Nicolas Dalby

He concedes Wells might take early rounds ('sure') but settles firmly on Dalby's pace and gas tank taking over late for a 'more output' decision.

Nicolas Dalby's single biggest weapon is pace and cardio -- he simply outworks opponents as rounds pile up. His striking is built on forward pressure, high volume and kicks, backed by a durable chin, and his grappling leans on a grinding cage-push style with scrambling ability and underrated takedowns. The analyst expects that output advantage to wear Wells down and take the fight late.

Stacks three separate conviction-demoters onto the pick itself: an explicit statement that he disagrees with the posted odds, a stated "nerve-wracking" worry about Izagakhmaev's fight-readiness after a ~3-year layoff, and a closing admission that he would not be shocked to see Dalby win, adding that the betting value may actually sit with Dalby -- beyond the root-beer idiom alone, this is a hedge on the win itself, not just on price.

As of 2025-11-18, described as a fighter who doesn't excel anywhere but doesn't do anything poorly: good forward-pressure striking, good volume, decent kicks and durable, paired with good pace and cardio. His grappling is similarly good -- a cage-pushing grinder with decent takedowns. The analyst says pace and cardio, not raw skill, are his actual path to victory since he is outskilled here.

Calls it a close fight four separate times, but commits with a named mechanism (cage pressure, pace/cardio, dirty boxing, a pace that never lets up) and takes the underdog price explicitly, committing to Dalby by name as the pick.

Our paraphrase: a good, forward-moving striker who throws kicks at range and high volume once in close, and is described as very tough. A good wrestler who mixes in takedowns and uses cage pressure, but the analyst's central point is that pace and cardio -- not any single technique -- are what actually win him fights, via a relentless forward grind that doesn't let up.

Takes Dalby round-by-round (close round one, a swing round two, round three to Dalby) on a pace-and-cardio advantage over a fellow veteran; the round-level 'probably' hedges are about which rounds go his way, not a hedge on the win itself -- per the confidence-bar rule, a qualifier on round/margin does not demote the grade the way a qualifier on the win would.

A pace-and-cardio fighter rather than a technically flashy one -- he just keeps coming, is tough and durable, and wears opponents down over time. His striking includes good volume and kicks the analyst calls his best weapon; his wrestling includes a strong cage push, used both to control against the fence and to simply tire an opponent out. The whole case for him is that his conditioning and forward pace decide a close, rematch fight in the later rounds.

A fighter the analyst sees as quietly effective: nothing truly excellent, but capable in every area, which is how such a strong record got built up over time. His striking shows real volume and durability behind steady forward pressure, graded decent, and his wrestling -- also decent -- leans on a good cage push plus a handful of takedowns. His cardio and pace are, per the analyst, the real reason he wins fights -- he keeps coming until opponents make a mistake late.

he calls Dalby's record genuinely impressive and admits he can't fully explain why, saying the guy just keeps winning, but rebuts it with Bonfim's own technical case and closes without a hedge, naming Bonfim as his pick

Nicolas Dalby, 38, is framed as a fundamentally sound, hard-to-beat veteran who doesn't excel at any one thing but does everything decently and consistently -- decent striking with good forward pressure and volume, decent wrestling with decent takedowns and a cage push, and cardio the analyst calls pretty good. The analyst's read is that his 22-4-1 record is a genuinely top-tier mark even allowing that his competition level wasn't always elite.

Names Salikhov as his pick by name (twice), but directly says he has no confidence in it, calls the matchup genuinely tough to call, and notes he had avoided picking it at all up to this point.

Described at length as a 'jack of all trades' -- not bad at anything but not clearly good at anything either, just steady and decent everywhere. Wins by out-working opponents with forward pressure and decent, consistent volume on the feet and in the takedown game rather than any standout skill. The analyst says he genuinely could not identify one specific strength while reviewing his footage.

Same grade as the opposite row: the pick is made 'for the sake of a pick', it is his least confident of the card, and he will not bet it. The case for Alves is a ceiling argument that depends on which Alves shows up, which he says he does not know.

Dalby is the steadier, more complete but less explosive fighter, rated competent across every phase without a standout weapon. He is described as late in his career and holds a modest reach advantage. The analyst considers him a live underdog who is also inconsistent, and says his own pick could easily be wrong.