Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Bleacher Report

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

Liver Kick

MMA Junkie

MMA Mania

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

MMA Betting

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


Sherdog Radio

Video Corner

Fight Hub

Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index

To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site

Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback

Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Should California strip Elliott Seymour of his boxing license?

By Zach Arnold | November 28, 2014

Print Friendly and PDF

Mickey Rourke, at age 62, had a boxing exhibition fight in Moscow on Friday against a California journeyman boxer named Elliott Seymour. The bout was stopped in round two. Seymour is only 29 years old. He’s also 1-9 as a professional.

Seymour came into the Rourke fight with four fights under his belt in 2014. All in California. All losses. Seymour’s last fight before the Rourke bout on Friday was only one month ago.

Our opinion: it’s time for Andy Foster and the Athletic Commission board to strip Elliott Seymour of his boxing license for health & safety reasons. Continuing to allow Seymour to fight, in our opinion, is dangerous and creates potential issues regarding liability. If he wants to re-apply for a new license in the future and can demonstrate proficiency in boxing skills, then let him go through the process.

In his four California fights in 2014, three different referees have officiated Seymour’s bouts: Jack Reiss, Jose Cobian, and Tom Taylor. Nine different judges have scored Seymour’s 2014 bouts: Max DeLuca, Michael Bell, Tony Crebs, Alejandro Rochin, Fritz Werner, Nelson Hamilton, Big John McCarthy, Fernando Villareal, and Raul Caiz Jr. In other words, there’s a whole lot of people who have worked California shows this year that Andy Foster can pick up the telephone and call to solicit opinions on whether or not Elliott Seymour should continue to be actively licensed to fight in states like California.

If other states want to grant Seymour a license to box, then that’s their choice and they will have to live with the ramifications. It’s our opinion that Andy Foster should take this opportunity to set an easy example that California has health & safety standards that need to be met by fighters in order to keep their licenses active. This is a matter that should be addressed in Sacramento sooner rather than later.

Topics: Boxing, CSAC, Media, Zach Arnold | 15 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

15 Responses to “Should California strip Elliott Seymour of his boxing license?”

  1. penxv says:

    Also, the guy threw that fight. It was pretty obvious, no? That should be the main concern.

    He didn’t take very much damage at all. So his health should be fine.

    • Mark says:

      Yeah, but it’s not like the fight meant anything. It’s not like Randy The Ram is going to go and step up in rankings for a title shot or something. It was overseas and clearly just a feel good moment for Rourke, who apparently got back into boxing because he fell off the wagon and needed discipline in his life again.

      I think it’s closer to the Mike Tyson/Corrie Sanders exhibition than a dive.

  2. Jeff Montelongo says:

    As long as he has a clean bill of health, both physically and psychologically/neurologically, I say don’t strip. But I do think the commission should never put him in the ring next time with someone with more than 10 fights or more than 1 win.

    • Jeff Montelongo says:

      On second thought, the fact that he’s homeless and demonstrates obvious mental issues should be more than enough to strip him of his license from a neurological perspective.

  3. Chris says:

    I think there are times when the commission needs to step in and save fighters from themselves. A fighter with Seymour’s record has displayed that he’s not competent to Box at the professional level. Which means he’s going to keep getting fights as Cannon Fodder for other fighters, and will be taking serious damage from Boxers way more dangerous than Mickey Rourke.

  4. Fluyid says:

    It was an exhibition, right?

  5. JV says:

    I feel bad for Elliot, supposedly he is homeless & has mental issues. Hopefully he made some good money throwing the fight.

  6. Chris says:

    Pretty shameful from an acting has been.

  7. Chuck says:

    That was pretty obviously a fixed fight. The body shots that dropped Seymour landed on the rib cage, not in the gut, sternum/solar plexus, nor around the back to the kidney-ish area. Those are the body shots that land knockouts (the stomach less so, but it happens). The body shots were not powerful enough to damage the ribs that could have dropped Seymour. Also, what was with Rourke switching to south paw? Marvin Hagler or Terrence Crawford he isn’t. Hey, hopefully Seymour made enough money to get himself a decent apartment. And hopefully he could get a regular job, maybe at the Starbucks he frequents.

    Seymour really shouldn’t box professionally anymore. I read the piece at Dailymail, and it mentioned that he was a pretty good amateur. So what the fuck happened? It’s also very clear that he isn’t going to turn out like Quirino Garcia, a former pro boxer that lost all his first EIGHTEEN pro bouts, then went on a winning streak, fought bigger names on TV, and has a winning record. Not happening with Seymour.

  8. rst says:

    Micky Rourke is 62?!
    He’s in incredible shape!
    (Except for his face of course.)
    Gosh that makes me feel like a lazy shnook.

    As far as this Seymour Fella, I do believe that guys like that are part of the boxing culture, Clubbers. They make their living going in there against guys who need to pad a record like Kimbo or Mickey Rourke, he dances around for a round or 2 and then goes down without taking a lot of damage. It seems like these guys make up a significant portion of even great boxers records. Either on their way up or on their way out.
    As long as he’s not getting slaughtered in there.

    I’ve browsed the Boxingrecs site late at night sometimes and seen things much worse then 1-9.
    They do look bizarre, but theres more then a few.

    • Chuck says:

      “I’ve browsed the Boxingrecs site late at night sometimes and seen things much worse then 1-9.
      They do look bizarre, but theres more then a few.”

      Very true, but Seymour really shouldn’t fight anymore. Check out Seymour’s record on Boxrec again. His only win, which was a fourth round KO in his second fight, he was behind on the scorecards. So the only man he beat…..he really wasn’t that much better than. Might have been worse really. But Seymour got the come-from-behind win. That man is named John Dunham. He was 0-2 going into that fight. His record now? 1-10-1. No kayo, and nine of his ten losses were by kayo. At least Seymour was stopped only once (twice counting Rourke fight).

      There is an addendum to the Daily Mail piece. Seems like Seymour made a little over three grand American for that fight.

      • rst says:

        I guess I would take three grand,
        that might pay for my club membership.

        And I could still be part of the community in a way.


To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image