orlin Norris vs Quick Tillis?

This may be a fight against a rated opponent that Tillis could actually win, but I wouldn't put money on either man.

 

Cooper had the potential but drugs and alcohol made its work on him.

Bert admitted himself that even when he was 22-24 (his prime) he often left training camps and went to parties (full of drugs, whiskey and beer). He said he did it before some of his late 80's fights

Despite that, Cooper still was good enough to create problems for Holyfield, Moorer and Mercer - top HWs at that time.

But after Moorer he was done, declined extremely rapidly, and by his early 30's was a gatekeeper who started to lose more and more fights.

Cooper even in his prime had 1 problem - tall guys. Foreman, Bowe, Carl Williams were all wrong for Bert, he hadn't the size/style to compete with them.

Orlin Norris on the other hand was very good against tall HWs (well, almost all of them were taller than Orlin).

Norris was robbed vs Tucker and beat him in the rematch, clearly past prime Norris had very close fight vs prime Golota and was competitive vs Akinwande in the late 90s.

 

Yes it was injury, not a KO. But Cooper was ahead on cards, to his credit.

 

Indeed. I remember reading a tiny clip in ring magazine about that fight and boxrec backs it today by stating that Norris was losing that fight. Orlin deserves credit for achieving a rating in a division where a man of his size and lack of power wasn't bound to go very far. But in truth his potential hit the ceiling with guys like an aging Greg Page and faded Renaldo Snipes. He was outboxed and initially beaten by an older Tubbs before that decision was reversed to a no contest. Beaten early in his career by the obscure Olian Alexander. Beaten by Bert Cooper and narrowly beaten by a past prime Tucker. Norris was never any better than fringe and I can even think of some heavyweight journeyman who for stylistic reasons might have taken him. not sure I'd favor him against a prime Tillis either for as limited as Quick was.

 

And you know...Bert Cooper himself. Not a big guy although he could certainly crack. But what could he have achieved had he had laser-like focus instead of always having one foot in a crackhouse?
He gave Moorer, Holyfield and Mercer all wars before losing out.

 

Agreed my friend. I remember watching all three of those gallant losing efforts live on television and being on the edge of my seat. Had Bert shown up in the same form for some of his other fights as he did against those three, he'd probably have a few more "W's"

 

A close fight where Norris was declared the loser and against a man who's better days were behind him and tested positive for recreational drugs afterward. Not particularly flattering to Norris.

You are aware that they fought twice right? The first time Tucker was 33 years old and got the decision. The next time he was more like 38 and basically finished.

Not at the time Norris fought them no. One was still an unknown sparring partner while the other was washed up and still split results with him in two fights. Would you honestly favor Norris to beat the McCall who fought Lewis or the Tucker who fought Tyson given the struggle that he had with them in their lesser renditions?

Norris doesn't have a clean sheet against Tucker as already mentioned. And more importantly "timing" is of the essence. Douglas beat Page in 1986 when he still had a name. Norris fought him in 1989 following a two year retirement. See the differnce? Both men beat McCall fairly close to the same time frame but given that Oliver was years away from making a name for himself, who cares?

Not really. He had a decent run from about 1987-1989 and most of the guys he beat were past prime ex-contenders who had little more than just a name left.. That and your typical household journeyman like Alexander, Collier, etc.. Norris was a decent fighter and I'm not hating on him by any means.. But let's not pretend this guy went on a rampage beating premier opponents at the height of their abilities.

I'll grant you that he made the very best of what he had to work with.. He was short, light, and didn't have much of a punch. For a man of his description going into the late 80's and early 90's the odds of success were against him. But he never really "held his own against elite heavyweights." He either barely defeated men who "used" to be elite heavyweights like Greg Page or got beaten. To put things into perspective the six best names he faced were Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, Oliver McCall, Greg Page, Renaldo snipes and Bert Cooper. Not bad looking on the surface. But all those men were in one way shape or form outside of prime and his record against them was basically 4-3.. Put all of them in there at their best and he very conceivably could have been 0-7 against that group.

 

I don't think his prime was well defined but if I have to choose I'd say around 1985 when he won the title from Page. After losing to Witherspoon in 86' he took 16 months off from the ring, returned in 1987 to face three journeyman one of whom decked him then fought Tyson in 1988 and got blasted out in two rounds. about 20 months after that he was in the ring with Norris and hadn't beaten a named opponent since 85'. The prize fighter tournament was a joke. I read about it in ring magazine when it happened. He gave a green Bowe a good fight but lost. And Norris didnt' beat Tubbs anyway either.

Tucker took two years off after losing to Tyson and if truth be told had a padded record to begin with. He was fighting mostly journeyman in his comeback and not looking terribly impressive against them. I'm not sure if the first meeting between Norris and Tucker was a robbery or legit. It was a close fight and one that involved an aged veteran on the comeback trail

He took two years off after losing to Bugner in 1987. He returned to the ring in 1989 approximately 30 days prior to facing Norris to fight a debuting nobody in his hometown who had never fought before and would never fight again and presumably so that it wouldn't look like Norris was fighting a man who hadn't done anything for two years. Page's record since 1984 was 5-6 going into the Norris fight and some of his defeats were to men like Wills and Bey. No way should Greg have been viewed anywhere near prime.. And yes three years after the Norris fight, Greg decisioned a 40 year old Bonecrusher who was even more shot than he was.

Because timing is everything and Norris wasn't ready when most of the guys you listed got their shots, a lot of which came between 1987 to early 1989. Just when Norris looked like he had established reasonably good status, he loses to Tubbs then two months later to Bert Cooper. And most of the guys he was beating were men that those other contenders had also beaten only when they were at their best. For example Biggs beat Snipes in 1986.. Norris beat him in 1988.. Who fought the better version? How about Tubbs beating Page in 85 as opposed to Norris beating the comeback Page in 89? And Spinks had some soft touches against Tangstad and ****ey but regardless are you really going to argue that Norris was more justified in fighting Tyson than the lineal heavyweight champion of the world?

True but also oversimplified. Page, Tubbs, Snipes, and a few others who Norris fought were losing to each other when they were all prime. Norris fought them all when they were either washed up or in McCall's case before he had reached prime. And in nearly every single instance either lost or looked unimpressive against them. Would you really pick Norris to beat the Page who beat Coetzee five years earlier or the Tucker who beat Douglas four years earlier or the McCall who beate Lewis four year LATER? BTW I saw Norris's fights with Greg Page and Dee Colier in 1989 on ESPN I believe. While he deserved those wins he hardly looked like he was anything beyond ordinary. Let's just call it like it is. He was a decent fringe contender who made the very best of what he had at heavyweight, but was never going to be elite.

 

Just watched the Norris-Golota fight. Entertaining s-c-r-a-p. It's funny because Norris is not great at anything but is good at everything, except hitting hard. He just had no pop to hurt Andrew despite landing several flush right hands. But he knew how to look after himself in there, how to roll with shots, when to create some space for himself and when to close the gap.
Golota won but Norris made him work for the win. I thought it was a closer fight than the official cards made it look.

 

I'd lean toward Quick Tillis. He seemed to fight his best against shorter guys - even against short top guys like Tyson and Shavers.

Orlin Norris had no power to speak of at heavyweight. But he was very active.

I was never really a fan of either guy. I think Norris showed his true stripes when he took a dive against Vitali and quit against Tyson (and tried to get a DQ win). So I can't really judge Orlin fairly. I think very little of him.

Stylewise, though, Tillis might edge it. But both were lacking a lot.

 

Yeah that's a pretty accurate and fair assessment. I always liked Norris, and I preferred him as a person over his more talented but arrogant brother Terry.
We at ESB (or Boxing News as it's called now) tend to focus on the champs and the greats and immortals of the ring, but those are the top 1% of the sport.
But Norris is a prime example of a good but not outstanding pro but that has a few interesting stories of his own to tell. He was a solid pro who managed to hang with men much larger just by being intelligent, sensible and looking after himself.