Erik's UFC London Tape Study Notes

Curtis Blaydes vs Tom Aspinall Full Card Betting Write-Up

Hey, gang! Some internet issues and family engagements led to me being unable to finish my tape study by Monday night, but I decided to get this posted anyway, as I find that if I don’t stick to my schedule, I fall behind and shit starts to slip through the cracks. I figure an almost-complete set of notes on Monday is better than me MAYBE posting a complete set of notes on like Thursday or Friday, but more likely just forgetting to do it at all (haha). So here ya go! As always, please hit me up on Twitter (@ErikBetsFights) if you have any questions or just wanna shoot the shit. Thanks, y’all!

CURTIS BLAYDES (ORTH/SWITCH) VS TOM ASPINALL (SWITCH)

I favored Curtis Blaydes quite a bit pre-tape. I normally do tape without knowing the odds, but I had seen the odds for this fight and knew that it was pretty much a coinflip, and I felt like that was gonna be a steal of a line on Blaydes. 

After running the tape, though, I'm seeing the speed and agility of Aspinall, and I'm not so sure anymore. His hands are much faster than Blaydes' and his footwork and movement are much quicker, as well. 

We don't know a ton about Aspinall's takedown defense at this level, as his stats indicate only 2 TD attempts against him, and they were both in the Spivak fight. Well, I finished watching the Spivak fight about 2 minutes before typing this sentence, and I don't even remember anything that stood out to me as a proper TD attempt. They did tie up a little, and I imagine Spivak stuck a leg out to try a trip or something, but….still. When it comes to takedowns–or pretty much anything else, really–Serghei Spivak ain't exactly Curtis Blaydes, is he? 

Blaydes averages 6.06 TDs per 15 min and has scored as many as 14 TDs in one UFC fight. He has scored 62 total TDs in his UFC career, which is by far the most for anyone fighting at HW. That's good for 10th-most all-time. Not only is Blaydes the only heavyweight in the top 10–he's the only fighter above 170 in the top ten. So yeah, when it comes to takedowns, Curtis Blaydes is a special fighter. And at only 31 years old in the heavyweight division, he's likely got a whole lotta years of takedowns ahead of him, too.

Interestingly, though, Blaydes only has 33% takedown defense. He was taken down once by Volkov and taken down 3 times on 3 attempts by Cody "The Freight Train" East who, SPOILER ALERT, is not a very good fighter. There's a reason you don't remember him. His biggest win was Tony Lopez, and that was after losing to him the first time they fought. 

Offensively, Aspinall is currently credited with 4 TDs on 4 attempts for 100%. I feel like a strong possibility that a lot of people might fail to consider in this fight is Aspinall getting TDs on Blaydes and controlling him from top. 

Man, this is a tough fight to call. It almost seems like a coinflip to me, but I might be willing to lean Aspinall slightly for his speed advantage and his possibility to surprise Blaydes with takedowns, which Blaydes typically doesn't have to worry about. I'm gonna line it Aspinall -120 or 54%. (Currently, Aspinall is at -135 or 57%. No bet from me here unless Blaydes gets to maybe the +150 range or better.)

JACK HERMANSSON (ORTH) VS CHRIS CURTIS (SOUTHPAW)

Chris Curtis is one of the best feel-good stories we've seen in the UFC in recent years. An aging long-time veteran who never got the call-up to the big show and was ready to hang up the gloves…before suddenly getting the call-up and winning 3 fights in a row over reasonably sturdy UFC competition.

He's got KO power and airtight takedown defense, having been taken down ZERO times on 26 attempts. However, 20 of those attempts were from Rodolfo Vieira, who is an absolutely venomous submission grappler, but isn't exactly Aleksandr Karelin in the wrestling department. Or Rulon Gardner, if you wanna stick with the "feel-good story" theme. 

I think the outcome of this fight largely comes down to whether Jack Hermansson can get takedowns on Chris Curtis–and, if he can, whether he can keep him down for decent stretches of time. And I personally came away from the tape feeling like the answer to that was inconclusive.

Jack is an interesting fighter. He's 9-5 in the UFC and has beaten some solid competition, but when you watch him, he really doesn't look all that impressive…until he does. 

Against Strickland, Jack's TD attempts seemed pretty slow and telegraphed and easy to defend. When he shoots in open space, he seems to lack the athleticism and explosiveness necessary to get in on the hips quickly and really power through. He experiences his best success when he can push his opponent into the cage, grab a single, and run the pipe to finish. Vieira drove Curtis into the cage and looked for singles numerous times, but he didn't really show an ability to run the pipe or use off-balancing and angles to his advantage. I don't necessarily think Hermansson is a super high-level TD artist, but he appears to have a better grasp of the fine details of clinch TDs than does Vieira. 

As a striker, Jack seems rather slow and predictable. He's not likely to KO anyone standing. But if he can get TDs, Curtis could be in trouble on the ground. I ran a Twitter poll to see if people thought Jack would be able to get TDs on Curtis, and only like 30% of people said "no," with the others split between "yes" and "maybe like 1 if he's lucky." 

I don't know. As much as I think Curtis is a great dude and I love his feel-good story, I honestly think he might be a bit overrated. (I fully expect to be eviscerated for saying that.) His wins have been impressive, but I don’t rate his skillset very highly overall. I can't make up my mind as to how I lean here, so I'm just gonna call it a 50/50 coinflip. (Currently, it sits at Jack -105 and Curtis -115. Seems about right to me. Here's what I'm thinking: Chris Curtis has never been submitted in almost 40 fights, and Jack Hermansson has been finished by strikes only twice in almost 30 fights. Maybe we see a stalemate here. Over 2.5 sits at -118, with Fight Goes the Distance at +115. I might just stay away, but I'd be leaning toward one of those, I think, if I was gonna place a bet here.)

PADDY PIMBLETT VS JORDAN LEAVITT

They say gamblers and content creators should always state their biases, so here goes: "unathletic martial arts nerd" is my favorite fighter archetype, and "cocky Scouser with a pageboy haircut and an insufferable fanbase" is my least favorite.

I would love to see Jordan Leavitt win this fight. He's weird, and assuming, and–best of all–his twerk-heavy post-fight celebrations make alpha bros uncomfortable. I am–as the kids say–HERE FOR IT. And let us not forget: he's also an MMA bettor, and a pretty damn good one. At the time of this writing, he sits in 112th place on the BetMMA.Tips leaderboard, with 90.73 units of profit at 38% ROI. Not too shabby.

Know what worries me, though? When he fought Trey Ogden, he bet on himself. He even included an impressively self-aware little write-up in which he stated that the odds had him winning the fight 40% of the time, but he believed he would win the fight 60% of the time. ISN’T THAT ADORABLE? But he has NOT bet on himself for this fight. Not yet, at least. I'll be keeping a close eye on that.

These guys both bring super kick-heavy standup games, slick ground skills, and a healthy dose of weirdness—though of different kinds. I honestly think the biggest difference between the two is natural athleticism. I don’t judge their skill levels all that differently, which makes this a pretty appropriate matchup as the UFC looks to move Paddy slowly up the ladder. 

Look, the UFC wants Paddy to win; there’s no doubt about that. And Jordan Leavitt is a very beatable fighter—but he’s also a beatable fighter who’s pretty good at staying in fights and finding ways to win.

Jordan Leavitt is pretty tough and durable. I don't think Paddy will knock him out. And I think they both have the necessary groundskills to cancel each other out and make a sub finish pretty unlikely. I think it sees the scorecards, and I got FGTD at +200. I'm rolling with that rather than picking a side, but make no mistake: I'm Team MonkeyKing all the way here.

NIKITA KRYLOV VS ALEXANDER GUSTAFSSON

This is a difficult fight to handicap. How much does one take into account the fact that Gus has already retired once, is on a three fight losing streak, and hasn’t fought in two years? Where is his head at? How interested is he really in continuing to fight? Does he still have aspirations of being the best and becoming champion? Or does he just need a paycheck? 

Skill for skill, I think this fight is probably pretty close, which feels weird to say. In his prime, Gus was a much better fighter than Krylov. If this fight was taking place even 3-4 years ago, Gus would be a massive favorite. And even though Gus has been finished in his last three fights, I would argue that he hasn’t looked terrible. He certainly isn't the Gus we saw take Jon Jones to a contentious split decision almost 10 years ago, but he doesn't seem completely washed, either. (That might be an unpopular opinion; not sure.)

Very hard to be confident in a read on this fight. I’m willing to call it a coin flip or maybe lean Krylov ever so slightly. (Currently, Krylov is -190 or 65%. That feels too wide to me, but I might be giving Gus more credit than he deserves at this point in his career. Krylov did more-or-less hold his own for 15 mins vs Magomed Ankalaev just a couple fights ago, which is no small feat.)

There's absolutely a part of me that wants to believe in Alexander Gustafsson enough to take one last ride at +170, but I remain undecided. Tread lightly.

MOLLY MCCANN VS HANNAH GOLDY

Haven't had a chance to tape this fight yet due to internet issues and time constraints. Meatball Molly is a big favorite, and likely for good reason. The UFC isn't gonna give her a matchup she can't win in London. 

These two both go to decision a lot, and if this fight goes to decision, do you think the judges are gonna give Hannah Goldy the nod? IN LONDON? Get real, Cha-chi. Those beautiful muscles of hers might be able to curry favor in a lot of situations, but a decision against Molly McCann in London ain't likely to be one of 'em. The line is ridiculous, though. I'd probably recommend taking a look at Molly's decision prop if she hadn't gone absolutely apeshit and knocked Luana Carolina out with a spinning elbow last time she fought in front of her countrymen (countrypeople?). 

I'm gonna leave my money in my pocket and just watch this one.

PAUL CRAIG (ORTH) VS VOLKDAN OEZDEMIR (ORTH/SWITCH)

Paul Craig by sub is pretty much an auto-bet at this point for anyone paying attention, but unfortunately, the bookmakers have wised up to that. It's sitting out there at +250, with Paul's moneyline at +140. So not a ton of meat on that bone, but still…if you're gonna bet Craig, that's the way to do it. A lot of people seem uber-confident in Volkan here, but I don't know if I see it. He should win, yes, but I don't think Craig by sub is much less likely than Volkan by KO, personally.

That's all I'm gonna say about this fight, as I just don't feel strongly about picking a side. The fight is lined pretty closely, and I think that's fair. If you're open to getting a little weird with your bets, this is the kind of spot where you could probably just bet Volkan's moneyline and hedge with an appropriate amount on Craig by sub. I might do that, but I'll probably just stay away from betting this one altogether. 

I have a pretty dope Paul Craig impression. If you're ever in Vegas, get at me. I'll drive to your hotel, say "PAUL CRAIG!" really loudly in Paul Craig's voice, and then get back in my car and go home.  

MARC DIAKIESE VS DAMIR HADZOVIC

Marc Diakiese is a better fighter than Damir Hadzovic. He has better wrestling, better grappling, and more technical striking. (Interestingly, though, Damir Hadzovic has better striking stats than Marc Diakiese, both offensively and defensively. And not just marginally–SIGNIFICANTLY better.) Diakiese should also enjoy a significant advantage in speed and athleticism. Damir is tough and scrappy, and he hits hard. And "Bonecrusher" is a fighter who has shown a tendency to fall apart at times when the going gets tough, but I thought he showed impressive adaptability, fight IQ, and cardio in his last fight vs Slava Claus. 

Diakiese should get the better of the striking, and if Hadzovic does manage to rock him on the feet, he should be able to go to his wrestling to clear the cobwebs. 

Not super confident in this read, but I guess I would line the fight around Diakiese -200 or 66%. (Currently, it’s MD -340 or 77%. That does seem a little wide, but it’s kind of hard to see how Damir wins unless he finds a finish.)

NATHANIEL WOOD VS CHARLES ROSA

Nathaniel Wood is pretty darn good, and Charles Rosa isn't very good. I know, know: that's exactly the kind of deep technical analysis that keeps you coming back to the NeverHedge Substack newsletter, right? Well, I aim to please, and I'm happy to provide.

One thing that stands out as interesting about this matchup is that Rosa's last fight was at 155, and Wood typically fights at 135. For this bout, they'll meet in the middle at 145. So Rosa will be the bigger man, but I don't think it'll matter much.

Wood is 4-2 in the UFC, with losses to John Dodson and Casey Kenney. Rosa is 5-7 in the UFC. He alternated wins and losses for his first TEN fights in the UFC, and now he's suddenly lost two in a row. When the trend is over, what does it mean? Is Rosa done winning fights at the UFC level? Or does it mean he now wins 2 in a row? Or does it mean absolutely nothing, because each fight is an independent event with no meaningful connection to past events? I know I'm treading on dangerous ground here, but man, I'm fascinated by the ability of human beings–and especially GAMBLERS–to believe crazy things. Might as well burn more bridges while I'm at it: when you're playing blackjack, quit getting mad at the anchor–or anyone–for making bad decisions. The cards are randomized. That dummy at the end of the table splitting 10s has just as much chance to help you as hurt you, because again: RANDOMIZED. That guy to your right hitting on soft 17? Sure, he might take the 10 you need. But he might also take a 3 and leave you with a 10 on the next card. 

ANYWAY. Enough about that. 

I think Wood is the much better fighter here, and unless Rosa's size advantage ends up being more of a problem than expected, Wood should roll. I'll line the fight Wood -300 or 75%. (Currently, Wood is at -600 or 85%. Wow. Wood should win–might even make it look easy–but that's awfully wide.) 

MAKWAN AMIRKHANI (SOUTHPAW) VS JONATHAN PEARCE (ORTH/SWITCH)

First things first, Jonathan "JSP" Pearce is just lucky this is a fight and not a hunk-off, AMIRITE? I doubt a hunk-off is even a real thing, because if it was, Makwan Amirkhani wouldn't be out there getting beat up for a living. The guy's a dreamboat. You may choose to believe his Tapology picture is staged; I for one believe the picture was taken by someone who just walked into Makwan's penthouse on a random Tuesday afternoon and snapped a photo. 

If you've watched my YouTube videos, you know that I love betting on fighters who have three specific attributes: solid wrestling skill, the desire and tenacity to push the wrestling advantage, and the cardio to make that gameplan work. I'm not 100% sold on the guy yet, but JSP appears to be a fighter who ticks those boxes. He scrambles well, consistently looks to work to the back. He's always looking for RNC, arm triangle, etc. 

Makwan isn't a world beater, but he's a slick grappler with 24 fights under his belt, half of which are at the UFC level. In that regard, he represents a pretty clear step up from JSP's last few opponents. And considering that Makwan has 4 career wins by anaconda choke–3 of which were in his last 3 wins–JSP's penchant for shooting huge numbers of takedowns could be his undoing here, as he'll be sticking his neck repeatedly into Makwan's wheelhouse. That said, I do think JSP will be bigger, more athletic, and more physically imposing. If Makwan can't find the sub, I like Pearce to outwrestle him and control him to a decision. 

I think I favor JSP here slightly, but not a super confident read at all. I'd line the fight around JSP -140 or 58%. (Currently, JSP is at -225 or 69%. Wow. Wasn't expecting that at all. Makwan by sub at +375 is probably my favorite bet here. I'll likely at least sprinkle that.)

MUHAMMAD MOKAEV VS CHARLES JOHNSON

Haven't done the tape on this fight yet. Mokaev is 21 years old and already has 30 fights under his belt (most of which are at the amateur level–but still). He's good, but it's hard to say just how good he is yet. And if the UFC is smart, they will match him up in such a way that he won't know how good he really is for a few more years. 

Charles Johnson is an LFA champ with a decent number of both submission and TKO/KO finishes to his name. He lost a decision to Brandon Royval in 2018 and has won 4 in a row against pretty solid LFA-level competition since then–2 by KO, 1 by sub (anaconda) and 1 by decision. 

It's fair to assume that the UFC is looking to give Mokaev matchups that are reasonably high-level but winnable, and this seems to fit the bill. I can't line the fight yet since I haven't been able to watch the tape, but Mokaev is sitting at -500 in spots, with the comeback on Charles Johnson at +400. Mokaev should win this, but I couldn't blame anyone for taking a little shot on the dog at a number like that. 

JAI HERBERT (ORTH) VS KYLE NELSON (ORTH)

Herbert should win this. He's got 2 inches of height and 6 inches of reach. He's the much better technical striker. He uses excellent movement, and he's very athletic. 

Kyle Nelson maybe hits harder (maybe not), but he's more of a wild, looping type of striker who looks to load up and try to land the big KO punch. Herbert is able to muster big KO power without loading up. He throws straight, snappy, technical strikes with power behind them, which is a dangerous ability to have in your pocket. 

Nelson's best bet in this fight is probably to wrestle, but that's not really his thing. He does show 16 TD attempts in 4 UFC fights, for an average of 4 attempts per fight; however, if we dig deeper, we see that 10 of those attempts were in the Matt Sayles fight. Nelson has landed only 12% of his TD attempts, but Herbert shows pretty low TDD at 42%, and his opponents have held him in control positions for 45% of his UFC fight time, which is very concerning. If Nelson pushes the wrestling, I think he could get TDs here and he could ride out some top control time. However, I don't see him being able to do this consistently enough to win the fight that way.

On the feet, at range, Herbert should have a massive advantage. I think he probably finds the KO on Nelson at some point, and with Jai's KO prop sitting at -110, it appears that the bookmakers agree.

Nelson by decision can be had for +600, which sort of interests me, given the possible path for Nelson to clinch, cage-push, and wrestle, but like I said, that path seems pretty unlikely to me. I'll line the fight Jai Herbert at -215 or 68%. (Currently, Herbert is at -280 or 73%, with Nelson at +240 or 29%. I'd maybe consider Herbert as a parlay piece, but it's mostly a stayaway for me, I think.)

MANDY BOHM (ORTH) VS VICTORIA LEONARDO (ORTH)

This is a low, low, lowwwwww level UFC fight. Like…YEESH. 

I'm like half done with tape on Bohm, haven't started on Leonardo yet, and I already know I'm not betting this fight (although I've been known to be lying to myself when I say that). 

Leonardo has had no favors in the UFC, making her debut vs Manon Fiorot and getting Melissa Gatto as a follow-up. Both monsters. 

I have no idea what to do with this fight. Bohm will have a 6-inch reach advantage, but she really doesn't look that good at range and seems to prefer working in the clinch, where she looks pretty good. Leonardo does have some wrestling. Her striking looks pretty sloppy at range, but she throws hard. She's aggressive and tough. How tough? Well, Melissa Gatto broke Leonardo's arm, and Leonardo wanted to keep fighting. 

I think the fight is a coinflip. No idea. No interest. (Currently, Bohm is -151 or 60ish percent. If I was gonna bet anything here, I'd go with the dog, but this is the very definition of a 1-800-GAMBLER fight.) I WILL be betting this fight for the She's A Dawg project. (Please check out betmma.tips/ShesADawg if you're interested in learning more about what that is and how it's going.)

NICOLAS DALBY VS CLAUDIO SILVA

OK, so Claudio Silva has a win over Leon Edwards in Edwards' UFC debut. 

Cool. That's great. He also has a win over Nordine Taleb, which doesn't really seem worth mentioning–and probably isn't–but y'all know I love trivia and bringing up Nordine Taleb allows me to mention that Taleb has the highest TD accuracy in UFC history at 76.2%. I just think it's cool when a fighter you don't expect has a UFC record. Another good one: Paul Sass has the all-time UFC record for submission attempts, with 7.62 sub attempts per 15 min. Yes, you read that correctly. Ol' "Sassangle" fought in the UFC five times, going 3-2, and he averaged 1 submission attempt every 2 mins in those 5 fights. He heelhooked Michael Johnson and triangle-armbarred Jacob Volkmann. He also beat some dude by toe-hold in Bellator, and a toe-hold win in a high-level MMA fight isn't something you see every day. That's pretty badass. 

What were we talking about again?

Oh, yeah. Claudio Silva. He's 39 years old and carries about 4 minutes' worth of gas in the ol' tank. Nicolas Dalby has never been submitted at any point in any of his fights, much less in the first 4 mins. So there ya go. (Full disclosure: internet issues have so far prevented me from doing the tape on this fight, which is why I mostly talked about unrelated UFC fighters you haven’t thought about in years.)

Anyway, that’s all I got for you, gang! If you enjoy my work, please subscribe to my YouTube channel (Erik Bets Fights), and give me a follow on Twitter (@ErikBetsFights). Take care y’all, and good luck on your bets!

-Erik