Few things infuriate combat sports fans more than a fight being scored incorrectly, though the term “robbery” tends to be thrown around carelessly and is often steeped in bias. With Robbery Review, we’ll take a look back at controversial fights and determine whether the judges were rightly criticized for their decision or if pundits need to examine their own knee-jerk reactions.
Sean Strickland. In a close fight with plenty of heat against an unbeatable opponent. A split decision that left plenty of fans
questioning the result (and questioning those who questioned the result).
Yeah, I’m thinking I’m back in the Robbery Review lab.
Strickland became middleweight champion a second time this past Saturday at UFC 328 with a trademark gritty and grind-it-out performance to ruin Khamzat Chimaev’s perfect record and possibly his whole aura. Chimaev built his name on decimating opponents with his aggressive grappling and raw power, and though he’d had a couple of close calls before, he was still a healthy favorite to defend his belt.
But when the dust settled, it was Strickland claiming another historic upset. It wasn’t as definitive as his stunning victory over Israel Adesanya in 2023, but given Chimaev’s reputation, the win carries a similar resonance, albeit with far more controversy.
With a pre-fight build that featured multiple instances of the competitors suggesting they would actually murder each other, there’s really only one thing left to do: Let’s. Get. SCIENTIFIC.
What was the official result?
Sean Strickland def. Khamzat Chimaev via split decision.
How did the fight go?
Less than 15 seconds in, we got our first Chimaev shot and down goes Strickland. Barely a minute later, Chimaev took Strickland’s back and it looked like the oddsmakers might have been on the money with their line.
However, Strickland is known for his sturdy grappling defense, so even with Chimaev’s ground offense in full force, he did an excellent job avoiding damage and fending off Chimaev’s takedown attempts. Chimaev dominated the opening round, but Strickland looked hardly, knowing he had 20 minutes to turn things around.
Round 2, Strickland came out with punches in bunches and then established his distance striking. His signature jab clearly bothered Chimaev, who wasn’t as quick to wrestle all of a sudden. When the champion did shoot in, Strickland easily stuffed it and actually ended up in top position. Strickland stayed in Chimaev’s guard and didn’t do much damage, but that was a statement. Another Chimaev takedown was stuffed as Strickland again won the position game and ended the round on top. Remember all those questions about Chimaev’s gas tank?
Chimaev showed more urgency right away to start the third, landing a hard right to Strickland’s chin. An unexpected jab war erupts, with Strickland landing more often but Chimaev doing good work to the head and body. Overall, Chimaev mixed up his strikes well, not just swinging for the fences, but Strickland kept jabbing away at him. Chimaev’s punches got the blood flowing from Strickland’s nose, so he definitely did his fair share of damage. Ridiculously close round.
On to Round 4, where Chimaev was again the aggressor and more than happy to play Strickland’s standup game. Bold choice. Seriously, this became a boxing match with a few leg kicks thrown in. Strickland was the one circling and backing up, but he led the dance, making Chimaev work in his range and determining when they would engage. For Chimaev’s part, he was all smiles, and continued to land his fair share of punches and low kicks. But Strickland stuck with the game plan and scored with one straight punch after another.
A minute left in the fourth, a Chimaev takedown! Too little, too late?
Chimaev picked up where he left off, taking Strickland down in Round 5, but Strickland almost immediately got back up. The champion pressured, but Strickland’s grappling defense was airtight. This fight would be decided on the feet. Much like Round 4, they just went back and forth, peppering each other’s defenses and landing the occasional head-rattling shot. Chimaev made a late attempt to grapple, needing to put an exclamation point on the round, but this one ended on the feet.
What did the judges say?
Eric Colon scored it 48-47 Strickland.
Sal D’Amato scored it 48-47 Strickland.
Sue Sanidad scored it 48-47 Chimaev.
All three judges agreed it was even heading into the final round, with Chimaev taking 1 and 4, and Strickland taking 2 and 3. Colon and D’Amato scored Round 5 for Strickland, with Sanidad giving it to Chimaev.
What did the numbers say?
(Statistics per UFC Stats)
Standard disclaimer: Significant strikes don’t tell the whole story.
But the part of the story they do tell is greatly in favor of Strickland.
Strickland won the significant strikes in Rounds 2 (15-10), 3 (43-29), and 5 (31-22), and all that adds up to a total score of 123-98. The gap was even bigger just counting head strikes, with Strickland beating Chimaev 118-52. Again, significance is subjective, but in terms of sheer numbers, Strickland hit Chimaev more than he got hit.
It’s worth noting that while Chimaev had nearly five full minutes of control time in Round 1, he was credited with zero significant strikes and zero submission attempts. Not disputing the round, but it helps to explain why Chimaev didn’t get a 10-8.
Chimaev was also credited with six takedowns in Round 5, which may be why Sanidad gave him the edge, though again, zero significant strikes landed on the ground.
What did the media say?
Media scores on MMA Decisions were almost split down the middle, with 11 having it for Strickland and 13 having it for Chimaev. On the extreme ends of the scorecard we have Home of Fight’s Jake Noecker, who watched it live and gave Strickland four rounds; on the other, we have MMA Fighting’s own Jed Meshew, who did give Chimaev a 10-8 opening round and the win 48-46, a scorecard that Strickland fans are being super normal about.
What did the people say?
(Data derived from MMA Decisions and Verdict MMA)
On MMA Decisions, 64 percent of voters agreed with the 48-47 scores for Strickland, with 23 percent having it 48-47 the other way. After that, there are a smattering of other scores including 49-46 Chimaev (3.8 percent), 49-46 Strickland (2.5 percent), and the always sexy 48-48 draw (1.6 percent).
Over on the Verdict MMA app, the margin was razor thin with Stickland winning by just 28 points.
Unsurprisingly, the bout was deadlocked heading into Round 5 with Chimaev and Strickland emphatically winning their respective rounds according to Verdict users, and then Strickland taking the final round by 54 points.
How did I score it?
I’ll be the one to say it, and I don’t mean to take away from the quality of the contest, but this championship fight became a really middleweighty middleweight fight and no one seemed to notice.
Maybe it was because of the stakes, the personalities involved, or the fact that the technique was high level throughout, but after Round 2 this kind of had the feel of one of those random middleweight prelims where neither fighter manages to pull away from the other. If this was Jacob Malkoun vs. Brad Tavares and it played out in similar fashion, nobody would be arguing that one guy dominated the other. But with Strickland and Chimaev, you’re going to get strong opinions.
In my opinion, Rounds 3, 4, and 5 are all up for debate.
I thought Strickland cruised through the first half of Round 3 before Chimaev started to bust him open with harder punches, but overall I favored Strickland’s volume. It’s possible I’m downplaying Strickland’s blood-covered face, not wanting to overemphasize the visual damage, because Strickland was definitely hurting Chimaev as well. 10-9 Strickland.
Round 4, I have 10-9 for Chimaev because he upped the volume and still looked like he was landing with a little more oomph.
Last round, similar story to Round 3, with Strickland just sliiiiiiightly ahead on my card. Watching again, the head strikes greatly influenced my scoring, with Strickland well ahead on that category in the last three rounds. It was also apparent to me that Strickland was dictating where the fight went, which matters when you’re landing as much as he did. 10-9 Strickland, 48-47 overall in his favor.
As for the possibility of a 10-8 Round 1 for Chimaev, I didn’t score it that way, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Damage is king, yes, but recent language tweaks have made it so dominance can be interpreted as including damage.
From an August 2025 Sportsnet article:
The other two “D’s” — dominance and duration — now both include damage by definition.
Dominance, defined as “supremacy of positioning, action, and/or volume by one fighter over a sustained period of time,” is now categorized as successful tactics intended to result in damage.
That certainly sounds like what Chimaev did to Strickland in Round 1. However, the lack of significant damage or submission attempts keeps it a 10-9 on my card.
Was it a robbery?
Nah, 48-47 Strickland is perfectly legitimate. But guess what? So is 49-46 Chimaev. Or 49-46 Strickland. It was just that kind of fight.
Chimaev clearly took Round 1, clearly dropped Round 2, and stood toe-to-toe with Strickland for the rest of the fight. I can’t see how anyone could break down the last 15 minutes of striking and be confident that either fighter ran away with the exchanges. They were trading jabs, firing combinations, and even catching each other off-balance a few times. At no point did I feel like Chimaev was out of it even if his body language left something to be desired. Simply put, if you favored Chimaev’s work in Round 4, you could make a case he did just enough to eke out Rounds 3 and 5 as well even if the output wasn’t as consistent (Round 5 would be a stretch, I admit).
I scored it for Strickland, just as I did his UFC 297 duel with Dricus du Plessis, but Chimaev has a case for a win here as disappointing as his performance was overall.
The final verdict
Not a robbery.
