Van vs. Pantoja 2: how to read the unanimous decision

Joshua Van defeated Alexandre Pantoja by unanimous decision at UFC 331, with totals of 49–46, 48–47 and 50–45. That means all three judges selected Van as the winner—not that each of them saw a one-sided fight. The 48–47 total, in particular, reflects a narrow final assessment. There is an important limitation: the textual scorecard page gives the totals but does not identify each judge’s score for every round.

The safest reading therefore combines two things without conflating them: the official totals published by the UFC and the round narrative in the promotion’s recaps. That reconstruction explains the fight’s dynamics, but it cannot replace the individual round allocations missing from the supplied text.

The confirmed result

UFC 331 took place on September 19, 2026, at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles. Van, then 24, retained the flyweight title and recorded his second consecutive successful defense, according to the main-card report. The totals varied considerably: one judge had 49–46, another 48–47 and the third 50–45.

“Unanimous decision” describes agreement about the winner alone. By itself, it does not reveal how many rounds were close, which actions decided each period or whether the judges agreed on the route to the outcome. The variation among the three totals is precisely why a consensus winner should not be confused with absolute dominance.

Round one: Pantoja’s fast start

The UFC recap describes Pantoja starting aggressively, taking the fight to the champion and succeeding in both striking and grappling. The bonus report adds that the Brazilian moved ahead early through his grappling, while Van stayed composed and minimized the threats.

That supports the interpretation of a favorable opening for the challenger, but it does not authorize assigning a particular score to any judge. Without the round-by-round breakdown, saying that “every judge gave Pantoja the first” would go beyond the available sources.

Rounds two and three: Van changes the fight

During the next two rounds, Van found his range and offense. The official analysis says he limited the time spent entangled in grappling, landed the better strikes and minimized damage when taken down. The bonus recap describes Van as the cleaner boxer, while Pantoja attempted to smother him and initiate grappling exchanges.

This section helps explain how the champion began constructing his victory. Even so, the source discusses rounds two and three together; it offers neither a separate action count nor each judge’s allocation.

Round four: control with limited output

Pantoja put Van on the canvas in the fourth. According to the main report, however, his output and ability to advance were limited. The recap that named the rematch Fight of the Night likewise says the round was largely defined by the Brazilian’s top control, although he did not generate much from the position.

The sequence shows why “there was a takedown” does not finish the analysis: the UFC’s own narrative distinguishes gaining position, advancing and producing offense. It remains impossible to turn that account into an individual scorecard that the textual source does not publish.

Round five: Van’s clearest margin

In the final round, Van was described as the more active and effective fighter. He advanced, landed combinations, dropped Pantoja and pulled away as the round continued. The other recap says he dominated the fifth and badly hurt the challenger, closing with his most decisive moment.

That finish provides the strongest narrative explanation for Van’s victory. It also shows how competitive phases can coexist with three cards for the same fighter: close rounds and a more emphatic final period are not contradictory.

What the sources establish—and what they do not

The Association of Boxing Commissions page gathers the current Unified Rules and scoring-clarification documents. The extract supplied here, however, contains only the index and links rather than the criteria themselves. It would therefore be irresponsible to attribute detailed explanations of criterion hierarchy, 10–8 requirements or automatic effects of takedowns to that page.

Nor should 49–46, 48–47 and 50–45 be presented as a complete map of the five rounds. They are final totals. To check for a full scorecard image or a later update, consult the UFC’s official link directly; content and presentation may change.

How to rewatch more precisely

On a rewatch, assess each round as its own unit: note which actions produced visible effect, when grappling positions advanced and how much offense came from positional control. Then compare your notes with the sequence confirmed by the recaps: Pantoja started better; Van improved in rounds two and three; Pantoja controlled from the top in round four with limited output; and Van produced his strongest stretch in the fifth.

This is an editorial reconstruction based on the available coverage, not a disclosure of the individual scores. The firm conclusion is straightforward: the judges unanimously chose Van, but differed substantially on the margin.

To continue the conversation between sport and culture in São Paulo, Becoartes is at Rua Gonçalo Afonso, 99, Vila Madalena. Before visiting, confirm current information on the official Becoartes website.