What If the UFC Introduced Open Scoring?

OKTAGON Reported Third Rounds More Action-Packed

The case for open scoring begins with competitive transparency.

Under the current closed system, fighters often have no accurate information about where they stand on the scorecards. A fighter who believes they're winning a close fight may coast in the final round while actually losing. A fighter who believes they need a knockout may take unnecessary risks trying to finish a fight where they're actually ahead on points.

Open scoring eliminates this strategic information gap.

OKTAGON competitive findings:

• European promotion implemented open scoring 2025
• Reported "3rd rounds are more action packed than before"
• Fighters know exactly what they need from final round
• Strategic guessing eliminated

OKTAGON, the European MMA promotion, implemented open scoring in 2025 and reported that third rounds are more action-packed than before, a direct response to fighters who now know exactly what they need.

Before fight night, hit the Content Lab. Styles make fights. We break them down fast.

Marc Ratner Argues Against Losing "And New" Moment

The UFC's official position against open scoring comes from Marc Ratner, UFC Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

His articulation: "The most exciting part, whether it be boxing or MMA, is after a title fight and we go to a decision, and you're waiting for Michael or Bruce Buffer to say — you're sitting in your seat, sitting on the edge saying either 'new' or 'still.' I would hate to lose that moment."

UFC's entertainment-first position:

• Marc Ratner VP of Regulatory Affairs articulated opposition
• "And new" vs. "and still" moment most exciting part
• Sitting on edge waiting for Buffer announcement
• Tension between competitive fairness and entertainment spectacle

The tension between competitive fairness and entertainment spectacle is exactly what this debate is about. Ratner's framing reveals that the UFC has consciously chosen the entertainment-first interpretation.

Think you can call the main event? Try Gridzy. Make your picks. Flex later.

Judge Safety Concern Is Most Serious Practical Objection

The judge safety concern is the most serious practical objection to open scoring that most advocates fail to address adequately.

When a popular local fighter loses a close round and the crowd learns about it immediately, the emotional response in some venues could create genuine danger for the judges who scored it that way.

The crowd-judge influence problem becomes dramatically more acute when judges must announce their scores publicly after every round.

Judge safety with open scoring:

• Popular local fighter losing round, crowd learns instantly
• Emotional response could endanger judges in partisan venues
• Subsequent rounds susceptible to crowd pressure
• Judges influenced by knowing crowd reaction to previous scores

Their subsequent scoring in rounds two through five is susceptible to the same crowd contamination effect that makes MMA judging unreliable in partisan venues.

If you're feeling bold about that underdog, prove it in Gridzy.

Live Betting Market Would Shift Fundamentally

The betting implications of open scoring would be profound.

Live betting (which currently operates on uncertainty about where the fight stands on cards) would shift fundamentally.

The ability to bet "fighter to win by decision" or "total rounds" with live information about the scorecards would create a more efficient live market.

Live betting transformation:

• Currently operates on scorecard uncertainty
• Open scoring creates information symmetry
• Removes edge from bettors exploiting perception gaps
• Makes market more efficient, therefore less exploitable for sharps

This removes significant edge from bettors who currently exploit the gap between public round perception and actual judge scoring.

After the final bell, Piggy Arcade keeps the action rolling.

Open Scoring Makes Market More Efficient

Open scoring would, paradoxically, make the UFC betting market more efficient and therefore less exploitable for the sophisticated analytical bettor community that currently profits from the closed information environment.

When everyone knows the score, the information advantage disappears. Sharp bettors lose their edge.

No PPV tonight? Piggy Arcade's top picks are live. From knockouts to jackpots in one click.

Competitive Fairness vs. Entertainment Value

The open scoring debate ultimately comes down to whether the UFC prioritizes competitive fairness or entertainment value.

Fairness argues for giving fighters accurate information to make strategic decisions. Entertainment argues for preserving the suspense of waiting for Buffer to announce the winner.

The UFC has chosen entertainment. Whether that changes in 2026 or beyond depends on whether competitive integrity concerns eventually outweigh the commercial value of surprise decision announcements.

Before fight night, hit the Content Lab. Styles make fights. We break them down fast.

The Bottom Line on Open Scoring

Open scoring creates competitive fairness (OKTAGON proved third rounds more action-packed) but UFC prioritizes entertainment value (Ratner defends "and new" moment), judge safety concerns legitimate, live betting edge would disappear.