Waldo Cortes-Acosta

He frames the pick as a mild preference after saying the fight comes down to striking, using explicitly tentative language rather than a firm assertion.

A jab-first volume striker who should bank most of the minutes on the feet, but who absorbs leg kicks without any defensive response.

States plainly he sees the fight "going either way," and the pick leans entirely on guessing Blaydes won't shoot for a takedown, not on a skills edge.

Cortes-Acosta is a good, durable striker: a solid jab, active movement, good volume and combinations, and body work, with decent power for a heavyweight. The one problem the analyst repeats twice is that he has essentially no leg-kick defense at all and simply cannot protect against it, even though it hasn't hurt him yet. His takedown defense is rated not bad. The analyst's pick for him hinges entirely on guessing that his opponent won't actually try to take him down.

picks Volkov on a repeatable range-control gameplan he's used before

A boxing-first striker described as good specifically because his MMA boxing is strong - a very solid jab, good movement, volume, combinations and body work. He takes leg kicks with no defense at all but shrugs them off thanks to good durability, and his takedown defense is decent. His path hinges entirely on reaching comfortable boxing range against a much longer opponent.

Explicitly concedes that Waldo controls the output and figures to win the rounds comfortably, and frames the pick purely as a puncher's-chance upset -- one clean punch from Lewis changes everything -- backed by two specific past comeback knockouts rather than a skill edge.

Takes a different approach -- decent takedown defense but not much once actually taken down, and on the feet he's a quality striker with a dependable jab and good movement. He keeps busy with decent combination work and solid body shots, but doesn't carry much one-shot power; analyst specifically dismisses his two cited knockouts as fluky, adrenaline-driven outcomes rather than real evidence of pop. He has zero leg kick defense and simply absorbs leg kicks without attempting to check them, though he is durable enough to eat them. Analyst expects him to win the rounds and the output, but still picks against him.

He admits up front he lacks "a really strong" opinion here, says he simply doesn't "know who I'd favor" if it stays standing, and closes his pick for Delija by calling it "a tossup at best."

A good striker with a really solid jab and good footwork for a heavyweight, building combinations once the jab gets working and mixing in work to the body. His glaring hole: essentially no leg-kick defense at all, which the analyst says an opponent should target even without a leg-kick-centric game, though he is durable and does not appear badly affected by them. Takedown defense sits right in the middle -- not great, not bad. As of 2025-10-28.

He commits to a side outright, then immediately undercuts his own certainty, admitting this particular fight has him wavering on his own read.

A well-rounded, well-regarded striker -- a steady jab, sound footwork, real output, clean combinations, sharp work to the body -- whose guard against leg kicks is called nonexistent; he absorbs a very high number of them without reacting. His toughness is stated outright. A past weak point, his ability to stop takedowns, is described as actively trending upward. This fight is framed as a major step up in the level of opponent for him. As of 2025-08-18.

He calls the matchup 'tricky' but still commits plainly ('Spivac is getting this one done'), citing a strength-of-competition edge and the grappling gap as the deciding mechanism.

A very good striker, essentially a boxer, who comes forward with a solid jab, good volume, good movement and combinations, and is rated durable enough to shrug off leg kicks -- which matters because his leg-kick defense is explicitly called nonexistent. His takedown defense is also rated not good, which the analyst expects to be the deciding factor if the fight hits the mat.

He expects the jab and sustained output to frustrate the opponent into straying from his usual single-shot discipline, which he says costs him the fight.

Our words: solid across the board with a couple of real negatives -- a very capable boxer with a strong jab, good footwork, real volume and combination work. His glaring hole is essentially no leg-kick defense, though he shows a high pain tolerance and appears unbothered absorbing them. His takedown defense can be a little shaky.

He admits outright that he is only naming a winner because the format requires one, and closes by calling it a 'guessing' exercise -- saying plainly there isn't much tape on Despaigne to go on.

Good striker and boxer: a solid jab, good volume, combinations and movement, mostly built around his hands rather than kicks. His one named hole is explicit and total: he does not defend leg kicks at all, a recurring problem through his career, and his own takedown defense is also not his best asset.

root-beer-idiom staking language combined with a personal no-bet disclosure and rooting against his own pick -- the idiom-plus-reluctance pattern. Pick itself is stated plainly twice, so it is a valid provisional pick, not a null.

12 years younger than Arlovski. A good boxer -- solid jab, good volume, movement and combinations, with the ability to counter back with a straight shot right after eating a strike -- but has one clear hole: he does not defend leg kicks at all and simply absorbs them the whole fight. Picked mainly on relative youth plus the chance his counter lands when Arlovski's own leg-kicking leaves his chin open.

Explicit, stated indecision right up to the moment of recording, including a direct line that the pick could still flip, plus direct advice to play the total rather than the straight winner.

Good boxing behind a strong jab, real volume and combinations, and good footwork. The clear holes are a leg-kick defense that doesn't check anything at all, and a takedown defense called flatly bad.

States the pick (Cortes-Acosta by decision) then immediately rates his own conviction at 'zero confidence', adding 'I don't trust it' and asking viewers not to bet it as a lock -- a direct, explicit statement of minimal conviction.

A tall, long boxer with a good, solid, rangy jab he sets up by fully turning his shoulder, decent volume and combinations, and good footwork. His one glaring, repeated hole is leg-kick defense, described as essentially absent fight after fight. He carries a 5-0 last five, but against a lower level of competition than tonight's opponent -- a real step up in competition.

Uses the analyst's own root-beer idiom for a relaxed, uninvested watch, paired with explicit advice to stay off the fight - he says twice he 'wouldn't bet anything' on it. Per the standing confidence-bar rule, the idiom plus stay-off advice together mean coinflip rather than a higher grade.

A boxer with notably quick hands, described as better than most UFC-level boxers on hand speed though not a top-tier boxer overall. The standout new finding this video is that he absorbed a heavy dose of leg kicks in his fight two weeks prior and, per the analyst, his leg still showed visible damage from it, a fresh vulnerability going into a short-turnaround rematch-style spot against another leg-kicker.

States the mechanism plainly (boxing/power vs. an opponent who won't use his own better grappling) and names Acosta as the pick; the 'wouldn't play it' / minus-400-500 price language is an explicit wager-price objection, not a stated doubt about who wins.

Making his UFC debut with decent boxing and a good chin -- he has shown he can absorb punishment and keep advancing in his career so far. The analyst explicitly contradicts the board's claim about his power, saying on review that he does NOT have good power. He is undefeated overall but has not faced the level of competition his opponent has.