orlin Norris vs Quick Tillis?

I dunno it's close. Quick ( who sometimes wasn't) is an odd fellow. He could look pretty good when he wanted to. He gave a good and up-and-coming Greg Page a good fight, decking Page but ending up a loser.
He could have beaten Mike Weaver in their fight but was reluctant to engage and ended up again a loser. He stunned Weaver in the 14th but failed to press his advantage.
I remember Angelo Dundee being so frustrated with Tillis in that fight because he knew Quick could have won it but failed to ignite that evening.
In his veteran years he gave a ferocious Tyson a scare and gave a very good fight to prospect Johnny du Plooy before being stopped in the last round while ahead on the cards.

I'm less well-versed on Norris but I was always quite impressed with him, particularly because at heavyweight he lacked both size AND power ( a serious drawback) yet he did quite well in that division.
I think Norris was the craftier, more defensively compact fighter with the better chin.
Tillis didn't have very good defensive skills and got hit quite a bit. Still, his handspeed was decent and he had pretty good movement for a big guy. Punching power doesn't really matter since neither was a puncher and both were durable enough to not get taken out quickly.
I think Tillis would be inclined to lead and use his jab and foot speed for hit-and-run type tactics; Norris would stand in the pocket and try to counter for the most part.
I think either could win this to be honest. I think Norris was more consistent but Tillis when not flittering away his advantages could be tough to beat.

 

*adilson rodrigues was rated two years in the 80s at heavy and never got a shot

 

I'm going with Norris, who seemed to have more of a will to win. He won decisions against some decent names. Tillis barely beat an old Earnie Shavers, but I don't remember any other name victories on his record, and I don't feel like looking it up right now.

 

I know you love Norris, but the guy was a fringe top 10 heavyweight at best. So was Tillis. This would be a good matchup.

Tony Tubbs easily outboxed Norris but failed the drug test so it was changed to a NC.

Greg Page was in great shape for the Norris fight, but his speed and reflexes were nowhere near what they were in his prime. Watch Page's pre 1986 fights and you'll notice a big speed difference between prime page and the guy who fought Norris. Too bad he didn't come in at 220 in his prime. His career may have been much better.

Prime Tillis wasn't as good as prime Tubbs, but was somewhat close to the 1989 version that outboxed Norris. Tillis would use his advantage in foot speed to box around the plodding Norris. Norris was not busy enough when faced with a good boxer. He was very economical with his punches when forced to lead. Tillis would build a lead with his jab and decent hook and right hand. He would probably gas, as he tended to do and Norris, who always had pretty good stamina would come on and try to make an inside fight of it against a tiring Tillis. Tillis had pretty good survival tactics and Norris was not a big puncher, and Norris had a good chin, so I don't envision a ko either way. I honestly see this ending as a draw or split decision either way. If pressed, I'll go with Norris 6-4 or 96-94 in points.

 

Did Steffan Tagstedt ever hold a world title belt? I would be surprised if he did.

 

Agreed.

Norris was robbed vs Tucker 1, he could've got the decision and fight for the title.

Vs Golota it was well past-prime Norris and I believe prime Norris could beat Andrew.

I think Norris was the best win on Bert Cooper's resume who beat Tillman, DeWitt, Fulilangi, Hipp, and some others but Norris was TOP-10 HW and NABF champion when Cooper stopped him.

 

I've never seen the Cooper fight, but from reports at the time it was a freak knee injury that Norris got that resulted in the ko loss. He was not actually stopped in a traditional way. I think he was ahead on points too.