THE fallout from Saturday night’s cruiserweight bout between Aloys Youmbi Junior and Ellis Zorro at the Bournemouth International Centre continues to stir debate, with fans questioning whether the judges got it right. While the action in the ring was close and competitive, many believe the official scorecards didn’t reflect what they saw.
Judges Mark Bates (97–93), Victor Loughlin (98–93), and Kevin Parker (96–93) all scored the fight in favour of Aloys Junior, awarding him a unanimous decision win on the Pier Pressure card. The margins, particularly the 98–93 card, sparked instant backlash on social media, with spectators calling the decision “too wide” and some arguing that Zorro should have been crowned the winner.
But from my seat ringside, I can understand the fanfare, but did the real winner get crowned?
Early on, Aloys Junior controlled the pace of the fight. He was the aggressor from the start, pressing forward with purpose, cutting off the ring, and forcing Zorro to fight on the back foot. Aloys Junior’s body work, consistent output, and ability to dictate the rhythm were on display.
Zorro did have his moments. He established his jab well, especially later on; he landed clean counters and showed solid composure under pressure. But he rarely seized momentum or put Aloys Junior in real trouble.
His success came in flashes, while Aloys Junior’s approach was steady and sustained. It was clear Zorro’s game plan was to avoid a ‘firefight’, even claiming to Dev Sahni in an interview that Aloys Junior’s opponents “have been there to hit, which is something I don’t plan on being.”
His performance on fight night reflected this, as it was clear he was trying to keep Aloys Junior at a distance with his jab and use his footwork to constantly move around the ring. Despite his efforts, Zorro still gave away many moments letting Aloys Junior offload punches.
Could the scorecards have been a touch closer? Quite possibly. After rewatching the fight, I believe the 98-93 scorecard (8 rounds to 2 in favour of Aloys Junior) was too wide, as I would have awarded at least four rounds to Zorro based on Aloys struggling to find his way around Zorro’s jab. But calling it a robbery doesn’t hold up. The wider cards may have fanned the outrage, but the decision itself wasn’t unjustified.
At ringside, despite both boxers’ not doing an awful lot, Aloys Junior’s bodywork and flurries closely edged the rounds in his favour. Zorro didn’t do enough to take the fight from him, not on this night. For Zorro to have been more convincing, he needed to have more moments of clear domination in exchanges; he was too reactive, trying to jab and counterpunch his way to victory and rarely took control of the action proactively.
In a fight where neither man truly ran away with it, the difference came down to intent and control, and Aloys Junior had more of both. The backlash over the scorecards is understandable, especially given how technical and cagey the fight became. Still, the outrage should not overshadow the fact that Aloys Junior did enough to win.
This wasn’t a robbery; it was a close contest that leaned toward the fighter who pushed the pace, targeted the body, and took more risks. If anything, the reaction speaks to how subjective boxing can be.
