The UFC 313 main event left fans divided after Magomed Ankalaev dethroned Alex Pereira via a contentious unanimous decision, but not everyone is celebrating the new light heavyweight king. A UFC heavyweight veteran, known for his outspoken takes, has joined the chorus of critics lambasting the judges’ scorecards.
While Ankalaev’s tactical grappling and control earned him the belt, many argue Pereira’s striking dominance warranted a different outcome. As debates rage online, the veteran’s scathing critique adds fuel to a fire threatening to overshadow Ankalaev’s crowning moment.
UFC veteran’s blunt take ignites firestorm
Former UFC heavyweight Brendan Schaub didn’t hold back, slamming the judges’ verdict as “garbage” in a fiery social media rant.
“@Alex PereiraUFC clear as day won 3 rounds,” he tweeted, questioning Magomed Ankalaev’s victory.
Schaub’s critique echoed fans who flooded platforms with calls to “fire the judges,” arguing Pereira’s leg kicks and precision striking should’ve sealed the win. The controversy deepened as scorecards (49–46, 48–47, 48–47) revealed stark discrepancies, with some rounds hotly debated.
Schaub’s jab—”Enjoy that new champ”—dripped with sarcasm, amplifying frustrations over a trend of contentious UFC decisions. His stance isn’t isolated: analysts noted Pereira’s higher significant strike count (112–89) and damage output, while Ankalaev’s control time (14 minutes) divided purists on scoring priorities.
Dissecting the divisive duel
Ankalaev’s blueprint mirrored his Dagestani peers—grinding clinch work, takedowns, and stifling top control. Yet Pereira’s resilience and counterstriking kept fans on edge, particularly in Rounds 2 and 4, where his left hooks and calf kicks visibly wobbled the challenger. Critics argue judges overvalued Ankalaev’s positional control despite Alex Pereira’s higher-impact moments. “Control without damage isn’t dominance,” tweeted MMA analyst Luke Thomas, echoing Schaub’s sentiment.
The fallout reignites debates about UFC judging criteria. While Magomed Ankalaev’s strategy adhered to scoring guidelines (control, octagon dominance), Pereira’s backers insist visible damage should trump mere grappling rides. “If you can walk out unscathed, did you really win?” one fan quipped, referencing Ankalaev’s clean post-fight face versus Pereira’s swollen shins.
What’s Next? Rematch demands and legacy questions
Dana White, notorious for booking immediate rematches after controversial calls, faces pressure to run it back. Pereira’s social media vow to “adjust and reclaim” his title resonated with fans, while Ankalaev dismissed critics: “The belt speaks for itself.” Yet Schaub’s outcry underscores a broader issue—UFC’s judging inconsistencies, which risk overshadowing landmark moments.
For Magomed Ankalaev, the win cements his place among Dagestan’s champions but taints his reign with an asterisk. For Alex Pereira, the loss stings, but his stock as a fan favorite soars. As the MMA world picks sides, one truth remains: in combat sports, the judges’ pen often writes the loudest story.