Champion bias is real in MMA judging

When Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) ring announcer Bruce Buffer steps into the Octagon with the judges scorecards to announce the winner of a championship fight, the drama hangs in the air.

Will fans hear “And still” or will it be “And new?” The tension in the crowd built up after a close 25-minute action-packed fight can be cut with a knife.

And yet, is the drama real? Is the outcome that uncertain? Some may be stunned to learn just how infrequent judges score a championship fight for the challenger. Since 2015, the UFC has had 26 championship fights where a champion defended his/her belt i.e. non interim or vacant title situations and just four of those decisions have gone to the challenger.

That’s a terrific trivia question for even the most diehard UFC fans. Can you name those four fights and the victors off the top of your head? (Scroll to the bottom of the story for the answer)

Of those 26 fights, certainly many aren’t what most analysts would describe as “close.” I have exactly half of the 26 fights – 13 – as controversial decisions. Controversial defined as either the fights resulted in split decisions (7), the rare majority decision (1) or where striking numbers were in favor of a fighter that the judges’ decision did not favor.

The fact of the matter is, it pays to be champion in more ways than one can count. These numbers indicate an unquestioned champion bias in the minds of the three figures cageside whose scorecards actually matter. Look no further than at Saturday night’s UFC 248 event which featured two championship bouts to go to decision, both hotly debated scorecards among analysts and fans alike.

The results? Predictable. Both decisions awarded to the reigning champion.

I want to particularly draw your attention to the fight of the night, arguably the greatest female fight of all time, the tilt between reigning strawweight champion Weili Zhang and no. 1 contender Joanna Jedrzejczyk. After 25 minutes of the most stirring and competitive female mixed-martial arts you will ever witness in your lifetime, the judges scorecards read 48-47 Zhang, 48-47 Zhang and 48-47 Jedrzejczyk. That is as true a split decision as one can have in any fight. But should it have been?

The fight statistics tell a more convincing story. One in which the challenger, yet again, was robbed.

Neither fighter scored a knockdown over the 25 minutes despite the volume of significant strikes landed against them. The damage certainly piled up upon the visages of both females — Jedrzejczyk in particular showing a hideous hematoma upon her forehead — yet neither fell.

Now for the telling numbers. Jedrzejczyk threw 370 strikes, landing 196 or 53 percent with 186 deemed “significant,” a 51 percent rate. Meanwhile, Zhang landed 170 strikes of 413 thrown, a 41 percent rate, with 165 being deemed “significant.”

Further, Jedrzejczyk and Zhang did equal damage to the head, landing 96 shots apiece to that area. Jedrzejczyk, though, was far more productive to the body, scoring 32 significant strikes to Zhang’s 11. Highlighting just how close this fight was again, each fighter landed 58 significant strikes to the other’s legs. 58 apiece! Additionally, Zhang scored the lone takedown of the fight which she held only momentarily and was not able to attempt any type of submission. (All fight numbers source UFC.com)

The fight data in the Zhang versus Jedrzejczyk fight clearly tells the story that the challenger won and was unjustly given a defeat by the judges. The story repeated itself in the main event that followed. The fight wasn’t nearly as dramatic, yet it was apparent that challenger Yoel Romero was the more active, more effective striker in what was almost entirely a stand up fight.

A month earlier, another perfect example of a challenger being robbed of a victory in what was fairly evident a fight that he won. At UFC 247 Dominick Reyes was stunned when light heavyweight champion Jon Jones had his hand raised after their five-round war.

So why does this happen? Why do judges lean champion in the majority of close rounds? I think that reaching the top of the mountain puts an invisible aura around them that judges whether they recognize it cognitively or not, it’s present in their minds. This thought that “well, he/she is the better fighter so I’ll lean that way for close round x.”

Not only that, but how many times do you think judges have the running score in their head as the championship rounds hit and find ways to give those championship rounds to the champion? Just to make sure that the champion retains their belt since the challenger didn’t knock them down or finish the fight.

As you can see from the judges scorecards, Jones took the championship rounds on all three.

And here, Zhang earned her split decision by being awarded the championship rounds on judge Michael Bell’s card as well as Derek Cleary’s.

What do you know? A close fight, with close championship rounds and each judge scores them for the champion. It’s really quite eye opening the prejudice that lies against the challenger and the favoritism awarded the champion.

There are another 10 fights over the last six years of UFC events that feature controversial championship decisions and all but two went to the champion.

No piece of advice is more astute for a title challenger than the old adage, “Don’t leave the fight in the hands of the judges.”

For Buffer isn’t likely to scream, “And new.”

 

Trivia Answer: The four championship fights since 2015 to go to decision and awarded to a challenger are (in order of recency):

1. Alexander Volkanovski over Max Holloway for featherweight championship at UFC 244 in December 2019. Unanimous decision, scorecards 50-45, 48-47 x 2.
2. Kamaru Usman over Tyron Woodley for welterweight championship at UFC 235 in March 2019. Unanimous decision, scorecards 50-44 x 2, 50-45.
3. Henry Cejudo over Demetrious Johnson for flyweight championship at UFC 227 in August 2017. Split decision, scorecards 48-47 x 2, 47-48.
4. Cody Garbrandt over Dominick Cruz for bantamweight championship at UFC 207 in December 2016. Unanimous decision, scorecards 48-46 x 2, 48-47.