Like it or Not - This is how Fights are Judged - MMA Scoring Criteria
A deep dive into how fights are scored
Judging has always been a problem in MMA. We routinely see terrible decisions in the UFC and other major organizations in MMA. Is this because the judges don’t know what they are watching? Or is this because the criteria they have to follow is flawed?
I became sick of wondering and did a deep dive into the scoring criteria the judges base their decisions off of. Not only did I find the actual criteria they follow, but I talked to fighters themselves and some of your favorite MMA personalities to see their thoughts on how fights are scored.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO FEATURING CODY DURDEN, MIRANDA MAVERICK, JUAN ADAMS, DIEHARDMMA AND MORE
Lets start with the criteria, how are fights actually scored? Where can you even find that information? Well I checked the most obvious place first, the UFC website and I came up empty. The UFC website does not have any of the scoring criteria listed on their actual site. What it did have was a reference. “The Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) aim to provide a clear set of rules governing professional MMA competition that remain consistent across the jurisdictions of various athletic commissions and other regulatory bodies. The framework of the Unified Rules of MMA was proposed and agreed upon by various athletic commissions in the 2000s and unanimously adopted by the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) on July 30, 2009.
The association of boxing commissions (ABC), they have what we are looking for. Who the hell is the ABC? The ABC is the commission that governs MMA and Boxings unified rules. Their goal is for consistency throughout the country. The ABC is run by Mike Mazzulli. Mazzulli is an interesting character that doesn’t shy away from the spotlight. Justin Gaethje had this to say about him “Mike Mazzulli does some crazy shit every year to get himself in the headlines. One of the biggest assholes in the game.” Not great. I urge you to look into who runs these commissions because its quite the rabbit hole, but let me get back to the scoring criteria.
“Effective Striking/Grappling shall be considered the first priority of round assessments” This sounds simple enough, but what is effective striking or grappling? The unified rules state that techniques that lead to the immediate end of the fight should be valued more than cumulative damage. So power strikers have the advantage. You can hit me 30 times, but if I hit you once and rock you, that one strike trumps your 30. Grappling is a little harder to judge. Is simply transitioning to mount a technique that leads to the immediate end of the fight? Or do you have to be doing damage in these positions for them to count. This is not clear and gets even less clear as you continue to read.
We hear constantly that takedowns without damage should not count toward winning a round. That could not be further from the truth. This is a direct quote from the unified rules “It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown” The takedown itself is an attack and should be scored as such. It is once you are on the ground that position itself does not score you “points”
The judges are looking for three big criteria. Those criteria are impact, dominance and duration.
Impact goes deeper into the example I gave earlier of your 30 strikes to my big one. “A judge shall assess if a fighter impacts their opponent significantly in the round, even though they may not have dominated the action.” The official rules give examples of exactly what they mean “Impact includes visible evidence such as swelling and lacerations.” The visual evidence is self evident. If a fighter gets a huge cut, or if their head swells up like Mark Hominick vs Jose Aldo, that would be impact. The unified rules also say that some other criteria should be taken into account. This criteria is all in the eye of the beholder, yet it is in the official scoring criteria “Impact shall also be assessed when a fighter’s actions, using striking and/or grappling, lead to a diminishing of their opponents’ energy, confidence, abilities and spirit” The judges now get to decide if the fighters spirit is broken or not.
This does however answer a question. Does smothering grappling win rounds. According to impact it should. If you are draining your oppenents energy, breaking their spirit like wrestlers can, you are winning the fight. Damage is not only from a fist. Damage is draining your oppenents ability to fight.
Should successful defense win rounds in the UFC? Petr Yan would like to think it does, but it in fact does not. In the “Dominance” section it goes over how the UFC is an offensive sport. Constantly forcing your oppenent to defend, while striking, will win you the round. So should taking your oppenents back and forcing them to defend in the grappling realm also score you points? The official answer is no. “Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance. What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed.” So while taking your oppenents back will score you points for “Impact” it does not score you points for dominance. Things are now getting confusing. Is impact more impactful or is dominance? HOW DO I JUDGE THIS FIGHT!
Lets go to duration. Maybe the duration section will offer some more insight into what actually matters. “Duration is defined by the time spent by one fighter effectively attacking, controlling and impacting their opponent; while the opponent offers little to no offensive output. A judge shall assess duration by recognizing the relative time in a round when one fighter takes and maintains full control of the effective offense. This can be assessed both standing and grounded.” So now duration tells me that taking a dominant position does matter. Snip, snap, snip snap!
Judging has long been a problem in MMA. I no longer fault the judges. The criteria which they have to interpret are the problem. I can read this and see it one way and you can read the same rules and see it another. The funny thing is this goes back looking at a fight in general. They are subjective. You can walk away thinking you won and I can walk away thinking I won. There is never going to be a perfect system. Don’t leave it to the judges!
Below are a few current fighters and some of your favorite MMA personalities. This is what they had to say about the scoring criteria in MMA. I also linked the ABC unified rules
Clint from DieHardMMA
When it comes to scoring I feel like we have over-corrected on the grappling. A few years back the UFC was dominated by wreslters and the judges and promotions and especially Dana White and his contender series have dirven home the concept that blanket control is not a thing that wins fights anymore but I believe we have strayed too far.
People forget that EFFECTIVE grappling is neutralizing your opponent. They dont want to hear that a wrestler is "dominating" somebody without landing ground and pound to go with it, but I would argue that taking your foe completly out of the fight is domination.
As a whole when it comes to scoring MMA fights I do look for damage first, but when the damage is minimal or if its apparent that the one receiving the punches is not in any way affected by the strikes then the cage control and wrestling starts to take over.
Islam vs Volkanovski was a perfect expample. Islam had the control however it was aparent that he was hanging on for dear life. He had the dominant position of Volkanovski's back but I cannot argue that he was "winning" the fight in that position because Volkanovski was laughing at him and punching him in the face while he tried to catch his breath.
Each inidividual fight has to be scored on its own merits, but generally speaking I feel that we have taken too much away from the wrestlers in MMA. I dont want boring fights dont get me wrong, but I do believe that if you completly take your opponent out of the fight and you are never in any danger that is winning.
At the end of the day MMA judging is EXREMELY subjective and I dont know that there is any fix. Becuase we have blended so many different styles and because no 2 fights are ever expactly the same you can argue a relatively intelligent take on nearly every fight depending on what you value. I think at the end of the day we all just need to buckle up for the ride because im not sure there is an answer to a better judging system in this crazy sport. Like Dana always said... dont leave it to the judges.
Manny from MMAFIGHTClub
Under the new scoring criteria, damage (i.e. cuts or knock downs) is supposed to be more valuable than holding someone on the ground for minutes on end. Yet, we are still seeing screwy scorecards that don’t make sense (i.e. Pimblett and Turkugov). I’m a big fan of the open scoring system. It will not solve everything. But it at least lets the fighters/corners know where they stand. Every other major sport has a scorecard. It’s time for MMA and boxing to get with the program. Judges are doodling on the scorecards instead of doing their damn job. Maybe open scoring would also put a little more pressure on the judges.
UFC Flyweight Cody Durden
When I fight, I’m looking to finish my opponents. Sometimes you know when you win the round convincingly. Other times there might be an time in the fight where things got nasty and you have to ask your corner if you won.
If you finish the fight. You don’t have to worry about the judges. That’s my goal.
UFC Womens flyweight Miranda Maverick
When i get into a fight, im looking to do damage and finish the fight each round, control from pressure on the feet to being in dominant positions on the ground. With the inconsistent judging it is hard to know if i have won a rd when i go back to my corner. Ground control should definitely count; even if person is defending well, if they aren’t offensive the person with back control, etc should be awarded more credit. If the person on bottom (say guard) is throwing up submissions, elbows from bottom, etc doing damage while person on top isnt doing anything, person on bottom could be winning. Standing up people I am against though. If a fighter cant get up, that is their problem
Former UFC Heavyweight Juan Adams
When i go into a fight all I’m thinking about accomplishing is winning, i always think of the finish and minimizing the damage I take. I know I’m going to get hit but i want to hit more than i get hit. I do think of the scoring criteria so i try to do at least one offensive thing in every aspect of the criteria. I usually feel like i know the outcome of each round but my coach tells me as soon as i sit on the stool, then we discuss the plan of the attack for the next round and what i need to do to win that one.
Patrick from Addicted2Combat
I can watch the fight as a fan for entertainment, or watch it objectively to score it. It's difficult to do both at once. Having lots of cash on the line clouds my vision of the scoring as well.
When you look at the commissions rulebooks, many of the ways "damage" is scored is extremely subjective so I'm rarely shocked at split decisions for fights that have close rounds.
Johnny from JohnnyKPicks
When I watch fights, this is how I judge/score fights for fighters in each round:
1) Overall Damage - whether it's on the feet or on the mat. Damage is king and trumps everything - knockdowns, cuts, bruises, etc.
2) Effective striking - striking accuracy, volume, how hard/clean the significant strikes landed are.
3) Effective grappling - transitions to dominant positions, working for submissions and ground strikes, control time. Laying on top of fighters or holding fighters up against the cage with no urge to go for the finish doesn't really score "points" for me, nor does it "take away points" either.
Obviously, I'm not a judge nor claim to be, but I try to keep it simple. I do think the judging criteria is a little too complicated and can be very subjective depending on the judge. Not to say they are right or wrong, but if you keep the judging criteria simple, you will have less crazy scorecards. For example: 2 judges giving a fighter 29-28 and the other judge gives the other fighter 30-27. I will say, I do feel the judges favor striking a little more than grappling, which makes sense due to the current judging criteria.
https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/unified-rules-mma-2019.pdf