Skip to content
FIGHT FORECAST
Matchup

Melissa Croden vs Chelsea Chandler

UFC Fight Night: Buckley vs Malott · Sat 17 Oct 2026 · Women's Bantamweight

Official forecast

Result

✗ Forecast missed

Chelsea Chandler won by SUB Kimura · round 1, 4:52

The locked pre-fight forecast below is shown exactly as it was before the event.

Winner estimate

Melissa CrodenvsChelsea Chandler

Model pick: Melissa Croden (71.2%). The model expects the other fighter to win about 29 times in 100 similar fights.

Evidence and reliability

  • Melissa Croden: 3 prior detailed UFC fights
  • Chelsea Chandler: 6 prior detailed UFC fights

Official forecasts require at least 3 prior detailed UFC fights for both fighters. The estimate is a probability from one model, not a guarantee; small differences between fighters carry real uncertainty.

Why the model leans this way

Locked before the fight
Model pickMelissa Croden71.2%

Supporting the pick3

  • Significant strikes absorbed per roundEdge: Melissa Croden
    Melissa Croden 10.56, Chelsea Chandler 19.75.
  • Striking defenseEdge: Melissa Croden
    Melissa Croden 59.4%, Chelsea Chandler 40.5%.
  • Takedown defenseEdge: Melissa Croden
    Melissa Croden 66.7%, Chelsea Chandler 25.0%.

Working against the pick0

  • No opposing factors listed.

The model's own locked explanation fields, captured before the fight: what moved the model, not causes. "Against prior opposition" measures compare a fighter with what their opponents usually allow.

Method and distance

Method and distance estimates are unavailable for this bout.

Stat comparison

Descriptive

Reason through the matchup yourself. The brighter side of each bar marks the fighter with the edge.

Biggest statistical gaps

  • Melissa Croden brings more wrestling volume: 1.33 takedown attempts per round to Chelsea Chandler’s 0.42.
  • Melissa Croden has more takedown production: 0.67 takedowns landed per round to Chelsea Chandler’s 0.25.
  • Melissa Croden has the stronger takedown defense: 66.7% to Chelsea Chandler’s 25.0%.

Striking

  • Significant strikes landedper round
    Melissa Croden 21.1, Chelsea Chandler 16.2. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Significant strikes absorbedper round · lower is better
    Melissa Croden 10.6, Chelsea Chandler 19.8. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Striking differentiallanded minus absorbed, per round
    Melissa Croden +10.6, Chelsea Chandler -3.5. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Striking accuracyshare of significant strikes landed
    Melissa Croden 47.3%, Chelsea Chandler 45.0%. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Striking defenseshare of opponents’ significant strikes avoided
    Melissa Croden 59.4%, Chelsea Chandler 40.5%. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Knockdownsper round
    Melissa Croden 0.11, Chelsea Chandler 0.08. Edge: Melissa Croden.

Wrestling and grappling

  • Takedown attemptsper round · wrestling volume
    Melissa Croden 1.33, Chelsea Chandler 0.42. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Takedowns landedper round · takedown production
    Melissa Croden 0.67, Chelsea Chandler 0.25. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Takedown accuracyshare of own attempts completed
    Melissa Croden 50.0%, Chelsea Chandler 60.0%. Edge: Chelsea Chandler.
  • Takedown defenseshare of opponents’ attempts stopped
    Melissa Croden 66.7%, Chelsea Chandler 25.0%. Edge: Melissa Croden.
  • Control timeminutes:seconds per round
    Melissa Croden 1:13, Chelsea Chandler 1:21. Edge: Chelsea Chandler.
  • Submission attemptsper round
    Melissa Croden 0.11, Chelsea Chandler 0.08. Edge: Melissa Croden.

Fight profile

  • Finish rateshare of UFC wins by KO/TKO or submission
    Melissa Croden 50.0%, Chelsea Chandler 66.7%. Edge: Chelsea Chandler.
  • Wins by KO/TKOUFC wins
    Melissa Croden 1, Chelsea Chandler 1. Style difference, no edge.
  • Wins by submissionUFC wins
    Melissa Croden 0, Chelsea Chandler 1. Style difference, no edge.
  • Wins by decisionUFC wins
    Melissa Croden 1, Chelsea Chandler 1. Style difference, no edge.
  • Average fight timeelapsed time per UFC bout (minutes:seconds)
    Melissa Croden 15:00, Chelsea Chandler 10:15. Style difference, no edge.
  • Detailed UFC fightsmore fights = more evidence behind these numbers
    Melissa Croden 3, Chelsea Chandler 6. Edge: Chelsea Chandler.

Career UFC totals from fights before Sat 17 Oct 2026 only (pre-fight cutoff; this bout and anything after it are excluded); latest included fight Sat 6 Jun 2026. These are descriptive numbers, not the model's locked inputs, and they are not opponent-adjusted. Small samples move a lot.

The fighters

Melissa Croden

UFC record 2-1 · 3 detailed UFC fights · Volume Striker · Defensive Striker

Ratings

Ratings V2 scores are not available for this fighter yet.

Chin and Cardio · Frozen through October 17, 2026
R1 research scale
ChinEvidence: LIMITED81.5
CardioEvidence: LIMITED74.1

Source: R1 public_candidate_display · status: Research candidate · as of Sat 17 Oct 2026. Separate frozen research scale; fights after October 17, 2026 are not reflected.

Fighter profile →

Chelsea Chandler

UFC record 3-3 · 6 detailed UFC fights · Balanced / Hybrid

Ratings

Ratings V2 scores are not available for this fighter yet.

Chin and Cardio · Frozen through October 17, 2026
R1 research scale
ChinEvidence: DEVELOPING80.7
CardioEvidence: LIMITED72.0

Source: R1 public_candidate_display · status: Research candidate · as of Sat 17 Oct 2026. Separate frozen research scale; fights after October 17, 2026 are not reflected.

Fighter profile →

Post-fight review

Published
What happened
Chelsea Chandler submitted Melissa Croden with a kimura at 4:52 of Round 1. The model strongly favored Croden at 71.2%.
What the model got right
The frozen statistical profile genuinely favored Croden in numerous areas: striking defense, strikes absorbed, takedown defense, significant-strike output, takedowns landed, prior UFC win rate, and striking accuracy. This was not a case where the model ignored an obvious opposing driver in the saved Winner inputs.
What the model missed
Chandler found a submission path that the frozen Winner drivers did not clearly flag. Unlike Barriault–Daukaus, the post-event audit found no clean opposing frozen factor that neatly explains the loss. That means we should avoid inventing a hindsight explanation just because Chandler won by submission.
Takeaway
This is exactly the kind of miss that should remain an unresolved data point rather than trigger immediate tuning. It may eventually inform better grappling/submission-state representation, but one outcome does not prove a missing feature. The correct response is to log it and see whether similar archetypes repeat.

Written after the result · updated 21 Oct 2026, 07:01 UTC. Post-hoc interpretation; it does not change the locked forecast or the record.

Simulate in the Lab

The Lab's simulators currently run on a fixed library of historical example fights, so this exact matchup is not available there yet. They are research tools and can disagree with the official forecast.

Open the Lab