Was Sean Strickland vs. Khamzat Chimaev a Robbery? Here’s the Real Answer

UFC

Was Sean Strickland vs. Khamzat Chimaev a Robbery? Here’s the Real Answer

By KOReporter

|May 12, 2026

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged.

It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

Table of Content

Few things trigger MMA fans faster than the word robbery.

The second a close decision gets announced, social media turns into a courtroom full of amateur judges acting like the scorecards were a federal crime.

And after Sean Strickland beat Khamzat Chimaev by split decision at UFC 328, the debate exploded instantly.

Was Strickland gifted the belt?

Did Chimaev get robbed?

Or was this just another razor-close fight where fans saw what they wanted to see?

After going back through it, the answer is pretty simple.

No, this was not a robbery.

That doesn’t mean Chimaev had no argument. He absolutely did. But calling this some outrageous judging scandal is lazy.

Let’s break it down.

Round 1 Was Clearly Chimaev

This one isn’t even debatable.

Chimaev came out exactly how people expected, immediately shooting, dropping Strickland early, taking his back, controlling position, and making it look like a quick finish might be coming.

Strickland survived, defended well enough, and avoided major damage, but the round belonged to Chimaev.

The only real debate is whether it should’ve been scored 10-8.

Personally, I don’t think so.

Yes, Chimaev dominated positionally. But he didn’t land much real damage once the fight hit the mat, and there weren’t serious submission attempts that had Strickland in obvious danger for extended stretches.

Dominant? Yes.

Fight-changing damage? Not really.

10-9 Chimaev.

Round 2 Was Clearly Strickland

Momentum completely flipped here.

Strickland settled in, started finding his jab, and suddenly Chimaev looked a lot less comfortable.

More importantly, the wrestling stopped being a major weapon.

Strickland stuffed takedowns, reversed position, and even ended up on top, which was probably the biggest statement of the entire round.

For a guy known for suffocating grappling, seeing Chimaev get neutralized like that mattered.

Easy Strickland round.

The Last Three Rounds Are Why Everyone’s Fighting Online

This is where the chaos starts.

Rounds 3, 4, and 5 were all close enough that reasonable people can score them differently.

That’s the truth.

Round 3 felt like Strickland’s volume against Chimaev’s heavier moments.

Strickland was busier, pumping the jab, staying active, controlling the pace.

Chimaev landed some cleaner power shots and definitely busted Strickland up.

Depends what you value more.

I lean Strickland.

Round 4 probably edges Chimaev.

He pushed harder, looked like the more aggressive fighter, mixed things up better, and landed enough to take it.

Then Round 5 decides everything.

Again, razor close.

Chimaev had takedowns, but didn’t really do much with them.

Strickland landed more clean head shots and seemed to dictate the terms once the fight stayed standing.

That’s enough for me.

The Numbers Back Strickland

Stats never tell the full story, but they do help.

Strickland finished with a major edge in significant strikes, especially to the head.

123 to 98 overall.

118 to 52 in head strikes.

That’s not insignificant.

Chimaev’s strongest moments came through positional control and takedowns, but control without damage doesn’t automatically win rounds under modern scoring.

That matters.