How did Terry Daniels & Jose "King" Roman earn their title shots?

[sweetviolenturge]

Another thread here today about "The Council Bluffs Butcher" Ron Stander got me to thinking about two other lower echelon contenders/journeymen that got world heavyweight title shots about the same time.
With Stander, his title shot was somewhat more understandable as he was undefeated ( that is, until he dropped an upset nod to a crafty, scrappy trialhorse in Rico Brooks just before he got the opportunity against Frazier ) & he had that KO5 over Earnie Shavers. But, Daniels & then Roman a year or so later v Foreman are mysteries to me.
Over the years I've tried to find articles in old boxing magazines etc. that might give explanations as to what the thinking was at the time of their title shots, but I've never really found anything, anywhere that spelled out why they were chosen, other than the obvious, that being that they were both VERY easy paydays for Frazier & Foreman.
But still, I can't help still being curious about how they wound up in the top 10 & why those two in particular were given title shots as opposed to other less than stellar heavyweights of their day.
So, does anyone out there remember anything about why Daniels & Roman were chosen?
Any info, guesses or opinions regarding this matter will be much appreciated. Thanks.

[sweetviolenturge]

I do recall reading something in an old issue of BOXING ILLUSTRATED ( which was contemporary to the era in which both men got their title shots ) that mentioned that Terry Daniels upset KO3 over Ted Gullick was considered a fairly big deal at the time. But, that hardly seems like it would have been enough to garner him a shot at Frazier.
I mean, I realize that Frazier's people were looking for a soft touch following his long layoff recovering from the 15 rounds of abuse that he took from Ali a year earlier, but Gullick was just a 15-3 prospect that had just dropped a decision to an ancient Cleveland Williams. So, I doubt if he was seen as a possible foe for Frazier. Besides, just one fight before his upset over Gullick, Daniels himself had been KO'd in just 4 rounds by Jack O'Halloran.

As for Roman, his case isn't nearly as mysterious as Daniels was.
In fact, looking over his record tonight for the first time in a couple of years, I can see how he got rated & why he might have gotten the shot v big George as Roman was on a 27-2 run with decent wins along the way over the likes of Chuck Wepner, Jose Manuel Urtain, O'Halloran ( twice ), Terry Daniels, Tony Ventura & Manuel Ramos.
So, actually, I've answered my question about Roman's title shot, so now, it's just Daniels that's still a mystery.

[davie]

Another thread here today about "The Council Bluffs Butcher" Ron Stander got me to thinking about two other lower echelon contenders/journeymen that got world heavyweight title shots about the same time.
With Stander, his title shot was somewhat more understandable as he was undefeated ( that is, until he dropped an upset nod to a crafty, scrappy trialhorse in Rico Brooks just before he got the opportunity against Frazier ) & he had that KO5 over Earnie Shavers. But, Daniels & then Roman a year or so later v Foreman are mysteries to me.
Over the years I've tried to find articles in old boxing magazines etc. that might give explanations as to what the thinking was at the time of their title shots, but I've never really found anything, anywhere that spelled out why they were chosen, other than the obvious, that being that they were both VERY easy paydays for Frazier & Foreman.
But still, I can't help still being curious about how they wound up in the top 10 & why those two in particular were given title shots as opposed to other less than stellar heavyweights of their day.
So, does anyone out there remember anything about why Daniels & Roman were chosen?
Any info, guesses or opinions regarding this matter will be much appreciated. Thanks.

If I remember correctly Terry Stander knocked Fraziers lunch over, after stealing his chips, then knocked him off a paddle board with a motor boat. Joe was mad!

Jose Roman was a funny one though, all I remember him doing was shouting "let's go Champ" at Foreman everywhere he went

[Controversial]

I'm not sure how Stander got a shot, he was unranked as far as I can see. Maybe just seen as an easy defence for Frazier.

[orbtastic]

Dave Zygleweitz (sp) is another.

None of them were ranked in the Ring's top ten.

[yancey]

What, Frazier and Foreman were the first champs ever to have easy paydays???

I reckon Daniels and Roman could have probably held their own with the "Lion of Flanders" and assorted others.

[yancey]

I do recall reading something in an old issue of BOXING ILLUSTRATED ( which was contemporary to the era in which both men got their title shots ) that mentioned that Terry Daniels upset KO3 over Ted Gullick was considered a fairly big deal at the time. But, that hardly seems like it would have been enough to garner him a shot at Frazier.
I mean, I realize that Frazier's people were looking for a soft touch following his long layoff recovering from the 15 rounds of abuse that he took from Ali a year earlier, but Gullick was just a 15-3 prospect that had just dropped a decision to an ancient Cleveland Williams. So, I doubt if he was seen as a possible foe for Frazier. Besides, just one fight before his upset over Gullick, Daniels himself had been KO'd in just 4 rounds by Jack O'Halloran.

As for Roman, his case isn't nearly as mysterious as Daniels was.
In fact, looking over his record tonight for the first time in a couple of years, I can see how he got rated & why he might have gotten the shot v big George as Roman was on a 27-2 run with decent wins along the way over the likes of Chuck Wepner, Jose Manuel Urtain, O'Halloran ( twice ), Terry Daniels, Tony Ventura & Manuel Ramos.
So, actually, I've answered my question about Roman's title shot, so now, it's just Daniels that's still a mystery.

"15 rounds of abuse that he (Frazier) took from Ali a year earlier"




Uh, I reckon Frazier dealt out a little "abuse" himself, bubba.

The real abuse from that fight was the attempt from the Ali Myth Machine to convince the dumbed down public that the real winner of the FOTC was their guy.

[BoxBuzz]

Name anyone else other than George Foreman who Had an overall winning record against Joe.

Nada.

And no has ever gotten up from a better KD than the one Joe Dished out to Ali.

Yance.....ya just gotta learn to keep it all in perspective.

Fair and balanced....that's the ticket!

[BoxBuzz]

As for Roman and Daniels, that's about all the fellas Joe could muster a win over in the wake of the FOTC......

well...aged out Bugner, Quarry and Ellis as well I suppose.

But he ran into a wall with Jumbo.

[yancey]

"But he ran into a wall with Jumbo." BoxBuzz, Regional VP, Ali Myth Machine.



At least he didn't let himself get used in a high dollar "championship fight" and get exposed in pitiful fashion.

Joe was too good of a man for that kind of scene, I reckon.

[yancey]

Who would win between Jumbo and the Lion of Flanders?

I've got Jumbo.

[hhaehre]

"But he ran into a wall with Jumbo." BoxBuzz, Regional VP, Ali Myth Machine.



At least he didn't let himself get used in a high dollar "championship fight" and get exposed in pitiful fashion.

Joe was too good of a man for that kind of scene, I reckon.

But there is nothing like closing out a career by getting shut out in a tent with a cowbell signaling the rounds. Talk about running into a wall, a canvas wall as it were.

[Dart340]

I'll take a shot at the Terry Daniels part of this question.

Daniels always had a good promotional "push" from the beginning as a Texas amateur star and this continued into the pro ranks. Where we look at some of the losses on his record as "failures" that determined his actual ability, I think the belief at the time was that his close scraps with journeyman Sonny Banks were actually part of the learning curve and the belief at the time was that he was still an "up and comer learning his trade". This was definitely the case with the loss to Floyd Patterson where it was seen as Daniels making a close fight with a wise ex-champion. The loss to Tony Doyle was a letdown, but Daniels was injured going into the fight if I remember right, and the O'Halloran fight was due to a cut I believe. Neither loss would have, at the time, anchored Daniels as a "B" level fighter who couldn't continue improving upwards.

There's no doubt Frazier was looking for a soft touch for that defense, but in fairness to Daniels, he was seen as a fighter still with promise who was learning his trade and that still had upside. It's correct that Gullick was a big win and in decisive fashion and that didn't hurt either.

We probably grade Daniels as a challenger on his long string of knockout losses after the fact rather than seeing the build up of a contender. Reading old Ring Magazines, it strikes me that fighters could be built and "sold" to the general public through the correspondents' reviews and if Ring felt they were worthy of a push and we probably underestimate the power of that particular media in retrospect.

[davie]

I'll take a shot at the Terry Daniels part of this question.

Daniels always had a good promotional "push" from the beginning as a Texas amateur star and this continued into the pro ranks. Where we look at some of the losses on his record as "failures" that determined his actual ability, I think the belief at the time was that his close scraps with journeyman Sonny Banks were actually part of the learning curve and the belief at the time was that he was still an "up and comer learning his trade". This was definitely the case with the loss to Floyd Patterson where it was seen as Daniels making a close fight with a wise ex-champion. The loss to Tony Doyle was a letdown, but Daniels was injured going into the fight if I remember right, and the O'Halloran fight was due to a cut I believe. Neither loss would have, at the time, anchored Daniels as a "B" level fighter who couldn't continue improving upwards.

There's no doubt Frazier was looking for a soft touch for that defense, but in fairness to Daniels, he was seen as a fighter still with promise who was learning his trade and that still had upside. It's correct that Gullick was a big win and in decisive fashion and that didn't hurt either.

We probably grade Daniels as a challenger on his long string of knockout losses after the fact rather than seeing the build up of a contender. Reading old Ring Magazines, it strikes me that fighters could be built and "sold" to the general public through the correspondents' reviews and if Ring felt they were worthy of a push and we probably underestimate the power of that particular media in retrospect.

What, you mean they didn't have internet forums back then to analyse every fight punch by punch and nit-pick the shit out of every defeat, draw or close decision?

Call themselves boxing fans indeed.

[sweetviolenturge]

I'll take a shot at the Terry Daniels part of this question.

Daniels always had a good promotional "push" from the beginning as a Texas amateur star and this continued into the pro ranks. Where we look at some of the losses on his record as "failures" that determined his actual ability, I think the belief at the time was that his close scraps with journeyman Sonny Banks were actually part of the learning curve and the belief at the time was that he was still an "up and comer learning his trade". This was definitely the case with the loss to Floyd Patterson where it was seen as Daniels making a close fight with a wise ex-champion. The loss to Tony Doyle was a letdown, but Daniels was injured going into the fight if I remember right, and the O'Halloran fight was due to a cut I believe. Neither loss would have, at the time, anchored Daniels as a "B" level fighter who couldn't continue improving upwards.

There's no doubt Frazier was looking for a soft touch for that defense, but in fairness to Daniels, he was seen as a fighter still with promise who was learning his trade and that still had upside. It's correct that Gullick was a big win and in decisive fashion and that didn't hurt either.

We probably grade Daniels as a challenger on his long string of knockout losses after the fact rather than seeing the build up of a contender. Reading old Ring Magazines, it strikes me that fighters could be built and "sold" to the general public through the correspondents' reviews and if Ring felt they were worthy of a push and we probably underestimate the power of that particular media in retrospect.

Thanks very much for your reply Dart340.
Your's are exactly the sort of thoughts & insight that I was hoping to get when I created this thread. And they were a pleasure to read.
And yes, I absolutely agree that the magazines of that era ( especially "The Bible of Boxing" ) had a lot of power & influence in the game. Something that today's fans fail to appreciate. Or, at least, those fans too young to have experienced it for themselves.
Sometimes I have to remind myself just how amazing it is to have the world at our fingertips with even the most obscure, untelevised card's results available to us instantaneously. As opposed to often having to wait a month or two to learn what happened in a major world championship bout between two "name" fighters.
This was the norm for me from the time that I first became a boxing fan in 1976 right up until the late '80s. Which, when you really think about it, wasn't all that long ago.
Of course, things were likely a whole lot easier for those fans lucky enough to live in a major city like New York, Chicago or LA. Whose newspapers had regular boxing writers & were much better at keeping up with reporting on the major fights that took place in the States & to a lesser degree, across the globe. But for me, growing up & residing in the Buffalo area, it was much more difficult for me to find out fight results before the magazines reported on them as The Buffalo News was very much hit & miss ( no pun intended ) when it came to its coverage of the sport.
Although Buffalo was once a regional hotbed of pugilism from the turn of the century right up through to the early '70s, the game was as dead as a doornail locally by the mid-'70s. So, the News only boxing coverage was whatever its sports editor chose to pick up from the wire services on any given day. Which, wasn't much outside of the major televised fights of the time. Sometimes not even that during football & hockey season when column space was at a premium.
Were it not for the magazines & my occasional access to the New York newspapers at the library, I'd have gone through the first decade & a half of my boxing fandom as one awfully uninformed individual. LOL.
Those boxing magazines of the day were an absolutely essential part of being a fan. And, it's fun to remember just how much we relied on them & how much we looked forward to the new issues showing up at the newsstands.
If you were anything like me, you knew what day your local newsstand got their new periodicals delivered to them & you had each boxing magazine's schedule figured out so that you knew when to expect to find each months issue on the stands.
And, although each individual magazine had their own charms ( I was particularly fond of Boxing Illustrated ), the arrival of each month's edition of The Ring was often like Christmas morning for the diehard boxing fan, because one never knew what to expect. It's really close to impossible to explain to younger fans what it was like back then because they just can't imagine a pre-world wide web existence I think.
And while some boxing fans in & around my age category ( I'm 54 ) must have made the leap right from totally relying on the magazines to the glories of the internet, I had a transitionary period of several years spanning the late 80s through the first half of the 90s when I went from relying on the monthly magazines for the vast majority of my info & coverage to subscribing to the pro newsletter combo of Boxing Update & Flash, which arrived every 10 days or so & was MUCH quicker with their info than the monthly mags were.
Then, once the prices for a PC lowered enough for me to be able to afford my own, a whole new era was born for me.

[Dart340]

A few years ago I had the opportunity to sit down and do an interview with former "unknown and undeserving" title challenger Tony "KO" Gardner, so I went back and researched his fights leading up to his title fight with Elisha Obed. What I found was that his manager Pat O'Grady facilitated quite a bit of coverage of his fights in Ring Magazine and our own "RayLawPC" Tom Ray wrote great correspondent reviews of his fights in OKC leading up to it. Many of who we now see as unknown club fighters that he beat were actually considered tough and useful gatekeepers and state titlists who those in the business would recognize as solid tests and that his string of knockouts, some exciting wars, were good wins that elevated interest in Gardner and primed him as an exciting contender with an air of mystery about him. No internet, no televised fights, you went off what the Ring correspondents reported. They were your eyes and ears.

I suspect Daniels was in the same boat- handsome young college student with good press locally in the Texas/Louisiana area and known better to the aficionados of the day than we would realize now and with the fight being held in New Orleans- it was probably a logical sell for a fight that was meant to be a supporting event to the Super Bowl.

[sweetviolenturge]

Yep, I'd say you're spot on.

Re: Pat O'Grady.
He was definitely one of the most influential promoters, manager, booking agents in the country for sure.
And he was one of the best at getting his fighters big opportunities & title shots. Many of which, likely didn't legitimately warrant them.
But, whatever they may have lacked in world class skills, they were definitely color characters. Like Gardiner & Brian Kelly.
Though, of course, his son was a bit of an anomaly in that he could actually fight & was a legitimate world class fighter & world champion.