Where do we rank Philadelphia Jack O'Brien

The writers in neither poll had much idea about him, I'm pretty certain about that. My own problem with evaluating him is that the Philadelphia newspapers of the time, that I have access to, were not the best at covering boxing. I guess there was too much boxing going on in the city, so they wrote only short reports with few if any details.

 

He was one of the best light heavyweights of all time.

 

Too many questionable fights to tell.

 

Expand a little Klompton

 

O'Brien doesn't rate a heavyweight.

At light heavyweight, he did enough to make the top 25 in my opinion.

On film, O'Brien was very quick with his hands and feet and had a good jab. He could run and box all night and had the ability to read the other fighters body language and adjust according on defense.

On the other hand, I think he was chinny , he was a poor puncher, and some of his fights were questioned in terms of being on the level.

His overall ring record is very good. 175 bouts. Just six official losses.

 

I've often wondered how Fleischer could be so certain of
O Brien's ranking ,I mean how many defences did he make of his title? How many of his bouts were on the up and up?
I would find it extremely difficult trying to give him a ranking,suffice perhaps to say he was a great fighter for his time?

 

I'd wager most of those who had O'Brien #1 in 1975 passed by 2002 and I suspect it was Nat Loubet's vote alone, who took over Ring Magazine after Fleischer had passed.

Many of the old stories, testimonials, and in some cases films are gone these days.

In their All-Time Light-Heavyweight rankings, Nat Loubet ranked O'Brien as #1, Nat Fleischer ranked him as #2, and Charley Rose ranked him as #3. In a poll of old-timers conducted by John McCallum ( 1974 ), O'Brien ranked as the #4 All-Time Light-Heavyweight.

On film you'd like O'Brien's footwork and jab. On the downside he could not punch hard, and had a shaky chin.