance — the model gives it a 69.6% chance of reaching the judges' scorecards. Expected duration is around 2.2 rounds out of 3. Both fighters start explosively and have a history of early finishes — the opening rounds will be the most dangerous. Most dangerous finish window: Round 1 finish (27.2%). Second most likely: Round 2 finish (13.6%). Full outcome breakdown: Sean O'Malley by Decision 33.4%, Aiemann Zahabi by Decision 24.7%, Sean O'Malley by KO/TKO 16.7%. Round total edges: Over 1.5: 65.0%, Under 1.5: 35.0%.

Round-by-round output — Sean O'Malley: R1 24 / R3 30 sig. strikes avg. Aiemann Zahabi: R1 14 / R3 24. Sean O'Malley gets stronger as the fight progresses — output increases 27% from R1 to R3. This is a significant cardio edge if the fight goes deep. Aiemann Zahabi is a late-peaking fighter — output increases 70% from R1 to R3. Do not count them out if behind on the cards early. Position breakdown — Sean O'Malley: 56.9% distance / 1.6% clinch / 1.9% ground, avg 155s control/fight. Aiemann Zahabi: 42.9% distance / 1.2% clinch / 0.5% ground, avg 24s control/fight. Sean O'Malley averages significantly more control time per fight (155s vs 24s) — they dictate where the fight happens more consistently.

Sean O'Malley is the more aggressive pressure fighter (score 0.73 vs 0.62/1.0). They cut off the cage, stay in their opponent's face, and force Aiemann Zahabi to constantly reset position. Sustained forward pressure shapes judge scoring — active fighters who push the pace tend to get the benefit of the doubt in close rounds.

Style record — Aiemann Zahabi vs strikers: 3-1 (75% win rate, 4 fights)

Sean O'Malley vs strikers: 6-2 (75% win rate, 8 fights)

Pace & timing — Aiemann Zahabi is an explosive starter — 100% of wins come in R1-2

Danger zone for opponents: Round 1

Sean O'Malley is an explosive starter — 85% of wins come in R1-2

Vulnerabilities & durability — Aiemann Zahabi durable — never or rarely finished (94% durability)

Aiemann Zahabi has had 2-fight loss streak — questions about handling adversity

Sean O'Malley durable — never or rarely finished (91% durability)

Sean O'Malley has had 2-fight loss streak — questions about handling adversity

Sean O'Malley stylistic edge (striker vs striker) Fight most likely plays out in standup (60%)

Additional factors — Finishes 33% of wins against strikers

Most common loss vs strikers: Decision

Finishes 67% of wins against strikers

Tape adjustment: Sean O'Malley's probability was boosted by 4.5pp based on style-specific record, durability differential, and pace clash analysis.

Commission: Nevada. This is a broadly neutral judging panel — they tend to score close to the unified rules as written, balancing effective striking, takedowns, aggression, and octagon control. Close rounds could go either way. Panel profile — wrestling scoring bias: 57%, damage emphasis: 67%, aggression weighting: 51%.

Sean O'Malley is the moderate favourite at 61.2% win probability. Model confidence is 76.4%, reflecting data quality and how much margin the model actually sees. This clears the bet threshold but is not a slam dunk — the margin exists but is not overwhelming. Key factors driving this pick: tape analysis moved the needle 4.5pp for the favourite; pressure advantage goes to Sean O'Malley.

Both fighters operate in similar style territory — Josh Hokit as a striker and Derrick Lewis as a striker. The model sees Josh Hokit coming out ahead when stylistic tendencies clash, primarily through the knockout or TKO path. With output rates of 5.2 vs 2.5 significant strikes per minute, expect this to be decided on who can establish range control and output consistency.

The composite fighter rating gives Josh Hokit a measurable edge (0.6 points). Recent form strongly favours Josh Hokit — 100.0% win rate in last 3 fights vs 66.7% for Derrick Lewis. UFC experience is lopsided (3 vs 31 fights in the organisation) — octagon experience and having been in high-pressure situations before matters.

Striking output: Josh Hokit lands 9.2 sig. strikes/min (absorbs 6.8/min) vs Derrick Lewis at 2.5/min landing and 2.6/min absorbed. Josh Hokit has a clear volume advantage — more output means more chances to land something significant. Accuracy: Josh Hokit connects on 62.0% of attempts vs 49.0% for Derrick Lewis. Josh Hokit is noticeably more precise — landing a higher proportion of what they throw. Defence: Josh Hokit avoids 44.0% of strikes thrown at them, Derrick Lewis avoids 39.0%. Strike targeting — Josh Hokit targets head 53.0% / body 5.6% / legs 1.5%; Derrick Lewis head 50.1% / body 7.7% / legs 2.2%.

It's a coin flip on whether this ends early or goes to the cards — 51.4% finish probability, 48.6% decision. Expected duration is around 1.9 rounds out of 3. Both fighters start explosively and have a history of early finishes — the opening rounds will be the most dangerous. Most dangerous finish window: Round 1 finish (33.2%). Second most likely: Round 2 finish (16.6%). Full outcome breakdown: Derrick Lewis by Decision 30.7%, Derrick Lewis by KO/TKO 27.2%, Josh Hokit by Decision 16.4%.

Round-by-round output — Josh Hokit: R1 27 / R3 60 sig. strikes avg. Derrick Lewis: R1 10 / R3 17. Josh Hokit gets stronger as the fight progresses — output increases 122% from R1 to R3. This is a significant cardio edge if the fight goes deep. Derrick Lewis is a late-peaking fighter — output increases 66% from R1 to R3. Do not count them out if behind on the cards early. Position breakdown — Josh Hokit: 33.6% distance / 17.0% clinch / 9.5% ground, avg 149s control/fight. Derrick Lewis: 23.5% distance / 9.0% clinch / 27.6% ground, avg 275s control/fight. Derrick Lewis averages significantly more control time per fight (275s vs 149s) — they dictate where the fight happens more consistently.

Josh Hokit is the more aggressive pressure fighter (score 0.69 vs 0.50/1.0). They cut off the cage, stay in their opponent's face, and force Derrick Lewis to constantly reset position. Sustained forward pressure shapes judge scoring — active fighters who push the pace tend to get the benefit of the doubt in close rounds. Takedown matchup: Josh Hokit shoots 2.0×/15min at 43.0% accuracy, defended by Derrick Lewis at 52.0%. Derrick Lewis shoots 0.6×/15min at 26.0%, defended by Josh Hokit at 75.0%. Josh Hokit takes opponents down frequently and Derrick Lewis's defence is below average — expect multiple takedown exchanges.

Style record — Derrick Lewis vs strikers: 3-4 (43% win rate, 7 fights)

Josh Hokit vs strikers: 6-0 (100% win rate, 6 fights)

Pace & timing — Derrick Lewis is an explosive starter — 72% of wins come in R1-2

Danger zone for opponents: Round 1

Josh Hokit is an explosive starter — 88% of wins come in R1-2

Vulnerabilities & durability — Most common loss vs strikers: KO/TKO

Derrick Lewis chin concerns: 8 KO losses (durability 77%)

Derrick Lewis has had 3-fight loss streak — questions about handling adversity

Josh Hokit durable — never or rarely finished (100% durability)

Derrick Lewis stylistic edge (striker vs striker) Fight most likely plays out in standup (52%)

Additional factors — Finishes 100% of wins against strikers

Finishes 83% of wins against strikers

Tape adjustment: Josh Hokit's probability was boosted by 9.0pp based on style-specific record, durability differential, and pace clash analysis.

Commission: Nevada. This is a broadly neutral judging panel — they tend to score close to the unified rules as written, balancing effective striking, takedowns, aggression, and octagon control. Close rounds could go either way. Panel profile — wrestling scoring bias: 57%, damage emphasis: 67%, aggression weighting: 51%.

Fight-week intelligence has flagged the following: Josh Hokit news risk 0.27 (injury, weight-cut); Derrick Lewis news risk 0.24 (weight-cut). These signals have been factored into the probability — treat them as soft flags rather than confirmed facts.

Josh Hokit is the moderate favourite at 64.6% win probability. Model confidence is 80.7%, reflecting data quality and how much margin the model actually sees. This clears the bet threshold but is not a slam dunk — the margin exists but is not overwhelming. Key factors driving this pick: tape analysis moved the needle 9.0pp for the favourite; pressure advantage goes to Josh Hokit.

Both fighters operate in similar style territory — Mauricio Ruffy as a striker and Michael Chandler as a striker. The model sees Mauricio Ruffy coming out ahead when stylistic tendencies clash, primarily through the knockout or TKO path. With output rates of 3.7 vs 3.8 significant strikes per minute, expect this to be decided on who can establish range control and output consistency.

The composite fighter rating gives Mauricio Ruffy a measurable edge (0.6 points). Recent form strongly favours Mauricio Ruffy — 66.7% win rate in last 3 fights vs 0.0% for Michael Chandler. Mauricio Ruffy has been finishing fights at a significantly higher rate recently (100.0% vs 0.0%), which adds weight to the finish probability.

Striking output: Mauricio Ruffy lands 4.2 sig. strikes/min (absorbs 4.1/min) vs Michael Chandler at 4.0/min landing and 4.5/min absorbed. Accuracy: Mauricio Ruffy connects on 58.0% of attempts vs 49.0% for Michael Chandler. Mauricio Ruffy is noticeably more precise — landing a higher proportion of what they throw. Defence: Mauricio Ruffy avoids 58.0% of strikes thrown at them, Michael Chandler avoids 43.0%. Mauricio Ruffy has the meaningfully better head movement and defensive output. Strike targeting — Mauricio Ruffy targets head 35.7% / body 8.9% / legs 11.2%; Michael Chandler head 41.7% / body 7.2% / legs 11.9%.

It's a coin flip on whether this ends early or goes to the cards — 43.5% finish probability, 56.5% decision. Expected duration is around 2.0 rounds out of 3. Both fighters start explosively and have a history of early finishes — the opening rounds will be the most dangerous. Most dangerous finish window: Round 1 finish (33.2%). Second most likely: Round 2 finish (16.6%). Full outcome breakdown: Mauricio Ruffy by Decision 31.2%, Mauricio Ruffy by KO/TKO 25.4%, Michael Chandler by Decision 15.7%.

Round-by-round output — Mauricio Ruffy: R1 14 / R3 34 sig. strikes avg. Michael Chandler: R1 18 / R3 18. Mauricio Ruffy gets stronger as the fight progresses — output increases 139% from R1 to R3. This is a significant cardio edge if the fight goes deep. Position breakdown — Mauricio Ruffy: 45.4% distance / 2.3% clinch / 8.2% ground, avg 92s control/fight. Michael Chandler: 48.7% distance / 2.7% clinch / 9.4% ground, avg 242s control/fight. Michael Chandler averages significantly more control time per fight (242s vs 92s) — they dictate where the fight happens more consistently.

Both fighters bring comparable forward pressure (0.64 vs 0.58/1.0). Expect a high-output, contested battle where neither fighter concedes the cage voluntarily. Takedown matchup: Mauricio Ruffy shoots 1.0×/15min at 35.0% accuracy, defended by Michael Chandler at 61.0%. Michael Chandler shoots 1.8×/15min at 41.0%, defended by Mauricio Ruffy at 85.0%. Michael Chandler shoots a lot, but Mauricio Ruffy stuffs 85.0% — wall work and sprawl defence could be the deciding factor.

Style record — Michael Chandler vs strikers: 2-3 (40% win rate, 5 fights)

Mauricio Ruffy vs strikers: 6-0 (100% win rate, 6 fights)

Pace & timing — Michael Chandler is an explosive starter — 94% of wins come in R1-2

Danger zone for opponents: Round 1

Mauricio Ruffy is an explosive starter — 92% of wins come in R1-2

Vulnerabilities & durability — Michael Chandler chin concerns: 5 KO losses (durability 82%)

Michael Chandler has had 3-fight loss streak — questions about handling adversity

Mauricio Ruffy durable — never or rarely finished (87% durability)

Mauricio Ruffy bounces back well (100% rebound rate after losses)

Mauricio Ruffy stylistic edge (striker vs striker) Fight most likely plays out in standup (54%)

Additional factors — Finishes 100% of wins against strikers

Most common loss vs strikers: Submission

Finishes 83% of wins against strikers

Tape adjustment: Mauricio Ruffy's probability was boosted by 10.0pp based on style-specific record, durability differential, and pace clash analysis.

Commission: Nevada. This is a broadly neutral judging panel — they tend to score close to the unified rules as written, balancing effective striking, takedowns, aggression, and octagon control. Close rounds could go either way. Panel profile — wrestling scoring bias: 57%, damage emphasis: 67%, aggression weighting: 51%.

Fight-week intelligence has flagged the following: Mauricio Ruffy news risk 0.20 (short-notice). These signals have been factored into the probability — treat them as soft flags rather than confirmed facts.

Mauricio Ruffy is the clear favourite at 68.4% win probability. Model confidence is 75.1%, reflecting data quality and how much margin the model actually sees. This is rated a strong bet — model confidence and win probability both exceed the threshold. Key factors driving this pick: tape analysis moved the needle 10.0pp for the favourite.

Both fighters operate in similar style territory — Kyle Daukaus as a grappler and Bo Nickal as a grappler. The model sees Kyle Daukaus coming out ahead when stylistic tendencies clash, primarily through the decision path. With output rates of 3.3 vs 3.2 significant strikes per minute, expect this to be decided on who can establish range control and output consistency.

Recent form strongly favours Kyle Daukaus — 100.0% win rate in last 3 fights vs 66.7% for Bo Nickal. Kyle Daukaus has been finishing fights at a significantly higher rate recently (100.0% vs 50.0%), which adds weight to the finish probability.

Striking output: Bo Nickal lands 3.4 sig. strikes/min (absorbs 2.1/min) vs Kyle Daukaus at 3.3/min landing and 2.9/min absorbed. Accuracy: Bo Nickal connects on 61.0% of attempts vs 53.0% for Kyle Daukaus. Defence: Bo Nickal avoids 59.0% of strikes thrown at them, Kyle Daukaus avoids 42.0%. Bo Nickal has the meaningfully better head movement and defensive output. Strike targeting — Bo Nickal targets head 39.6% / body 15.3% / legs 9.1%; Kyle Daukaus head 41.5% / body 12.8% / legs 3.3%.

It's a coin flip on whether this ends early or goes to the cards — 51.5% finish probability, 48.5% decision. Expected duration is around 1.9 rounds out of 3. Both fighters start explosively and have a history of early finishes — the opening rounds will be the most dangerous. Most dangerous finish window: Round 1 finish (33.7%). Second most likely: Round 2 finish (16.8%). Full outcome breakdown: Kyle Daukaus by Decision 24.0%, Bo Nickal by Decision 22.1%, Kyle Daukaus by Submission 16.9%.

Round-by-round output — Bo Nickal: R1 9 / R3 14 sig. strikes avg. Kyle Daukaus: R1 11 / R3 22. Bo Nickal gets stronger as the fight progresses — output increases 57% from R1 to R3. This is a significant cardio edge if the fight goes deep. Kyle Daukaus is a late-peaking fighter — output increases 102% from R1 to R3. Do not count them out if behind on the cards early. Position breakdown — Bo Nickal: 49.1% distance / 8.4% clinch / 6.6% ground, avg 126s control/fight. Kyle Daukaus: 28.0% distance / 10.7% clinch / 18.9% ground, avg 213s control/fight. Kyle Daukaus averages significantly more control time per fight (213s vs 126s) — they dictate where the fight happens more consistently.

Both fighters bring comparable forward pressure (0.45 vs 0.42/1.0). Expect a high-output, contested battle where neither fighter concedes the cage voluntarily. Takedown matchup: Bo Nickal shoots 2.4×/15min at 55.0% accuracy, defended by Kyle Daukaus at 82.0%. Kyle Daukaus shoots 2.1×/15min at 25.0%, defended by Bo Nickal at 100.0%. Bo Nickal wants the takedown but Kyle Daukaus's 82.0% defence rate is a real wall — this may stay standing longer than expected. Kyle Daukaus shoots a lot, but Bo Nickal stuffs 100.0% — wall work and sprawl defence could be the deciding factor.

Style record — Kyle Daukaus vs grapplers: 3-0 (100% win rate, 3 fights)

Bo Nickal vs grapplers: 3-1 (75% win rate, 4 fights)

Pace & timing — Kyle Daukaus is an explosive starter — 86% of wins come in R1-2

Danger zone for opponents: Round 1

Bo Nickal is an explosive starter — 86% of wins come in R1-2

Vulnerabilities & durability — Most common loss vs grapplers: KO/TKO

Kyle Daukaus chin concerns: 2 KO losses (durability 91%)

Kyle Daukaus has had 2-fight loss streak — questions about handling adversity

Bo Nickal durable — never or rarely finished (89% durability)

Kyle Daukaus stylistic edge (grappler vs grappler) Fight most likely plays out in ground (45%)

Additional factors — Finishes 100% of wins against grapplers

Finishes 67% of wins against grapplers

Tape adjustment: Bo Nickal's probability was reduced by 3.5pp based on style-specific record, durability differential, and pace clash analysis.

Commission: Nevada. This is a broadly neutral judging panel — they tend to score close to the unified rules as written, balancing effective striking, takedowns, aggression, and octagon control. Close rounds could go either way. Panel profile — wrestling scoring bias: 57%, damage emphasis: 67%, aggression weighting: 51%.

Kyle Daukaus is the slight favourite at 51.6% win probability. Model confidence is 67.8%, reflecting data quality and how much margin the model actually sees. This does not clear the strong-bet threshold — treat as a lean, not a lock. Key factors driving this pick: tape analysis moved the needle 3.5pp for the favourite.

Steve Garcia is the cleaner striker here and should be able to keep this fight on the feet where the model gives them a meaningful edge. Diego Lopes's grappling game is the main threat — if they can drag it to the mat, the dynamic shifts. Historically, strikers with good takedown defense at 88.0% can neutralize the wrestling and impose their game.

The composite fighter rating gap is significant in Steve Garcia's favour (1.0 points). Recent form strongly favours Steve Garcia — 100.0% win rate in last 3 fights vs 33.3% for Diego Lopes.

Striking output: Diego Lopes lands 3.8 sig. strikes/min (absorbs 4.6/min) vs Steve Garcia at 5.4/min landing and 2.1/min absorbed. Steve Garcia has a clear volume advantage — more output means more chances to land something significant. Accuracy: Diego Lopes connects on 47.0% of attempts vs 49.0% for Steve Garcia. Defence: Diego Lopes avoids 45.0% of strikes thrown at them, Steve Garcia avoids 59.0%. Steve Garcia has the meaningfully better head movement and defensive output. Strike targeting — Diego Lopes targets head 45.3% / body 2.5% / legs 6.9%; Steve Garcia head 38.6% / body 5.0% / legs 2.4%.

It's a coin flip on whether this ends early or goes to the cards — 43.7% finish probability, 56.3% decision. Expected duration is around 2.1 rounds out of 3. Both fighters start explosively and have a history of early finishes — the opening rounds will be the most dangerous. Most dangerous finish window: Round 1 finish (28.2%). Second most likely: Round 2 finish (14.1%). Full outcome breakdown: Steve Garcia by Decision 41.5%, Steve Garcia by KO/TKO 22.5%, Diego Lopes by Decision 14.8%.

Round-by-round output — Diego Lopes: R1 15 / R3 27 sig. strikes avg. Steve Garcia: R1 14 / R3 13. Diego Lopes gets stronger as the fight progresses — output increases 79% from R1 to R3. This is a significant cardio edge if the fight goes deep. Position breakdown — Diego Lopes: 40.4% distance / 2.9% clinch / 11.4% ground, avg 146s control/fight. Steve Garcia: 23.2% distance / 2.4% clinch / 20.4% ground, avg 97s control/fight.

Both fighters bring comparable forward pressure (0.58 vs 0.67/1.0). Expect a high-output, contested battle where neither fighter concedes the cage voluntarily.

Style record — Steve Garcia vs grapplers: 1-0 (100% win rate, 1 fights)

Diego Lopes vs strikers: 4-3 (57% win rate, 7 fights)

Pace & timing — Steve Garcia is an explosive starter — 93% of wins come in R1-2

Danger zone for opponents: Round 1

Diego Lopes is an explosive starter — 91% of wins come in R1-2

Vulnerabilities & durability — Steve Garcia durable — never or rarely finished (92% durability)

Steve Garcia has had 2-fight loss streak — questions about handling adversity

Steve Garcia bounces back well (80% rebound rate after losses)

Diego Lopes chin concerns: 2 KO losses (durability 94%)

Steve Garcia stylistic edge (striker vs grappler) Fight most likely plays out in standup (51%)

Additional factors — Finishes 100% of wins against grapplers

Finishes 75% of wins against strikers

Most common loss vs strikers: Decision

Tape adjustment: Diego Lopes's probability was reduced by 3.2pp based on style-specific record, durability differential, and pace clash analysis.

Commission: Nevada. This is a broadly neutral judging panel — they tend to score close to the unified rules as written, balancing effective striking, takedowns, aggression, and octagon control. Close rounds could go either way. Panel profile — wrestling scoring bias: 57%, damage emphasis: 67%, aggression weighting: 51%.

Steve Garcia is the moderate favourite at 63.5% win probability. Model confidence is 81.1%, reflecting data quality and how much margin the model actually sees. This clears the bet threshold but is not a slam dunk — the margin exists but is not overwhelming. Key factors driving this pick: tape analysis moved the needle 3.2pp for the favourite.