A media scorecard poll revealed that 13 out of 24 journalists scored the Chimaev versus Strickland fight in favor of Chimaev. This indicates significant disagreement among media members about the fight's outcome. The split decision suggests the bout was competitive and close enough to generate differing opinions. The post does not specify which outlet conducted the polling. This scoring divergence highlights the controversial nature of the judges' decision at UFC 328.
A media scorecard poll conducted in the wake of UFC 328 found that 13 of 24 journalists who scored the Khamzat Chimaev versus Sean Strickland middleweight title fight believed Chimaev did enough to win, underscoring how deeply divided observers remain over the official split decision result.
Strickland, the 35-year-old American champion out of Xtreme Couture, carried a 31-7-0 record into the bout. The six-foot-one orthodox fighter holds a 76-inch reach and is one of the most active strikers in the division, landing 6.04 significant strikes per minute. He has held the middleweight title and entered UFC 328 defending his championship against the division's top-ranked contender.
Chimaev, fighting out of Allstars Training Center and representing the United Arab Emirates, came in at 15-1-0 and ranked tenth in the pound-for-pound standings. The 32-year-old stands six-foot-two with a 75-inch reach and brings a punishing grappling game to every outing, averaging 5.29 takedowns per 15 minutes alongside a striking accuracy rate of 60 percent. Those numbers make him one of the most well-rounded threats in the weight class.
Why it matters
- Thirteen of 24 media scorers favored Chimaev, meaning the unofficial verdict was nearly as split as the judges' official cards.
- The result leaves the middleweight title picture unsettled, with legitimate arguments existing on both sides of the scorecard debate.
- The style matchup pitted Strickland's high-volume striking output against Chimaev's elite wrestling and finishing ability, a contrast that naturally lends itself to divergent interpretations by ringside observers.
- Scoring controversies of this kind often fuel rematches and reshape divisional rankings regardless of the official outcome.
