Sports
After ACC and others throw support behind 24-team CFP, the ball is now in the SEC's court
The ACC and others back a 24-team CFP, awaiting SEC's decision.
Yahoo Sports1 min read
Sports
Luke Rockhold questions 'sketchy things' about Chimaev vs. Strickland scorecards
TL;DR
Luke Rockhold questions the integrity of the judges' scorecards in the Chimaev vs. Strickland fight, suggesting they were influenced by betting odds. He believes Khamzat Chimaev won the fight, particularly in the fourth and fifth rounds.
Key points
- Luke Rockhold questions judges' scoring integrity
- Chimaev lost to Strickland by split decision
- Rockhold believes Chimaev won the fourth and fifth rounds
- Strickland was a big underdog before the fight
- Rockhold theorizes ulterior motives in the scoring
Khamzat ChimaevSean Strickland
Luke Rockhold believes the judges were influenced when scoring Khamzat Chimaev vs. Sean Strickland.
Chimaev (15-1 MMA, 9-1 UFC) lost his middleweight title to Strickland (31-7 MMA, 18-7 UFC) by split decision in Saturday's UFC 328 main event at Prudential Center in Newark, N.J. All three judges had it two rounds a piece going into the final five minutes. Rockhold found the first two rounds easy to score, but disagrees with two of the judges awarding Strickland Round 5 – which was the determining factor.
"Maybe that's why he won, because of the +400 or 500 odds," Rockhold said on the JAXXON Podcast. "I think Khamzat won. Khamzat won the fourth and fifth round. He controlled the pace of how that fight finished, and that's what champions do, and that's who deserves the championship."
Strickland was a big underdog going into the fight, and Rockhold theorizes that there was an ulterior motive when it comes to the outcome. Rockhold, who was a part of Chimaev's camp, has made it clear on numerous occasions that he's not a fan of Strickland.
"A jab is meant to change the course of what direction the fight is going," Rockhold said. "Every jab he (Strickland) had was moving backwards. You've got to do damage and step him back. ... The only round that was clear for Sean is Round 2. Round 3 was close, could have gone either way. Round 4 was Khamzat all the way. He really pushed the pace; he hit him with some bigger shots. Sean was landing clean jabs, but they're usually off breaks and pepper jabs. It was setting up.
"They were setups, and they were defensive. Then the fifth round, he (Chimaev) pushed him on the back foot, too. He could have won (Rounds) 1, 3, 4, and 5. The only clear round for Sean was Round 2. Khamzat landed the bigger shots. It doesn't make sense. The only thing that makes sense is that he was a +500 underdog. There's a little bit of sketchy things sometimes in who they want to win. Maybe they just wanted Sean to win because he's Sean. It could have been swayed."
This article originally appeared on MMA Junkie: Luke Rockhold calls Chimaev vs. Strickland scorecards 'sketchy'
Q&A
What did Luke Rockhold say about the judges' scoring in Chimaev vs. Strickland?
Luke Rockhold expressed concerns that the judges were influenced and disagreed with their scoring, particularly regarding Round 5.
How did Khamzat Chimaev lose to Sean Strickland at UFC 328?
Khamzat Chimaev lost to Sean Strickland by split decision, with all judges having it tied going into the final round.
What were the betting odds for Sean Strickland before the fight against Khamzat Chimaev?
Sean Strickland was a significant underdog, with betting odds reportedly around +400 to +500.