The Fight StoryClick here to expandThe story behind the stats.
As Chad Anheliger steps into the Octagon against Steven Koslow at UFC Fight Night: Buckley vs. Malott, fans are in for a fascinating clash of experience versus youth in the bantamweight division. Anheliger, at 39, brings a well-rounded record of 13-8 and a striking output of 15.2 significant strikes per round with a solid accuracy of 44%. However, Koslow, just 29 years old and boasting a record of 6-1, brings a significant grappling component to the table with 1.7 takedowns per round and an impressive takedown accuracy of 55.6%. This dynamic mirrors the matchup of Gilbert Urbina against Vlasto Cepo, where the younger fighter's grappling prowess was key to victory.
Anheliger's finishing rate of 83.3% alongside a KO win rate of 58.3% suggests he’s always a threat, but Koslow’s specialty in submissions—demonstrated by a strikingly high submission win rate of 73.3%—could be the key to flipping the script against the seasoned veteran. In a matchup where Koslow's 69-inch reach advantage may offer him an edge in keeping the fight at a distance, Anheliger will need to leverage his experience and striking volume to penetrate Koslow's defenses. With a notable odds gap favoring Koslow, the stakes are high as both fighters look to solidify their standing in a competitive bantamweight landscape.
Prediction IntelClick here to expandOur call — and the case for it.
Stats Model Prediction
🔒 Prediction locked in before the fight · Predicted Sep 26, 2026, 00:05 UTC
Model Breakdown
Chad AnheligerSteven Koslow
Deep Learning Model α 26% weight44.1%55.9%
Deep Learning Model ξ 25% weight51.0%49.0%
Statistical Model δ 13% weight26.5%73.5%
Statistical Model β 21% weight24.3%75.7%
Statistical Model ε 15% weight27.3%72.7%
Ensemble27.4%72.6%
AI Reasoning (why the models picked this)
Steven Koslow is favored by the ensemble prediction. Key factors driving this include age advantages for Koslow over Anheliger, Koslow's superior cardio defense ratio, and Anheliger being past his prime. While most individual models favor Koslow, the ensemble's confidence is high.
Statistical Model β: Model β favors Steven Koslow due to his age advantage over Chad Anheliger, his better win rate, and Chad Anheliger being past his prime.
Statistical Model ε: Model ε favors Steven Koslow, noting his age advantage over Chad Anheliger and their reach difference.
AI-generated from the model outputs above — wording may occasionally be imprecise.
Predicted Winner
Steven Koslow
72.6%
Confidence
* Model output, not betting advice. Bet responsibly.
*New fighters, prediction made with limited information
Predicted Duration
3rd Round at 3m45s (13m45s total)
Chance the Fight Is Still Going
76%63%52%
Rnd 1Rnd 2Rnd 3
52%
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
9 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.
59%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
58%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
58%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
58%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
57%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
57%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
57%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
55%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
55%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
55%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
55%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
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
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
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
Chad Anheliger
Steven Koslow
UFC AVG
Per Round Average
Strikes
14.6
10.3
13.2
Strike accuracy
45.4%
53%
43.9%
Takedowns
0.2
1.5
0.4
Takedown accuracy
36.4%
69.2%
33.0%
Sub attempts
0.1
0.5
0.2
Control time
31.3s
116.2s
48.9s
Knockdowns
0.11
0
0.08
Knockdowns absorbed
0
0
0.13
Advanced Fighter Statistics
win rateWins divided by this fighter's total recorded fights.
57.1%
88.9%
45.8%
recent win rateWin rate over the last 5 recorded fights only — a form signal, not a career figure.
20.0%
80.0%
37.6%
win streakCurrent run: a positive number is consecutive wins, a negative number consecutive losses.
-2
1
-2
total fightsTotal recorded fights, including bouts outside the UFC.
21
18
—
head strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the head. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
69.5%
67.7%
—
body strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the body. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
13.4%
14.5%
—
leg strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the legs. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
17.2%
17.7%
—
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.
14.67
14.5
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.
1.11
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.
1.85
—
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.
0.84
—
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
—
0.42
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.
83.3%
75.0%
46.5%
KO win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by KO or TKO. The denominator is wins, not fights.
58.3%
0.0%
27.9%
sub win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
25.0%
75.0%
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%.
77.8%
50.0%
52.3%
distance strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown at distance. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
77.9%
77.4%
—
clinch strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown in the clinch. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
12.2%
1.6%
—
ground strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown on the ground. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
9.9%
21.0%
—
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.
14:39
14:22
—
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.
1,466.2
1,499.9
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.
0.070
0.121
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.
Decline
Peak
—
Market IntelClick here to expandHow the betting market prices this fight compared to our model's number.
Betting Edge
Fighter
Win confidence
DraftKings odds
Break-even
Edge
Chad Anheliger
27.4%
2.40
41.7%
-34.3%
Steven Koslow
72.6%
1.60
62.5%
+16.2%
Odds are the latest we have from DraftKings. Edge = win confidence × decimal odds − 1, so a positive edge means the price pays more than our model thinks the fighter is worth.
Break-even = 1 ÷ decimal odds — the win rate you would need at that price just to come out level. It is the raw price, with the bookmaker's margin still in it, so the two fighters' break-evens add up to more than 100%: that surplus is the book's cut, not a mistake.
Recommended stake24%of bankrollon Steven Koslow at 2.10 (BetOnline)* Model output, not betting advice. Bet responsibly.
