The Fight StoryClick here to expandThe story behind the stats.
As Mantas Kondratavicius steps into the octagon against Andre Petroski at UFC Fight Night: Bonfim vs. Brady, fight fans are treated to a compelling clash of styles. Kondratavicius, with a career record of 9-1, boasts an impressive striking output of 25 significant strikes per round and a remarkable accuracy of 70.1%. He stands tall at 6'2" with a reach of 75 inches, leveraging physical advantages that could disrupt Petroski's game plan. In contrast, the seasoned Petroski, holding a 13-6 record, has a wealth of experience with 27 total fights under his belt. While he may have a slight edge in takedown attempts per round (0.9), he absorbs significantly more damage, averaging nearly 13 strikes per round.
This matchup echoes the historical dynamics of fights like Mark Madsen vs. Danilo Belluardo at UFC Fight Night: Hermansson vs. Cannonier, where a rising talent utilized their striking prowess to outmaneuver a more experienced opponent. With both fighters looking for a strategic victory—Kondratavicius aiming to maintain his unbeaten streak and Petroski seeking redemption from recent losses—the octagon will become a battlefield of youth versus experience. As Kondratavicius enters this contest with a 100% win rate and a two-fight win streak, fans should expect an electrifying bout filled with intensity and skill.
Prediction IntelClick here to expandOur call — and the case for it.
Stats Model Prediction
🔒 Prediction locked in before the fight · Predicted Oct 28, 2026, 00:03 UTC
Model Breakdown
Mantas KondrataviciusAndre Petroski
Deep Learning Model α 26% weight49.0%51.0%
Deep Learning Model ξ 25% weight58.6%41.4%
Statistical Model δ 13% weight63.5%36.5%
Statistical Model β 21% weight85.3%14.7%
Statistical Model ε 15% weight70.3%29.7%
Ensemble69.8%30.2%
AI Reasoning (why the models picked this)
Mantas Kondratavicius's age advantage and superior significant strike absorption are the strongest drivers favoring him across multiple models. The ENSEMBLE prediction favors Mantas Kondratavicius (70%), despite some models like bayes noting Andre Petroski's advantages in bout weight class and stance. The final prediction is a result of calibrated weighting.
Statistical Model β: Model β favors Mantas Kondratavicius due to his age advantage, being less past his prime, absorbing fewer significant strikes, and having a better win rate.
Statistical Model ε: Model ε favors Mantas Kondratavicius, citing his age advantage, absorbing fewer significant strikes, and landing more significant strikes.
AI-generated from the model outputs above — wording may occasionally be imprecise.
Predicted Winner
Mantas Kondratavicius
69.8%
Confidence
* Model output, not betting advice. Bet responsibly.
*New fighters, prediction made with limited information
Predicted Duration
3rd Round at 1m15s (11m15s total)
Chance the Fight Is Still Going
77%61%51%
Rnd 1Rnd 2Rnd 3
51%
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
3 historical bouts
Not enough similar fights on record to quote a rate for this profile.
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.
56%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
56%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
56%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
54%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
52%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
51%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
51%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
51%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
50%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
50%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
50%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
50%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
50%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
50%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
50%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
Mantas Kondratavicius
Andre Petroski
UFC AVG
Per Round Average
Strikes
25
11.9
13.2
Strike accuracy
70.1%
49.2%
43.9%
Takedowns
0.7
0.9
0.4
Takedown accuracy
50%
52.8%
33.0%
Sub attempts
0.3
0.4
0.2
Control time
122s
101.7s
48.9s
Knockdowns
0.33
0.03
0.08
Knockdowns absorbed
0
0.13
0.13
Advanced Fighter Statistics
win rateWins divided by this fighter's total recorded fights.
100.0%
74.1%
45.8%
recent win rateWin rate over the last 5 recorded fights only — a form signal, not a career figure.
100.0%
40.0%
37.6%
win streakCurrent run: a positive number is consecutive wins, a negative number consecutive losses.
2
-3
-2
total fightsTotal recorded fights, including bouts outside the UFC.
2
27
—
head strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the head. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
81.3%
64.1%
—
body strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the body. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
18.7%
20.0%
—
leg strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the legs. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
0.0%
15.9%
—
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.
5.67
12.97
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.
0.33
0.1
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.
—
0.68
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.
—
0.69
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.
—
1.22
0.42
is orthodoxWhether the fighter's recorded stance is orthodox.
Yes
No
—
is southpawWhether the fighter's recorded stance is southpaw.
No
No
—
switch stanceWhether the fighter is recorded as switching stance.
No
Yes
—
finish rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by finish, KO/TKO or submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
50.0%
60.0%
46.5%
KO win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by KO or TKO. The denominator is wins, not fights.
50.0%
25.0%
27.9%
sub win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
0.0%
35.0%
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%.
0.0%
71.4%
52.3%
distance strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown at distance. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
56.0%
75.1%
—
clinch strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown in the clinch. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
22.7%
2.4%
—
ground strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown on the ground. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
21.3%
22.4%
—
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.
15:00
10:20
—
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.
1,514.0
1,523.7
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.
0.012
0.192
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.
