The Fight StoryClick here to expandThe story behind the stats.
As Jake Matthews steps into the octagon against newcomer Tahir Abdullayev at UFC Fight Night: Procházka vs. Stirling, the stakes are high, and experience is on Matthews' side. With a solid UFC record of 16-8, Matthews has faced a variety of challenges throughout his career, showcasing a striking output of 15.4 significant strikes per round and an impressive strike accuracy of 44.5%. In contrast, Abdullayev, though undefeated at 1-0, has yet to prove himself against seasoned competition. His debut success has garnered attention, but the leap to facing a veteran like Matthews is monumental.
This matchup bears a striking resemblance to past clashes like Jasmine Jasudavicius vs. Priscila Cachoeira, where experience triumphed over a less-tested prospect. Abdullayev’s high finish rate of 88.2% suggests he can end fights decisively, but with Matthews’ solid grappling control time and superior striking metrics, the fight dynamics may favor the more experienced fighter. With Matthews at peak performance and a notable Elo rating advantage, fans can expect a thrilling contest that will reveal whether Abdullayev can rise to the occasion or if the veteran will assert his dominance.
Prediction IntelClick here to expandOur call — and the case for it.
Stats Model Prediction
🔒 Prediction locked in before the fight · Predicted Oct 31, 2026, 00:03 UTC
Model Breakdown
Jake MatthewsTahir Abdullayev
Deep Learning Model α 26% weight53.1%46.9%
Deep Learning Model ξ 25% weight47.5%52.5%
Statistical Model δ 13% weight42.4%57.6%
Statistical Model β 21% weight42.0%58.0%
Statistical Model ε 15% weight62.2%37.8%
Ensemble49.0%51.0%
AI Reasoning (why the models picked this)
Tahir Abdullayev's win streak and cardio takedown ratio are key drivers for his favor in the prediction. The ENSEMBLE prediction favors Tahir Abdullayev, despite a split among individual models, due to calibrated weighting.
Statistical Model β: Model β favors Tahir Abdullayev, citing his higher win rate against Jake Matthews and better recent win rate, despite Jake Matthews' reach advantage.
Statistical Model ε: Model ε favors Jake Matthews, pointing to his reach advantage over Tahir Abdullayev and higher Elo rating, despite Tahir Abdullayev's height and reach advantages.
AI-generated from the model outputs above — wording may occasionally be imprecise.
Predicted Winner
Tahir Abdullayev
51.0%
Confidence
* Model output, not betting advice. Bet responsibly.
*New fighters, prediction made with limited information
Predicted Duration
Decision (15m00s total)
Chance the Fight Is Still Going
84%69%59%
Rnd 1Rnd 2Rnd 3
59%
Chance of Decision
The curve stays above 50% all the way to the final bell, which is why the call above is a decision.
Matchup IntelClick here to expandPast fights with a similar statistical shape, plus how fights like this one typically end.
How Similar Fights Ended
213 historical bouts
Every past fight is placed by the SHAPE of its mismatch — how far apart the two fighters were on each of 37 career measures, setting aside which one was ahead. Fights that sit close together form a profile. Below is how the 213 bouts in this bout's profile actually ended.
59%Reached the judges
41%Ended early
25%KO/TKO16%Submission5:51Median finish, round 2
When those finishes came
Rnd 142
Rnd 227
Rnd 315
Rnd 41
Rnd 53
This is a base rate over similar past matchups, not a prediction about these two fighters. It is drawn from what happened historically, and the profile is blind to which corner is which — so it can say how fights like this one tend to go, and nothing at all about who wins.
Fights with a similar mismatch
Every fighter is reduced to a profile of 37 career measures as they stood going into the fight, standardised so that no single measure dominates merely for having bigger units — a far wider read than the six charted below. The bout is then described by the gap between the two: how far apart they were on each of those measures, setting aside which one was ahead. The fights listed here are those whose gaps line up most closely with this one. Because the match is on the shape of a mismatch rather than on a weight class or an era, a neighbour can come from an entirely different division.
77%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
74%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
71%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
71%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
70%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
70%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
70%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
69%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
68%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
68%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
68%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
68%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
67%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
67%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
67%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
Statistics IntelClick here to expandA full head-to-head stat comparison — per-round output and career tendencies — against the UFC average.
Head-to-Head Statistics
The same per-round and advanced numbers each fighter's profile shows, side by side. The stronger value in each row is highlighted.
Stat
Jake Matthews
Tahir Abdullayev
UFC AVG
Per Round Average
Strikes
15.4
12.3
13.2
Strike accuracy
44.5%
42.5%
43.9%
Takedowns
0.4
0.7
0.4
Takedown accuracy
41.7%
33.3%
33.0%
Sub attempts
0.2
0
0.2
Control time
72.9s
64s
48.9s
Knockdowns
0.10
0
0.08
Knockdowns absorbed
0.07
0
0.13
Advanced Fighter Statistics
win rateWins divided by this fighter's total recorded fights.
66.7%
85.0%
45.8%
recent win rateWin rate over the last 5 recorded fights only — a form signal, not a career figure.
80.0%
100.0%
37.6%
win streakCurrent run: a positive number is consecutive wins, a negative number consecutive losses.
1
8
-2
total fightsTotal recorded fights, including bouts outside the UFC.
24
20
—
head strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the head. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
71.9%
70.3%
—
body strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the body. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
17.4%
21.6%
—
leg strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the legs. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
10.7%
8.1%
—
sig strikes absorbedSignificant strikes opponents land on this fighter PER ROUND, counted from the round-by-round UFC stats across their scored rounds. Lower is better.
11.83
11.67
15.2
takedowns absorbedTakedowns opponents complete on this fighter PER ROUND, counted from the round-by-round UFC stats across their scored rounds. Lower is better.
0.23
0
0.4
cardio sig ratioThis fighter's significant strikes landed in the LATER rounds divided by the EARLIER rounds. 1.0 is neutral: above it their output grows late, below it they fade. Shown only for fighters with at least 3 UFC bouts on record.
0.53
—
0.52
cardio defence ratioWhat OPPONENTS land on this fighter in the LATER rounds divided by what they land in the EARLIER rounds. 1.0 is neutral. LOWER is better — a high value means opponents find them more as the fight wears on. Shown only for fighters with at least 3 UFC bouts on record.
0.53
—
0.56
cardio takedown ratioThis fighter's takedowns in the LATER rounds divided by the EARLIER rounds. 1.0 is neutral. Shown only for fighters with at least 3 UFC bouts on record.
1.12
—
0.42
is orthodoxWhether the fighter's recorded stance is orthodox.
Yes
Yes
—
is southpawWhether the fighter's recorded stance is southpaw.
No
No
—
switch stanceWhether the fighter is recorded as switching stance.
No
No
—
finish rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by finish, KO/TKO or submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
50.0%
88.2%
46.5%
KO win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by KO or TKO. The denominator is wins, not fights.
12.5%
52.9%
27.9%
sub win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
37.5%
35.3%
18.7%
been stopped rateShare of this fighter's LOSSES that ended by finish — the denominator is LOSSES, not fights. A fighter who is 20-1 whose single loss was a KO therefore reads 100%.
62.5%
66.7%
52.3%
distance strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown at distance. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
71.8%
37.8%
—
clinch strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown in the clinch. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
7.2%
10.8%
—
ground strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown on the ground. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
21.0%
51.4%
—
avg fight duration (m:ss)Mean length of this fighter's UFC fights, in minutes and seconds. "—" means we hold no round-time data for them.
11:29
14:28
—
Elo ratingA UFC-only Elo rating: it rises and falls with results, weighted by the opponent's rating. 1500 is the starting and dataset-average value.
1,596.5
1516
1500
PageRankHow central this fighter is in the network of who-fought-whom. It reflects the quality of opposition they have shared a cage with, not their skill.
0.138
0.193
0.069
career stageForm over the last 4 fights before this one: 3 or more wins reads Peak, 2 or fewer reads Decline, and fewer than 4 prior fights reads Early.
