My name is Amy Chavez and I am a professional writer. People pay me to write things. I type them and this what happens. I am really happy with my profession and to be able to share it with the world. On another note, I am mentally handicapped. Good thing they gave me a masters degree. Was it before or after I flowered for Algernon? Who knows?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Grammar Warriors Mount Up
Posted on 8:59 PM by Unknown
New grammar problem. A work sheet today read "My most favorite sport is ________" I immediately said "You can't say that because both are superlatives. You can't be the most tallest." The teacher answered, "Really, but that's what it says in the book." Gong, like Chuck Barris for not the first, nor the last time. I went back to the lab to huddle and research only to find that not every expert considers the word favorite to be a superlative. Some do. I would. But then again, I have no problem with saying "It is my least favorite." Is that because favorite is a positive so you can rank its negatives? I would stay away from saying "most favorite." You don't call John "The most dead Kennedy." We don't call Sartre "The most French." If we did either of these things, we would be making a joke. Thoughts?
And the Oscar Goes To...
Posted on 6:19 PM by Unknown
Not believing that Oscars and good movies go hand in hand I have spent the rainy week watching best picture nominees anyway.
The Hurt Locker was quite a good movie but I have the feeling I would have thought more of it if I had come to it naturally instead of it being a nominee. I don't want to critique it from a hard line realist stance, but I do think a movie about the military needs to adhere to things that are factual, especially when discussing an ongoing conflict. I don't say that in any kind of "they need to do right by our boys" fashion, but that it detracts from what is going on when, say, the submarine has both a pet dog, an aquarium and a stereo on it. In the case of The Hurt Locker, while I found the seen in the professors house very good and necessary, I didn't find they way that the character ended up there plausible. I don't think U.S. GIs do very well off base in Baghdad. That being said, this was my only problem with the film. I thought that the last 10 minutes was exceptional and speaks to lots of things that I find to be true in life. Jeremy Renner picking out cereal in the supermarket seems especially tragic to some notion inside of me. I guess it can be a great and terrible thing about military life that it can make you stand out for being really, really good at something, even if that something doesn't negotiate well with the word at large.
Precious was very good were it good just have easily been bad and preachy and maudlin. It wasn't any of those things. It played somewhat like an after-school special. But like the dirtiest, most heartbreakingly honest and real after-school special ever produced. I thought Mo'nique, who I only knew from her spot on the dais at Emmitt Smith's roast, was exceptional. She was terrifying and pathetic. Al of the supporting performances were very good and captured something real about the situation. The story played really straight for being about something so awful. As a teacher you see parents like this out there and I will never understand them. Also, Mariah Carey was sterling in her role. I didn't even realize it was her for a bit, even though I knew she was in the movie and in what role and was told "I didn't realize it was her." Make no mistake, it is a very good movie.
Up In the Air is a solid movie with good acting and cinematography. It is about something in the same way the other two movies on here are, but it is something that, on its surface, seems more self-centered, and piddling and white. I think it runs a little deeper than that though. Also, on a shallower note, for people who have spent a lot of time flying it is a solid commiseration. We all have our methods and strategies I suppose. I also enjoyed the aerial scenes of the cities.
All of these movies, as I suppose most good movies do, seemed to have an interesting confluence with my present life and its predicaments. I identified a little with Clooney having to hand in his Superman "S" and what that means about who he is. Here is where I am going to make an outrageous claim; Of these three movies, Precious was the easiest to make. I don't mean logistically, although it might have been. I mean that the subject matter was so shocking and strong that it drives the movie forwards no matter what. I don't think you have to work as hard to make strategy and heartbreak impact people. I think that what The Hurt Locker and Up In The Air do subtly is a harder trick than showing how horrible rape and incest are. Then again, the tricky part of Precious is how to not make it too preachy or heavy handed. This brings me to another, and in my case, inevitable point; Where is The Hangover? I know, that is absurd, right? But why? Why is it absurd. I argued that Michael Caine should have had an Oscar for Austin Powers. I think that Tropic Thunder was probably the best move last year. I really, truly believe that making a solid comedy is far more difficult than making a drama, because, when making a drama, you are assuming a tone that demands that people take you seriously. With comedy you are making a product to be judged on its raw merits. That is a hard bar to pass. It isn't easy to come up with something funny. I don't know that The Hangover was the best picture last year, but I think it deserves consideration.
The Hurt Locker was quite a good movie but I have the feeling I would have thought more of it if I had come to it naturally instead of it being a nominee. I don't want to critique it from a hard line realist stance, but I do think a movie about the military needs to adhere to things that are factual, especially when discussing an ongoing conflict. I don't say that in any kind of "they need to do right by our boys" fashion, but that it detracts from what is going on when, say, the submarine has both a pet dog, an aquarium and a stereo on it. In the case of The Hurt Locker, while I found the seen in the professors house very good and necessary, I didn't find they way that the character ended up there plausible. I don't think U.S. GIs do very well off base in Baghdad. That being said, this was my only problem with the film. I thought that the last 10 minutes was exceptional and speaks to lots of things that I find to be true in life. Jeremy Renner picking out cereal in the supermarket seems especially tragic to some notion inside of me. I guess it can be a great and terrible thing about military life that it can make you stand out for being really, really good at something, even if that something doesn't negotiate well with the word at large.
Precious was very good were it good just have easily been bad and preachy and maudlin. It wasn't any of those things. It played somewhat like an after-school special. But like the dirtiest, most heartbreakingly honest and real after-school special ever produced. I thought Mo'nique, who I only knew from her spot on the dais at Emmitt Smith's roast, was exceptional. She was terrifying and pathetic. Al of the supporting performances were very good and captured something real about the situation. The story played really straight for being about something so awful. As a teacher you see parents like this out there and I will never understand them. Also, Mariah Carey was sterling in her role. I didn't even realize it was her for a bit, even though I knew she was in the movie and in what role and was told "I didn't realize it was her." Make no mistake, it is a very good movie.
Up In the Air is a solid movie with good acting and cinematography. It is about something in the same way the other two movies on here are, but it is something that, on its surface, seems more self-centered, and piddling and white. I think it runs a little deeper than that though. Also, on a shallower note, for people who have spent a lot of time flying it is a solid commiseration. We all have our methods and strategies I suppose. I also enjoyed the aerial scenes of the cities.
All of these movies, as I suppose most good movies do, seemed to have an interesting confluence with my present life and its predicaments. I identified a little with Clooney having to hand in his Superman "S" and what that means about who he is. Here is where I am going to make an outrageous claim; Of these three movies, Precious was the easiest to make. I don't mean logistically, although it might have been. I mean that the subject matter was so shocking and strong that it drives the movie forwards no matter what. I don't think you have to work as hard to make strategy and heartbreak impact people. I think that what The Hurt Locker and Up In The Air do subtly is a harder trick than showing how horrible rape and incest are. Then again, the tricky part of Precious is how to not make it too preachy or heavy handed. This brings me to another, and in my case, inevitable point; Where is The Hangover? I know, that is absurd, right? But why? Why is it absurd. I argued that Michael Caine should have had an Oscar for Austin Powers. I think that Tropic Thunder was probably the best move last year. I really, truly believe that making a solid comedy is far more difficult than making a drama, because, when making a drama, you are assuming a tone that demands that people take you seriously. With comedy you are making a product to be judged on its raw merits. That is a hard bar to pass. It isn't easy to come up with something funny. I don't know that The Hangover was the best picture last year, but I think it deserves consideration.
Epistemologapologology
Posted on 6:13 PM by Unknown
I saw a bit of the very odd exchange between Ron Reagan and Atlas Shrugged over the weekend and just kind of shook my head. Fortunately the good folks at Lawyers, Guns and Money took it on a bit. Really, honestly, what was she talking about? Do you think she just said "epistemological" because it sounded like something smart that would make someone back off? That seems the most likely. Or do you think she was really trying to engage in a discussion about whether someone is able to know someone and their thoughts on a truer level by reading what they wrote rather than being one of their offspring and having a life-long relationship with them. Actually, thinking about it, I don't think she meant anything. She could have substituted any other smart sounding word, because she couldn't honestly mean what she implied. She wasn't actually even inviting the discussion...was she?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
I am Better at English Than He!
Posted on 8:29 PM by Unknown
Grammar warriors, help me out.
Would you teach junior high schoolers that they should be saying:
"He is taller than I." OR
"He is taller than me."
Now, I know the grammatical arguments. I know the controversy over whether "than" is a conjunction or a preposition. However, I take a more organic view to these things. Do you think it would better serve a teenager to say "I" or "me"?
I am going with "me" on this one but some other teachers disagree with me. If a junior high student would be encountering actual conversations from the vernacular, I think it would serve them better. Of course, I am teaching in Japan so all they are encountering are stilted text readings created by committees of non-native speakers. I think teachers feel more comfortable explaining the rules for "I."
I would consider teaching it this way:
"I am tall."
"He is tall."
"He is taller than I am."
This would require materials for the board to illustrate, but it would be easy to teach I think as they would already grasp "I am..." Then again:
"I am tall."
"He is tall."
"He is taller than me."
Might be a good way to teach about the object of the sentence. The counter argument being that you cant say, "He is taller than me am."
But, let's think about a 12 year old complaining:
"I'm so short. When will I grow. This sucks. Everybody is taller than I!"
Doesn't really work, does it?
Help me out.
Update:
Reading back through my Strunk and White I find the cautrionary "In general, aviod 'understood' verbs by supplying them." As usual, I defer to the masters and find them correct.
For example:
"He eats pizza more than I."
"He eats pizza more than I do."
"She lloves him more than me."
"She love him more than I do."
Better English that way, I think.
Would you teach junior high schoolers that they should be saying:
"He is taller than I." OR
"He is taller than me."
Now, I know the grammatical arguments. I know the controversy over whether "than" is a conjunction or a preposition. However, I take a more organic view to these things. Do you think it would better serve a teenager to say "I" or "me"?
I am going with "me" on this one but some other teachers disagree with me. If a junior high student would be encountering actual conversations from the vernacular, I think it would serve them better. Of course, I am teaching in Japan so all they are encountering are stilted text readings created by committees of non-native speakers. I think teachers feel more comfortable explaining the rules for "I."
I would consider teaching it this way:
"I am tall."
"He is tall."
"He is taller than I am."
This would require materials for the board to illustrate, but it would be easy to teach I think as they would already grasp "I am..." Then again:
"I am tall."
"He is tall."
"He is taller than me."
Might be a good way to teach about the object of the sentence. The counter argument being that you cant say, "He is taller than me am."
But, let's think about a 12 year old complaining:
"I'm so short. When will I grow. This sucks. Everybody is taller than I!"
Doesn't really work, does it?
Help me out.
Update:
Reading back through my Strunk and White I find the cautrionary "In general, aviod 'understood' verbs by supplying them." As usual, I defer to the masters and find them correct.
For example:
"He eats pizza more than I."
"He eats pizza more than I do."
"She lloves him more than me."
"She love him more than I do."
Better English that way, I think.
The (Completely Timely) Fall of Air America
Posted on 6:19 PM by Unknown
I said I was going to write about this weeks ago, but I never seem to have the time. Or, to the larger point, I stopped caring about Air America a long time ago. If we hopped in a time machine and went back a few years that would seem completely unforeseeable.
Let's go back further. Ten years maybe? I can remember the little corner of northwest Alabama where I could pick up Jim Hightower's radio show when driving to Memphis. It seemed like an amazing pocket in the substance of the universe that let one view a world where liberals were allowed to speak. There was also a mildly left-wing program when I would drive up the interstate through Chattanooga. I remembered where I could get the stations. I probably got a total of an hour of left wing programming in a year. And I am a radio junkie. Funny, that was the title of my radio show which I didn't name. So, when rumors of Air America's founding became a reality, I was sprinting like Ben Johnson towards whatever outlet would give me some of that. That outlet, it turns out, was very simple. Anyone could listen to Air America, for free, on the internet. It was like goddamn Halloween for Christmas every day of the year. Realize that the morning line-up was in my evening and, as Ed can testify, I spent most evenings with Air America's morning line-up.
In the beginning, that line-up was truly bad-ass. You had Unfiltered with Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and some unknown Rhodes Scholar Phd, Rachel Maddow. Leading in to that was Morning Sedition with Mark Maron and Mark Riley, which was a really very good honest show which mixed Riley's old radio professionalism and Marc Maron's instinctive, life coming unhinged commentary. It also had one of my favorite titles of all time. There was also the Al Franken Show, which, although a little more down the middle than the others, contained a lot of good policy information. Looking back, the show that stands out to me most, however, is The Majority Report. Even at its worst- It's worst probably being Jeneane Garafolo's foray into the public service wing of Scientology and Sam Seder's subsequent flip-out, was great radio. I was never too into Randi Rhodes, but she was alright. Thom Hartman amazed me but I didn't listen to him as much.
Sadly, what happened to Air America, is what happens to lots of good things. They weren't doing so great financially and they decided to listen to people who told them that in order to fix this they had to do what everyone else in radio did. Of course, that is, in the end, terrible advice, because Air America's entire selling point was being something different. I lost interest gradually due to three separate factors.
1. They started implementing a pay-to-listen system. I can't remember how or when now but it discouraged me. I think you could still download podcasts, but it got more complicated.
2. They started getting rid of personalities. I hear that they started making cuts for budgetary reasons, but who they cut is telling. They tossed out everyone whose voice was unique to Air America. They jerked around Sam Seder and Marc Maron and replaced them with Lionel and Jerry Springer. I think this is what most people would tell you made them unhappy with the station. Anything that was new or interesting or with any kind of unique appeal was thrown out the door for things that were considered safe. I could extrapolate this to a problem with the left-wing in America in general. I understand that Lionel was their highest rated host, but is that really what you are in it for? It isn't something I wanted to participate in. It is kind of like electing Barak Obama only to have Rahm Emanuel be Chief of Staff. Wait, that happened. Radio is like the NFL everyone wants to copy success because trying something new has stiff penalties and being mediocre is safer than trying and failing.
3. During Air America's downturn, other outlets began popping up. The Young Turks internet radio program was more accessible and far more DIY. Rachel Maddow became a household name and Al Franken became a senator. This final reason for my lack of interest in Air America would seem to also be praise for Air America. If they hadn't been around, I don't think Maddow and Franken would be where they are now.
Of course the bankruptcy will be heralded by those on the Right as a failure of liberalism. They will fail to mention that Fox News lost $90 million in its first five years of operation. They will forget that Fox News's parent company lost $30 billion in market value in 2008. Most conservative media outlets run at severe losses but are funded by super wealthy patrons who don't care. Nothing like that exists on the Left and it probably shouldn't. To me the failure of Air America has very little to do with Left vs. Right and everything to do with the mediocrity of playing it safe. If you have ever worked in radio, you know that the pressure to do what everyone else is doing is overwhelming. In my 2 years in radio I pushed for internet broadcasting every day. I was told repeatedly that that was absurd and could never work. Good thing we never tried. Well, Air America, for a brief few years tried until things got rough. And when the going gets rough, the squares play it straight. Count on it.
Let's go back further. Ten years maybe? I can remember the little corner of northwest Alabama where I could pick up Jim Hightower's radio show when driving to Memphis. It seemed like an amazing pocket in the substance of the universe that let one view a world where liberals were allowed to speak. There was also a mildly left-wing program when I would drive up the interstate through Chattanooga. I remembered where I could get the stations. I probably got a total of an hour of left wing programming in a year. And I am a radio junkie. Funny, that was the title of my radio show which I didn't name. So, when rumors of Air America's founding became a reality, I was sprinting like Ben Johnson towards whatever outlet would give me some of that. That outlet, it turns out, was very simple. Anyone could listen to Air America, for free, on the internet. It was like goddamn Halloween for Christmas every day of the year. Realize that the morning line-up was in my evening and, as Ed can testify, I spent most evenings with Air America's morning line-up.
In the beginning, that line-up was truly bad-ass. You had Unfiltered with Lizz Winstead, Chuck D and some unknown Rhodes Scholar Phd, Rachel Maddow. Leading in to that was Morning Sedition with Mark Maron and Mark Riley, which was a really very good honest show which mixed Riley's old radio professionalism and Marc Maron's instinctive, life coming unhinged commentary. It also had one of my favorite titles of all time. There was also the Al Franken Show, which, although a little more down the middle than the others, contained a lot of good policy information. Looking back, the show that stands out to me most, however, is The Majority Report. Even at its worst- It's worst probably being Jeneane Garafolo's foray into the public service wing of Scientology and Sam Seder's subsequent flip-out, was great radio. I was never too into Randi Rhodes, but she was alright. Thom Hartman amazed me but I didn't listen to him as much.
Sadly, what happened to Air America, is what happens to lots of good things. They weren't doing so great financially and they decided to listen to people who told them that in order to fix this they had to do what everyone else in radio did. Of course, that is, in the end, terrible advice, because Air America's entire selling point was being something different. I lost interest gradually due to three separate factors.
1. They started implementing a pay-to-listen system. I can't remember how or when now but it discouraged me. I think you could still download podcasts, but it got more complicated.
2. They started getting rid of personalities. I hear that they started making cuts for budgetary reasons, but who they cut is telling. They tossed out everyone whose voice was unique to Air America. They jerked around Sam Seder and Marc Maron and replaced them with Lionel and Jerry Springer. I think this is what most people would tell you made them unhappy with the station. Anything that was new or interesting or with any kind of unique appeal was thrown out the door for things that were considered safe. I could extrapolate this to a problem with the left-wing in America in general. I understand that Lionel was their highest rated host, but is that really what you are in it for? It isn't something I wanted to participate in. It is kind of like electing Barak Obama only to have Rahm Emanuel be Chief of Staff. Wait, that happened. Radio is like the NFL everyone wants to copy success because trying something new has stiff penalties and being mediocre is safer than trying and failing.
3. During Air America's downturn, other outlets began popping up. The Young Turks internet radio program was more accessible and far more DIY. Rachel Maddow became a household name and Al Franken became a senator. This final reason for my lack of interest in Air America would seem to also be praise for Air America. If they hadn't been around, I don't think Maddow and Franken would be where they are now.
Of course the bankruptcy will be heralded by those on the Right as a failure of liberalism. They will fail to mention that Fox News lost $90 million in its first five years of operation. They will forget that Fox News's parent company lost $30 billion in market value in 2008. Most conservative media outlets run at severe losses but are funded by super wealthy patrons who don't care. Nothing like that exists on the Left and it probably shouldn't. To me the failure of Air America has very little to do with Left vs. Right and everything to do with the mediocrity of playing it safe. If you have ever worked in radio, you know that the pressure to do what everyone else is doing is overwhelming. In my 2 years in radio I pushed for internet broadcasting every day. I was told repeatedly that that was absurd and could never work. Good thing we never tried. Well, Air America, for a brief few years tried until things got rough. And when the going gets rough, the squares play it straight. Count on it.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
UFC 109: A Simple Gesture
Posted on 12:39 AM by Unknown
UFC Commissioner Dana White stumbled to the stage with a torn copy of A People's History of the United States in one hand, an empty bottle of rum in the other, and a J.D. Salinger autographed T-Shirt. "Fuck it," he said, gathering his strength, "Everybody is dead anyway." He then smeared himself with black-face and began his long rumored, spot-on, Wyclef Jean impersonation:
Gracie vs. Beltran
With one week of training, Beltran is being sent in to lose. Gracie by 1st round sub.
Hague vs. Tuchscherer
I don't really care. Hague is an elementary school teacher I believe? I don't know. Tuscherer by G-n-P TKO 2nd.
Davis vs. Stann
I am not going to lie and say that I have seen a lot of these guys, but I always hear their names. Davis by lots of take-downs to decision.
Nover vs. Emerson
This one is hard for me. I really liked what I saw of Nover on TUF. I thought he had a lot of promise and I bought the hype. He hasn't arrived yet though. Emerson is a fighter I can never support. If you don't know, as a young man he was involved in a gang of rich, white kids who went around with guns robbing and beating people. He ended up missing out on jail time. Maybe he has moved beyond that, but he is not someone I can support. Emerson has, on the other hand, been able to get the most out of his limited talent. He has some bread and butter striking complemented by an increasingly capable take-down defense. If Nover has been able to improve his training, he his the higher ceiling, the better ground game and the more diverse striking package. This fight will show us where he is. If you are going to play it safe, call it for Emerson. I like Nover by split decision.
Torres vs. Guillard
Guillard showed up on the scene with all of the (striking) talent in the world. What he has showed us in the years since is one of the lowest fight IQs in the game. Guillard has rare, rare power, and can always win. That being said, he know how to lose. If this fight goes to the ground, and it will, Guillard will lose. Torres represent Nova Uniao. That counts for something. Torres by sub in the 1st.
Danzig vs. Bucholz
Danzig is absolutely my kind of fighter. He is good all-around. He has tight, competent boxing. He makes few mistakes on the floor. He is a driven, talented fighter. Danzig's problem is that he just doesn't have the body and athleticism to fight at the highest levels at 155. I have always called Bucholz to lose, and he seems to win somehow. I don't see him winning here though. He isn't a good enough wrestler to make anything happen. Danzig wins a hard, but unanimous decision.
Serra vs. Trigg
Who the F knows man. Both of these guys are a roll of the twelve-sided die. Trigg is notorious for being RNCed, so I called that Mayhem Miller, who excels at RNCs, would beat him. Trigg proceeded to beat Mayhem up.Serra, the jiu-jitsu black-belt, is best known for beating the tar out of GSP. I like Serra better, does that count for anything? I think Serra has more power. Trigg has better wrestling, but Serra isn't that worried about getting taken down, however, he doesn't submit much from the bottom. I say Serra by split-decision.
Maia vs. Miller
Ouch. They are puttin' the hurt on me. Two of my favorite fighters in a similar style match-up. I am a big supporter of Miller's career. He has a real, pulling, yanking, strength submission game to go with a wrestling base. Maia hovers above this world on the BJJ mother ship laughing at the rest of us vain attempts at the graceful art. I see this as the kind of match-up I see in the gym a lot wherein the Shooto guy has a very good, strong, basic submission game that they can lay on quick and strong. Maia would be playing the part of the sub wizard in the gi studying Youtube on the weekends and flipping through all the obscure books. What makes Maia different is that he has some rare athleticism to back it up. I want to pull for Miller, and his savvy could make this a little interesting, but Maia still gets the sub in the 1st.
Swick vs. Thiago
No one can say that Thiago has gotten the easy road here in the UFC. Apparently he has to fight the entire American Kickboxing Academy roster to get anywhere. This is a hard fight and I would rather see Thiago get more of a chance to develop. The odd thing about Swick is that he uses his monster reach more to get under-hooks than to jab. He has some good tight hooks and some sneaky power. Thiago has real power too, and a ground game. Swick probably takes this by having more experience, but I say Thiago by KO in the 2nd.
Marquardt vs. Sonnen
I often talk about "my kind of fighter." Sonnen is not that. He is an asshole Republican real estate agent who wrestles people until they get bored with their own careers and retire to the decision. He is kind of ridiculous and notorious for getting subbed, screaming and crying and then saying he was never subbed. Marquardt has the complete game. Just complete enough to never beat Anderson Silva. Sonnen can out wrestle him, but Marquardt will take advantage at every other opportunity. I call Marquardt by screaming sub in the 2nd.
Couture vs. Coleman
Two pioneers. One successful and respected. One bitter and pitied. Coleman once dominated the sport to such a degree that they had to change the rules. Of course that rule was no headbutting. If that is your only skill and you never progress then....then.....you become Mark Coleman, who I feel bad for, but who had every opportunity to get better and didn't. Couture, on the other hand, was a wrestler who got arm-barred by Enson Inoue (who owns my gym) and progressed to someone who could fight to a draw with Jacare in a grappling match. Couture also has very good boxing. I will give Coleman the power edge, but he doesn't use it so effectively. Coleman also has better single and double-leg take-downs, but does that really matter against Couture who lives for the clinch? Two old men come out smelling like Old-Spice and Icy Hot and gum each other......or....or Couture by TKO in the 3rd.
There it is kids. Donate it to Haiti. Apparently I have been taking this space to taunt Arash Markazi, not knowing that he was battling and beating back cancer. Beating Cancer, Arash, well above average. Your MMA writing, somewhat below.
Gracie vs. Beltran
With one week of training, Beltran is being sent in to lose. Gracie by 1st round sub.
Hague vs. Tuchscherer
I don't really care. Hague is an elementary school teacher I believe? I don't know. Tuscherer by G-n-P TKO 2nd.
Davis vs. Stann
I am not going to lie and say that I have seen a lot of these guys, but I always hear their names. Davis by lots of take-downs to decision.
Nover vs. Emerson
This one is hard for me. I really liked what I saw of Nover on TUF. I thought he had a lot of promise and I bought the hype. He hasn't arrived yet though. Emerson is a fighter I can never support. If you don't know, as a young man he was involved in a gang of rich, white kids who went around with guns robbing and beating people. He ended up missing out on jail time. Maybe he has moved beyond that, but he is not someone I can support. Emerson has, on the other hand, been able to get the most out of his limited talent. He has some bread and butter striking complemented by an increasingly capable take-down defense. If Nover has been able to improve his training, he his the higher ceiling, the better ground game and the more diverse striking package. This fight will show us where he is. If you are going to play it safe, call it for Emerson. I like Nover by split decision.
Torres vs. Guillard
Guillard showed up on the scene with all of the (striking) talent in the world. What he has showed us in the years since is one of the lowest fight IQs in the game. Guillard has rare, rare power, and can always win. That being said, he know how to lose. If this fight goes to the ground, and it will, Guillard will lose. Torres represent Nova Uniao. That counts for something. Torres by sub in the 1st.
Danzig vs. Bucholz
Danzig is absolutely my kind of fighter. He is good all-around. He has tight, competent boxing. He makes few mistakes on the floor. He is a driven, talented fighter. Danzig's problem is that he just doesn't have the body and athleticism to fight at the highest levels at 155. I have always called Bucholz to lose, and he seems to win somehow. I don't see him winning here though. He isn't a good enough wrestler to make anything happen. Danzig wins a hard, but unanimous decision.
Serra vs. Trigg
Who the F knows man. Both of these guys are a roll of the twelve-sided die. Trigg is notorious for being RNCed, so I called that Mayhem Miller, who excels at RNCs, would beat him. Trigg proceeded to beat Mayhem up.Serra, the jiu-jitsu black-belt, is best known for beating the tar out of GSP. I like Serra better, does that count for anything? I think Serra has more power. Trigg has better wrestling, but Serra isn't that worried about getting taken down, however, he doesn't submit much from the bottom. I say Serra by split-decision.
Maia vs. Miller
Ouch. They are puttin' the hurt on me. Two of my favorite fighters in a similar style match-up. I am a big supporter of Miller's career. He has a real, pulling, yanking, strength submission game to go with a wrestling base. Maia hovers above this world on the BJJ mother ship laughing at the rest of us vain attempts at the graceful art. I see this as the kind of match-up I see in the gym a lot wherein the Shooto guy has a very good, strong, basic submission game that they can lay on quick and strong. Maia would be playing the part of the sub wizard in the gi studying Youtube on the weekends and flipping through all the obscure books. What makes Maia different is that he has some rare athleticism to back it up. I want to pull for Miller, and his savvy could make this a little interesting, but Maia still gets the sub in the 1st.
Swick vs. Thiago
No one can say that Thiago has gotten the easy road here in the UFC. Apparently he has to fight the entire American Kickboxing Academy roster to get anywhere. This is a hard fight and I would rather see Thiago get more of a chance to develop. The odd thing about Swick is that he uses his monster reach more to get under-hooks than to jab. He has some good tight hooks and some sneaky power. Thiago has real power too, and a ground game. Swick probably takes this by having more experience, but I say Thiago by KO in the 2nd.
Marquardt vs. Sonnen
I often talk about "my kind of fighter." Sonnen is not that. He is an asshole Republican real estate agent who wrestles people until they get bored with their own careers and retire to the decision. He is kind of ridiculous and notorious for getting subbed, screaming and crying and then saying he was never subbed. Marquardt has the complete game. Just complete enough to never beat Anderson Silva. Sonnen can out wrestle him, but Marquardt will take advantage at every other opportunity. I call Marquardt by screaming sub in the 2nd.
Couture vs. Coleman
Two pioneers. One successful and respected. One bitter and pitied. Coleman once dominated the sport to such a degree that they had to change the rules. Of course that rule was no headbutting. If that is your only skill and you never progress then....then.....you become Mark Coleman, who I feel bad for, but who had every opportunity to get better and didn't. Couture, on the other hand, was a wrestler who got arm-barred by Enson Inoue (who owns my gym) and progressed to someone who could fight to a draw with Jacare in a grappling match. Couture also has very good boxing. I will give Coleman the power edge, but he doesn't use it so effectively. Coleman also has better single and double-leg take-downs, but does that really matter against Couture who lives for the clinch? Two old men come out smelling like Old-Spice and Icy Hot and gum each other......or....or Couture by TKO in the 3rd.
There it is kids. Donate it to Haiti. Apparently I have been taking this space to taunt Arash Markazi, not knowing that he was battling and beating back cancer. Beating Cancer, Arash, well above average. Your MMA writing, somewhat below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
