The Fight StoryClick here to expandThe story behind the stats.
As Zach Reese and Mickey Gall prepare to clash at UFC Fight Night: Moicano vs. Nolan, the stakes couldn't be higher for both fighters. With similar records—Reese at 4-4-1 and Gall at 6-7—this middleweight matchup is a true crossroads for two fighters in decline. Reese, towering at 6'4" with a reach of 77", brings a striking advantage, landing an impressive 16.3 significant strikes per round with a striking accuracy of 54.1%. Meanwhile, Gall, standing 6'2", relies more on his grappling game, managing 0.4 submission attempts per round and boasting an 83.3% finish rate, primarily through submissions.
This fight echoes the dynamics seen in the past when Yana Santos faced Miesha Tate, where a striking-heavy approach came up against a grappling specialist. Just like that bout, the question looms: can Gall's grappling prowess offset Reese's striking volume and accuracy? With an odds gap reflecting the uncertainty, fans will be on the edge of their seats to see if Gall can turn the tide or if Reese will secure a much-needed victory to reignite his career.
Prediction IntelClick here to expandOur call — and the case for it.
Stats Model Prediction
🔒 Prediction locked in before the fight · Predicted Oct 24, 2026, 18:03 UTC
Model Breakdown
Zach ReeseMickey Gall
Deep Learning Model α 26% weight47.4%52.6%
Deep Learning Model ξ 25% weight67.4%32.6%
Statistical Model δ 13% weight56.8%43.2%
Statistical Model β 21% weight100.0%0.0%
Statistical Model ε 15% weight75.2%24.8%
Ensemble75.7%24.3%
AI Reasoning (why the models picked this)
Zach Reese's advantage in days since last fight and his superior Elo rating are the strongest drivers for this prediction. The ENSEMBLE favors Zach Reese, despite some models highlighting Mickey Gall's advantages in specific areas like head strike share. Calibration and weighting led to the final combined prediction.
Statistical Model β: Model β favors Zach Reese, citing that both fighters are past their prime, Mickey Gall is older, and Zach Reese has a better win rate and Elo rating.
Statistical Model ε: Model ε favors Zach Reese, highlighting his switch stance, Mickey Gall's Elo rating, Zach Reese's reach advantage, and Mickey Gall's age.
AI-generated from the model outputs above — wording may occasionally be imprecise.
Predicted Winner
Zach Reese
75.7%
Confidence
* Model output, not betting advice. Bet responsibly.
Predicted Duration
1st Round at 1m15s (1m15s total)
Chance the Fight Is Still Going
59%40%33%
Rnd 1Rnd 2Rnd 3
33%
Chance of Decision
The dashed line is 50%. The round where the curve crosses it is the round named above — the midpoint of the distribution, not necessarily its single most likely outcome.
Matchup IntelClick here to expandPast fights with a similar statistical shape, plus how fights like this one typically end.
How Similar Fights Ended
288 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 288 bouts in this bout's profile actually ended.
52%Reached the judges
48%Ended early
30%KO/TKO18%Submission6:23Median finish, round 2
When those finishes came
Rnd 162
Rnd 246
Rnd 324
Rnd 43
Rnd 52
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.
82%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
78%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
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
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
76%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
76%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
76%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
75%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
75%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
75%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
75%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
75%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
75%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
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
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
Zach Reese
Mickey Gall
UFC AVG
Per Round Average
Strikes
16.3
14.6
13.2
Strike accuracy
54.1%
49.6%
43.9%
Takedowns
0.7
0.3
0.4
Takedown accuracy
61.1%
32%
33.0%
Sub attempts
0.3
0.4
0.2
Control time
39.4s
43s
48.9s
Knockdowns
0.06
0.08
0.08
Knockdowns absorbed
0.06
0.20
0.13
Advanced Fighter Statistics
win rateWins divided by this fighter's total recorded fights.
75.0%
46.2%
45.8%
recent win rateWin rate over the last 5 recorded fights only — a form signal, not a career figure.
40.0%
20.0%
37.6%
win streakCurrent run: a positive number is consecutive wins, a negative number consecutive losses.
-2
-4
-2
total fightsTotal recorded fights, including bouts outside the UFC.
16
13
—
head strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the head. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
51.0%
78.7%
—
body strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the body. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
29.7%
15.8%
—
leg strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the legs. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
19.3%
5.5%
—
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.
15.13
19.76
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.
0.6
0.4
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.
0.57
0.61
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.
0.4
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
0.17
0.42
is orthodoxWhether the fighter's recorded stance is orthodox.
No
No
—
is southpawWhether the fighter's recorded stance is southpaw.
No
No
—
switch stanceWhether the fighter is recorded as switching stance.
Yes
Yes
—
finish rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by finish, KO/TKO or submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
83.3%
83.3%
46.5%
KO win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by KO or TKO. The denominator is wins, not fights.
50.0%
0.0%
27.9%
sub win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
33.3%
83.3%
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%.
75.0%
42.9%
52.3%
distance strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown at distance. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
75.7%
76.8%
—
clinch strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown in the clinch. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
11.2%
11.2%
—
ground strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown on the ground. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
13.1%
12.0%
—
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.
7:16
8:03
—
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.
1,497.5
1,473.1
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.
0.046
0.048
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.
