Why was Jack Johnson inconsistent as champion?

[pound per pound]

I noticed he drew with a much smaller man in O’Brien, and also drew with Jim Johnson. These are odd results for a tenured heavyweight champion.

Does this suggest that Johnson had some trouble with fancy boxer types, and some trouble with larger heavies who could take his punch?

Perhaps there is something to this as Johnson lost to Choynski who was smaller and could not hurt a much larger Willard.

[Crease]

I noticed he drew with a much smaller man in O’Brien, and also drew with Jim Johnson. These are odd results for a tenured heavyweight champion.

Does this suggest that Johnson had some trouble with fancy boxer types, and some trouble with larger heavies who could take his punch?

No. It only suggests that back in the early 1900s, draws were more common place than what they are in today's boxing. I would also point out that the referees were indisposed to award fights to Jack due to the fact that he was extremely unpopular. It's important to remember the social implications of Jack being the World Heavyweight Champion and the fact that he used to enjoy "stirring things up" as the saying goes. I would also point out that there have been riots and other episodes of civil unrest at Jack's fights. So all in all, I think it says more about the society of that time, rather than Jack's boxing ability.

[pound per pound]

I noticed he drew with a much smaller man in O’Brien, and also drew with Jim Johnson. These are odd results for a tenured heavyweight champion.

Does this suggest that Johnson had some trouble with fancy boxer types, and some trouble with larger heavies who could take his punch?

No. It only suggests that back in the early 1900s, draws were more common place than what they are in today's boxing. I would also point out that the referees were indisposed to award fights to Jack due to the fact that he was extremely unpopular. It's important to remember the social implications of Jack being the World Heavyweight Champion and the fact that he used to enjoy "stirring things up" as the saying goes. I would also point out that there have been riots and other episodes of civil unrest at Jack's fights. So all in all, I think it says more about the society of that time, rather than Jack's boxing ability.

Crease,

Yes draws were more common back then, but you could also say these fights were close. The only riot from a Jack Johnson fight was after Jim Jeffries. However, the O'Brien fight was before Jeffries, and the Jim Johnson fight took place in the nation of France. I really can't see how the ref's or judge’s call in either of these fights was given to avoid a riot. If anything, the ref could have raised O'Brien's hand, and the establishment of the times that was anti Johnson would have been happy.

The other odd result for Johnson was a DQ loss to Jeanette ( Not sure why ) that had him keeping his colored championship belt. When does a champion ever keep his belt in the loss? What happened here?

[L.A. kidd]

wondering if my post went through

[L.A. kidd]

do you think jack Johnson carried a lot of fighters, just to escape the
fight alive. only appearing he was having trouble with a fighter?
he was a great fighter. the actor Andrew mcglagen fought jack johnson
in 1906, and said he was the only fighter he could never hit.

[HomicideHenry]

No I dont believe Johnson carried fighters to "save" himself from possible riots and violence.

No man, would have his lily white wives sit front row, smile and talk crap in the middle of the ring, etc.

Just to hold off the inevitable beat down.

[dempseyfire]

I noticed he drew with a much smaller man in O’Brien, and also drew with Jim Johnson. These are odd results for a tenured heavyweight champion.

Does this suggest that Johnson had some trouble with fancy boxer types, and some trouble with larger heavies who could take his punch?

Perhaps there is something to this as Johnson lost to Choynski who was smaller and could not hurt a much larger Willard.

Johnson was notorious after winning the championship for often undertraining and getting fat in between fights (although compared to HWs now he was probably always in comparatively fine shape). He saw O'Brian as not a threat and fought like it. Vs Johnson he broke his forearm at some point in the fight and that impeded his offense.

[Ambling Alp II]

For his career, I don't think you can really call him inconsistent. He only lost one fight from the time he was 23 to when he was 37; and that was the controversial decision loss to Hart.

As champion, you have to remember that he was already 30 when he won the title. Early in his title reign he was pretty dominant. He struggle against O'Brien. However that was just a 6-round No-Decision fight. Johnson probably saw no need to go all out.

Towards the end of his title reign , he got older, and naturally wasn't as impressive.

[Crease]

Yes draws were more common back then, but you could also say these fights were close.

Why? Nothing that I have ever read about the results of any of Johnson's fights has been controversial. Indeed, quite the opposite where the boxing scribes of the time paid tribute after tribute to Jack's boxing ability.

The only riot from a Jack Johnson fight was after Jim Jeffries.

That's no the point that I was making. No matter where Jack went it caused controversy. He had multiple (white) wives and his boasted about being "the greatest lover of white women" incited hated toward him. Jack was simply the most hated man on the planet! People protested about having him in their city and they couldn't wait to see the back of him when he eventually left.

This is the sort've civil unrest that I am talking about.

[pound per pound]

For his career, I don't think you can really call him inconsistent. He only lost one fight from the time he was 23 to when he was 37; and that was the controversial decision loss to Hart.

As champion, you have to remember that he was already 30 when he won the title. Early in his title reign he was pretty dominant. He struggle against O'Brien. However that was just a 6-round No-Decision fight. Johnson probably saw no need to go all out.

Towards the end of his title reign , he got older, and naturally wasn't as impressive.

Relative to his ability, I think you can call him inconsistent. As Dempseyfire pointed out he wasn’t always in shape. Post Jeffries I definitely agree with him, but pre 1911 I do not.

Prior to becoming champion Jack Johnson and Marvin Hart fought for what could be viewed as elimination match for Jeffries. Jeffries said he’d fight the winner. There was not enough demand for Jeffries vs. Hart.

While the result of Johnson vs. Hart could be disputed what cannot were the stakes of the match. Johnson did not preform well.

Would any legendary heavyweight champion draw, or lose, as much as Johnson did from 1905-1913? Hart was not that good. O’Brien was a middleweight. Jim Johnson a journeyman. Jack Johnson was 0-1-2 in these matches. Other anomalies in Johnson championship years such as a knockdown vs. Ketchel, and a knockdown in a well published sparring with Ed Gunboat Smith add to the paradox.

This makes me wonder what more talented fighters like Langford, Jeannette or McVea could have done if given a title shot from Johnson after he defeated Burns.

[Ambling Alp II]

Let's take a look at those three fights and a sparring session.
He probably got ripped off against Hart. Not sure at all that he didn't perform well.

The O'Brien fight was for just 6 rounds and it was a no-decision fight. There was no way that he could lose his title if he didn't get knocked out. He could have fought O'Brien 50 times and he would not have been knocked out. Not really that important of a fight.

He was 35 years old and had a lot of mileage on him when he fought Jim Johnson.
The sparring session with Gunboat Smith? Why is it any more important than a quarterback throwing an interception in practice? What happens in sparring mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

In 1908, he was the best heavyweight in the world. As he got older, the gap between him and Langford, Jeannette, and McVey got closer and closer until they surpassed him. Certainly by 1915, he wasn't as good as them.
The only thing to really argue about is exactly when they passed him.