Alex Perez

He says outright he doesn't know who to bet on, picks Sumudaerji anyway, then says he'll stay away from the fight entirely and won't even watch it.

Perez earns a good striking grade built on confident footwork, sharp combinations, and low kicks the analyst rates among the division's very best, backed by good takedowns and takedown defense and scrambling ability. His biggest asset is called out directly: a very good submission arsenal. But the analyst flags the flip side just as directly -- Perez himself has a history of being the one who gets finished by submission in fights, which is named as the single most likely way he loses this one.

Names Sumudaerji as a formality more than a conviction, then says in no uncertain terms that he wants nothing to do with watching this fight unfold -- the clearest stay-away language on the card, capping this at coinflip despite naming a winner.

Perez is an inconsistent fighter by the analyst's own framing: at his best he can beat almost anyone in the division, at his worst he can lose to almost anyone. On the feet he's called a good striker who holds his own even if he may not match Sumudaerji's athletic edge, with good footwork, good combinations and a leg kick rated among the stronger ones at his weight. He's a good grappler too, with good takedowns, good takedown defense and a genuinely dangerous submission arsenal, though the analyst notes a pattern of underperforming under pressure in some fights. This bout continues a prior meeting between these two that ended in a no-contest.

gives a real mechanism (wrestling/grappling discrepancy) but repeatedly flags that Perez is unpredictable and ends with an explicit acknowledgment that you never know what you'll get from him

A good striker, with leg kicks rated among the best in the division, plus sharp combinations and footwork. His clearest route to winning is on the mat: a strong wrestler/grappler who gets his takedowns and keeps opponents down, scrambles well, and finishes with a strong choke game. The analyst frames him as genuinely hard to predict fight to fight.

A firm 'got to go Charles Johnson' with a specific mechanism (Perez's repeated submission losses despite real grappling tools); only the finish method is left loose, not the win itself.

A good striker expected to win the opening round on a leg kick, with good combinations and footwork. He's also skilled on the mat -- solid takedowns, solid defense against being taken down, and a genuinely strong choke arsenal -- but analyst says he once rated Perez's grappling even higher than he does now, because Perez keeps getting submitted despite those tools, to the point analyst won't call the grappling rating solid anymore. That submission pattern, more than any single skill gap, is the stated reason for picking against him here.

Picks Almabayev on recent form and injury concerns, but calls it 'skill-wise... a close fight,' concedes Perez is 'a live dog' he would 'not fault' anyone for taking, and stacks the root-beer idiom on top -- a direct concession of real value to the loser, not just a price comment.

As of 2025-11-18, a good striker with good combinations, good footwork and nasty leg kicks the analyst says could pay off if he attacks them early; he is also a solid grappler, credited with a well-rounded takedown game -- offense, defense and scrambling -- plus a good choke arsenal, though he tends to give up his back once taken down. He has fought some of the best competition in the division despite a poor recent record, and the analyst's real concern, the one he ties directly to picking against him, is how much time Perez has spent away from competition in recent years.

He says plainly that his confidence here is lower than on most of his other picks this card and calls it a close fight, even while arguing Taira is the real deal -- an explicit, stated confidence reduction on the pick itself.

Our words: a wrestler whose stopping-power lies in denying takedowns as much as landing them, with excellent scrambling that will make him hard to pin down on the mat. Also a sharp striker carrying a nasty leg kick, tidy combinations, and good footwork. Coming off an impressive knockout win after a prior competitive loss where his takedown defense specifically stood out, which the analyst says is why the betting public is backing him here.

Says he 'feels pretty confident,' that a rewatch 'confirmed my belief,' and sticks with Nicolau against what he calls the public's lean toward Perez.

Steps in on short notice after a rough stretch marked by several cancelled fights, but was competitive in his last outing against a quality opponent - many thought he won - even if he hasn't quite lived up to the hype. A good striker on paper with a nasty leg kick, good combinations and good footwork, likely to have the volume edge if the fight stays at range. Also a top wrestler, strong across takedowns, takedown defense (shown in that same recent fight) and top pressure.

A direct, named call for a specific finish -- a submission in round three -- built on a stated mechanism: Perez gets outpaced as the rounds pile up even if he is ahead early on the cards. No hedge on the winner, only on exactly how the scorecards might read along the way.

Called a man with every tool imaginable who simply hasn'tbeen the most consistent, in fights or in the cage, and who has a history of bouts falling through before fight night. Good striking with good combinations, good footwork, and a leg kick called 'absolutely nasty' and 'fantastic'. In the wrestling he has very good takedowns and good takedown defense, able to wrestle with the best.

'I'm gonna lean [Kape]' is repeated twice; he also says explicitly he 'won't fault' viewers for picking Perez, an acknowledged live alternative that keeps this at lean rather than clear despite his enthusiasm about Kape's hand speed.

A solid striker with some of the hardest leg kicks in the division, working combinations behind good footwork, and backed by a high-level wrestling pedigree plus good takedown defense. His leg kicks are framed as the clearest route to slowing down a dangerous counterpart. Recent form and activity are both called into question.