Chico Camus vs.
Chris Holdsworth
Two full careers, measured against each man's own division and against each other — the tape, the read, and every number behind them.
The men, measured.
Frame, age, layoff and recent form — green marks the edge on each line.
What the numbers say.
Scouting notes, auto-generated — only stats deviating more than 25% from the division median make this list. No narratives, just deviations.
Who did they actually beat?
Full-career records re-graded by the tier of opposition — the same grading the Contender Series pick model uses. Records built on tier-4 competition are worth less than records built on killers.
Chico Camus
Full career not yet synced for Chico Camus — tier grading appears once their record documentation lands (refreshes weekly).
In the UFC: 0-3 against opponents who walked in above .500 · avg opponent walk-in record +0.6 wins over .500
Chris Holdsworth
Full career not yet synced for Chris Holdsworth — tier grading appears once their record documentation lands (refreshes weekly).
In the UFC: 1-0 against opponents who walked in above .500 · avg opponent walk-in record +0.5 wins over .500
The stand-up battle.
Career totals; norms are the medians of each man's own division.
Significant strikes — landed & absorbed
Where the fight happens (share of sig. strike attempts)
Chico Camus
Distance 82.7% (norm 87.4%) · Clinch 5.3% (norm 5.7%) · Ground 12.0% (norm 6.5%)
Chris Holdsworth
Distance 86.2% (norm 87.4%) · Clinch 10.9% (norm 5.7%) · Ground 2.9% (norm 6.5%)
What they throw (share of sig. strike attempts by target)
Chico Camus
Head 90.7% (norm 77.4%) · Body 6.5% (norm 12.8%) · Legs 2.7% (norm 8.4%)
Chris Holdsworth
Head 81.9% (norm 77.4%) · Body 13.8% (norm 12.8%) · Legs 4.3% (norm 8.4%)
Zone accuracy matrix Landed / attempted by zone
Green ≥ division median, red below. UFCStats tracks position and target as separate splits.
| Zone | Camus L/A | Acc | Bantamweight med | Holdsworth L/A | Acc | Bantamweight med |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BY POSITION | ||||||
| At distance | 221 / 606 | 36.5% | 39.0% | 31 / 119 | 26.1% | 39.0% |
| In the clinch | 27 / 39 | 69.2% | 68.7% | 9 / 15 | too few to rate | 68.7% |
| On the ground | 54 / 88 | 61.4% | 70.2% | 1 / 4 | too few to rate | 70.2% |
| BY TARGET | ||||||
| To the head | 253 / 665 | 38.0% | 34.9% | 27 / 113 | 23.9% | 34.9% |
| To the body | 31 / 48 | 64.6% | 66.8% | 9 / 19 | too few to rate | 66.8% |
| To the legs | 18 / 20 | too few to rate | 79.4% | 5 / 6 | too few to rate | 79.4% |
Zones with fewer than 25 attempts are marked "too few to rate". Each fighter is measured against the median of leaderboard-eligible fighters in his own division (Bantamweight: 117 fighters · Bantamweight: 117 fighters).
What lands on them Opponents' accuracy against each man
Green ≤ division median — harder to hit than the typical man in his division.
| Zone | vs Camus L/A | Opp acc | Bantamweight med | vs Holdsworth L/A | Opp acc | Bantamweight med |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BY POSITION | ||||||
| At distance | 215 / 682 | 31.5% | 39.3% | 38 / 92 | 41.3% | 39.3% |
| In the clinch | 30 / 54 | 55.6% | 70.4% | 5 / 10 | too few to rate | 70.4% |
| On the ground | 42 / 75 | 56.0% | 72.4% | 0 / 1 | too few to rate | 72.4% |
| BY TARGET | ||||||
| To the head | 200 / 674 | 29.7% | 34.9% | 25 / 72 | 34.7% | 34.9% |
| To the body | 63 / 105 | 60.0% | 66.0% | 12 / 22 | too few to rate | 66.0% |
| To the legs | 24 / 32 | 75.0% | 79.1% | 6 / 9 | too few to rate | 79.1% |
The ground war.
Takedowns, control and submissions — career totals with each man's per-minute rates against his division norm.
Bars compare the two men's rates (per-minute / per-15 figures), not raw totals — Camus has more cage time on record.