Do MMA fighters coast to victory with open scoring? New study says no
In both bouts, three rounds were pretty easy to score while one was debatable. If Shevchenko and Sterling had known they were up 3-1, would they have fought differently and taken less risks? It could be a wise thing to do, but then again, professional fighters probably are who they are because they don't approach risk the same way as us mere mortals. And what would Grasso and Yan have done? Turned up the screws even more and hunted for a finish?
Advertisement
While science can't tell us with certainty how two specific people like Shevchenko and Sterling would behave if their fights had open scoring, it can shed light on whether fighters in general tend to systematically change their behavior when scores are known in real time.
Max Holloway is one of many high-profile MMA fighters who has long advocated for open scoring.
(Jeff Bottari via Getty Images)
The answer for fighters in the lead might be surprising — they don't tend to coast.
Being ahead in the last round doesn't statistically change fighter behavior with real-time scoring. It's the trailing fighters who change. They tend to shift away from takedowns and submission attempts — likely in pursuit of a knockout — and end up losing the final round even more often, according to my study in the Journal of Sports Analytics.
Advertisement
High-profile fights with controversial endings get people talking and often stir up open-scoring debates. But the benefits and drawbacks of revealing scores in real time would apply to multiple bouts on every event card when one fighter has the lead and is a round away from victory.
Research breakdown
Ever watched a fight with friends and the round winner was so obvious you didn't need to ask who they scored it for?
Well, judges have the same thoughts, or at least I did as a judge for amateur MMA shows in Los Angeles. Sitting cageside at Metroflex Gym and the Coliseum, I'd sometimes wonder how the other two judges scored a round; other times, it was abundantly clear. Those moments were the spark for the first scholarly study of open scoring in MMA.
Advertisement
The Kansas Athletic Commission authorized open scoring in 2020, and Colorado's commission followed suit in 2021, then they studied the effects with available data. The big concern from critics of the model is always the claim a fighter who knows he or she is up two points or more heading into the last round will tend to disengage more and cruise to victory. Kansas studied this using Invicta and LFA events and found the fighter in the lead wins the last round even more often with open scoring — 11-12% more, to be exact. That doesn't look like leading fighters disengaging, though Kansas couldn't examine their actual statistical behavior in those final rounds.
That's where UFC data comes into play, since they track a broad range of fighter performance statistics. Even though the promotion has never used open scoring, some fights are effectively openly scored to anyone with the smallest bit of fight acumen. Other fights have legitimate ambiguity entering the last round.
After formalizing that idea, filtering 3,646 UFC bouts over a seven-and-a-half year period, and accounting for the fact that fight data comes from the real world instead of an experiment, what was left was something similar to a randomized controlled trial, except this one studied open scoring in MMA rather than the effectiveness of a medicine.
Would Valentina Shevchenko have regained her title a year earlier with open scoring?
(Chris Unger via Getty Images)
The study focused on aspects of fighter performance related to the action and activity in a round (jabs, power strikes, knockdowns, damage, takedowns, submission attempts, and clinch and ground control), since promoters are the ones who ultimately decide whether to use open scoring if an athletic commission makes it available, and they aren't in the business of dull fights or lackluster endings.
Advertisement
Similar to Kansas, the study found fighters in the lead win the final round 10.4% more often with open scoring. And that increased win rate came entirely from the judges. Ahead fighters don't finish their opponents more often in the final round, they win it on the judges' scorecards. And there's zero evidence they disengage, coast or run away from the fight. This doesn't mean that no fighter would ever disengage in the last round. It means that fighters making decisions under the UFC's incentive structure don't show signs of systematically cruising or running away from action.
The fighter with the lead likely wins the last round more often because trailing fighters change their behavior when they know they only have five minutes left to steal a win.
Turns out Din Thomas was on the mark when he spoke to The Athletic on the topic five years ago. 'I do know this,' he said, 'If you've got a lead on me and you're trying to avoid fighting me, I'm coming after your ass. … If I'm fighting a guy, it's a three-round fight, he won two rounds and I'm going into the last round, and he tries to coast on me? I'm going after that motherf***er. You can't coast on a guy if the other guy's coming at you because he knows he's losing.'
The 'coming at you' documented in the study is the trailing fighter reducing their rate of takedown attempts by 38% in the last round and a 49% reduction in their submission attempt rate, meaning they're likely hunting a knockout finish. Other performance metrics such as their rates of jabs and power strikes don't change, but the way they throw those strikes could change in a manner not well captured by fight statistics. Think of the combinations they throw, setups, timing and then the openings they leave for counters.
Advertisement
The story that seems to emerge from the data is fighters who know they're about to lose look more for a knockout, and they don't tend to get it. On top of that, judges notice degradations in their striking or strategy, so they end up losing the last round more often.
After reviewing the study, Adam Roorbach, former executive director of the Kansas Athletic Commission — one of the driving forces for regulatory acceptance of open scoring — commented to Uncrowned: 'What this study shows is what we at the KAC theorized when we developed the open-scoring system. Fighters will continue to fight and not run when ahead. They are overwhelmingly in favor of utilizing open scoring and deserve to know the score of their fight.'
Max Holloway scoffs at the idea of coasting.
(Jeff Bottari via Getty Images)
Why is it open scoring so rare?
When The Athletic conducted its anonymous fighter survey in 2020, they found that 80% of fighters supported open scoring. Nothing stands out from the data in terms of putting fighters at additional risk. And logistically, if Kansas and Colorado can handle it, surely other commissions can as well.
Advertisement
Wading into decision-making processes inside athletic commissions is a tricky task, but what's clear and straightforward is there's no decision for promoters to make if state and tribal jurisdictions haven't approved real-time scoring as an option.
In the U.S., open scoring is potentially available in four states.
Kansas and Colorado have authorized it. Wyoming has had two bare-knuckle shows with open scoring and would also allow MMA promoters to use it, according to executive director Nick Meeker, but hasn't received a request yet. And New Mexico informed Uncrowned that open scoring 'would be decided on a case-by-case basis,' per communications director Andrea Brown.
The open-scoring system changes fights — just not in a way that would disappoint many fight fans.
We already know a Max Holloway will keep pressing with a surefire lead toward the end of a fight. Now there's statistical evidence about how numerous fighters within the UFC ecosystem generally behave when they know the score.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pat McAfee goes off on ‘bum ass suits at ESPN' while praising $1.6 billion WWE deal
Not everyone with the WWE has glowing things to say about ESPN. Former wrestling commentator and current ESPN host Pat McAfee called out some of the mid-level 'suits' as bums after the announcement on Wednesday that WWE and the network are teaming up on a deal to broadcast the promotion's premium live events. 'Congrats to the @WWE and @espn on getting a historic PLE deal done,' McAfee said in a post on X. 4 Pat McAfee figures to see his role only grow in the coming months with this latest move bringing WWE to ESPN. Icon Sportswire via Getty Images 4 John Cena defended his WWE Worlds title against Cody Rhodes at Met Life Stadium on August 3, 2025. George Napolitano / 'Great to see 2 powerhouses of sports and entertainment come together. I assume all the mid-level, powerless, bum ass suits at ESPN will attempt to muddy this somehow (out of context leaks/ignorant anonymous opinions/etc.) but, in the end.. this agreement will outlive the dinosaurs currently guarding desks in Bristol and this deal will be great for ESPN. Cheers to the future.' The deal, which will run for five years and is worth $1.6 billion, will allow ESPN to broadcast WWE events such as WrestleMania, SummerSlam and the Royal Rumble as part of its new direct-to-consumer service that launches later this month. 4 Triple-H and the WWE will be on ESPN programming. WWE via Getty Images 4 Norby Williamson Getty Images McAfee, who stepped back from his WWE commentator duties earlier this year due to his busy schedule, has previously had issues with ESPN executives, with him accusing Norby Williamson of trying to 'sabotage' his eponymous show in 2024. Williamson was the company's executive editor and head of event and studio production. McAfee went hard after Williamson, who left ESPN in January, on multiple occasions, even saying 'I don't got a motherf–king boss' last February. ESPN and McAfee have been business partners since September 2023, when the former NFL punter inked a five-year $85 million deal.
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
Artem Lobov: Conor McGregor was in 'party mindset' before Khabib fight, hardly trained
Artem Lobov wishes Conor McGregor took his fight preparation for Khabib Nurmagomedov more seriously. McGregor (22-6 MMA, 10-4 UFC) was submitted by Nurmagomedov in the fourth round of their lightweight title fight at UFC 229 in October 2018, marking the highest-selling pay-per-view in the promotion's history. McGregor's fight against Nurmagomedov came after he made his biggest-career paycheck against Floyd Mayweather in boxing. Prior to the Nurmagomedov fight, McGregor's most recent MMA fight was arguably the greatest performance of his career when he dominated and stopped Eddie Alvarez to become the UFC's first dual-champion. Lobov thinks that mindset of McGregor could have posed problems for Nurmagomedov (29-0 MMA, 13-0 UFC). "I would love to see him come back, because I feel that if he was at 100 percent, we would be able to bring Khabib back, as well," Lobov said on "The Ariel Helwani Show." "I think Khabib would come back for that fight if Conor was 100 percent and fit and making real moves, making real fights. He would just need one fight, knock the guy out, and then the whole world will be talking to Khabib and getting him to come back. I know that fight bothers Conor because he didn't train at all for that fight. "Twice a week he was training for Khabib. I tried to get him to Vegas and said to him, 'We have to do it, come on, brother.' And he said, 'No, f*ck off.' He just didn't want to do it. He was in the wrong mindset. He was in the party mindset. He was training twice a week, and that's it. So when I saw the fight, I was like, 'Oh my God, if only you trained four times a week, you probably would've beaten him.' But imagine him with a full camp, the Conor that fought Alvarez. Imagine that Conor fighting Khabib. That's what I want to see." Lobov and McGregor went from best friends and main training partners to now battling each in an ongoing legal battle over McGregor's Proper Twelve whiskey brand. Lobov announced that he'll be fighting Nurmagomedov's training partner, Zubaira Tukhugov, at a PFL event on Oct. 3 in Dubai.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mailbag: The 3 best ways to go about retiring from UFC (and actually staying that way)
How do you go about a UFC retirement in the right way (after so many examples of the various wrong ways)? What ever happened to the UFC's promise of AI rankings? And does Brock Lesnar's return to the WWE mean he might also show back up in the UFC at some point? All that and more in this week's mailbag. To ask a question of your own, hit up @benfowlkesMMA on X or @ on Threads. @justlikelasagna: Since there's been a few glaring failures recently, let's try something different. What does a successful ufc retirement look like for a fighter? I've given this topic a lot of thought and it seems to me there are three good ways to go about it. First is what we'll call the Khabib Nurmagomedov model. You have an incredible career, make a lot of money, then walk away at the peak of your powers, leaving us all stunned and skeptical. Except you don't totally turn your back on the sport. You become really active as a coach and mentor, letting your stable of fighters carry your legacy forward while also filling the void within through a vicarious joy in their success. This is trickier than it sounds, not only because step one is becoming one of the best to ever do it, but also because you're basically trying to get sober while still working as a bartender. Simply being in the gym that much is enough to push many people back into the ruthless arms of MMA competition. Next there's the Georges St-Pierre model. Again, it requires becoming one of the all-time greats and making so much money that you never really have to work again. But then you retire just as your prime is beginning to slip away and return only when your coldly analytical mind tells you that there's a very good opportunity to do something big, and for one night only. The important part here is that, once you've returned and achieved that thing, you immediately disappear again. Sure, it'll make the promoter mad, but screw him. He doesn't care about you and never has. Lastly, there's the Cole Konrad model. For those who don't know the name, he was the inaugural Bellator heavyweight champ and he held the title from 2010-12, before retiring from the sport undefeated and then getting a regular old job. Never lost a fight. Never competed again. Lives a nice, quiet life in Minnesota, working for a dairy company when last I heard (in this amazing article by our Uncrowned editor, Shaheen Al-Shatti). The good news about this one is that you don't even have to be an undefeated champ to make it work. Several fighters I know have done this, including my bro Danny Downes (shouts out to Danny Boy) and Brian Stann (shouts out to the greatest living American). The key to this strategy is turning your back on MMA entirely. Don't coach. Don't spar. Don't train fighters. Ideally you shouldn't even watch this sport anymore. As far as you are concerned, that was a whole other life and it might as well have been lived by a different person. Years from now when you're getting a haircut and the barber asks about your cauliflower ear, mumble something about high-school wrestling and leave it at that. Be free. @shadore66: Is summer the best season? It is right Summer is trash. Sorry to be the one to tell you. It's too hot (and only getting hotter, in case you haven't noticed). The afternoons are a sweaty mess. If you want to do anything fun or strenuous outside, you basically only have a couple hours in the morning and a couple hours at night to choose from. If you have kids it's even worse, because they're just … there. All the time. Bored and constantly asking what's for lunch. (My official position on this, now that my kids are 12 and 10, is that their lunch is none of my business.) Now fall? There's a season. A crackling crispness to the air. The sun is still present in our lives but without a sense of murderous malice to it. You can go for a leisurely hike in the afternoon while a hearty stew takes shape in the slow cooker. There's football on TV. Both kinds! It's the absolute best. Of course, ask me in late February and I'll tell you I long for the slow, sun-scorched days of summer. But right now it's August and my upstairs office is effectively unusable due to heat, so I'm angry and bitter. @SLefkaditis: Ιs UFC's AI ranking system dead? How close would it be to Tapology's? (which seems... great?) It's been a while since we've heard UFC CEO Dana White go off on the UFC's own rankings. The last thing I remember hearing on it was that he'd contacted Mark Zuckerberg, who had agreed to put some of Meta's best people to work on solving the UFC's rankings problem. Since then … nothing. It's important to note that Tapology's new ranking system is not AI. It's an algorithm they created and tweaked and crafted to automatically rank every UFC fighter based on pre-selected data points. That's different than just asking AI to tell you who the top 15 featherweights are, which is something AI could absolutely do, even if it would mostly just be guessing based on who knows what. The thing about an AI rankings system, whether it's the UFC partnering with Meta to create it or some other AI company, is how would it really be any different than the UFC matchmakers and executives just coming up with their own list? Maybe they want the veneer of AI so they can continue blaming someone else whenever people get mad about the rankings, but isn't that part of what rankings are for? We're always going to argue over them. It's never going to be perfect and unassailable with unanimous agreement all across the board. Plus, it's not like the UFC has ever been handcuffed by the rankings. The little numbers next to a fighter's name are mainly useful as a talking point on broadcasts or as a marketing tool on fight posters. It never stops the UFC from making whatever fight it wants, so who cares? Whether it's AI or an algorithm or a man behind the curtain, we're still going to argue and it's still not going to matter that much. @Jietzsche: Do you have any latest inside info on the UFC's new tv rights negotiations.. which platform does it seem most likely to be? No inside info, but I was intrigued by today's news that the WWE has struck a deal with ESPN. All those PLEs will move from Peacock to the worldwide leader, though some other WWE content will stick around. It really forces me to decide if it's still worth keeping my Peacock subscription even though now the main thing left for me there is old '30 Rock' episodes. (But my god, they're still so funny every time.) This means TKO has now done big deals with both Netflix and ESPN, two of the frontrunners for the UFC's new broadcast rights deal. It also means that WWE fans will need no fewer than three different subscriptions to follow all the action. And that, my friends, is likely a preview of what UFC fandom will look like by this time next year. @NeedXtoseePosts: Do we think it's possible now Brock is now back under the TKO umbrella and WWE are willing to use him - Lesnar vs Jones in an "exhibition fight" at the White House to save the trouble of drug testing. Brock Lesnar is almost 50 years old, dog. He didn't really love this sport even in his prime, and he never really got comfortable with being hit in the face. Plus, remember all that stuff I said about how maybe it wouldn't be the best look for the UFC or MMA to headline a White House event with a guy who can be easily seen and heard freaking out on various police videos? Let's just say that pitting him against a dude who's named a whole bunch of times in a federal sex trafficking lawsuit doesn't help. @Beastin364: Saw your tweet about Martin Buday getting cut off a win. Be honest though do you really want to see him fight again? Me personally I don't think anybody will miss him in ufc I see your point and I don't totally disagree with you. Buday went 7-1 in the UFC, with a three-fight winning streak to close out his contract (he was not cut, by the way, just not signed to a new deal), but he also wasn't anyone I really looked forward to watching. The same could be said about many (most?) current UFC heavyweights. The fact that he was good enough to beat other fighters the UFC might have had more interest in promoting probably only hurt his chances to stick around. He wouldn't lose but also wouldn't let us have much fun. My point was, doesn't this highlight the degree to which MMA is not like other sports? A tennis player who wins almost all his matches doesn't get pushed off the tour just because he's boring to watch. Buday is, by pretty much any objective measure, a good heavyweight fighter. Nobody goes 7-1 in the UFC if they suck. So when the UFC decides, nah, got no use for the guy here, not at any price? And when the public's response is, sure, that's fine by us? I'm just saying, it tells you that this is only a legit sport between when the cage door closes and opens. Outside of that, it has more in common with performing arts or pro wrestling. We should at least be honest with ourselves about that. @steviefenn: Would the ufc be better served having fewer cards but with more high profile and well known fighters? The build up to fights would be better and the product would be less diluted. Thanks. I hear this a lot and I think the key phrase is 'better served.' It depends what we think that means. Because I can tell you that, for the UFC and its parent company, it is better served by whatever makes the most money right now in the present moment. And between site fees paid by various city or state governments and broadcast rights fees paid by TV partners like ESPN, the UFC makes money simply by putting on fights. Any fights. Regardless of quality or fan interest or name recognition on the card. It's a volume business right now. No one at the UFC is even thinking about doing less if it would mean making less. One could argue that it's not great for the long-term health of the business or the sport to keep churning out APEX cards that fans aren't into. And yes, I agree that the overall product could be better if there were fewer events and a higher standard for each one. But that's fan experience we're talking about, and it's not where the UFC's focus is. Not at all.
