Judges, not the scoring system, are the problem with the UFC

Agree. I don't think jones or gsp fights had a by 10-8 in them either Good article though. Valid points

I agree with Sam in regards to the .5 system i'd also say judges seem very reluctant to get a split round some rounds really are that close. We have some interesting issues with a sport like MMA that make judging and competing and keeping it entertaining difficult. We have such a wide and varied pool of skillsets at play making it difficult to judge, we have at the same time a knowledge base of trainers and fighters converging, (all fighters know or should something or all styles) making hard for a fighter to stand out from the crowd., this knowledge and increased professionalism means it's easy for fights to far into the less entertaining bracket. This leads us to the other issue that is plaguing the sport. Genetic freaks and weight manipulation. With the science and nutrition of the weight cut now making it possible for fighters to drop and bounce over 30lbs after weigh in some of the fight night match up look ridiculous and I'd argue are more dangerous then having a fighter weigh in the day/hours before a fight at a more natural healthy weight. Someone doing one of these drastic cut could die and or one of there opponents who is natural or close to the weight may suffer catastrophic injuries while fighting someone who is 2-3 weight divisions heavier on fight night.

So it seems you either win a round or you don't. 1-0 is plenty. If it is even at the end, the fighter judged to be more aggressive wins. The 10-9 thing is obviously , like boxing , giving room to the real or imagined corrupt judge. Better to argue over the aggressor.

Agree Ayden. Am a fan of blokes like Joe Lauzon or Clay Guida, guys who sometimes get caught in the first round but never give up. That's why in a way am fairly conservative I guess ;)

This is a very tricky one and tbh I don't know what to think. The risk with giving 10-7 type of scores is that it could give the edge to a bloke who had a lucky shot. For example, lets imagine we have a bloke knocking someone out in the first round, then spends 3min on top of the guy without being able to finish him. Judges score 10-7. The next 2 rounds the fighter who lost the first round gets the upper hand fairly convincingly and gets 10-9 for both rounds. In my mind he deserves to win yet with a scoring system using the '7' or '6' as suggested, he would lose. Using the whole scale also increases subjective scoring imo, especially considering most MMA fights are 3 rounds only. Not an easy one at all.

Hendricks also had decision wins against Koscheck and Condit that weren't particularly decisive and could have gone either way, so his moaning about the GSP decision was a tad hypocritical. He's a great fighter though and seems to be improving, though I can't quite see him being a long term champion.

I was just pointing out that in those fights it was arguably the rules rather than the judges that lead to the controversy. The GSP Hendricks fight is probably the best example - Hendricks won 2 & 4 far more convincingly than GSP did 3 and 5 (even though I think GSP won those rounds clearly, Hendricks did far far more damage in the rounds he won) but didn't really come close to the 10-8 criteria. The judges didn't really do anything wrong (though I still think the elbows in the 1st should have given Hendricks that round) but the judging criteria doesn't gel with how a lot of people saw that fight.

"Jon Jones win over Alexander Gustafsson at UFC 165 and Georges Saint-Pierre’s victory of Johny Hendricks at UFC 167 are also questionable." I'm not sure these matches necessarily support your assertion that it's the judges, not the rules. In the Jones fight, no round was close to being a 10-8 round, and the closest round to being one would have been in Jones' favour. I don't see any particular controversy in that fight, it was a close fight with a couple of close rounds that the judges chose to give Jones. And on the stated scoring rules, I don't think Hendricks earned a 10-8 round at any time against GSP. Yes, in the 2nd and 4th he did considerably more damage than GSP in the 3rd and 5th, but GSP still had enough offence in the rounds he lost to keep them at a 10-9. The fight simply came down to who won the 1st and Hendricks had a decent claim to that due to the standing elbows he landed at one point, but if the judges didn't see those as being that important a good argument for GSP winning that round can be made.

Completely agree with your assessment re judges being hesitant to award anything other than 10-9 rounds, however I do think a "Damage" factor may be a worthwhile introduction into the scoring system. I think it would make some fighters venture outside the mindset of 'lay and pray'. I love watching MMA however I don't think it should be a weekly event. I personally like build-ups to fights and I think the UFC does well in promoting big fights. Regular fights give the chance for up-and-comers but I don't think UFC events should be a weekly occurrence as I think it would lessen the appeal. The mindset of punters may shift from "I must watch this UFC event" to "Don't worry I will catch next week's card". Great article and great to see some UFC content.

Aren't we just having a love in here? I actually agree with your first article about the UFC losing its spark a little but I think a major reason for that is its transition from being a novelty that happens only semi-regularly to a more mainstream 'every-week' sport. We don't complain about the AFL or NRL playing every week during their season and the UFC wants to be up on the level of the NFL or NBA in the States so it makes sense they will have an event just about every week. However it has come at the cost of spreading its roster quite thinly and losing its special event feel. As to the soring question I actually think an 10-8 should almost write a fighter off but should a near complete round of beat down with the other fighter getting in a late but effective flurry be awarded a 10-9? Well it does't really reflect the first 4 or so minutes of the round while giving it a 10-8 all but wipes out the guy who landed a few good ones.

I agree. Better would be if the maximum score is 3, the minimum score is 1 (for surviving the round). So you win the round 3:2 or 3:1.

Yes i do agree that a .5 system could work equally as well. If a 10-8 round was scored in the first round i can certainly see how that would be hard to come back from. However, would that not be deservedly so if a there was a poor enough performance warranting such a score? I have read some of the articles you have posted and enjoyed them. There is a notable lack of UFC content on here.

Good article btw, great to see some new UFC on The Roar, keep up the good work.

I disagree to some extent with your assessment, you're absolutely right that the champ seems to get an advantage from being champ and the judges sometimes just make some strange calls. However I think the scoring system is broken and doesn't allow for enough variation in points earned. The reason you rarely see a 10-8 round is because it pretty much writes a fighter off in a 3 round fight, it is a death sentence so is only used for the most one sided of one sided rounds. However is it then fair that a back and forth round and a near as whopping are both rewarded with a 10-9 score? No, it is unfair to a fighter who has gone blow for blow in the first instance and unfair to a dominant fighter in the second. My solution to this would be to institute a .5 system, which opens up a 10-9.5 round for something close, 10-9 for something dominant but not damaging, 10-8.5 for virtual dominance but maybe the challenger landed a few good blows or had a few moments of control and 10-8 for a whitewash. That formula isn't original and has actually been trialled at some low level MMA events in the states but for whatever reason the UFC has been hesitant to push for any change, despite bad judge calls ruining at least one fight every card.