MMA scoring, understandably, is a difficult task. Judging bouts like the likes of Robbie Lawler vs. Carlos Condit and Dominick Cruz vs. T.J. Dillashaw are not enviable undertakings.

Yet for as long as Mixed Martial-Arts has existed, there has always been a question of if the current American scoring system is the best aggregation of guidelines to properly judge such a diverse sport? UFC color commentator Joe Rogan recently tweeted a similar sentiment after the decision for Lawler/Condit was divisive among fans. Are the judges selected by state athletic commissions not adequately informed to call such bouts? Or is it all of the above and a complete systemic problem?

Going through the rules themselves and getting useful suggestions from the professionals that must adhere to them, brings about some interesting topics for possible improvement.

Round Scoring

Former UFC star, and co-founder of scouting service MMAscoutingreport.com, Din Thomas is forthcoming with his opinion of the current system. “Unfortunately the 10 point must system is flawed in terms of MMA scoring, even down to the language.”

When reviewing the guidelines for how an MMA round is scored, the first rule regarding them reads, “10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).” This has been a hot topic of conversation for years in MMA circles. It is also an area where subjectivity can be an issue.

For any fan watching a fight, hearing the words “that one was too close to call” is common place in a room full of viewers. One has to figure that it is not an uncommon opinion for a judge scoring a fight. Yet when official score cards are released to the public, seeing a 10-10 round scored is about as likely as me being appointed head of the rules committee for the New York State Athletic Commission. Why are judges so beholden to always giving a 10-9 round even when rounds are overtly competitive? Should one good strike in the last thirty seconds of a round take away from the previous four minutes and thirty seconds worth of hard work?

Rule J(i) of the unified rules clearly gives judges the free reign to give even rounds when it says “a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round.”

However, if a judge does feel they have the observation skills to always see the winner of a round, there are other scoring guidelines at their disposal that are rarely used. Rule J(iii) mentions “a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.” Striking…or grappling. Surely there have been rounds by grappling greats like Randy Couture, Matt Hughes, Demian Maia or Georges St. Pierre that would fit this criteria? Yet a 10-8 round is likely not to be found on scorecards for their fights. That is unless they brutally floored one of their opponents with a strike and dominated the majority of the round. This is often the impetus for a judge to score a rare 10-8 round.

Another idea comes from Luke Leasure, a pro-fighter and instructor based out of Singapore’s Trifecta Martial Arts. “I like the idea of scoring the fight as a whole, or if you insist on round by round scoring adopt a half point system. A half point scoring system will ultimately make the scoring more precise, particularly in title fights.” Food for thought.

Judges

The number of judges employed during a fight may also be something to look at to better bout scoring. The very first decree of the unified rules of MMA scoring states, “all bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different locations around the ring/fighting area.”

Dr. Paul Gavoni, striking coach for several American Top Team Affiliates; including Vero and Legacy; believes in more is better. “Don’t only have three judges, have five or six” says Gavoni.

Din Thomas takes this theory even further. “The immediate solution might be to continue the use of the 10 point must system, as flawed as it is, but you would need at least 7 judges” he said. “Gotta win by 2 or it’s a draw.”

Along with the number of officials scoring a fight, the judges’ expertise in MMA may need to be looked at. Sheena Brandenburg is a veteran of over 33 amateur bouts and has also reffed and judged many more. She is a believer in selecting more adequate individuals to judge bouts. “I’d make it crucial that before officials are able to be licensed they have had a certain amount of involvement physically in the sport. The best judges are former fighters and coaches.”

Leasure seconds Brandenburg’s assertion when he says, “most importantly, have judges who are aware of the small the nuances of MMA. Judges have to know whether the bottom guy or top guy (or gal) is being more effective.”

California State Athletic Commission Executive Officer Andy Foster validated these points from Brandenburg and Leasure when, in a 2013 interview, he said “I do think it’s beneficial for judges to train or have trained in both striking and grappling arts to know what the different holds and strikes feel like. This first-hand knowledge helps a judge to know how to gauge damage.”

Defensive Grappling

On the sliding scale of importance when scoring a MMA match-up, defense is fifth and last. Effective striking is first, followed but effective grappling. Meaning the technical acumen used to avoid being taken down or hit with a strike is your last best option to score points in a fight.

For example, when B.J. Penn faced Kenny Florian for the UFC Lightweight title in 2009, Florian was actually ahead on the scorecards before Penn eventually submitted him in the fourth round. This is of note because (for viewers who did not see that fight) Florian’s strategy of trying to grapple Penn to the ground was not very successful. However being able to hold Penn against the cage during failed takedown attempts was considered effective grappling.

Rule I of the unified rules proclaims, “effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.” Fortunately it did not cost Penn in his title fight. However, because it is considered the least important technique for scoring, how different would fights like Anthony Pettis vs. Eddie Alvarez or Lyoto Machida vs. Quinton Jackson have been if expertly defending takedowns, while not allowing the opponent to get an advantageous grappling position, were scored just as highly?

Rule F states, “Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals.” Successful takedowns, not attempted. It even mentions reversals, so getting free of an attempt and getting to a neutral position can be scored with importance. But do judges score effective defense, or lack of a successful takedown?

Thomas adds another interesting evaluation to the conversation, saying “how do you score a takedown if a guy prefers to be on his back and maybe willingly went there.” Showing that effective grappling is not so easily defined and scoring it broadly may not do the physical chess match of it justice.

Kicks to the Body and Legs

Fights like the aforementioned Condit/Lawler scrap and Machida vs. Mauricio “Shogun” Rua I are a couple of examples when kicks to the legs and body are effective, yet aren’t enough to sway judges’ scorecards.

Rule E of the unified rules asserts “effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.” However, judges often seem to score damaging head strikes heavily. As opposed to kicks to the body and legs. Nor does an accumulation of them seem to score as well either. Despite the rule allowing for it.

Machida/Rua I may show the fault of subjectivity in many judges. Via Fightmetric.coms tally, Rua actually landed 82 total strikes to Machida’s 39. 80 of them considered significant. Yet he did not win. But the devil seems to be in the details. 49 of those strikes were to the legs, accounting for 61% of his strikes landed. While Machida landed 11 to the head. Accounting for 31% of his total landed strikes. So despite Machida throwing and landing less than Rua, the fact that a large portion were to the head superseded Rua’s multitude of strategic strikes to the legs.

Cruz/Dillashaw is another example of favorable scoring towards head strikes. While total strikes are a near wash at 109 (Dillashaw) to 112 (Cruz), kicks to the body and legs favored Dillashaw overwhelmingly 45 to 15. This is not to say Cruz should have lost. But strikes to the body and legs are effectively strategic, and shouldn’t be diminished.

Yellow Cards

Maybe another tactic for improving scoring is to let referees have more influence on the action. When seeking comment from pros on the subject, instituting this popular Pride FC rule came up several times. Yellow cards were used when one or both fighters went through spells of inactivity. They were given a warning first, and then penalized with a yellow card (which could lead to a 10% deduction of a fighter’s purse).

Along with changes to judging, Dr. Paul Gavoni believed in the usefulness of this rule because it is a “strategy to stop people from stalling” and “prompts more action.” T.J. Cook, a pro-fighter with nine years of fighting experience, proclaimed, “Yellow Cards. Initiating clinches that result in stalemates should not be considered aggression or cage control and therefore score points.”

Pinpointing a specific problem with MMA scoring is pointless because there seems to be quite a few. Be it the guidelines, lack of expertise from judges, or their own subjectivity, how MMA bouts are scored should be revisited. Because, for as much as we love it, the sport of mixed martial-arts has a clear weakness in the way contests are judged. Just as the industry has grown and evolved, one can only hope the unified rules of MMA do as well.

Main Photo