Modernizing MMA Judging: Can Technology Fix The Flaws?
Read Time:9 Minute, 2 Second
It’s 2025 and modern technology is being used in major sports promotions. The MLB is testing with robot umpires, soccer has VAR, and both basketball and football have extensive replay review processes. But MMA judging, it has remained the same for many years. To many, the status quo hasn’t been working. To others, there is no possible change to the system in place.
This article will review how MMA scoring currently works, and discuss how it can evolve using modern technology.
So how is an MMA fight judged? Expand for a snippet from ChatGPT:
In the simplest terms, an MMA fight is judged based on three main criteria:
- Effective Striking: The judges look at how well a fighter lands punches, kicks, and other strikes. The cleaner and more powerful the hits, the better.
- Effective Grappling: If a fighter takes their opponent to the ground and controls them or tries to submit them (like with a choke or arm lock), this is considered effective grappling.
- Octagon Control: This means who is controlling the pace of the fight. The fighter who is dictating where the fight takes place—whether standing up or on the ground—is seen as having more control.
Judges score each round on a 10-point scale (the winner of the round gets 10 points, and the loser gets 9 or fewer). The fighter with the most points after all rounds wins. Also, if one fighter is clearly dominating the round, it could be a 10-8 round (indicating a big win for one fighter). But if it’s very close, it might be a 10-9 round.
The fighter who scores the most points across all rounds wins unless there’s a finish (knockout, submission, etc.), which ends the fight early.
To add some color, three judges sit cage-side separately and each submits a scorecard at the end of each round. These scores are announced at the end of the fight (some promotions utilize open scoring, more on that later).
If you’re someone who would rather ready the rules from the source, expand for a few rules laid out fully by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports:
- All bouts will be evaluated and scored by a minimum of three (3) judges.
- The 10-Point Must System will be the standard of scoring about.
- Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round. Nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
- Judges shall evaluate MMA techniques. Effective striking/grappling (Plan A), effective aggressiveness (Plan B), and control of the fighting area (Plan C). Plans B and C are not taken into consideration unless Plan A is weighed as being even.
- Evaluations shall be made in the specific order in which the techniques appear in (c) above. It gives the most weight in scoring to effective striking/grappling, and effective aggressiveness, and control of the fighting area.
- Effective striking is judged by determining the impact/effect of legal strikes landed by a contestant solely based on the results of such legal strikes. Effective grappling is assessed by the successful executions and impactful/effective result(s) coming from: takedown(s), submission attempt(s), achieving an advantageous position(s) and reversal(s).
- Effective aggressiveness means aggressively making attempts to finish the fight.
- Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the bout.
The current rules tell us that there are a multitude of factors to consider. Effective damage vs. control time on the ground, and submissions. To determine this in the span of a back-and-forth 5-minute exchange can be very difficult. But, the rules lay out the order of operations to determine the tiebreaker. If you cannot dictate the winner from effective striking/grappling, then you must look at the effective aggressiveness.
If it is difficult to determine the winner, then a judge must look at cage control… Or as the rules describe it, “control of the fighting area”. Despite this, it still leads to multiple interpretations of rounds due to its nature. MMA judging is an art though. The fact that three judges can see a fight in three different ways is fascinating. It is up to personal interpretation of the judging criteria. Many factors can skew a judge’s opinion, including crowd noise, their seat’s angle, and personal biases.
But what many often forget, is the judges do not see the unofficial fight statistics displayed on the TV. This has led to some rather interesting scorecards over time.
Take a look at some of the most heinous instances of recent memory:
- UFC 280: O’Malley vs. Yan featured a controversial split decision, sparking debate as two judges scored it for O’Malley. The discussion heavily focused on the value of effective damage and control.
- UFC 282: Pimblett vs. Gordon ended in a unanimous decision for Paddy Pimblett. Despite the close statistics, complaints focused on how to describe effective damage and control.
- UFC on ESPN 43: Sandhagen vs. Vera ended in a split decision, despite most viewing Sandhagen as the clear winner. The judges had it 50-45 and 49-46 in favor of Sanghagen, with one scoring it 48-47 for Vera.
- UFC 302: Strickland vs. Costa was a fight where most saw Strickland win dominantly. One scorecard had Costa winning 49-46, despite the others scoring it 50-45 and 49-46 for Strickland.
- UFC 305: Tuivasa vs. Tybura was a clear Tybura win in Australia. A judge scored a 30-27 win for Tuivasa, which led the commission to remove the judge. Many claimed this was a predetermined scorecard as Tuivasa landed only 18 strikes to Tybura’s 73.
- UFC on ABC 6 & UFC 308: Rinat Fakhretdinov won by split and unanimous decision in these bouts. Many claimed there was a robbery due to the opponents’ output and effective damage.
- UFC 310: Volkov vs. Gane saw Ciryl was on his back for long portions of the fight. He also threw very low output, but still got the win.
There are many examples insane scoring problems. But if you expand this section, there are some older examples of fights you can check out:
- UFC 75: Bisping vs. Hamil
- UFC 104: Machida vs. Rua I
- UFC 167: GSP vs. Hendricks
- UFC 181: Lawler vs. Hendricks II
- UFC Fight Night 42: Sanchez vs. Pearson
- UFC 247: Jones vs. Reyes
Is Scoring Fixable?
This problem has plagued the sport for a long time. So, how do you fix it?
The simple answer: you can’t. Judging is inherently subjective, and that’s what sets MMA apart from other sports. Combining martial arts means blending multiple rulesets and judging criteria. However, there are ways to promote consistency and create a fair playing field for the athletes.
First, there should be two additional judges in an isolated room, without the influence of crowd noise, angles, commentary, etc.
The extra judges will watch the broadcast without the commentary. After the round, they would score the fight the same way as the 3 judges’ cage-side.
The important thing here is the judges remain isolated from the environment. Let’s say they had two judges with scorecards added in for the Volkov vs. Gane fight at UFC 310. Most would say Volkov would win that fight if the two additional judges gave Volkov rounds 2 and 3. If that were the case, it would’ve ended with three 29-28’s and the decision goes to Volkov, not Gane.
While it wouldn’t be a massive change, it could make all the difference. With five scorecards, we are more likely to get the right decision. Additionally, the ruleset mandates a minimum of three judges scoring the fight. But states nothing against using more. Why do the bare minimum?
Second, open scoring has been something multiple promotions have found some success with.
One example is Invicta FC. At the end of each round, the judges’ scorecards would become public, so the fans, coaches, and fighters know who won ahead of the next round.
This concept does receive major criticism. Primarily around close fights scored two rounds to none. Sometimes, it ends up leading to a safe third round to try and ensure the win. However, this would help ensure that it is clear what is at stake going into the third round. Additionally, a split decision would be less of a surprise since typically recency bias can skew public opinion.
Lastly, the best way to help fix this system is, by empowering the referee sitting cage-side.
A review official oversees each MMA fight. But, the referee in the octagon rarely uses their input, maintaining total control instead. Establishing rules that let the cage-side referee stop a fight, deduct points, or overrule a decision during any point in the fight would create a significant impact.
Oftentimes, we see low blows or eye pokes go unresolved. Fighters must continue fighting despite taking an illegal shot. Imagine if there was a way that a review official could ensure a fair playing field similar to the NFL. They have an overhead official that calls down to the on-field official to make a penalty call or trigger a review.
Similarly, we have seen fighters ask for time for various penalties that may have not occurred. Referees cannot allow that, but oftentimes they air on the side of caution and call time. What if the replay official is sitting cage-side and feels comfortable enough to tell the in-cage referee not to call said timeout?
Furthermore, involving and empowering an additional set of eyes fosters a more trusting environment for the athletes. Referees in the cage gain confidence knowing a colleague ensures the rules. This approach could also prompt stricter penalties, with fewer warnings before deducting points. The in-cage official focuses on managing the action, while the cage-side official decides whether a warning or a point deduction is the appropriate response.
Looking Towards The Future
None of these suggestions are massive changes. Nor would it require a massive financial investment or creating any new technology. But, it allows fighter safety to remain a priority while ruleset integrity remains a focal point. Of course, the ruleset and criteria will always be subjective. MMA is a violent sport and is very nuanced. But, it’s why we love it.
There are several ways to fix this issue. Additional ideas include AI scoring, providing live statistics to judges, and a decimal scoring systems. But the three examples highlighted above are a good place to start.
Where do you stand on this issue? What fights do you recall thinking the scores were wrong and may have been a robbery? Let us know in the comments below.
Happy
50 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
13 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
38 %
About Post Author
Average Rating