  Boxing and MMA have a longstanding issue with judging, as evidenced by
frequent controversial decisions. Like boxing, MMA bouts are scored following
the 10-Point Must System, by which judges score each round individually. In the
present study, we compare the performance of two methods of round scores
aggregation: the standard method (aggregation over rounds and then over judges)
and an alternative method known as consensus scoring (aggregation over judges
and then over rounds). For that purpose, we conducted a statistical analysis of
4,129 MMA bouts that went to decision between 2003 and 2023. Our findings
indicate that standard and consensus scoring yield the same result in 97.53% of
the bouts. Noteworthy, this percentage may be underestimated, as judges may not
always score each round individually; instead, they may balance their scores
across rounds. Regarding the bouts in which the two methods disagree, the
outcome of consensus scoring aligns more with the opinion of the fans (48.96%)
than that of standard scoring (43.75%). This results from the fact that
consensus scoring can counteract the impact of an incorrect score (especially a
10-8 score) given by a judge in a specific round. From a cost-benefit
perspective, we argue that state commissions should consider consensus scoring
in MMA as an alternative to standard scoring as it can avoid controversial
decisions while it does not imply a major change in the judging system.
