UFC 328: Chimaev vs. Strickland | Newark

LoneCowboy said:

Sean Strickland def. Khamzat Chimaev :: UFC 328 :: MMA Decisions

mmadecisions.com mmadecisions.com

13 for Chimaev
11 for Sean

basically 50/50
Click to expand...

Yea, that was about as even as a fight can get from a judging perspective.

R1 and R4 clearly Chimaev
R2 clearly Strickland
R3 Strickland, but not as clear cut as 1,2,4
R5 was a true tossup


If you value Octagon control and takedowns that lead to no damage, it's Chimaev. If you value striking and damage inflicted, it's Strickland.


I had a little money on Strickland so I'm not complaining .. but, I wouldn't have called it a robbery if the split decision had gone Chimaevs way.
 
1,3, and 4 of Chimaev

2 and 5 for Strickland



3 is the deciding round...it's pretty even on the feet but Khamzat slightly more effective
 
osubuckeye4 said:
Yea, that was about as even as a fight can get from a judging perspective.

R1 and R4 clearly Chimaev
R2 clearly Strickland
R3 Strickland, but not as clear cut as 1,2,4
R5 was a true tossup


If you value Octagon control and takedowns that lead to no damage, it's Chimaev. If you value striking and damage inflicted, it's Strickland.


I had a little money on Strickland so I'm not complaining .. but, I wouldn't have called it a robbery if the split decision had gone Chimaevs way.
Click to expand...
Round 5 was definitely the swing round. Round 3 was a clear, if somewhat close, Sean round. I get that Khamzat landed a couple good ones, but Sean's volume scored higher to me. Khamzat's face was fucked up at then end and he looked troubled. I wouldn't call it a robbery if Khamzat won, but I do think it was definitely Sean's fight.
 
JonnyRico said:
1,3, and 4 of Chimaev

2 and 5 for Strickland



3 is the deciding round...it's pretty even on the feet but Khamzat slightly more effective
Click to expand...
Sean completely controlled round 3 overall. They both had some visible blood and redness, but Sean way outlanded him. I'd call damage about even, and volume and control went to Sean.
 
Eranys said:
Sean completely controlled round 3 overall. They both had some visible blood and redness, but Sean way outlanded him. I'd call damage about even, and volume and control went to Sean.
Click to expand...
See, I don't mind people scoring three for Borz. It was razor close upon rewatch, he keeps coming forward and pressuring Sean, I can see a solid argument for him winning the round.

I really don't like how takedowns and control are scored. If you can hold a guy down, you're controlling him, that's dominance. It's not as effective as damage sure, but this all or nothing shit also just isn't working. There needs to be some more nuance around it.
 
bconcrete said:
See, I don't mind people scoring three for Borz. It was razor close upon rewatch, he keeps coming forward and pressuring Sean, I can see a solid argument for him winning the round.

I really don't like how takedowns and control are scored. If you can hold a guy down, you're controlling him, that's dominance. It's not as effective as damage sure, but this all or nothing shit also just isn't working. There needs to be some more nuance around it.
Click to expand...
I think they generally score takedowns and control with no damage about the same as octagon control with no damage. Just my guess.
 
bconcrete said:
See, I don't mind people scoring three for Borz. It was razor close upon rewatch, he keeps coming forward and pressuring Sean, I can see a solid argument for him winning the round.

I really don't like how takedowns and control are scored. If you can hold a guy down, you're controlling him, that's dominance. It's not as effective as damage sure, but this all or nothing shit also just isn't working. There needs to be some more nuance around it.
Click to expand...
But they don't want people to win rounds by holding without damage. So these are the rules not because it's what's fair
 
a-mart said:
But they don't want people to win rounds by holding without damage. So these are the rules not because it's what's fair
Click to expand...
I do agree that holding someone with no damage should not be scored. That leads to certain strategies which will lead to boring fights.
 
Close fight. I had it 2-2 going into the last round and thought Sean won the last round. 3-2 Strickland but the 3rd round was close.

I personally thought something was off with Chimaev. He was breathing really hard after the first round, against DDP I only say him breathing hard in the 5th round. They said it was an adrenaline dump, but 46 pound weight cut one day out is beyond dumb. Either come in better shape or move up.

Although I wouldn’t mind seeing them fight again, Chimaev doesent deserve the instant rematch after no defence, no way. He should fight someone first then Sean can defend against Imanov or Pyfer.
 
Eranys said:
I do agree that holding someone with no damage should not be scored. That leads to certain strategies which will lead to boring fights.
Click to expand...
So who won the third round on damage? pressure and holding and all that doesn't count

I'm years past post-fight analysis but on live watch I couldn't say with confidence that either Sean or Khamzat clearly won that round. It's also hard to know which punches miss or are well defended especially with those two
 
a-mart said:
So who won the third round on damage? pressure and holding and all that doesn't count
Click to expand...
Eranys said:
Sean completely controlled round 3 overall. They both had some visible blood and redness, but Sean way outlanded him. I'd call damage about even, and volume and control went to Sean.
Click to expand...
Sean did. I don't think either scored significantly more damage than the. Other, and that is when you move into secondary criteria. Sean had volume and control.
 
bconcrete said:
See, I don't mind people scoring three for Borz. It was razor close upon rewatch, he keeps coming forward and pressuring Sean, I can see a solid argument for him winning the round.

I really don't like how takedowns and control are scored. If you can hold a guy down, you're controlling him, that's dominance. It's not as effective as damage sure, but this all or nothing shit also just isn't working. There needs to be some more nuance around it.
Click to expand...

I personally scored 3 for Strickland, but agreed that there are some legitimate MMA judges that historically have given those types of rounds to Chimaev for the reasons you stated.

I've always disagreed with scoring that way, but I understand the argument.
 
a-mart said:
But they don't want people to win rounds by holding without damage. So these are the rules not because it's what's fair
Click to expand...
That's what I'm talking about with nuance. Holding someone down who is working incredibly hard and actively to get up is different than taking someone down and staying there with someine who isn't trying to get up.


If it were me, that's where'd id draw the line. Control is scored for takedowns until the bottom fighter either gets up, or accepts the position.
 
Last edited:
osubuckeye4 said:
Yea, that was about as even as a fight can get from a judging perspective.

R1 and R4 clearly Chimaev
R2 clearly Strickland
R3 Strickland, but not as clear cut as 1,2,4
R5 was a true tossup


If you value Octagon control and takedowns that lead to no damage, it's Chimaev. If you value striking and damage inflicted, it's Strickland.


I had a little money on Strickland so I'm not complaining .. but, I wouldn't have called it a robbery if the split decision had gone Chimaevs way.
Click to expand...
exactly
I thought it was close, I thought Strickland had done enough (2,3,5) and you could tell they both thought it was close too.
I'm glad that Sean won, but him losing wouldn't have been a robbery (sad for the division and MMA but not a robbery)
 
If you can't get up, you're being easily controlled by a superior ground artist.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

You're job isn't to give mixed martial couchists a boner, you're job is to win.
How you do that is to play to your strengths, not your opponents.
Much like Volkov sticking to his gameplan regardless of Ralph Waldo Emerson complaining for him to engage.
 
Eranys said:
Sean did. I don't think either scored significantly more damage than the. Other, and that is when you move into secondary criteria. Sean had volume and control.
Click to expand...
From my understanding damage must be dead even so they never go to the other criteria
 
Honky Killa said:
If you can't get up, you're being easily controlled by a superior ground artist.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

You're job isn't to give mixed martial couchists a boner, you're job is to win.
How you do that is to play to your strengths, not your opponents.
Much like Volkov sticking to his gameplay regardless of Ralph Waldo Emerson complaining for him to engage.
Click to expand...
The name of the game isn't pugilism

it's money

boring ass fights like that put people to sleep. Imagine all the new fans that watched Volkov and turned it off and missed a FOTY candidate in the next fight. That's mixed martial arts (Van-Taira)

You notice NFL and NBA are always changing rules to encourage more scoring. (a bit too far in NFL's case IMO but it's a 25 billion dollar entertainment machine, they seem to know what they are doing)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top