Richard Everett

Richard Everett

  •  
     
    Generating profile stats...

About

Richard has yet to fill out a bio.

Bulletin Board

Default-user-icon-comment
or to post this comment
  • King J posted 1185 days ago

    King J

    Private Message me your Official Prediction Statement
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/714431-wladimir-klitschko-vs-david-haye-send-in-your-official-predictions

  • Delores Smith-Johnson posted 1327 days ago

    Delores Smith-Johnson

    You're welcome!

  • black nazarene posted 1683 days ago

    black nazarene

    Despite Pacquiao accomplishing a great deal as a fighter, Jackson thinks he still hasn’t he’s a top fighter, saying “Until he beats a [Floyd] Mayweather or a [Shane] Mosley, then I don’t know if he is the top fighter.” Pacquiao has the chance to fight Mosley before the Cotto fight, but Pacquiao and his team selected Cotto to fight instead of Mosley for some reason.

    It seemed like a strange choice in hindsight, because Cotto has been pulverized by Antonio Margarito a year before the Pacquiao fight, and hadn’t looked good in a subsequent fight against Clottey in 2009. Some people felt that Cotto was a shot fighter at the time he was picked by Pacquiao’s management to fight the Filipino star.

    Mosley, for his part, has beaten Cotto’s conqueror Antonio Margarito by a 9th round stoppage in early 2009. Based on that win, it would seem that Mosley should have been selected by Pacquiao’s team to fight him, but for some reason Mosley wasn’t picked.

    Pacquiao has the chance to fight Mayweather as well, but that fight didn’t happen because Pacquiao didn’t want to have blood taken from him for blood testing for drugs any closer than 24 days before his fight with Mayweather

  • dragonslayerGH posted 1710 days ago

    dragonslayerGH

    Hi Richard, It was kind of you to grant me some preferential treatment in answering my comments, leading me to your bb instead of using that Lorne's article. Hopefully, it's not the ancient Roman policy of "Devide and Conguer" that won so much grandeur for Ancient Rome that is operating here.

    I shall respond to your comment on a per paragraph mode:

    2nd Paragraph: I just hope that you can still answer my comments should I happen not to support any of your particular article.

    3rd Paragraph: I believe your telling that truth that you comments are not the result of any bias towards MP or PBF. However, the bias could exist towards yourself such as your comments in a condescending manner.

    I agree w/ Joselito Castro's comment: there is no " need to insult or denigrate one's choice of topic".

    Well you see, since B/R is an international boxing fan forum, cultural deferences definetly exist within the ranks of its many writers. We should be a little forgiving to the other writers' "weaknesses and shortcommings". In this score, mi amigo, you could be very well guilty in this respect.

    4th Paragraph: I agree that from 17th to 29th of December 2009 as much as 95% of the articles written in B/R's Boxing section pertains to the unfortunate boxing match-up of MP and PBF. Agree. It even even went raging up to this time--the extended period.

    Sports pages in big newspapers were also ablazed with the subject topic. I believe, and you would agree with me, that all these hopla is still normal.

    And guess who earned one of the highest reads, if not the highest of close to 15,000 reads in B/R boxing for this period?

    Yes, you are right--your twin articles on the the rankings of boxers for the last decade. Indirectly, or even directly, it pertains to the MP-PBF rivalry. Don't you think so?

    5th Paragraph: Your great indictment of many B/R writers including this writer--dragonslayerGH. You were disillusioned of what B/R had become?

    Please remmember, you are part of this so called "elite B/R writers in boxing". Don't you believe that being the topnotcher in the group, you are most guilty among us? Of course, you've written too on other subjects that earned you a measly 300 reads or so per article?

    Don't you think that, you too, took advantage of the popularity of the subject to score that close to 15,000 reads?

    6th Paragraph: Your love lies with the sport not with the boxer? Really? I really don't get it still.

    Perhaps, I am a little dumb for your standard of writting; regretably, not having your skills to speak and write fluent English, French, German and Latin at 23 years of age!. Well you see, you are almost 1/3 my age! Whew!

    My God! No wonder, your remarks which is the subject on hand is, unmistakenly, condescending!

    Obviously, not because you know more than most of us unfortunate mortals, but because, you believe yourself, that, you know more than most of us!

    7th Paragraph: I fully agree.

    8th Paragraph: You really believe that a 12 day period of sustained interest of a particular subject is very bad for the sport of boxing for B/R writers? Really!

    We become one dimensional and a sudden void is created when the boxer exits the scene? Really? Do you honestly believe that? For unbelievable 12 day period! I now have very strong fellings that I might have assessed you wrong. I hope not. Because, just in the movies--the Oscars-- the awardee is judge not for his entire carrear, but for a single movie performance that he has made.

    I still stick with my original assessment of you.

    9th Paragraph: Now you really sound like PBF demanding blood test procedure of his own liking to be imposed on MP!

    And " the only way to evidence such knowledge is to contribute through your musings"! God! What an order!

    Please post your "mutual understanding" with Scoggins, if you claim as such.

    10th Paragraph: And did you not, likewise, struck a "mutual understanding" with those B/R writers you offended by your subject remark? I believe, that is also in order. Don't you think.

    11th Paragraph: Thanks for such clarification but, obviously, it was not enough. It raised more questions rather than you clarified important ones.

    And, by the way, I would still want to believe that the Oscar's system is still doable with your regard. Cheers and thanks a lot.

  • Oliver Suarez posted 1711 days ago

    Oliver Suarez

    i got full control of one of fighthype.com site boxing.fighthype.com it just started. if you are interested in contributing just hit me up...and if there is any fight in your area that you need a credential ...let me know and ill try get you one from the editor

  • King J posted 1713 days ago

    King J

    Hope this answers your questions!
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/321947-king-j-leads-the-boxing-community-2010-video-blog-style

  • Bryant Maxwell posted 1714 days ago

    Bryant Maxwell

    The cut off date is friday. I want to do it by then

  • Bryant Maxwell posted 1717 days ago

    Bryant Maxwell

    I am planning to do a Boxing rankings article every month, exclusively for B/R. But I need you and other respected writers help for the rankings process. I need you to send me your top ten rankings and I will compile them into one B/R rankings list. 10 points for the number one ranked boxer. 9 for the two number boxer. All the way down to one point for the number ten boxer on your list. I will compile the rankings into one of my articles and give credit to each writer who participated, and links to their pages. This will make sure for an unbiased rankings each month. Just send me your rankings if you are down.

  • King J posted 1718 days ago

    King J

    Happy 2010 bro! I want to start getting some Video Blogs going, let me know if you are down.
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/318204-a-look-back-at-2009-in-boxing-and-a-look-forward-to-2010-in-boxing

  • Lorne Scoggins posted 1719 days ago

    Lorne Scoggins

    Richard, Your article on the top fighters of the decade is good. Very good.

More