In the technical sense, a commission must "sanction" fighters in exhibitions the same way as they do in pro bouts. It is up to the commissioner to determine if a man is capable of even fighting in any, way, shape, or form--- and also his opponent. So, sure the exhibition was "sanctioned", which means Rourke does have a license to compete. But it was a non-pro contest. Until he fights a pro bout at this age, he won't hold the distinction.reggaereggae wrote:Thanks mate. So technically it was an exhibition, not a pro bout? I didn't know that.... I thought it was sanctioned.HomicideHenry wrote:Was an exhibition... so he broke no records... and far as I know of the record holder for being the oldest man to ever hold a professional license and actually won a professional fight was Saol Mamby. He was 60 years old (2008) in what was his last contest. However, I will note that the oldest fighter in history--- was Walter Edgerton, who kayoed John Henry Johnson, and he was 63 years old. Though I will argue, I feel that Jem Mace was probably the longest active fighter in boxing history, because he fought exhibitions into his 60's and 70's. His career started in the 1840's and he boxed on until the 1890's... Mace was 67 in his last pro contest...
Thanks for the info
Ps was Mace's contest an official bout?
Mace's last pro bout was against Mike Donovan in 1897... it was a draw... and if I am not mistaken, Donovan was also an old-timer, but he was in his late 40's or 50's. They were rivals of sorts in the early days, because Donovan was considered America's ring wizard--- and Mace, of course, was considered the same in Britain, and alot of people today consider Mace (not Figg) to be the true father of boxing. And yes, the short answer is, it was an official contest. Prior to that Mace's challenge of Charlie Mitchell at the age of 59-60 for the British title was the record. You can say, in alot of ways, Mace was going above and beyond Moore and Foreman and Holmes and Hopkins.
