BoxRec

reggaereggae wrote:

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 mate. So technically it was an exhibition, not a pro bout? I didn't know that.... I thought it was sanctioned.

Thanks for the info

Ps was Mace's contest an official bout?

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.

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.

HomicideHenry wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:

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 mate. So technically it was an exhibition, not a pro bout? I didn't know that.... I thought it was sanctioned.

Thanks for the info

Ps was Mace's contest an official bout?

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.

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.

Thanks mate. Great research. I'm still slightly confused. Was it a pro fight or not? If not why were they fighting under pro rules, without headguards and I assume that Seymour got paid?

It was an exhibition, yet his opponent was still paid to take a dive.

That's some history right there.

When did this fight take place, is it on online somewhere?

Total fix.

It's being investigated for being fixed. Apparently the guy was a homeless guy who occasionally trained in same gym ...

tonyevs wrote:It's being investigated for being fixed. Apparently the guy was a homeless guy who occasionally trained in same gym ...

Just a question - technically, if it's just an exhibition, rather than a 'real' pro fight..... Does matter whether it's 'fixed'? IE why is there an investigation?

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:Total fix.

That's quite damning evidence.

That left to the liver was equally as good as Hatton's against Castillo,if not better

reggaereggae wrote:

tonyevs wrote:It's being investigated for being fixed. Apparently the guy was a homeless guy who occasionally trained in same gym ...

Just a question - technically, if it's just an exhibition, rather than a 'real' pro fight..... Does matter whether it's 'fixed'? IE why is there an investigation?

No idea.
All I know is that it's a bad advert for pro boxing.
As said - his 'fights' 20yrs ago were almost as suspicious ...

tonyevs wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:

tonyevs wrote:It's being investigated for being fixed. Apparently the guy was a homeless guy who occasionally trained in same gym ...

Just a question - technically, if it's just an exhibition, rather than a 'real' pro fight..... Does matter whether it's 'fixed'? IE why is there an investigation?

No idea.
All I know is that it's a bad advert for pro boxing.
As said - his 'fights' 20yrs ago were almost as suspicious ...

As far as 'bad adverts' for boxing go..... This 'fight' is unimportant. Pro boxing is the stinking, crack whore of pro sports and disgraces itself so often barely anyone cares anymore :-)

Man that's embarrassing, he cuffed him with his wrist, and the guy dropped...

reggaereggae wrote:
Thanks mate. Great research. I'm still slightly confused. Was it a pro fight or not? If not why were they fighting under pro rules, without headguards and I assume that Seymour got paid?

It is all somewhat confusing, but the answer really lies with the state/providence in which you compete and what their definition of an exhibition is---- I'll be moving (for example) to Oklahoma and under their guidelines it states that an exhibition is a contest where two parties mutually agree that no decision will be rendered, and that there is no money and/or award given at the end of such a contest. Of course, each and every state or providence has their own definition--- I imagine in Russia, their concept is (more or less) that it won't go down on a pro record, and you can be paid.

I know in Europe (especially Britain and Ireland) that you have "unlicensed" bouts, and there are essentially exhibitions where there is no record keeping of such bouts--- but there is pay and/or awards given, and they do indeed give verdicts as to who won or not. It all comes down to a certain state/providence's rules and definitions of what an exhibition actually is.

From what I heard from a friend of mine who works at Top Rank, the man (Seymour) got paid the same as anyone else--- and I believe he actually received something like $10,000 to do this. And considering his record, it's no wonder he jumped at the chance, cus a 1-9 man isn't going to make that sort of money even if he boxed every month out of the year here in the USA.

handsofstone wrote:That left to the liver was equally as good as Hatton's against Castillo,if not better

His slap to the buttocks seemed to mess with the guys head