UFC Fight Night: Nurmagomedov vs. Song · Women's Strawweight · 3 rounds
Opening locked Aug 19, 2026 · Julia Polastri 87% · Decision · Distance · waiting on the result

ChinaJingnan Xiong
“The Panda”
Unranked · 19-3 · striker · Switch · 38 · IQ C 57
Phuket Top Team · China
Jingnan Xiong
13.2%
Julia Polastri
86.8%
Model win probability · confidence 86%
No market posted yet.
Why the model leans this way
Julia Polastri is the model side at 86.8% because the largest live edges sit where this fight is likely to be fought. Grappler historical edge: Polastri (ground 38) into Xiong (TD reaction 59). Open-stance look favors the southpaw / switch side slightly. Punching agility is the clearest separator: Polastri 75 (B) vs Xiong 42 (D). Hand speed / output lean Polastri (6.2 SLpM at 61%).
Punching agility
PolastriPolastri 75 (B) vs Xiong 42 (D). Hand speed / output lean Polastri (6.2 SLpM at 61%).
Ground game
PolastriPolastri 38 (D) vs Xiong 13 (D). Polastri brings 0.6 TD/15 and 3 sub wins into Xiong's 85% takedown defense.
Fight IQ
PolastriPolastri 68 (B) vs Xiong 57 (C). Problem-solving and win-lane diversity sit with Polastri (B vs C).
Counter punching
PolastriPolastri 41 (D) vs Xiong 31 (D). Polastri's return is the live one (0.14 KD/15, 1 KOs) against Xiong's entries.
Path · Xiong
Xiong has to stuff the first takedown (59 TD-reaction), keep this standing, and hunt a pocket that grades 72 on defense. Wrestling is the death lane.
Path · Polastri
Polastri has to wrestle early, chain the second shot, and make Xiong defend the neck instead of throwing. That is the percentage path.
This is a firm lean, not a lock. The upset script is Xiong attacking ground game with durability.
Style and location. Wrestling entries, fence control, and mat time should decide the scorecards — or the finish. Polastri is built as: Volume pressure striker. Xiong is built as: Pocket striker. Fight IQ delta is +11 toward Polastri — that is composure, win-lane diversity, and whether they solve a second problem when the first look dies.
The edges that move the number. Punching agility: Polastri 75 (B) vs Xiong 42 (D). Hand speed / output lean Polastri (6.2 SLpM at 61%). Ground game: Polastri 38 (D) vs Xiong 13 (D). Polastri brings 0.6 TD/15 and 3 sub wins into Xiong's 85% takedown defense. Fight IQ: Polastri 68 (B) vs Xiong 57 (C). Problem-solving and win-lane diversity sit with Polastri (B vs C).
The clock is live — decision is the modal ending (52%). Minutes and control matter more than a single shot. This is a firm lean, not a lock. The upset script is Xiong attacking ground game with durability. These trait marks are derived from FightMetric rates, career method shares, and loaded bout rows — reaction time and agility are proxies, not stopwatch numbers. The model folds the same scores into win probability, so a hole on this card is a hole in the percentage.
Fight IQ, ground game, defense, counter punching, reaction, agility, and takedown reaction — scored from tape and folded into the win number above.
Wrestling entries, fence control, and mat time should decide the scorecards — or the finish.
R1
20%
R2
13%
R3
15%
Dist
52%
Most likely: Distance. Expected 11.1 minutes.
Grappler historical edge: Polastri (ground 38) into Xiong (TD reaction 59). Open-stance look favors the southpaw / switch side slightly.
Striking differential
-0.41 vs 4.18 SLpM−SApM (recency / opp. adjusted)
Damage ratio
0.86 vs 2.70 landed/absorbed
Output (SLpM)
2.56 vs 6.63
Ground game (tape)
13 vs 38
Striking efficiency
36% vs 60%
Punching agility
Output × accuracy × age curve
Fight IQ
C 57 vs B 68 — composure, win-lane diversity, adjustments
Takedown reaction
85% vs 83% hips on the shot
Recency form
Opp.-adjusted last 6/6 UFC rows
Counter punching
31 vs 41
Age-adjusted curve
38 vs 28
Striking defense
59% vs 55%
Grappling composite
TD avg × acc × def + control + submission threat (adj.)
Pocket defense (tape)
C+ vs B
Style interaction
Grappler historical edge: Polastri (ground 38) into Xiong (TD reaction 59). Open-stance look favors the southpaw / switch side slightly.
Cardio proxy
Output sustainability + distance rate
Timing & reaction
Defense + absorb + knockdown timing proxy
Durability
0 vs 0 KO losses
Takedown mismatch
TD def 85% vs 82%
Strength of schedule
Opp. quality 48 vs 48
Reach / length
64.0" vs 64.0"
Layoff / rust
Time since last fight
Championship / 5-round
Three-round fight
Fighter 3115931
Decision - Unanimous · R3 5:00
Fighter 4236540
Decision - Unanimous · R3 5:00
Fighter 3996103
Decision - Unanimous · R5 5:00
Fighter 4421752
Decision - Unanimous · R5 5:00
Fighter 3331917
Decision - Unanimous · R5 5:00
Fighter 4291858
Decision - Unanimous · R5 5:00
Fighter 5139556
Decision - Unanimous · R3 5:00
Fighter 3102702
KO/TKO · R3 2:56
Fighter 4700617
Decision - Unanimous · R3 5:00
Fighter 4565671
Decision - Split · R3 5:00
Fighter 5007635
Decision - Unanimous · R3 5:00
Fighter 5145494
Submission · R2 4:05
Sign in to request a written analyst note on this fight.