Cesar Almeida

No hedge on the win survives to the close: 'I think it's pinas... probably knockout... that power is real.'

The more technical striker in this pairing: solid striking with good power, good combinations, body work, and good counter-striking, and technically sound overall. His takedown defense is decent and his ground and pound is good, but the analyst says grappling otherwise 'isn't really there' for him. He has not fought in some time, which the analyst hopes means improvement but is honestly unsure about.

unhedged: picks Oleksiejczuk on 'a complete game plan', no qualifier on the win itself

Primarily a striker: a very accomplished, clean kickboxer with good power, good combinations, strong body work and real counter-striking. His takedown defense is decent but not great, and his grappling beyond that is limited to pretty good ground-and-pound -- it is not a dimension he is expected to win with. The analyst calls him the cleaner, better striker of the two, but still favors the opponent overall.

Openly says he is reaching for the underdog pick here, giving two reasons; the self-aware framing of this as a contrarian, against-the-odds call keeps it short of full conviction.

Comes from a high-level kickboxing background; solid, counter-heavy striker with good power, combinations and body work. Grappling is more limited: decent initial takedown defense (conceded as not excellent) and decent ground-and-pound, without fully committing to it once on top. Read as the much more experienced striker but with a far shorter overall MMA resume than his opponent.

Almeida is named plainly and repeatedly as the pick on a striking-matchup theory, but the analyst explicitly voices discomfort picking a six-fight pro over a far more tested 21-6 veteran, and flags that Almeida is likely a big betting favorite, calling that 'scary' -- a stated unease about the experience gap itself, not just about price, so this sits at lean rather than clear.

Judged the better pure striker in what the analyst frames as primarily a striking matchup, with only six professional fights against a much deeper resume on the other side. A board-confirmed trait -- solid, clean combination striking, and a takedown defense that holds early but breaks down once he is fully controlled on the mat -- anchors the read, independent of one ambiguous spoken passage that could not be safely attributed (flagged, not used).

Sides with Kopylov purely on UFC/MMA experience in a data-poor matchup, explicitly stating the pick carries almost no confidence and that it was switched more than once while preparing.

Unbeaten but barely tested at five pro bouts, a solid striker with real power and clean combinations who works the body well. Takedown defense is called decent, with a shown ability to return upright once grounded. The analyst explicitly says there isn't enough tape on him to read this matchup confidently.

States he normally favors the grappler but breaks from that habit here because he doubts Budka can control every minute or do real damage from top position, and picks the striker on expected damage. Separately floats playing both sides given both carried plus-money odds that week -- wager-caution language that caps this below a clear conviction even though a winner is named.

A 36-year-old kickboxing-background debutant (4-0) praised as a powerful, clean-combination striker who works the body well. His grappling is explicitly called a mystery beyond a shown ability to stand back up after being taken down. 138 favors him on the view that judges reward visible damage over control time.