What to Do with Scoring in the UFC...or in fact MMA as a whole?

OK, we’ve all seen the recent spate of poor decisions in MMA, but what can we do about it?

Well firstly let’s look at the problem. Three judges score the cards based on effective striking, grappling, aggression, and Octagon control, with the winner gaining 10 points and the loser nine or less. 

Sounds simple right? Well the reality is that scoring in MMA is difficult to do on a consistent basis. With the plethora of different styles showcased in MMA it becomes near impossible to choose a scoring criteria that doesn’t favor grappling over say striking for example. 

Added to that is the impossibility of interpreting any such criteria when every round is so different. To this extent we must accept that subjectivity will always remain when a fight goes to the judges. With that said let's face it, it’s not really the scoring of individual rounds that causes the controversy but rather the end result: who won and who lost.

There are a number of fights that in recent history have caused quite a stir; Bisping vs. Hamil, Jackson vs. Griffin, and more recently Machida vs. Rua.

While I don’t think we can ever eliminated controversial decisions, I do believe that there is something we can do to perhaps reach the right decision on a more frequent basis. Before I give my suggestion, let me ask you a question I asked myself this past weekend while watching the Thiago-Evans fight:

Why do we need to automatically award 10 points to the winner of a round?

Why 10?  More to the point, why do we then go and give the loser nine points automatically unless they lose the round badly. Under the current system let’s say you narrowly lose the first two rounds and then dominate your opponent in the third. The most you will come out with is a draw. Even then one judge might give you a 10/9 round and you could lose.

My suggestion is that rather than simply awarding eight points for stepping into the Octagon, let's mark the round out of 10 properly. Hell, even Kalib Starnes was awarded at least eight points by all three judges for every round against Nate Quarry. So again why do we bother marking in this way? 

Instead of automatically giving 10 point to the winner, let’s make them work for every point. So if two fighters don’t engage too much and one just barely takes the round, why not award a six or a five. Additionally if the round is very one sided the judges shouldn’t feel shy to award one guy a nine or 10 and the other a three.

I believe this shift in thinking on the judges' part would work because a cumulative score would more accurately represent the fight and, more importantly, who won. It would also make a fighter work until the very end rather than simply try and ride out a decision after bagging the first two rounds. So hopefully this suggestion would give both better fights and better decisions, which must be something we’d all welcome.

Of course this is just my suggestion, and I would love to hear any feedback or improvement you guys might have.