Strickland Wins Split Decision Over Chimaev, Issues Apology for Terrorist Remark
Sean Strickland wins a split decision over Khamzat Chimaev at UFC 328 and apologizes for calling the Chechen fighter a terrorist.

*TL;DR: Sean Strickland edged Khamzat Chimaev 48‑47 on two judges’ cards at UFC 328, then apologized for a pre‑fight threat that labeled Chimaev a terrorist.
Context UFC 328 drew 17,783 spectators to Newark’s Prudential Center. The main event featured a long‑standing rivalry between two undefeated‑until‑now middleweights. Both fighters exchanged incendiary remarks in the weeks leading up to the bout, prompting heightened security at hotels and the arena.
Key Facts - Strickland secured the 185‑pound title with a split decision, two judges scoring 48‑47 for him and one scoring 48‑47 for Chimaev. The fight lasted five rounds without a knockout or submission. - In the lead‑up, Strickland told media he would “shoot” Chimaev and called him a “terrorist” because of the fighter’s association with Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. - After the decision, Strickland addressed the crowd, apologizing to fans of all ethnicities and acknowledging he “went too hard” using stereotypes to promote the fight. - Chimaev, fighting under the United Arab Emirates banner, suffered his first loss in 16 professional bouts. He had previously warned he would “take off” Strickland’s head. - Security measures were increased around the event after Strickland’s remarks, reflecting UFC’s concern over potential violence.
What It Means Strickland’s victory restores him as a two‑time middleweight champion, but the controversy may affect his marketability. UFC officials faced pressure to balance promotional hype with responsible speech, a tension highlighted by the security upgrades. The incident also underscores the sport’s ongoing struggle with inflammatory rhetoric and its impact on fan perception.
Looking ahead, the UFC will monitor how the organization enforces conduct policies ahead of its next major card, while Strickland prepares for a potential title defense against a challenger who may capitalize on the recent backlash.
Continue reading
More in this thread
Conversation
Reader notes
Loading comments...