Split draw

A split draw is a type of draw verdict in combat sports such as boxing and mixed martial arts (MMA), declared when the three judges' scorecards result in no clear winner due to divergent scoring, typically with one judge favoring each fighter and the third scoring the bout even.^[1][2] This outcome contrasts with a majority draw, where two judges score it even and the third favors one fighter, or an unanimous draw, where all three judges agree on a tie.^[3] Under the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts, a split draw specifically arises when all three judges score the bout differently, resulting in no majority winner.^[4] In professional boxing, similar criteria apply, emphasizing the 10-point must system where round-by-round tallies yield an overall draw from split opinions.^[5] Split draws are relatively rare and often controversial, as they highlight the subjective nature of judging in close contests, sometimes prompting debates over rematches or scoring reforms.^[1] In MMA, the Association of Boxing Commissions' unified rules formalize this as a valid result alongside decisions like knockouts or submissions, ensuring no fighter is awarded victory without majority support.^[4] For title fights, a split draw preserves the champion's belt, as seen in several high-profile UFC bouts.^[6] Notable examples include the 2018 heavyweight clash between Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury in boxing, scored 115-111 for Wilder, 114-112 for Fury, and 113-113, and the 2023 UFC women's flyweight title rematch between Alexa Grasso and Valentina Shevchenko, ruled a split draw with scores of 47-47, 48-47 for Grasso, and 48-47 for Shevchenko.^[7][6] In UFC history, only three title fights have ended in split draws as of November 2025, underscoring their infrequency in championship bouts.^[6]

Definition and Mechanics

Core Concept

A split draw is a judging outcome in combat sports such as boxing and mixed martial arts (MMA), occurring in a three-judge system when one judge scores the bout in favor of one fighter, another judge scores it in favor of the opponent, and the third judge scores it as a draw, resulting in an overall draw decision.^[4][2] This outcome reflects a closely contested fight where judicial opinions are divided, preventing a decisive victory for either participant.^[1] Under the standard 10-point must scoring system employed in these sports, judges evaluate each round by awarding 10 points to the winner and 9 or fewer to the loser, based on factors including effective striking, grappling, aggression, and control of the fighting area.^[8][9] When aggregated across all rounds, divergent scores from the judges—one favoring each fighter and one tying the bout—lead to the split draw as a balanced resolution, serving as a compromise in the absence of consensus.^[10] This distinguishes the split draw from other draw types: a unanimous draw requires all three judges to score the bout evenly, while a majority draw involves two judges tying it and the third favoring one fighter.^[4] The split draw uniquely accommodates split opinions by incorporating the tiebreaker draw score to maintain overall parity.^[3] Split draws are recognized in professional bouts under unified rules, particularly those structured with an even number of rounds, such as 12-round boxing title fights, where balanced scoring across rounds can more readily produce tied totals.^[8]

Judging Criteria Leading to Split Draws

In boxing, judges evaluate bouts using the Ten-Point Must System, where the winner of a round receives 10 points, the loser receives 9 points or fewer, and an even round is scored 10-10.^[11] This system emphasizes specific criteria to determine round winners, including the infliction of damage through clean, effective strikes; effective aggression, which rewards forward pressure that advances the fight; ring generalship, assessing control of the fighting area and positioning; and defense, which credits evasion or countering without unnecessary risk.^[11] In mixed martial arts (MMA), the same Ten-Point Must System is used, but the criteria are adapted to prioritize effective striking and grappling (such as takedowns and ground control) as the primary factors, followed by effective aggression and fighting area control if the first are even. Defense is not scored separately, as the system is offense-based.^[9][12] Split draws often arise from close rounds where judges interpret the criteria differently, particularly in scenarios involving competing styles like striking dominance versus grappling control.^[9] For instance, one fighter may land more visible strikes and exhibit aggression, earning points under those categories, while the opponent secures takedowns or maintains top position, scoring highly on grappling and control—leading to divided opinions on which elements carried greater weight.^[13] Similarly, rounds with mutual damage but ambiguous control, such as prolonged clinches or back-and-forth momentum shifts, can result in varying assessments of ring generalship and defense in boxing, or control in MMA, further contributing to scoring discrepancies.^[11] The third judge plays a pivotal role in a split draw by scoring the bout as even overall, which occurs when they deem the rounds too closely matched to justify a decisive point differential across the fight.^[9] This even scorecard—typically through multiple 10-10 rounds or balanced wins—overrides the slight edges awarded by the other two judges (one favoring each fighter), resulting in no majority winner.^[14] Such 10-10 rounds are intended to be rare and reserved for truly equilibrated action, underscoring the system's demand for clear dominance.^[9] Statistically, split draws are rare outcomes in professional bouts. In major promotions like the UFC, only 8 such verdicts occurred across 4,678 fights from 2001 to 2018, representing less than 0.5% of decisions as of that period.^[15] This infrequency highlights their occurrence in highly competitive, scrutinized fights, such as title bouts, where fine margins in criteria application amplify interpretive differences. The total has increased since 2018, with additional split draws in subsequent years.^[15][6]

Application in Combat Sports

In Boxing

In professional boxing, bouts are governed by major sanctioning organizations such as the World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Association (WBA), which standardize rules including three-minute rounds with one-minute rests. Non-title fights typically range from 4 to 12 rounds, while championship contests are scheduled for 12 rounds, allowing sufficient time for judges to assess performance under the 10-point must system. Split draws can occur in both formats when scoring results in no clear majority winner.^[16][17] A split draw is declared when two of the three judges score the bout in favor of opposing fighters, while the third judge records a draw on their scorecard, resulting in no overall victor. This outcome adheres to the general judging criteria of effective aggression, ring generalship, and clean punching, but manifests when interpretations of close rounds diverge sharply. No winner is officially declared, preserving the pre-fight status quo for rankings and records. In championship scenarios, the titleholder retains the belt, as seen in the 2017 Gennady Golovkin vs. Saul Alvarez middleweight unification bout where the IBF title remained with Golovkin following scores of 118-110, 115-113, and 114-114. For vacant titles, the belt typically remains unclaimed; purse distributions, however, follow contractual agreements unaffected by the draw.^[18][19] Split draws occur relatively infrequently but often prompt rematches in evenly matched contests. Post-decision protocols involve immediate announcement by the ringside announcer reading the official scorecards, with results finalized by the supervising commission. Appeals are infrequent and must be filed promptly through the local athletic commission, which reviews evidence but seldom alters outcomes due to the subjective nature of judging.^[16][20]

In Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)

In mixed martial arts (MMA), a split draw is defined under the Unified Rules of MMA as an outcome where the three judges score the bout differently: one judge awards the victory to one fighter, another to the opponent, and the third scores it as a draw.^[10] This contrasts with other draw types, such as a majority draw where two judges score evenly and the third picks a winner. MMA bouts typically consist of three or five 5-minute rounds for non-title and championship fights, respectively, with judging based on the 10-point must system that evaluates effective striking, grappling, aggression, and octagon or cage control.^[21][22] Split draws in MMA frequently stem from judges' divergent assessments of hybrid elements unique to the sport, such as the balance between stand-up striking and ground-based grappling. For instance, one judge might view prolonged wrestling control and takedown defense as sufficient for a draw in a round, while others emphasize damaging strikes or submission attempts as decisive factors.^[23] Studies of MMA judging indicate a general bias toward striking over grappling, yet subjective interpretations of these criteria can lead to split outcomes when control time versus offensive output is closely contested.^[24] Upon a split draw verdict, neither fighter receives a win on their professional record, the result is officially logged as a draw, and no championship titles change hands if one was at stake.^[6] Such outcomes do not alter rankings or purse distributions beyond the draw stipulation.^[25] Regulatory oversight of MMA judging, including split draws, falls to state athletic commissions like the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC), which enforces the Unified Rules across promotions such as the UFC and ONE Championship. While commissions do not overturn decisions via post-fight video review—maintaining the finality of ringside scoring—they may initiate training sessions or audits in response to controversial results to refine judging consistency.^[22][26]

Historical Development

Origins in Early Combat Judging

The concept of the split draw in combat sports traces its roots to the informal judging practices of 19th-century bare-knuckle boxing, where multiple umpires evaluated bouts and could declare tied outcomes in closely contested or inconclusive fights. Under the London Prize Ring Rules of 1838, fights were governed by a referee and two umpires selected by the fighters' backers, who resolved disputes and determined if a match lacked a clear victor, often resulting in divided stakes rather than a decisive result.^[27] These rules emphasized physical endurance over scored points, with rounds ending on knockdowns and no fixed duration, allowing for tied results when neither fighter could continue effectively or external factors intervened.^[28] A revision in 1853 formalized the possibility of draws more explicitly: if a bout remained undecided due to interference, darkness, or failure to resume within a week, all wagers were to be divided equally among stakeholders, marking an early structured acknowledgment of tied outcomes in professional combat.^[28] This provision reflected the era's reliance on subjective umpire assessments rather than numerical scoring, where disagreements among officials could lead to neutral declarations, laying groundwork for later split judging variants. Bare-knuckle contests, such as those between prominent figures like Tom Sayers and John C. Heenan in 1860, occasionally ended inconclusively after prolonged rounds, underscoring how judging ties emerged from practical necessities in unregulated environments.^[29] The transition to gloved boxing under the Marquis of Queensberry Rules in 1867 further embedded draws into the sport's framework by introducing three-minute rounds and a 10-second knockout count, enabling fights to conclude without a stoppage if time expired.^[30] These rules permitted backers to agree on drawing stakes in cases of unavoidable disruption, shifting from purely decisive outcomes toward scored or tied results based on overall performance.^[28] In U.S. professional circles by the late 19th century, bouts increasingly featured multiple evaluators to mitigate referee bias, fostering the potential for split opinions that balanced toward draws in evenly matched encounters.^[31] Until the 1990s, when mixed martial arts adopted similar judging mechanics, the split draw remained confined to boxing, drawing indirect influence from wrestling exhibitions where official ties were common due to time limits or mutual exhaustion.^[31] This historical progression from umpire-mediated ties to formalized draw provisions established the foundational principles of balanced judging that define the split draw today.

Modern Usage and Rule Changes

In the late 20th century, the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC), formed in the 1980s, played a key role in standardizing professional boxing rules across jurisdictions, including the 10-point must scoring system that formalized outcomes such as split draws through organizations like the International Boxing Federation (IBF) and World Boxing Council (WBC).^[8] This standardization ensured consistent judging criteria for championship bouts, where a split draw occurs when two judges favor different fighters and the third scores it even.^[8] A landmark example came in 1989 during the WBC super welterweight title rematch between Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, marking one of the first major title fights to end in a split draw with scores of 113-112 for Leonard, 112-113 for Hearns, and 114-114.^[32] The integration of split draws into mixed martial arts (MMA) occurred with the adoption of the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts in 2001, developed by the ABC to provide uniform guidelines for the burgeoning sport and explicitly defining a split draw as a scenario where all three judges score differently but the totals result in a tie.^[33] These rules were first implemented for UFC events in regulated U.S. states like New Jersey, allowing split outcomes in professional bouts and facilitating crossovers with international promotions such as Pride FC, which adapted similar judging standards for aligned events.^[10] During the 2010s, regulatory bodies like the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) and ABC refined these rules to address ambiguities in draw declarations, emphasizing objective criteria for effective striking, grappling, and control to minimize subjective disputes.^[14] A significant update came in the 2016 ABC revisions to the Unified Rules, which clarified the use of 10-10 rounds for bouts where neither competitor demonstrates clear dominance, thereby providing judges with better tools to avoid forced decisions and reduce the incidence of controversial splits.^[34] In July 2024, the ABC further amended the Unified Rules of MMA, effective November 2024, to prioritize damage as the primary scoring criterion among the "three D's" (damage, dominance, duration), allow 12-6 elbows, and redefine a grounded fighter as requiring both hands and feet on the canvas. These changes aim to enhance scoring consistency and could influence the occurrence of split draws by reducing ambiguity in close rounds.^[22] Global variations in split draw frequency persist, attributable to diverse judging pools and stylistic emphases. In the 2020s, advancements like instant replay—limited primarily to reviewing fouls or stoppages by commissions such as the NSAC—have influenced incident-specific calls but have not extended to overturning subjective judging outcomes like split draws, maintaining the human element in scoring.^[35]

Notable Examples

High-Profile Boxing Cases

One of the most notable split draw decisions in boxing history occurred on June 12, 1989, when Sugar Ray Leonard defended his WBC super welterweight title against Thomas Hearns at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. The 12-round bout, a highly anticipated rematch following Leonard's victory in their 1981 welterweight clash, saw Leonard (35-1 entering) utilize his speed and combinations effectively, particularly in the middle rounds, while Hearns (46-3 entering) mounted strong pressure with his power punching. The judges' scorecards read 113-112 for Leonard, 113-112 for Hearns, and 112-112, resulting in a split draw that allowed Leonard to retain his title.^[36][37] The immediate aftermath sparked debate over Hearns' perceived edge in the later rounds, though no rematch materialized as both fighters pursued other opportunities, with Leonard continuing his career until 1991 and Hearns fighting until 2000.^[32] Another landmark case unfolded on March 13, 1999, in New York City's Madison Square Garden, where Evander Holyfield (34-4 entering) faced Lennox Lewis (41-1-1 entering) in a heavyweight unification bout for the WBA, IBF, and WBC titles. Holyfield, the reigning WBA and IBF champion, adopted an aggressive style to counter Lewis' jab-heavy approach, leading to a tactical fight marked by clinches and Holyfield's body work. The scores were 115-113 for Holyfield, 116-113 for Lewis, and 115-115, yielding a controversial split draw that preserved Holyfield's titles while frustrating Lewis' undisputed aspirations.^[38][39] The decision drew widespread criticism, particularly toward judge Eugenia Williams' 115-113 card for Holyfield, amid allegations of bias that prompted investigations by the Nevada Athletic Commission; a rematch was mandated, which Lewis won by unanimous decision later that year.^[38] In a modern example of a split draw's impact, Saul "Canelo" Álvarez (49-1-2 entering) met Gennady Golovkin (37-0 entering) on September 16, 2017, at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas for Álvarez's lineal middleweight title and Golovkin's WBC, WBA, and IBF belts. The 12-round war featured Golovkin's early dominance with pressure and power, countered by Álvarez's sharper counterpunching in the later stages, culminating in a thrilling exchange. Judges scored it 118-110 for Álvarez, 115-113 for Golovkin, and 114-114, securing a split draw and retaining all titles in contention.^[40][41] The lopsided 118-110 card by Adalaide Byrd ignited immediate outrage from fans and analysts, who widely viewed Golovkin as the victor; both fighters called for a rematch, which Álvarez won by majority decision in 2018.^[42]

Prominent MMA Instances

One of the most notable split draw outcomes in recent UFC history occurred in the women's flyweight title rematch between champion Alexa Grasso and former champion Valentina Shevchenko at Noche UFC on September 16, 2023, held at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas.^[43] The five-round bout featured intense grappling exchanges and striking flurries, with Shevchenko controlling much of the early action through clinch work and takedowns, while Grasso countered with effective counters and volume in the later rounds. Judges scored it 48-47 for Grasso, 48-47 for Shevchenko, and 47-47, resulting in a split draw that allowed Grasso to retain her title; the controversial scoring, including a debated 10-8 round for Shevchenko, intensified calls for a trilogy amid their ongoing rivalry that began with Grasso's upset submission win in their first encounter.^[44] Earlier, a high-stakes light heavyweight title fight between Magomed Ankalaev and Jan Blachowicz at UFC 282 on December 10, 2022, in Las Vegas ended in a split draw after five rounds of tactical wrestling and sparse striking.^[45] Blachowicz pressed forward with pressure and leg kicks, landing key counters, while Ankalaev utilized superior grappling to neutralize much of the action on the mat; the scorecards read 48-47 Blachowicz, 48-46 Ankalaev, and 47-47, leaving the vacant title unclaimed and prompting promotional discussions for rematches, though both fighters expressed frustration over the perceived closeness of the contest. In a landmark lightweight title defense, Frankie Edgar retained his belt against Gray Maynard in their rematch at UFC 125 on January 1, 2011, in Las Vegas, via split draw following a grueling five-round war.^[45] Maynard opened with a dominant 10-8 first round, rocking Edgar with heavy punches, but Edgar's cardio and resilience shone through in the championship rounds with takedown defense and output; scores were 47-47, 48-46 Edgar, and 48-46 Maynard, highlighting the promotional value of their trilogy potential, which culminated in Edgar's unanimous decision win later that year. Setting a precedent for split draws in title bouts, B.J. Penn and Caol Uno fought to a split draw in the lightweight title final at UFC 41 on February 28, 2003, in Las Vegas.^[45] The 25-minute matchup showcased Penn's dynamic striking and submissions against Uno's relentless grappling pressure, with the action too evenly matched to crown a champion; judges scored 48-46 Penn, 48-47 Uno, and 48-48, leading to the temporary disbandment of the division and underscoring early UFC challenges in judging close contests. Split draws have shown increased frequency in women's MMA divisions during the 2020s, attributed to rising technical parity among top competitors, with UFC events recording an approximate 0.5% incidence rate amid overall rare occurrences (six total draws in 2023 across 262 decisions).^[46] This trend emphasizes the promotional intrigue of such outcomes in fostering rematches and trilogies in parity-driven weight classes like flyweight.

Implications and Controversies

Impact on Fighters' Careers

A split draw results in the fight being recorded as a draw on a fighter's professional record, formatted as wins-losses-draws (W-L-D), which avoids adding a loss while not contributing to the win column. This outcome is particularly beneficial for maintaining an undefeated record in terms of losses, allowing prospects to preserve momentum without the setback of a defeat. In rankings systems such as those used by Tapology for UFC fighters, a draw earns points toward a fighter's standing but fewer than a win and more than a loss, depending on the opponent's quality and recency of the bout; this can minimally affect pound-for-pound or divisional rankings in high-profile contests.^[47] Financially, fighters in the UFC receive their guaranteed "show" money for participating in a split draw but do not earn the win bonus, which is typically equivalent to the show amount, nor do they qualify for performance bonuses unless exceptionally meritorious action is recognized by officials. In boxing, similar structures apply through promotional purses, where a draw ensures payment of the base purse without victory incentives, potentially limiting immediate earnings but preserving future opportunities. Split draws frequently prompt rematches, with approximately 50% of UFC title draws leading to subsequent bouts between the same fighters, as seen in the majority draw between Deiveson Figueiredo and Brandon Moreno, which extended into a trilogy.^[48][45] In terms of career trajectories, a split draw can safeguard a fighter's marketability for undefeated prospects by avoiding losses, while for veterans, it may signal a plateau, occasionally contributing to retirement decisions amid stalled progress. Statistically rare in MMA—comprising less than 1% of UFC bouts from 2001 to 2018—split draws occur in only about 0.2% of fights, making repeated instances uncommon. Promotions such as the UFC leverage split draws for narrative hype, positioning them as setups for lucrative rematches that enhance fighter visibility and long-term earning potential without derailing records.^[15][5]

Criticisms of Split Draw Decisions

Split draw decisions in combat sports have frequently been criticized as a convenient avoidance of decisive outcomes by judges unwilling to commit to a clear winner, often perceived as a "cop-out" when fights are closely contested. This sentiment was particularly evident in the 2017 middleweight title bout between Gennady Golovkin and Saul "Canelo" Álvarez, where a split draw score of 118-110 for Álvarez, 115-113 for Golovkin, and 114-114 sparked widespread fan backlash for appearing to favor the more marketable A-side fighter, Álvarez, despite Golovkin's perceived dominance in later rounds.^[40][42] Critics argue that such rulings undermine the sport's integrity by prioritizing commercial interests over fair assessment, leading to accusations of indecisiveness among the judging panel.^[49] Allegations of bias further fuel discontent with split draws, particularly claims of home-country favoritism where judges from the host nation score local fighters higher to appease crowds. Studies on professional boxing and MMA judging have documented this phenomenon, showing that referees and judges influenced by live audiences tend to favor home athletes, with one analysis of MMA bouts indicating a measurable bias in scoring patterns at non-neutral venues.^[50][51] Additionally, the absence of mandatory video review for scoring decisions exacerbates these issues, as judges rely solely on live observation without the benefit of replays to verify close exchanges or effective strikes, a practice that contrasts with replay systems in other major sports.^[52] In response to these criticisms, reform proposals have gained traction, including the adoption of five-judge panels to reduce the impact of any single outlier score and the introduction of overtime rounds for tied bouts to ensure a winner. The World Boxing Council endorsed a five-judge system for major title fights in 2019, aiming to enhance accuracy and mitigate bias, though implementation remains limited to select events.^[53] In 2025, the Association of Boxing Commissions approved updates to the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts scoring criteria, clarifying that "damage" is the most highly valued component for round scoring and is essential for 10-8 rounds, aiming to address subjective judging in close contests that lead to split draws.^[22][54] These changes build on prior discussions to improve consistency and reduce controversies. Media coverage and fan reactions to split draws often amplify calls for accountability, frequently resulting in demands for refunds, boycotts of future events, or even legal challenges, as seen when bettors lined up for reimbursements after the 2017 Golovkin-Álvarez controversy.^[49] This contrasts sharply with the general acceptance of unanimous decisions, which are viewed as more definitive and less prone to allegations of manipulation, highlighting how split draws erode trust in the judging process more profoundly than other outcomes.^[38]