Serghei Spivac vs Shamil Gaziev
Men's Heavyweight Bout • UFC Fight Night: Tsarukyan vs Hooker
Saturday, November 22, 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.
Serghei Spivac
Fighter Metrics
Victory Methods
Win Round Distribution
Shamil Gaziev
Fighter Metrics
Victory Methods
Win Round Distribution
📋 Last 5 Fights - Serghei Spivac
| Date | Opponent | Result | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-07 | Waldo Cortes-Acosta | L | Decision - Unanimous (R3, 5:00) |
| 2025-01-18 | Jailton Almeida | L | KO/TKO - Punches to Head From Back Control (R1, 4:53) |
| 2024-08-10 | Marcin Tybura | W | Submission - Armbar From Bottom Guard (R1, 1:44) |
| 2023-09-02 | Ciryl Gane | L | KO/TKO - Punches to Head At Distance (R2, 3:44) |
| 2023-02-04 | Derrick Lewis | W | Submission - Arm Triangle On Ground (R1, 3:05) |
📋 Last 5 Fights - Shamil Gaziev
| Date | Opponent | Result | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-01 | Thomas Petersen | W | KO/TKO - Punch to Head At Distance (R1, 3:12) |
| 2024-08-03 | Don'Tale Mayes | W | Decision - Unanimous (R3, 5:00) |
| 2024-03-02 | Jairzinho Rozenstruik | L | KO/TKO - Eye Injury (R4, 5:00) |
| 2023-12-16 | Martin Buday | W | KO/TKO - Punches to Head At Distance (R2, 0:56) |
| 2023-09-19 | Greg Velasco | W | Submission - Rear-Naked Choke (R1, 2:38) |
Technical Analysis
Technical Score
Cardio Score
Overall Rating
📊 Technical Score
Calculated as the average of Striking Composite (6.4 vs 5.6 out of 10 → 64 vs 56/100) and Grappling Composite (8.2 vs 5.0 → 82 vs 50/100). 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 finishing profile. Updated values (0–10 scaled): Spivac 7.6 (76/100), Gaziev 6.4 (64/100).
🎯 Overall Rating
Simple average of Technical Score and Cardio Score (Spivac 7.4/10 → 74/100, Gaziev 5.8/10 → 58/100). Provides a holistic view combining skill depth with endurance/pace maintenance.
Striking Composite
Grappling Composite
🥊 Striking Composite
Weighted combination of Significant Strikes per Minute (SLpM), Striking Accuracy (StrAcc), Striking Defense (StrDef), and Strikes Absorbed per Minute. Measures overall striking effectiveness including offensive output, precision, and defensive ability.
🤼 Grappling Composite
Calculated from Takedowns per 15min (TD15), Takedown Accuracy (TDAcc), Takedown Defense (TDDef), and Submission Attempts per 15min (SubPer15). Evaluates complete grappling game including takedown ability, defensive wrestling, and submission threat.
Technical Radar Comparison
Metrics Legend
Detailed Statistical Comparison
🥊 Fight Analysis Breakdown
🏋️ Serghei Spivac Key Advantages
Clinch entries, trips/inside reaps, and heavy top control allow him to bank minutes and damage safely. He excels at chaining attempts (re‑shot, mat returns) when first finishes fail, turning scrambles into ride time. Judges reliably reward his fence cycles and half‑guard rides, which also drain Gaziev’s explosiveness between minutes 4–10.
Superior grappling composite plus a modest striking edge translates to minute‑winning. On the feet he lands at a steadier clip while keeping risk lower by threatening level changes; on the mat, positional advancement and controlled ground‑and‑pound create both damage and control optics without burning cardio.
⚠️ Unfavorable Scenarios
Naked entries at distance expose him to Gaziev’s power counters (SApM 4.25). When he shoots from too far or squares after the jab, straight right and uppercut lanes are live; disciplined head position and hand‑fighting on entries are mandatory to blunt impact and force clinch ties.
If he cannot cut the cage early, shots become predictable and less efficient. Reset cycles in space reduce TD/15, increase striking exchanges, and elevate volatility in Gaziev’s favor.
📋 Likely Gameplan
Jab feints to back Gaziev to the fence; double‑up the jab and outside step to cut the cage, then mix singles/doubles into inside trips. On finishes, prioritize mat returns and rides from half‑guard to preserve position and clock.
Keep 1–2s tight to hide entries; end on an angle and exit behind a check hook to deny counters. Avoid extended pocket trades; keep feet set for level changes so offense and takedown threats are layered.
🚀 Shamil Gaziev Key Advantages
Big counters down the middle punish naked level changes and square entries. The cross/uppercut series and the left hook off breaks are his money shots; if Spivac’s posture is compromised, Gaziev’s compact mechanics carry through the target.
Strong first‑layer sprawl and clinch breaks, especially in space of a large cage. Hips back, quick whizzer, and underhook pummeling deny clean finishes—but second‑layer defense (mat returns, rides) remains less tested; he must circle immediately after first contact.
⚠️ Unfavorable Scenarios
Low TD creation (0.96/15) and 30% TDAcc limit his ability to reverse/control on the mat. Long defensive sequences leak optics and fatigue; without a credible reversal threat, he risks being stuck in ride positions.
Middling striking defense (45%) shows when pressured; backing straight to the fence invites clinch starts and ride time, reducing opportunities to set his feet for counters.
📋 Likely Gameplan
Stay off the black line; punish level changes with straight shots; elbows on clinch breaks. Early, stand your ground and fire down the pipe; later, emphasize retreat‑and‑reset to manage pace and deny clinch re‑starts.
Low kicks sparingly to avoid catches; favor inside low kicks off an angle. Stance switches relocate the hips on shots, while jab feints deter naked level changes.
🎯 Fight Prediction Analysis
Data-driven prediction model based on statistical analysis
📊Detailed Analysis Summary
🏟️Cage & Distance Dynamics
In the 30‑ft cage, Gaziev gains space to circle and reset to center, stretching entry distances and buying time to read level changes. However, that advantage erodes once Spivac establishes the black line and forces turn‑backs: double‑jab, outside‑step cage cuts produce predictable pivots where clinch starts and inside trips thrive. The geometry here is binary: center‑line exchanges heighten Gaziev’s KO equity; fence‑line exchanges amplify Spivac’s control optics and attrition.
🎯Technical Breakdown
The statistical profile shows a pronounced grappling edge for Spivac (TD pace/accuracy, sub threat), while Gaziev’s best leverage is one‑shot power. Over three rounds, accumulation (top time, ride positions, steady GNP) out‑scores isolated clean shots unless they become near‑finish sequences. Spivac’s composite advantage is not about spike damage—it’s about stacking safe, repeatable sequences that travel regardless of venue size.
🧩Key Battle Areas
First‑layer TDD (83%) vs chain‑wrestling, cage craft (black line vs center), and damage vs control optics. If exchanges stay in the open, Gaziev’s read‑and‑fire windows expand; if the fight re‑starts at the fence, Spivac’s second‑layer wrestling (mat returns, rides) compresses variance. Two control‑heavy rounds often outweigh distance moments unless a knockdown or sustained burst materially shifts the optics.
🏁Final Prediction
Minutes favor Spivac; moments favor Gaziev. Projection: Spivac edges a decision or finds an attritional finish via top control if fence cycles start early and persist; Gaziev’s clearest route is a counter KO during early entries before reads settle. Over the median simulation path, the broader, repeatable sequences favor Spivac’s 62% side.
💰 Betting Analysis: Model vs Market
Detailed value assessment in the betting market
📊Market Odds
Market Props
🤖Analytical Model
Model Props
💎Value Opportunities
GOOD VALUE
Model: 24% | Market: ~24%
FAIR VALUE
Model: 28% | Market: ~28%
SLIGHT VALUE
Model: 60% | Market: 60%
⚠️Key Market Discrepancies
- • Undervalues control optics – Banking two top-control rounds is weighted strongly in a 3-rounder.
- • Overweights one-shot power – KO lane is real but narrow without extended moments.
- • Large cage bias – Space helps Gaziev, but fence cycles remain accessible with proactive pressure.
🎯 Comprehensive Probabilistic Analysis
100 hypothetical fight simulation based on statistical data
🏆Outcome Distribution - Spivac
Primary path via control optics
Attritional ground-and-pound lanes
Head-and-arm / arm-triangle sequences
💥Outcome Distribution - Gaziev
Primary finishing method at distance
Lower minute-winning profile
Minimal historical submission threat
⏰Fight Timeline Analysis
⚡Window of Opportunity - Gaziev
- • First 4–6 minutes: Highest KO equity before reads settle.
- • Down-the-pipe counters: Catch naked entries with cross/uppercut.
- • Stay off fence: Deny collar ties and underhooks; reset to center.
🎯Progressive Dominance - Spivac
- • Chain wrestle: Mix levels and trips to defeat first-layer TDD.
- • Risk management: Ride from half-guard, prioritize control over early subs.
- • Minute winning: Bank control time and GNP to secure rounds.
🎯 Final Confidence Assessment
Confidence level and uncertainty factors
Confidence Level
Solid edge via control optics with early KO volatility from Gaziev
✅Supporting Factors
- • TD volume and accuracy edge
- • Superior grappling composite
- • Multiple scoring lanes (control, GNP, late sub)
- • Minute-winning profile over 3 rounds
⚠️Risk Factors
- • Early KO counters at distance
- • Large cage increases entry distance
- • Hittability on naked shots (SApM 4.25)
- • Heavyweight volatility
🏁Executive Summary
We favor Spivac at ~62% based on wrestling volume, takedown efficiency, and top-control scoring. Gaziev is absolutely live early—his clearest route is a counter KO—yet across 100 simulations, the broader, repeatable paths belong to Spivac.
Prediction: Spivac by Decision or late KO/TKO; live hedge: Gaziev KO R1.