UFC

The Complete Guide to UFC Judges, Scoring & Decisions

This isn't just academic knowledge. If you're betting UFC fights and you don't understand how judges score rounds, you're gambling blind on half the fights on every card. You'll watch a fighter land more strikes, control the cage, and pressure forward for three rounds, then lose a decision and wonder what the hell happened. The answer is simple: you don't know what judges are actually looking for. Most bettors ignore judging completely and wonder why their "obvious winner" lost a decision. Sharp bettors understand exactly how judges score fights and bet accordingly. The gap between what you think should win a round and what judges actually reward is where your money disappears.

February 19, 2026

The Complete Guide to UFC Judges, Scoring & Decisions

Most bettors ignore judging completely and wonder why their "obvious winner" lost a decision. Sharp bettors understand exactly how judges score fights and bet accordingly. The gap between what you think should win a round and what judges actually reward is where your money disappears.

The 10-Point Must System: Foundation and Structure

The UFC uses the 10-Point Must System, borrowed from boxing and written into the Unified Rules of MMA. Three judges sit at cageside and independently score each round on a 10-point scale. The round winner gets 10 points, the loser gets 9 or fewer. Simple concept, messy execution.

Each round stands alone. What happened in Round 1 doesn't carry over to Round 2. Judges score every three minutes of action on its own merits, which prevents early dominance from automatically winning the fight but also creates situations where a fighter can get destroyed in one round and still win the fight if they edge the other rounds.

The Math

Three-round fights: Total points range from 21-30

Five-round championship fights: Total points range from 35-50

Most competitive fights: End up 29-28 or 30-27

This reflects reality. One fighter usually wins most rounds by small or clear margins. You're not going to see many 30-24 blowouts because if a fighter is dominating that badly, the ref usually stops it before the final bell.

Understanding Round Scores

10-9: The Standard Round Score

The most common round score is 10-9, awarded when one fighter performs better by any margin. Could be razor-thin or substantial. Same score either way. This is the system's biggest flaw.

A fighter who lands devastating strikes, achieves knockdowns, or locks in near-finish submissions gets the same 10-9 as a fighter who lands one decent jab then coasts. This drives fighters and bettors insane. You can clearly dominate two rounds but still lose the fight if your opponent barely edges three rounds.

10-8: The Dominant Round

Judges can award 10-8 rounds when one fighter wins by a substantially larger margin. The rules say judges should award 10-8 when a fighter shows two or more of these three things:

Impact or damage
Dominance
Duration

The updated criteria explicitly say judges must "ALWAYS" award 10-8 when these conditions are met. But judges are conservative. You'll watch a fighter get absolutely mauled for five minutes and still see it scored 10-9 because judges don't like using the full scoring range.

When you should see 10-8 rounds:

Fighter gets a takedown, moves to mount, and lands sustained ground-and-pound that opens cuts or creates visible swelling.

Fighter lands multiple knockdowns, forcing the opponent into pure survival mode where they can't mount any offense.

Fighter achieves dominant position with credible submission threats for most of the round while the opponent can't escape or strike back.

10-7: The Annihilation Round

The 10-7 round is reserved for overwhelming dominance across all three elements. Only four instances in UFC history:

Forrest Petz vs Sammy Morgan (2006)
Khamzat Chimaev's debut vs John Phillips (2020)
Ilia Topuria's fourth round vs Josh Emmett (2023)

The threshold is enormous. A fighter must completely overwhelm their opponent with almost zero meaningful offense coming back. We're talking borderline-stoppage-but-somehow-still-going level of domination.

10-10: The Extremely Rare Even Round

Judges can award 10-10 rounds when fighters perform identically, though the rules say this should be "extremely rare" and "not a score to be used as an excuse by a judge that cannot assess differences in the round."

The standard is that even the slightest advantage warrants a 10-9. Ten-ten scores only happen in extraordinary circumstances, often when fights end early due to accidental fouls before enough action occurred to separate the fighters. If you see a 10-10 round, the judge either couldn't tell who won or didn't want to make a decision.

Shurzy Tip: The 10-9 round problem is why betting close decisions is a minefield. Two fighters can have nearly identical rounds, but one edges three of them by the thinnest margin and wins 29-28 despite getting dominated in the other two rounds. The system doesn't account for degree of victory.

Scoring Hierarchy: The Three-Part Decision Framework

The Unified Rules establish a strict order that judges must follow. This hierarchy prevents personal preferences from overriding the sport's core principle: fighters win by damaging opponents and advancing toward finishing the fight, not by walking forward ineffectively or controlling space without consequence.

Think of it as Plan A, Plan B, Plan C. Judges can only move to the next plan if they absolutely can't separate fighters on the previous criteria.

Plan A: Effective Striking and Effective Grappling

Plan A is where judges should spend 95% of their time. Effective striking and effective grappling are co-equal primary criteria. Judges evaluate "the impactful/effective result" rather than just counting strikes or automatically rewarding takedowns.

This represents a deliberate shift away from the old system where judges counted volume and gave automatic points for takedowns regardless of what happened after.

Effective Striking: Quality Over Quantity

The rules emphasize "legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match." One devastating strike that wobbles an opponent and shifts momentum beats a dozen light strikes that produce no visible effect.

How judges assess striking impact:

Visible damage: cuts, swelling, bruising
Altered body language: compromised movement, defensive posture, backing up
Knockdowns or near-finishes showing clear superiority

A fighter landing 80 ineffective strikes should not automatically beat an opponent landing 40 strikes that cut and slow their opponent. However, when impact is relatively equal, higher striking volume shows superior offensive execution. This is the nuance that separates good judges from bad ones.

Effective Grappling: It's Not Just Takedowns

Effective grappling includes takedowns, reversals, dominant position advancement, and submission attempts. Here's the critical part: securing a takedown does not automatically guarantee scoring advantage.

Judges must evaluate "what is accomplished with the takedown" and "the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown." A fighter who takes someone down but faces immediate reversal earns minimal credit. A fighter who secures a takedown, advances to mount, and threatens submissions demonstrates effective grappling worth scoring.

Top and bottom fighters get equal assessment. A bottom fighter who controls posture, threatens submissions, and prevents damage can win rounds despite fighting from what looks like a bad position. Modern MMA is technical enough that positional hierarchies don't always dictate who's winning.

Plan B: Effective Aggressiveness

Plan B only matters when judges can't separate fighters on effective striking and grappling. The key word is "effective." Simply moving forward, pressuring against the cage, or throwing strikes that miss carries zero scoring value.

Judges must identify which fighter is "aggressively making attempts to finish the fight" with offensive actions threatening to end the contest. A fighter who consistently initiates exchanges and seeks takedowns shows greater effort to impose their will.

This is not about who walks forward more. It's about who's actively trying to finish the fight when effective offense is equal.

Plan C: Fighting Area Control

Plan C serves as the final tiebreaker in the extraordinarily rare circumstance that both preceding criteria remain perfectly equal. Judges assess "who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match."

Which fighter controls the centerline? Who establishes the range at which the fight occurs? Who controls the tempo of engagements? A fighter who consistently establishes center control and forces the opponent into reactive positions shows superior command of fighting space.

The rules explicitly state that cage control should "very rarely" determine rounds, and its application must not override effective offensive output. The 2016 revisions emphasized this hierarchy precisely because earlier judging often over-weighted cage control, rewarding fighters who walked forward ineffectively while their opponents landed more impactful strikes.

If judging reaches Plan C, something went wrong. It's an indication that prior criteria were improperly applied. Contemporary judging should almost never use fighting area control as the deciding factor.

Shurzy Tip: Most bad decisions happen because judges skip straight to Plan C. They see a fighter walking forward, controlling the cage, and pressuring, then give them the round despite their opponent landing cleaner, harder strikes. Know the hierarchy. Bet against fighters who rely on cage control without effective offense.

Who Judges UFC Fights: Qualifications, Selection, and Notable Officials

Here's a common misconception: the UFC does not employ or control its judges. State athletic commissions (independent regulatory bodies) license judges and assign them to events. The UFC pays sanctioning fees that include official compensation, but has zero control over judge selection, evaluation, or retention.

This is why you get wildly inconsistent judging across different states and countries. Different commissions, different standards, different levels of competence.

Judge Qualifications

Becoming an MMA judge requires navigating qualification pathways that vary by jurisdiction. Generally:

Minimum requirements:

Five years professional MMA judging experience
Comprehensive knowledge of submission techniques, throws, takedowns, and positional hierarchies
Ability to communicate scoring decisions clearly

The certification process:

Formal training through the Association of Boxing Commissions (standardized curriculum covering Unified Rules, judging criteria, ethical conduct)
Written examinations testing Unified Rules knowledge
Practical assessments where aspiring judges shadow experienced judges and submit sample scorecards for review
Physical examinations including vision tests ensuring they can observe action from cageside

Each state commission maintains its own licensing standards. Some require annual recertification and continuing education. Others don't. This inconsistency creates the judging quality variance you see across different locations.

Notable UFC Judges

Sal D'Amato stands as the most frequently assigned UFC judge with over 900 scored decisions. D'Amato works nearly every major UFC event and often judges 40+ rounds in a single weekend. His ubiquity has made him both highly recognizable and occasionally controversial when his scorecards dissent from media consensus. You'll see his name constantly.

Derek Cleary ranks second with 568 UFC decisions since 2012. Mixed reactions. Some analysts consider him competent, others point to questionable scorecards that make you wonder if he was watching the same fight.

Chris Lee holds third position with 560+ decisions across 17+ years. Lee drew headlines for awarding Ilia Topuria an ultra-rare 10-7 round, showing willingness to apply the full scoring range. However, he's also been the dissenting judge in numerous disputed split decisions, which raises questions about his consistency.

Judge Compensation

Judge compensation reveals a system prioritizing cost control over attracting talent. The numbers are embarrassing:

California State Athletic Commission pay scale:

UFC PPV events: $1,600-$2,500
UFC Apex smaller events: $1,200-$1,600
Regional promotions: Often as little as $175-$350 per event

The pay-per-event structure provides no salary, no benefits, no guaranteed work. You judge when you're assigned, you get paid that one time, that's it. This compensation model has drawn widespread criticism from fighters and coaches who argue inadequate pay directly correlates with judging quality.

Think about it: you're asking someone to make split-second technical assessments in a complex combat sport for $2,000 per event with no job security. This is not a recipe for attracting top-tier talent.

Decision Types: How Fights Are Decided

When UFC bouts reach the final bell without a finish, one of several decision types determines the official result.

Unanimous Decision

All three judges score the bout for the same fighter. Unanimous decisions don't require identical scorecards. Judges can award different round scores while reaching the same conclusion. One judge might score it 30-27, another 29-28, third 30-27 with different rounds. Still unanimous.

Approximately 60-65% of UFC decisions are unanimous, reflecting the typical scenario where one fighter clearly wins the majority of rounds. These are the "easy" decisions where everyone agrees.

Split Decision

Two judges score the bout for one fighter while the third judge awards it to the opponent. Split decisions generate controversy because they highlight subjective interpretations of close rounds.

From a statistical perspective, split decision winners received two winning scorecards despite one judge completely disagreeing. These occur in roughly 25-30% of UFC decisions and frequently correlate with fan and media disagreement about the correct winner.

Split decisions create unique betting opportunities because markets often misprice close fights where judging variance is high. If you can predict which way judges will lean in close rounds, you can find massive value.

Majority Decision

Two judges score the bout for one fighter while the third judge scores it a draw. Relatively rare, occurring in perhaps 5% of decisions. Reflects a scenario where one judge couldn't separate the fighters while two judges identified a clear winner.

Draws

Unanimous draw: All three judges score the bout even. Exceedingly rare. Maybe a dozen instances across thousands of UFC bouts. Requires all three judges to score rounds identically enough to produce equal point totals.

Majority draw: Two judges score the fight even while one judge selects a winner. Often results from point deductions. This represents the most common draw outcome, though still uncommon overall.

Other Decision Types

Technical decision: Fight stops prematurely due to an accidental foul that renders a fighter unable to continue, but only after progressing beyond a certain threshold (usually end of Round 2 in a three-rounder, end of Round 3 in a five-rounder). Judges submit scorecards including the incomplete round. Fighter ahead on the majority of cards wins by technical decision.

No contest: Declared when circumstances prevent determining a winner. Accidental injuries early in fights, equipment failures, failed post-fight drug tests that retroactively overturn results.

Disqualification: Fighter commits an intentional foul preventing their opponent from continuing. Petr Yan's illegal knee to a grounded Aljamain Sterling at UFC 259 resulted in Sterling winning the bantamweight championship by disqualification. First title changing hands via DQ in UFC history.

Shurzy Tip: Split decisions are betting gold mines if you understand judging tendencies. Markets often price close fights 50/50, but if you know certain judges favor striking over grappling, or reward aggression over technical precision, you can identify which fighter gets the nod in close rounds. That's systematic value.

Persistent Controversies and Systemic Issues

Recent high-profile controversial decisions have renewed calls for comprehensive judging reform. The problem isn't getting better. If anything, it's getting worse as the sport grows and more judges without deep MMA knowledge enter the system.

Recent Egregious Decisions

UFC 310: Alexander Volkov appeared to defeat Ciryl Gane in the assessment of most observers, media members, and even UFC President Dana White. Judges awarded Gane a split decision. The scoring made no sense.

Jon Jones vs Dominick Reyes: Jones received a controversial unanimous decision victory despite media members scoring the bout 16-4 in Reyes' favor. Reyes clearly won the first three rounds. Judges gave them to Jones.

Paddy Pimblett vs Jared Gordon (UFC 282): Pimblett won a disputed majority decision despite media scoring it 16-4 for Gordon. One of the worst robberies in recent memory.

These aren't edge cases. These are main card fights with massive implications scored by judges who appear to be watching different fights than everyone else.

Inadequate Judge Education

Many MMA judges come from boxing backgrounds or enter the field without practical martial arts training. This creates knowledge gaps in understanding grappling exchanges and submission defense.

Unlike traditional sports referees who typically have playing experience, MMA judges often lack the fighting background necessary to evaluate technical nuances. How can you properly score a guillotine escape if you've never felt one? How can you assess top control quality if you've never grappled?

The answer: you can't. You're guessing based on visual cues without understanding the actual dynamics of the positions.

The 10-8 Round Problem

Despite 2016 rule clarifications explicitly instructing judges to "ALWAYS" award 10-8 rounds when criteria are met, judges remain conservative. They don't want to use the full scoring range.

UFC 139's fifth round is the classic example. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua mounted Dan Henderson, landed sustained ground-and-pound, and controlled the position for nearly the entire five minutes. All three judges scored it 10-9. Absurd. That's a textbook 10-8 round by any reasonable standard.

This conservatism means truly dominant rounds get scored the same as barely-won rounds, which distorts fight outcomes and makes betting decisions impossible to predict accurately.

Lack of Accountability and Transparency

Judges rarely provide public explanations for controversial scorecards. They face no apparent disciplinary action for egregious errors. They continue receiving high-profile assignments despite patterns of questionable decisions.

There's zero accountability. A judge can score a fight in a way that makes no sense, face no consequences, and judge the main event the following weekend. This breeds incompetence because there's no incentive to improve.

Shurzy Tip: Track which judges work which events and their historical tendencies. Some judges systematically favor strikers over grapplers. Some reward aggression over technical precision. Some over-value cage control. Knowing individual judge tendencies gives you an edge in close fights where their biases will determine the winner.

Conclusion

For bettors, judging knowledge is essential. Approximately 40-50% of UFC fights go to decision. If you can't predict how judges will score close rounds, you can't bet decisions profitably. Most bettors bet finishes and avoid decisions entirely. Sharp bettors master judging criteria and exploit the market's systematic mispricing of decision outcomes.

Poor pay attracts lower-quality judges. Lack of accountability enables incompetence to persist. Inconsistent 10-8 application creates unpredictable scoring. Judges from boxing backgrounds don't understand grappling. No transparency means bad judges keep getting assignments.

The system is flawed. Sharp bettors don't complain about it. They exploit it.

â€

Share this post: