Superb. I know we know only little of 'Philadelphia' Jack O'Brien but what we do know is he was a very good defensive fighter who was rarely stopped and Ketchel tore through him.
Ketchel rates up there with "Greb, Walker, Zale, Graziano, Cerdan, LaMotta, Olson, Pender & Tiger" over the yrs........ Style-wise he'd be fine with them guys......... But against slick and skilled dudes like "Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Hearns, Nunn, Toney, Jones & Hops," Ketchel would be schooled.... Okay, let the arrows fly.......:admin MR.BILL:scaredas: Note: I dismiss "Leonard & Duran" at 160 cuz they never really made a serious mark for any prolong time there at the ELITE level....... Though my man Duran fought at 160 to 168 pounds for nearly 20 goddamn yrs...... Leonard and Duran were really better off below 154............. :deal
The only thing I disagree with is Hearns schooling Ketchel. I think Hearns gets knocked out early, Stanley might have to come off the floor to do it.
Ketchel is the classic case study that proves that what a fighter looks like on film does not tell the whole story. Watching footage of him you would think that Philadelphia Jack O'Brien would have schooled him. O'Brien is frankly one of the more modern looking fighters of the period stylisticaly but Ketchel just tore through him. Now Tommy Burns looks damn impresive on film but Ketchel was getting better results against common oponents. The bottom line is that Ketchel got better results than the footage of him would suggest in his own era and he would probably have done a lot better than you think in other eras.
He was also one of the toughest fighters of all time, his 3rd or 4th fight with Billy Papke was one of the nastiest title fights on record apparently
