Jessamyn Duke vs.
Elizabeth Phillips
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.
Jessamyn Duke
Full career not yet synced for Jessamyn Duke — tier grading appears once their record documentation lands (refreshes weekly).
In the UFC: 0-1 against opponents who walked in above .500 · avg opponent walk-in record -0.5 wins over .500
Elizabeth Phillips
Full career not yet synced for Elizabeth Phillips — tier grading appears once their record documentation lands (refreshes weekly).
In the UFC: 0-1 against opponents who walked in above .500 · avg opponent walk-in record +0.2 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)
Jessamyn Duke
Distance 82.4% (norm 80.3%) · Clinch 15.5% (norm 9.7%) · Ground 2.1% (norm 7.5%)
Elizabeth Phillips
Distance 85.0% (norm 80.3%) · Clinch 5.9% (norm 9.7%) · Ground 9.2% (norm 7.5%)
What they throw (share of sig. strike attempts by target)
Jessamyn Duke
Head 76.6% (norm 75.2%) · Body 19.5% (norm 14.3%) · Legs 3.9% (norm 8.8%)
Elizabeth Phillips
Head 88.5% (norm 75.2%) · Body 7.4% (norm 14.3%) · Legs 4.1% (norm 8.8%)
Zone accuracy matrix Landed / attempted by zone
Green ≥ division median, red below. UFCStats tracks position and target as separate splits.
| Zone | Duke L/A | Acc | Women's Bantamweight med | Phillips L/A | Acc | Women's Bantamweight med |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BY POSITION | ||||||
| At distance | 171 / 355 | 48.2% | 38.3% | 118 / 390 | 30.3% | 38.3% |
| In the clinch | 50 / 67 | 74.6% | 73.3% | 11 / 27 | 40.7% | 73.3% |
| On the ground | 8 / 9 | too few to rate | 70.8% | 27 / 42 | 64.3% | 70.8% |
| BY TARGET | ||||||
| To the head | 149 / 330 | 45.2% | 37.7% | 123 / 406 | 30.3% | 37.7% |
| To the body | 63 / 84 | 75.0% | 70.0% | 15 / 34 | 44.1% | 70.0% |
| To the legs | 17 / 17 | too few to rate | 80.9% | 18 / 19 | too few to rate | 80.9% |
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 (Women's Bantamweight: 40 fighters · Women's Bantamweight: 40 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 Duke L/A | Opp acc | Women's Bantamweight med | vs Phillips L/A | Opp acc | Women's Bantamweight med |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BY POSITION | ||||||
| At distance | 171 / 432 | 39.6% | 41.3% | 133 / 362 | 36.7% | 41.3% |
| In the clinch | 22 / 36 | 61.1% | 74.7% | 42 / 69 | 60.9% | 74.7% |
| On the ground | 17 / 25 | 68.0% | 74.2% | 9 / 10 | too few to rate | 74.2% |
| BY TARGET | ||||||
| To the head | 148 / 408 | 36.3% | 38.1% | 136 / 375 | 36.3% | 38.1% |
| To the body | 25 / 40 | 62.5% | 73.2% | 41 / 57 | 71.9% | 73.2% |
| To the legs | 37 / 45 | 82.2% | 80.9% | 7 / 9 | too few to rate | 80.9% |
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 — Duke has more cage time on record.