UFC Betting Explained: How First Fights Predict Rematches

First fights are one of the most powerful data points you get in UFC betting. They reveal how two specific styles interact under real pressure. They don't "lock in" the rematch result, but they massively narrow the range of realistic outcomes if you interpret them correctly instead of just copying the final score.

The public sees a first fight result and thinks that's the answer. Fighter A beat Fighter B, so A beats B again. That's lazy thinking. Sharp bettors ask why the result happened, which problems can be fixed, and which are permanent. That distinction is where rematch betting edges exist.

Read more: The Complete Guide to Betting UFC Rematches & Trilogy Fights

The Numbers Don't Lie (But They Don't Tell the Whole Story)

A large historical breakdown of MMA rematches across all promotions found 1,430 immediate rematches where the same fighters fought consecutively. In 500 of those (about 35%), the outcome was different than the first fight. So roughly 65% of the time, the result stayed the same.

But here's where it gets interesting. The type of finish matters enormously and creates dramatically different repeat probabilities:

• When the first fight ended by submission, only 24.5% of rematches had different results
• Including technical knockouts with submissions, the reversal rate rises only to 26%
• That implies approximately 74-76% repeat rate when the first fight was a finish by submission or TKO
• Knockouts and submissions expose permanent problems like chin durability or fundamental grappling deficiencies

For UFC title scenarios, the pattern is even more brutal. Across the modern era, fewer than 10% of champions who lost their belt have reclaimed it in an immediate rematch. Only Randy Couture, Amanda Nunes, and Deiveson Figueiredo have done it in recent history. That's it. Three fighters out of dozens of attempts.

Shurzy Tip: When a fighter got submitted or knocked out cold in the first fight, the market usually underprices the repeat. The public thinks "he got caught." The data says permanent problems got exposed. Bet accordingly.

What First Fights Actually Reveal

The first fight gives you four especially predictive pillars that determine whether the result will repeat. Film study guides for rematches in boxing and MMA all come back to these same themes.

Pace and Cardio: The Most Repeatable Attribute

Film reveals whether one fighter's tank is structurally better. Cardio is one of the most repeatable attributes in rematches because you can't fake it. Either you have it or you don't, and one training camp rarely transforms a fighter who gasses in Round 2 into a cardio machine.

Here's what to watch for in the first fight to predict cardio in the rematch:

• Who dictated the pace? Did someone force a high-output, scramble-heavy fight the other struggled to maintain?
• Volume collapse patterns: Did either fighter's output crater after wrestling exchanges or heavy body work?
• Tactical versus structural issues: Was the cardio problem about conditioning or wasting energy on low-percentage moves?

If Fighter A drowned Fighter B down the stretch in fight one and Fighter B has no clear evidence of improved preparation, expect that pattern to persist or worsen.

Distance and Cage Control: Stylistic DNA

Distance control tends to be stylistic, not accidental. Unless the rematch brings a drastic stylistic or tactical change, the fighter who controlled range first time usually controls it again.

The first fight reveals critical geography patterns that repeat in rematches:

• Preferred range dominance: Who consistently got the fight into their preferred range (long kicks, pocket boxing, or clinch)?
• Fence position: Did one fighter spend most of the fight with their back on the fence unable to circle off?
• Entry efficiency: Were entries for shots or exchanges easy or labored?

A long kicker who kept a short boxer at range in fight one will probably do it again unless the boxer fundamentally changes their approach or the kicker gets old and slow.

Damage Patterns: Where the Body Breaks

Beyond the finish or scorecards, look at where and how damage accumulated. The human body doesn't suddenly develop resistance to techniques that hurt it before, which makes damage patterns highly predictive.

Study these specific damage indicators from the first fight:

• Target zones that broke down: Legs, body, or head getting compromised first
• Repeated weapons success: Specific techniques like calf kicks, counter right hands, or body shots
• Impact on performance: Did damage slow the opponent's offense or only produce momentary flashes?

If Fighter A repeatedly hurt Fighter B with the same weapon (example: leg kicks compromising stance), that is highly predictive of the rematch unless Fighter B adds a real defensive answer including checks, stance switches, or different footwork.

When First Fights Lie to You

The key to using first fights well is separating signal from noise. There are situations where the original result is less predictive than the baseline 65% repeat rate suggests.

Low-information results don't give you enough data to project the rematch accurately. These include scenarios where the fight ended before revealing anything meaningful about the matchup:

• Early injury: Blown knee, broken arm, or freak cut in Round 1 forcing stoppage
• Freak flash knockout: First-minute finish with almost no extended exchanges
• Referee or doctor error: Accidental clash-of-heads that went missed and changed the fight

These fights don't give enough data on pace, endurance, or strategic patterns. The rematch should be handicapped closer to a fresh matchup.

Weight-class and camp changes can rewrite everything between fights. If a fighter makes significant structural changes, the predictive power of the first fight drops substantially:

• Weight class movement: Dropping or moving up changes strength, cardio, and durability profiles
• Elite camp upgrades: Joining American Top Team, City Kickboxing, or Jackson-Wink adds real infrastructure
• Long layoffs to rebuild: Extended time off allows fundamental skill development

Extreme weight cuts or being undersized can make someone look worse than they truly are. A better weight class and camp can rewrite pacing, defense, and output entirely.

Shurzy Tip: When a fighter changes camps between fights, check whether it's a genuine upgrade or just panic. Moving from a regional gym to American Top Team is significant. Moving from one mid-tier gym to another mid-tier gym is noise disguised as change.

Fixable vs Permanent: The Framework That Matters

One of the best rematch frameworks is dividing what you saw into fixable versus permanent issues. This distinction determines whether the first-fight loser has a realistic chance or whether they're throwing money away.

Fixable problems can often be improved within one training camp. These are tactical and technical issues that smart coaching can address:

• Poor jab volume or lack of feints in the striking game
• Getting stuck on fence due to lazy footwork patterns
• Shooting naked takedowns without proper setups or entries
• Bad pacing that blows the gas tank early in fights
• Single-technique vulnerabilities like not checking leg kicks or always circling into power

If Fighter B lost mainly because of fixable flaws and you see concrete evidence of focused changes (new wrestling coach, visible stance adjustments, altered body composition), the first fight is less predictive and Fighter B can be undervalued as a rematch dog.

Permanent problems are rarely fixable in one camp, if at all. These are structural and physical issues that persist regardless of training:

• Chin and durability: Repeated hurt or rocked reactions, especially to basic strikes
• Speed deficit: Clearly slower to react, consistently beaten to the punch
• Reach or size disparity combined with poor tools to close distance
• Major strength gap in clinch or scrambles that can't be trained away
• Fundamental style mismatch: Elite wrestler versus truly bad takedown defense

When first-fight problems are structural, rematches usually go the same way or worse for the original loser. That's why submission and technical knockout losses only reversed in about 24-26% of immediate rematches.

Conclusion

First fights don't guarantee rematch results, but they narrow the range of realistic outcomes dramatically. The first winner repeats 65% of the time overall, but that jumps to 74-76% when they finished the opponent. The "why" behind the first result matters more than the "what." Fixable tactical errors create rematch value. Permanent physical deficits don't. Build your edge by rewatching first fights with purpose, categorizing problems as fixable or permanent, and betting only when your process-based read differs meaningfully from the market's result-based pricing.

‍