UFC · Methodology

How it works

Every fighter is rated 0–99 on the four phases of an MMA fight — striking, wrestling, grappling, and cardio + fight IQ — blended into one overall. The scores are derived, not hand-set: each fighter's public UFCStats career numbers are ranked against the rest of the roster and mapped onto the scale. It's a scout-style read to visualize and compare skill sets — not an official rating.

Step 0

The inputs: UFCStats career averages

For all 175 ranked fighters we start from the eight career averages UFCStats publishes on every fighter's page, plus their win/finish split (KO-TKO / submission / decision) and record:

  • Striking — strikes landed & absorbed per minute, accuracy, defense.
  • Grappling — takedowns per 15 min, takedown accuracy & defense, submission attempts per 15 min.
  • Outcomes — wins, losses, and how the wins came (KO / submission / decision).

These are counting stats: descriptive, opponent-blind, and shaped by style (a counter-striker posts low volume; a control grappler looks quiet on strikes). That's why we read all four axes, not just the composite.

Step 1

Career numbers → four 0–99 axes

For each component we rank a fighter against the whole roster — a percentile — then blend the components into one axis and map it onto the 6099 band you see (so the color ramp and bars spread across a visible range). Percentiles, not raw numbers, so a fighter is judged against the field:

Striking
Sig. strikes landed/min, accuracy, defense (strikes avoided − absorbed), and KO/TKO finishing.
Wrestling
Takedowns landed per 15 min, takedown accuracy, and takedown defense.
Grappling
Submissions attempted per 15 min and submission-finish rate.
Cardio + IQ
Damage avoidance (defense − strikes absorbed) and finish rate — a durability & ring-craft proxy.
Step 2

The four axes → one Overall

The axes combine into an overall with a striking-heavy weighting. These weights aren't arbitrary — they're backtested against real fight outcomes (a time-aware, leak-free logistic model), tuned so the composite leans on the phases that actually predict who wins. Striking and durability carry the most signal:

45% Striking
30% Cardio + IQ
15% Wrestling
10% Grappling

A fixed pound-for-pound rank then orders everyone by overall, independent of how the table is sorted or filtered.

Step 3

Opponent-adjusted (level of competition)

Counting stats are opponent-blind — five takedowns on a debutant look like five on a champion. So we also fit an opponent-adjusted model (FVOA-style) on fight-by-fight data: each phase is credited against the fighters actually faced, with partial pooling and small-sample shrinkage. That yields each fighter's strength of schedule and adjusted striking / wrestling / takedown-defense — shown on profiles once the model has run.

Step 4

Win probability (Compare)

On the compare page a matchup model turns two fighters' stats into a win probability — takedowns vs. takedown defense, KO threat vs. durability, striking differential, and more. It's a logistic model trained on real fight results with time-aware (leak-free) features, so the reported accuracy is honest — currently ~68% on held-out fights. Not betting advice.

Caveats

What this is — and isn't

This is a scout-style read from public career numbers — a useful lens, not a perfect rating. Counting stats are descriptive and style can beat stats, so the composite is opinionated by design. Read the four axes together, lean on the opponent-adjusted view for context, and treat the win probability as a model's best guess — not a lock.

← Back to the talent board