For me the issue is there's little to suggest Hart's win over Johnson had much to do with his merits as a fighter.
You could make an argument that the decision fell within the bounds or reasonable discretion for the era.
I'd agree with that, but that seems to have had nore to do with Johnson putting in such a lacklustre effort, than Hart putting in a good performance
You can hate Jeffries or his era, but he has no case to be mentioned in this thread. He was by far the best fighter on the planet in his prime and that's enough to be far above the rest mentions.
You could make a very convincing argument that Hart got the verdict due to the colour of his skin and several contemporary journalists who were ringside did just that!
Here is where it gets difficult. Was it a robbery, or just a slightly unorthodox decision? If the latter is the case, then Hart is in a very strong position!
I think the jury is always going to be out on this one. but the way Burns handled Hart ,and Johnson toyed with Burns persuades me which way I vote.
Coetzee was definitely not "third tier" by that time. He was coming off a draw against Pinklon Thomas who then went on a little tear including a very impressive win over an in shape Witherspoon and a KO of Mike Weaver. Coetzee was still well short of 30yo. He may have fell of reasonably quickly at the end but that can happen. Tho Dokes had his problems the win is considered the high point of Coetzee's career. Under Jackie McCoy he seemed to rediscover his left hand. The majority had the rematch for Weaver by a point, some even two, absolutely. It was a close competitive fight tho and Dokes showed some real intestinal fortitude. Weaver packed a fine punch.
I agree, the Dokes was Coetzee's biggest win by far (what else did he really have besides Leon, though). I thought Weaver beat Dokes pretty handily. I just never thought much of Dokes as a fighter, and I was there when the ref freeked out and stopped that first Weaver fight...a very, very bad call (especially if you'd been there watching).