Nothing ignites the internet quite like a terrible judge’s scorecard. When the horn sounds at the end of a grueling 15 or 25-minute war, the fighters’ fates are handed over to three individuals sitting cage-side. More often than not, they get it right. But when they get it wrong, the fallout is massive.
In the modern era of combat sports, fans and analysts have unprecedented access to real-time statistics, slow-motion replays, and alternative camera angles. Yet, we still see scorecards that leave the entire arena—and millions watching at home—scratching their heads. We are only a few months into the year, but the debate is already raging. Today, we are breaking down the worst UFC decisions 2026 has given us so far, examining why the archaic 10-point must system continues to fail mixed martial arts, and asking the ultimate question: is it finally time for open scoring or AI assistance?
The 10-Point Must System: Why MMA Judging is Broken
Before we analyze the robberies, we must understand the framework that allows them to happen. Mixed martial arts adopted the 10-point must system from boxing out of necessity in the early 2000s to gain athletic commission approval. However, boxing is a single-discipline sport. MMA involves striking, wrestling, submissions, clinch work, and cage control. Forcing MMA into a boxing judging criteria is like trying to officiate a rugby match using soccer rules.
The Unified Rules dictate how judges should view a fight, but the practical application reveals three main flaws:
- Subjective Damage Valuation: Judges often struggle to weigh the cumulative impact of twenty light jabs against two devastating leg kicks. Damage is supposed to be the ultimate criteria, but optics often sway opinions.
- Grappling vs. Stalling: Holding a fighter down without advancing position or threatening submissions is often overly rewarded, frustrating fans and strikers alike.
- The 10-8 Hesitation: Judges rarely award 10-8 rounds unless a fighter is nearly rendered unconscious, which heavily skews the overall match score in close bouts.
As we will see in our case studies, the refusal to properly value damage and the hesitation to award wide margins are the primary causes of modern judging controversies. For a deeper dive into how points are calculated, check out our comprehensive guide on the MMA scoring system.
The Worst UFC Decisions 2026 Has Produced (So Far)
The year 2026 has already delivered some spectacular martial arts showcases, but it has also given us some deeply frustrating scorecards. Here are the most egregious examples of the worst UFC decisions 2026 has showcased.
Movsar Evloev vs. Lerone Murphy (UFC Fight Night)
When undefeated featherweights Movsar Evloev and Lerone Murphy clashed in London on March 21, 2026, fans expected a high-level chess match. What they got was a gritty, bloody war that ended in total scorecard confusion.
Evloev utilized his world-class Dagestani-style wrestling, while Murphy relied on his crisp kickboxing and incredible scrambling ability. The significant strike count was razor-close (89 for Evloev, 86 for Murphy), but Murphy’s strikes did visible, heavy damage. He left the Russian bleeding and visibly wearing the physical toll of the fight.
The controversy hit its absolute peak in the fourth round. Evloev was penalized with a hard point deduction by the referee for repeated accidental groin strikes. Despite this, when the final bell rang, Evloev was awarded a Majority Decision victory. The MMA community erupted. According to the global MMA decisions database, an overwhelming 12 out of 17 media outlets scored the bout a draw (taking the point deduction into account), while the remaining five scored it an outright victory for Murphy.
How did the judges see it for Evloev? They seemingly overvalued top control without acknowledging the lack of damage. Evloev held Murphy down for long stretches but failed to advance position or threaten with fight-ending submissions. Meanwhile, Murphy landed the more impactful strikes from the bottom and on the feet. This fight perfectly highlighted the judges’ inability to properly penalize stalling tactics.
Kaan Ofli vs. Yizha (UFC 325: Sydney)
If Evloev vs. Murphy highlighted the problem with grappling metrics, the bout between Kaan Ofli and Chinese prospect Yizha at UFC 325 on January 31, 2026, highlighted the terrifying hesitation judges have regarding 10-8 rounds.
Fighting on enemy territory in Australia, Yizha faced the hometown hero, Kaan Ofli. The first round was a close, competitive frame that Ofli arguably edged out. However, the second round was a completely one-sided massacre. Yizha rocked Ofli multiple times, dropping him and chasing him around the Octagon like prey. By all modern scoring metrics, Round 2 was a textbook 10-8 for Yizha.
Instead, two of the judges inexplicably scored it a standard 10-9. Because Ofli managed to survive and scrape by in the third round with some clinch control time, the judges awarded Ofli a Majority Decision. The live commentary team was stunned, and fans flooded social media declaring it one of the top 15 worst robberies they had ever witnessed. If judges refuse to give a 10-8 round when a fighter is dropped and badly hurt multiple times, the criteria are utterly broken.
The Echoes of Paddy Pimblett vs. Jared Gordon
We cannot discuss bad judging without looking back at the historical benchmarks that set the stage for these modern disasters. Recall the infamous December 2022 bout between Paddy Pimblett and Jared Gordon. Gordon thoroughly out-landed and out-grappled Pimblett, yet all three judges awarded the fight to the British star in what many still call the worst decision in modern MMA history. It caused a massive uproar, with fighters and top MMA analysis outlets calling for an overhaul of the athletic commissions. Years later, as evidenced by Evloev and Ofli’s bouts, we are still dealing with the exact same inconsistencies, proving that the athletic commissions have not adequately retrained their judges to properly value damage over optics.
The Fix: Open Scoring or AI Assistance?
With these controversies mounting, the MMA world is desperately searching for solutions. What can be done to ensure fighters aren’t robbed of their hard-earned win bonuses and career momentum?
The Case for Open Scoring
Open scoring—where the judges’ scorecards are displayed to the fighters and the arena between rounds—is currently used in regional promotions like Invicta FC. Proponents argue that open scoring eliminates the element of surprise and allows fighters to adjust their tactics. If Lerone Murphy knew he was down on the scorecards entering the final round against Evloev, he might have pushed for a reckless knockout rather than assuming the point deduction secured him a draw.
Critics of open scoring argue that if a fighter knows they are up two rounds to zero in a three-round fight, they will simply run and coast for the final five minutes, leading to boring fights. However, empirical data from promotions using open scoring shows the opposite: fighters who are losing actually increase their output dramatically, creating highly dramatic final rounds.
Artificial Intelligence and Real-Time Stats
Another proposed solution is AI assistance. While we cannot rely entirely on robots to judge the nuances of human combat, AI can provide judges with real-time, highly accurate strike counts and impact metrics. Currently, judges rely entirely on their naked eye, which can be fooled by a fighter’s poker face or a loud crowd reaction. Having a monitor displaying the exact number of significant strikes landed could prevent rounds like Yizha’s dominant second frame from being underscored.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is MMA judging corrupt or just incompetent?
While fans often cry corruption when a popular hometown fighter wins a controversial decision, there is no concrete evidence of systemic corruption in UFC judging. The issue is almost entirely rooted in incompetence and subjectivity. Judges are human, and they often misinterpret the complex Unified Rules of MMA, particularly when weighing striking damage against grappling control time.
What is open scoring in MMA?
Open scoring is a system where the judges’ scorecards are revealed to the public, the fighters, and their corners immediately after each round ends. This allows fighters to know exactly who is winning the fight in real-time, rather than having to guess based on their corner’s advice.
How do judges score a 10-8 round in the UFC?
According to the Unified Rules, a 10-8 round is supposed to be awarded when one fighter overwhelmingly dominates the round by a large margin. This usually involves heavy damage, multiple knockdowns, or near-submissions combined with extended control time. However, judges are historically very hesitant to award 10-8s, which leads to many scoring controversies when a dominant round is scored exactly the same as a slightly competitive one.
Can a fighter appeal a bad UFC decision?
Yes, a fighter can appeal a decision to the presiding athletic commission, but appeals are almost never successful unless there was a mathematical error on the scorecards or proof of referee misconduct. Disagreeing with a judge’s subjective view of a fight is not grounds for overturning a decision.
