Whenever Ilia Topuria returns to the MMA spotlight, the discussion rarely stays confined to technique or results. Instead, it raises a deeper question: are championships earned solely through wins, or through the timing of those wins and the true condition of the opponents involved?
This is precisely the debate reignited by Sharaputdin Magomedov, known as “Bullet,” whose recent comments cast doubt on the real substance of Topuria’s rise.
Fresh off a unanimous decision victory over Marc-André Barriault at UFC Abu Dhabi in the summer of 2025, Magomedov does not openly deny Topuria’s skills. Instead, he challenges the context surrounding his achievements, arguing that “El Matador” built his championship run against opponents who were already physically worn and mentally drained by years of elite competition.
From Magomedov’s perspective, Topuria’s early UFC run came against relatively modest opposition, while his high-profile victories arrived at a time when the biggest names were no longer at their peak. The issue, he suggests, is not the champion’s talent, but the timing: wins secured against legendary fighters whose best years were already behind them.
He specifically points to Charles Oliveira, whom he considers exhausted, and Max Holloway, still tough but slowed by the accumulated damage of countless wars inside the Octagon. As for Alexander Volkanovski, Magomedov believes he was no longer the dominant force that once ruled the division.
Beyond the controversy, these remarks reflect a broader conversation within modern MMA: how should legitimacy be measured in an era of carefully managed careers? Is a title defined by the names on a résumé, or by the actual condition of those who were defeated?
While Magomedov’s comments are bound to spark reactions, Topuria may already be focused on a far more decisive test. A potential showdown with Islam Makhachev could ultimately settle the debate — either cementing his status beyond doubt or reopening the discussion at an even higher level.
