Alonzo Menifield vs Iwo Baraniewski

Each row splits one source's view of the fight. The dashed line is even odds. Where the models sit further from the market, they are claiming an edge.

Career UFC averages. Bars are scaled within each row, so compare left against right, not row against row. The stronger side is highlighted, and for strikes absorbed the lower number is the better one.

Each model's split across the ways this fight can finish, out of 100.

Genuine tension between the two priors here: the market has Baraniewski at 67%, Elo has Menifield at 55%, but Baraniewski's rating is provisional on one rated bout so the Elo number is mostly Menifield's own 18-fight baseline. I side with the market but not at its price. Baraniewski is 9-0 with four straight first-round-style knockouts (Aly, Aslan, Lane, Tafa) and his UFC-sample numbers - 11.35 SLpM at 57% accuracy - describe a fighter who throws with intent from the opening bell. The problem is the other column: 8.65 SApM absorbed and 52% defense means he trades in the pocket, and Menifield at 53% accuracy is one of the heaviest single-shot punchers at 205, as Zhang Mingyang found out in May. Menifield's 78% takedown defense also removes the fallback Baraniewski has never needed. So this is a firefight where the older man (38, nearly 39) has the longer reach by 3 inches and has been knocked out in round 1 or 2 in both of his last two losses (Murzakanov, Oezdemir). Chin durability at this age is the deciding factor. Baraniewski's youth, output and layoff freshness (92 days, three fights in nine months) give him the edge to land first and land often, but Menifield's counter-power and small-sample noise on Baraniewski keep this well short of the -230 line. Decision is unlikely from either side; someone gets finished early.

Baraniewski's higher striking output and +2.70 significant-strike differential favor him in exchanges against Menifield's nearly even differential. His 8.65 strikes absorbed per minute gives Menifield a substantial counterstriking opportunity. Missing sample sizes limit confidence in the extreme rates, but the supplied numbers favor an early Baraniewski stoppage.