Charles Radtke vs Daniel Frunza
Men's Welterweight Bout • UFC Fight Night: Garcia vs. Onama
Saturday, November 1, 2025
Explore Detailed Fighter Profiles
Click on either the fighter's name or profile image for each fighter to access comprehensive UFC statistics including striking metrics, grappling data, clinch performance, complete fight history, offensive & defensive analytics, and round-by-round breakdowns.
Fighter Metrics
Victory Methods
Win Round Distribution
Fighter Metrics
Victory Methods
Win Round Distribution
Last 5 Fights - Charles Radtke
| Date | Opponent | Result | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-10 | Mike Malott | L | KO/TKO - Punch to Head (R2, 0:26) |
| 2024-11-09 | Matthew Semelsberger | W | KO/TKO - Punches to Head (R1, 0:51) |
| 2024-06-08 | Carlos Prates | L | KO/TKO - Knee to Body (R1, 4:47) |
| 2024-02-03 | Gilbert Urbina | W | KO/TKO - Punch to Head (R1, 4:47) |
| 2023-09-09 | Blood Diamond | W | Decision - Unanimous (R3, 5:00) |
Last 5 Fights - Daniel Frunza
| Date | Opponent | Result | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-05 | Rhys McKee | L | TKO - Doctor's Stoppage (R1, 5:00) |
| 2024-09-24 | Vadym Kutsyi | W | KO/TKO - Ground & Pound (R2, 3:30) |
| 2023-10-27 | Haris Talundžić | W | KO/TKO - Strikes (R3, 4:59) |
| 2023-08-04 | Jalin Fuller | W | KO/TKO - Strikes (R1, 3:36) |
| 2023-04-15 | Lindsey Jones | W | KO/TKO - Strikes (R2, 1:00) |
Technical Analysis
Technical Score
Cardio Score
Overall Rating
📊 Technical Score
Calculated as the average of Striking Composite (58 vs 62) and Grappling Composite (42 vs 28). Combines overall striking effectiveness with grappling ability to measure complete technical skills.
💪 Cardio Score
Based on average fight duration, striking rate per minute, takedown rate, and finish rate. Measures cardiovascular endurance and ability to maintain pace throughout fights.
🎯 Overall Rating
Simple average of Technical Score and Cardio Score. Provides a holistic view of fighter capabilities combining skill level with physical conditioning and fight performance.
Striking Composite
Grappling Composite
Technical Radar Comparison
Metrics Legend
Detailed Statistical Comparison
🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown
🧠 Charles Radtke Key Advantages
Radtke's 49% striking accuracy versus Frunza's 40% represents a fundamental gap in shot selection and precision—the kind of edge that compounds over 15 minutes inside the Apex's 25-foot cage. When every entry is forced and neither fighter can circle out, the fighter who lands cleaner per exchange accumulates more damage and banks more scoring moments. This efficiency profile suggests disciplined counters and better footwork under pressure, critical traits when Frunza's length and volume force engagement. In tight rounds where both fighters are active, judges tend to favor the fighter landing the harder, more visible punches, and Radtke's profile gives him that edge consistently. With Frunza throwing 6.3 significant strikes per minute, Radtke will see plenty of opportunities to counter, and his 49% hit rate means nearly half of his returns will land, creating a rhythm of damage that can tilt scorecards even if volume appears even on the surface.
Absorbing only 3.7 significant strikes per minute compared to Frunza's 6.7 tells the story of a fighter who understands defensive positioning and knows how to avoid wasteful exchanges. This near-doubling of damage intake by Frunza isn't random—it's the tax paid for aggressive pace without refined defense. In a three-round fight where both men are pushing output, the fighter who weathers less cumulative damage retains sharper reflexes, cleaner footwork, and better decision-making deep into rounds. Radtke's damage economy suggests he picks his spots, exits on angles after engaging, and doesn't linger in the pocket for counters. Over 15 minutes, eating nearly twice the volume per minute compounds into visible fatigue, slower reactions, and a higher finish risk if Radtke finds a clean counter late. This gap also influences judges: a fighter who looks less damaged, moves crisper, and maintains composure tends to win close rounds even if activity appears even.
Shuts down Plan B — forces a pure striking fight on his terms.
⚠️ Unfavorable Scenarios
If Frunza's 6.3 SLpM pace overwhelms Radtke's counter windows and the activity gap becomes visually stark, judges scoring from cageside may interpret volume as effective aggression, especially if Radtke's cleaner shots don't produce visible damage markers like cuts or wobbles. MMA judging remains imperfect; high-output fighters who miss more but throw more can steal rounds on optics alone if the cleaner striker doesn't land enough fight-changing moments. This is Radtke's primary risk: letting Frunza dictate pace, control center cage, and flood the scorecard with activity that overshadows quality. Radtke must punctuate his counters with visible impact—body shots that slow Frunza, head snaps that turn his chin, or fence sequences where Radtke lands multiple clean returns.
Frunza's Muay Thai background and willingness to trade at a deficit create early finishing equity. The first five minutes are his highest-leverage window: Radtke hasn't yet established counter timing, Frunza's length allows him to close distance quickly, and the 25-foot cage means there's less escape room if Radtke gets pinned on the fence during an initial blitz. Swarms are messy, high-variance sequences where the cleaner striker's technical edge can get neutralized by sheer volume, referee positioning, and the chaos of rapid exchanges. If Frunza lands a clean teep-to-knee-to-elbow sequence early and Radtke is still finding his range, that kind of burst can wobble or finish before the statistical advantages ever materialize.
📋 Likely Gameplan
Radtke's blueprint is patience layered with sharp punishment. Early in each round, use feints and level-changes to draw Frunza's 1–2 down the pipe, then slip and return with straight right-hand counters targeting the chin and body. Stay off the fence with quarter-turn pivots after exchanges—don't let Frunza pin him for clinch volume or knee sequences. The 25-foot cage makes lateral movement harder, so Radtke must circle before pressure builds, resetting to center and forcing Frunza to re-enter. Every time Frunza commits to a teep or long combination, Radtke should time the exit and plant a counter as Frunza retracts. In Round 3, if Radtke has weathered the early pace and imposed damage economy, he can increase output slightly to seal optics, knowing Frunza is more compromised. The goal: win minutes through shot quality, deny Frunza's pace narrative with visible counters, and avoid letting any single round slip away on activity alone.
🚀 Daniel Frunza Key Advantages
At 6'1" with a 73" reach, Frunza operates at a rare physical scale for the welterweight division, especially against Radtke's 5'10" frame. That four-inch height and corresponding reach delta allows Frunza to initiate first contact, control the preferred range, and force Radtke to work through a longer striking envelope to land his counters. Combined with a 6.3 significant strikes landed per minute output, Frunza can flood the pocket with volume before Radtke settles into his rhythm, creating a pace that accumulates activity even if individual strikes aren't landing clean. This pace-length combination is particularly dangerous in the Apex cage: less space to circle means Radtke has to wade through Frunza's jab, teep, and long 1–2 more often. Length + pace is a proven formula in small cages: it compresses the opponent's time to think, limits their ability to reset, and creates scoring moments through volume even when accuracy lags.
Frunza's Muay Thai pedigree brings a diverse arsenal that goes beyond traditional boxing-heavy MMA: long teeps that snap heads back or push opponents to the fence, knees in the clinch that score and disrupt rhythm, and elbows at close range that threaten cuts and finishes. These tools are especially effective in a small cage where clinch entries happen frequently and separation is harder to maintain. If Frunza can drag Radtke into extended clinch battles along the fence, he can land knees to the body and head that both score on judges' cards and drain Radtke's gas tank. The teep is a particularly high-leverage weapon: it keeps Radtke at the end of his range, disrupts counter timing, and can be thrown with high frequency. Frunza's ability to threaten multiple striking planes—kicks low, teeps mid, punches high, knees and elbows in tight—forces Radtke to defend more zones, slowing his counter reads and creating openings.
⚠️ Unfavorable Scenarios
Frunza's 6.3 SLpM pace and 40% accuracy mean he's missing roughly 60% of the volume he throws—and every miss is a potential counter opportunity for a disciplined striker like Radtke. High-output fighters often win on activity, but against opponents with sharp counter-punching and superior accuracy, that same volume becomes a liability: each whiffed jab or teep leaves Frunza momentarily extended and open, and Radtke's 49% hit rate suggests he's capable of capitalizing on those windows. The more Frunza throws, the more entries he gives Radtke, and in a small cage where reset time is minimal, those counters compound quickly. Absorbing 6.7 strikes per minute creates cumulative damage that can lead to mid-fight finishes if Radtke finds his timing.
With 0.0 offensive takedowns per 15 minutes and only 17% accuracy on attempts, Frunza has no credible wrestling pivot if his striking plan stalls. His 67% takedown defense is merely average, and the absence of a Plan B constrains strategic flexibility: if Radtke's counters start landing clean and Frunza's pace isn't banking rounds, there's no grappling adjustment to mix looks, slow the fight, or grind out control time. Frunza is committed to a striking-only path, and if that path gets shut down by superior accuracy and damage economy, he has no fallback. This one-dimensionality makes his striking more predictable as the fight wears on—Radtke knows Frunza has to strike, so he can sit patient and wait for counter windows without worrying about takedown feints.
📋 Likely Gameplan
Frunza must fight at the edge of his range and never let Radtke settle into a comfortable counter-punching pocket. Start every round with high-frequency teeps to the chest and midsection, establishing length and preventing Radtke from walking forward confidently. Mix in long 1–2 combinations down the middle, not for knockout power but to force Radtke into reactive defense and create visual activity. Crucially, work exits: after throwing, pivot out on angles rather than staying in front of Radtke—every static moment is a counter opportunity. Use the first five minutes to impose maximum pace, flood the pocket before Radtke finds timing, and hunt early damage with aggressive clinch entries when Radtke is pinned on the fence (knees, elbows, shoulder pressure). Volume must be intelligent—not just throwing for activity, but mixing teeps to disrupt, low kicks to slow movement, and body punches to drain the gas tank. In Rounds 2 and 3, if Radtke starts landing cleaner counters, Frunza must increase pace rather than retreat. The path to victory is chaos, volume, and early finishing equity.
🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis
Data-driven prediction model based on statistical analysis
📊Detailed Analysis Summary
🏟️Cage Dynamics
The UFC Apex's 25-foot Octagon fundamentally alters the geometry of this matchup compared to a regulation 30-foot cage. With 40% less floor area, lateral movement is compressed, circling away from pressure becomes harder, and both fighters are forced into exchanges more frequently. This compressed environment theoretically favors aggressive pressure fighters like Frunza, who can cut off angles and impose volume without as much risk of opponents resetting to range. However, the flip side is equally critical: when entries are forced and neither fighter can freely disengage, shot quality compounds faster than shot quantity. Radtke's 49% accuracy and 3.7 SApM defensive profile gain strategic value in this context because every exchange becomes a micro-battle of efficiency. Frunza can create more total volume opportunities, but Radtke will land cleaner per exchange and take less cumulative damage, which over 15 minutes tilts the scorecards toward the more efficient striker. The cage size also limits Frunza's ability to reset after missing—if he throws a long combination and whiffs, Radtke is immediately in counter range without needing to chase. That said, the small cage still creates volatility: if Frunza can pin Radtke on the fence and unleash sustained clinch volume (knees, elbows, shoulder pressure), those sequences can swing entire rounds on activity optics, even if Radtke lands the cleaner isolated shots. Expect a tension between Radtke trying to control center, pick counters, and avoid prolonged fence battles, versus Frunza trying to force chaos, flood volume, and manufacture messy exchanges where his pace overwhelms Radtke's precision.
🎯Technical Breakdown
This matchup distills into a classic MMA dichotomy: precision versus volume, efficiency versus activity. Radtke's 49% striking accuracy paired with his 3.7 significant strikes absorbed per minute paints the profile of a technical counter-puncher who picks his moments, lands clean, and avoids wasteful exchanges. He's not a high-volume output fighter (his SLpM is moderate), but what he throws tends to land, and more importantly, he doesn't pay a high defensive tax for his offensive activity. This is textbook minute-winning in modern MMA judging: land the cleaner shots, look less damaged, and control the visual narrative of the exchange. Conversely, Frunza's 6.3 significant strikes landed per minute with 40% accuracy and 6.7 absorbed per minute represents the inverse philosophy: flood the zone with output, accept that most won't land clean, and hope the sheer volume of activity sways judges and creates finishing opportunities through accumulated pressure. Frunza can absolutely win minutes this way—judges often reward the busier fighter in close rounds, especially if that fighter is moving forward and dictating pace. The problem for Frunza is that his volume comes at a steep cost: he's eating nearly double the damage Radtke absorbs, which compounds across three rounds into visible fatigue, slower reflexes, and diminished output late. If this fight goes the distance, the fighter who looks fresher, moves crisper, and maintains composure in Round 3 will likely get the nod on close cards, and that profile heavily favors Radtke. The wildcard is whether Frunza's pace creates enough chaos early—particularly in Round 1—to land a finish before Radtke's efficiency edge fully manifests. If Frunza can hurt Radtke in the first five minutes and force a brawl, his volume strategy becomes much more viable. If Radtke weathers the storm and imposes his counter-punching rhythm, the math tilts decisively his way.
🧩Key Battle Areas
The fight will be won or lost in three critical battle zones, none of which involve grappling (neither fighter has credible offensive wrestling to force a stylistic pivot). First, early swarm windows: Frunza's highest-equity path runs through the first five minutes, where he can impose his length and pace before Radtke calibrates counter timing. If Frunza lands a clean combination early—teep to the chest, long 1–2, knee in the clinch—and forces Radtke into survival mode, the entire fight script flips. Radtke must weather this initial storm without taking serious damage or conceding momentum, allowing him to settle into his rhythm by mid-Round 1. Second, fence sequences: in a 25-foot cage, prolonged battles along the fence are inevitable. Frunza will try to pin Radtke and unleash volume (knees, shoulder pressure, short elbows) to score activity and drain energy. Radtke must use quarter-turn pivots, hand-fighting, and tactical clinch resets to avoid getting stuck there for extended sequences. Judges heavily weigh fence control and clinch activity; if Frunza dominates these sequences, he can bank rounds even if Radtke lands cleaner in open space. Third, distance management: who controls the preferred range? Frunza wants to operate at the end of his reach, where his length nullifies Radtke's counters and allows him to throw teeps and long punches with impunity. Radtke wants to close into mid-range pocket exchanges, where his accuracy and shorter, more compact counters become lethal. Every sequence is a micro-battle for range control: Frunza using teeps and footwork to maintain distance, Radtke using feints and pressure to force entries. The fighter who consistently imposes their preferred distance will dictate the fight's narrative and likely win the decision.
🔮Victory Scenarios
Each fighter has a clear path to victory, shaped by their statistical profiles and stylistic strengths. Radtke's primary win condition is a decision built on minute-winning through superior shot quality and damage economy. Over three rounds, if Radtke consistently lands the cleaner, more visible strikes while absorbing less cumulative damage, he banks rounds on judges' scorecards even if Frunza appears busier. This is the highest-probability outcome (34% of his total 63% win probability is by decision), reflecting the fact that his technical edge compounds over time rather than manifesting as explosive finishing moments. That said, Radtke also holds significant KO/TKO equity (26% of scenarios)—not from blitzing forward, but from patient counter-punching that accumulates damage on Frunza's porous defense (6.7 SApM). If Radtke finds clean right-hand counters over Frunza's jab or body shots during clinch breaks, that damage compounds, and by Round 2 or 3, a single clean counter can finish a compromised Frunza. Radtke's submission equity is minimal (3%), reflecting his limited offensive grappling, but non-zero if a scramble occurs. Frunza's win scenarios are more volatile and front-loaded. His highest path is early KO/TKO (26% of total outcomes)—a chaotic Round 1 where his pace, length, and Muay Thai volume create a messy brawl, and he lands a teep-knee-elbow sequence or sustained fence assault that finishes Radtke before the technical gap manifests. This is Frunza's best bet: hunt the finish early, impose maximum chaos, and avoid letting the fight settle into a technical counter-punching battle. His decision path (10%) exists but is narrow—it requires him to sustain high volume across all three rounds, win fence sequences, and convince judges that activity trumps shot quality. His submission threat is nearly zero (1%), given his lack of offensive grappling. The divergence in win paths is telling: Radtke's paths are more consistent and time-stable (his edge grows as the fight lengthens), while Frunza's paths are high-variance and time-sensitive (his best equity is in the first five minutes, and it declines as Radtke settles in).
🏁Final Prediction
The model leans Radtke at 63% win probability versus Frunza's 37%, a spread that reflects a clear but not overwhelming technical edge. This isn't a mismatch—Frunza's length, pace, and early finishing equity keep him live throughout—but the statistical fundamentals favor Radtke's efficiency-first approach in a three-round fight. The 63–37 split is driven by three core factors: Radtke's superior striking accuracy (49% vs 40%), his vastly better damage economy (3.7 SApM vs 6.7), and the time-stability of his advantages (they compound over 15 minutes rather than requiring early volatility). Frunza's 37% is meaningful—it's not a puncher's chance, but a legitimate path built on early chaos, volume optics, and the possibility that judges reward his activity over Radtke's precision. Expect a competitive fight with several close rounds. Round 1 will likely tilt toward Frunza on pace and length as Radtke calibrates timing. Round 2 could go either way depending on whether Radtke's counters have begun to land clean and accumulate visible damage, or whether Frunza sustains enough volume to bank activity points. Round 3 is Radtke's highest-equity round: by this point, cumulative damage on Frunza (from absorbing 6.7 SApM across two rounds) manifests as slower movement, diminished output, and vulnerability to clean counters, while Radtke remains comparatively fresh and sharp. The most likely outcome is a Radtke decision (2–1 or unanimous), with the cleaner moments—the head-snapping counters, the body shots that visibly slow Frunza, the fence exits that demonstrate control—tipping close rounds in his favor. Live finish equity exists for both: Radtke can crack Frunza with a counter in Round 2 or 3 if damage accumulates, and Frunza can swarm Radtke in Round 1 if he catches him cold. But the likeliest script is a technical, competitive decision where efficiency beats volume, and the fighter who looks less damaged and more composed gets the nod. Confidence sits at 7/10 because while Radtke holds the statistical edge, the small-cage environment and Frunza's early pace inject enough variance to keep this from being a lock. If you're betting Radtke, you're betting on shot quality triumphing over shot quantity—a sound thesis, but one that requires him to execute cleanly and avoid getting drawn into chaotic brawls where Frunza's volume can steal rounds.
💰 Betting Analysis: Model vs Market
Detailed value assessment in the betting market
📊Market Odds
🤖Analytical Model
💎Value Opportunities
MAXIMUM VALUE
Model: 34% | Market: varies
GOOD VALUE
Model: 48% | Market: ~48%
SLIGHT VALUE
Model: 26% | Market: varies
⚠️Key Market Discrepancies
- • Shot quality undervalued – efficiency can trump pace optics.
- • Small cage effect – forced entries raise counter equity.
- • Defensive gap – 6.7 SApM risk not fully priced in.
🎯 Comprehensive Probabilistic Analysis
100 hypothetical fight simulations based on statistical data
🏆Outcome Distribution - Charles Radtke
Primary minute‑winning path
Counter windows on entries
Low but non‑zero equity
💥Outcome Distribution - Daniel Frunza
Primary finishing route
Activity‑led path
Minimal submission threat
⏰Fight Timeline Analysis
⚡Window of Opportunity - Daniel Frunza
- • First 5 minutes: Highest swarm equity before counters settle.
- • Long weapons: Keep Radtke out of pocket.
- • Fence flurries: Volume on breaks to sway optics.
🎯Progressive Dominance - Charles Radtke
- • Minute winning: Cleaner shots bank rounds.
- • Counter discipline: Pick entries; avoid brawls.
- • Risk management: Clinch resets if pace spikes.
🎯 Final Confidence Assessment
Confidence level and uncertainty factors
Confidence Level
Edge to the more efficient striker
✅Supporting Factors
- • Accuracy and damage control profile
- • 100% takedown defense
- • Counter equity in small cage
- • Proven 15‑minute durability
⚠️Risk Factors
- • Frunza pace surges in R1
- • Volume optics on fence
- • Welterweight volatility
🏁Executive Summary
This welterweight clash at the UFC Apex distills into a technical puzzle of efficiency versus volume, played out inside a 25-foot cage that amplifies every strategic choice. Charles Radtke enters as the more polished counter-puncher, armed with 49% striking accuracy, a miserly 3.7 significant strikes absorbed per minute, and the kind of damage economy that wins decisions by looking fresher, sharper, and more in control as rounds accumulate. His 10–5 record and 34-year veteran savvy suggest a fighter who understands minute-winning: land the cleaner shots, avoid wasteful exchanges, and bank rounds through visible moments rather than sheer activity. Daniel Frunza counters with physical advantages—6'1" frame, 73" reach, and a 6.3 SLpM pace built on Muay Thai volume—that can create chaos, flood judges' scorecards with activity, and manufacture early finishing opportunities before Radtke's technical edge fully compounds. At 29 years old with a 9–3 record, Frunza represents the younger, rangier, more aggressive archetype, willing to trade damage for output and bet that pace overwhelms precision.
The compressed Apex cage is the wild card. In a regulation 30-foot Octagon, Radtke could circle laterally, reset range more easily, and impose his counter-punching rhythm without being forced into sustained exchanges. In 25 feet, that luxury disappears: entries are forced, Frunza's length and pace gain leverage, and prolonged fence battles become inevitable. This theoretically tilts variance toward Frunza—small cages favor aggressive pressure fighters who can cut angles and impose volume. But the flip side is equally important: when neither fighter can disengage freely, shot quality compounds faster than shot quantity. Radtke's 49% accuracy means nearly half his counters land clean, and with Frunza absorbing 6.7 SApM (nearly double Radtke's intake), that damage accumulates into visible fatigue, slower reflexes, and finish vulnerability by Round 3. Frunza's best path runs through Round 1: impose maximum pace before Radtke calibrates timing, land a teep-knee-elbow sequence in the clinch, and finish early or bank such dominant momentum that subsequent rounds tilt his way on residual optics. If that window closes—if Radtke weathers the initial storm and settles into his counter-punching rhythm—the math shifts decisively. Rounds 2 and 3 become Radtke territory: his cleaner work, lower damage intake, and superior composure give him the edge in close rounds, and his counter equity grows as Frunza's cumulative damage manifests as diminished output and vulnerability.
Neither fighter brings credible offensive wrestling to force a stylistic pivot, so this stays a pure striking battle decided by three micro-wars: early swarm windows (Frunza's highest equity), fence sequences (where volume can sway judges even if Radtke lands cleaner in open space), and distance management (Frunza wants long range for teeps and 1–2s, Radtke wants mid-range pocket exchanges for compact counters). The fighter who consistently wins two of those three battles likely wins the decision. Expect competitive rounds with split judges plausible, but the statistical fundamentals—accuracy, damage economy, and time-stability of advantages—favor Radtke. His 63% win probability reflects a clear but not overwhelming edge; Frunza's 37% is legitimate and driven by early chaos, physical advantages, and the ever-present possibility that judges reward his activity over Radtke's precision in close rounds.
Prediction: Charles Radtke by Decision (most likely 29–28 or unanimous) or counter-finish KO/TKO in Round 2 or 3 if cumulative damage on Frunza creates an opening. The likeliest script is a technical, competitive fight where Radtke weathers an aggressive Round 1, imposes his counter-punching rhythm by mid-fight, and banks Rounds 2 and 3 on cleaner moments and superior composure. Frunza remains live throughout—his length, pace, and early finishing equity are real—but the path narrows significantly if he doesn't land decisive damage in the first five minutes. Live hedge opportunity: Frunza KO/TKO Round 1 at plus-money represents his highest-equity scenario and a reasonable volatility hedge if backing Radtke on the main line. Confidence: 7/10. The edge is clear, the math is sound, but the small cage and Frunza's early pace inject enough variance to keep this from being a lock. Bet Radtke if you believe shot quality beats shot quantity; bet Frunza if you think chaos and volume can overwhelm technical precision before it compounds. The tape and the stats lean Radtke—but MMA is fought in the cage, not on spreadsheets, and Frunza's physical tools give him a puncher's chance that can't be ignored.