text:
If I go there will be trouble
An' if I stay it will be double
A woman I know claims to have had three marriages—all with the same man. There is the marriage when they were young, combative, volatile, restless, when her husband was climbing, building, stretching, his energy threatening to consume her. That was the marriage into which their children were born. Then there's the second marriage in which their children were raised. It was the time in which she learned to draw boundaries, to claim the mother ground within her and to stand fast. To let him be what he is and learn to live with his very nature, and to find her own life. Now, there's a third marriage—they're older, the children raised and lovely; her husband's inexhaustible supply of energy seems to have settled to a steady flow; he's divesting himself of his companies, talking retirement, and she's talking about it in some beautiful, foreign shore, like Majorca, or Monterey Bay, or Rio de Janeiro—if only her dogs didn't have to go into quarantine for six months. We've always believed they've loved each other; now, they seem to actually like each other.
In the novel Divining Women, Kaye Gibbons presents the dilemma of two people who enter marriage with assumptions they thought were so perfectly clear, they never needed discussing. But, when the husband takes his young wife to India for an extended honeymoon because the husband "wanted to see what they thought mattered in Calcutta," the marriage is doomed. In Calcutta, the husband discovers that what matters in Calcutta is "not whether the fricassee was prepared right." He remembers, "so many things made an impress on me. Manners meant dignity and not causing another person pain. But I was certainly causing my new wife pain. Poor thing, she hated it, and hated me for taking her. I was leaving her asleep in the mornings and walking out to the river and weeping. I wished I'd found out everything I did before I married her, but we all learn what we need at the right time, when we can bear the news. If she and I had been able to let one another be, things would have worked out differently.
The wife, however, cannot forgive him for being who he is. She "was determined to make him pay for, as she described it, one day marrying her in high Episcopal style, with the promise of including her in the exquisite Washington society he had always known, and then announcing right after 'that strange honeymoon trip to India, of all places,' that he was now ready to explore some nontraditional interests he had been hoarding. . . . She was angry that he could not simply be satisfied with the vision of the two of them floating forever on a river of inherited family money. By her lights, he could work in the mornings, managing investments, have lunch at a club, and then come home and tell her how handsome she looked in her new clothes. She had everything sorted out."
The young husband tried to tell her, "he had not duped her or misled her." But "she would not let herself understand that he was only searching for an identity beyond his family's wealth and position. He could not make her see that he would be a happier man if he could satisfy his vivid curiosity and that they were both blessed that he had the means to do it while keeping her beautifully clothes and shod." He tried to explain "a hundred times in a hundred ways that they could each do everything they wanted to do, individually and together, that he had realized how unfair it was for one of them to wither while the other thrived."
I'm of the mind that when we marry, we marry a creation, fired mostly by the hopes and dreams which started long before we ever stopped at that library table on the fifth floor of the Harold B. Lee. Then, as the husband in Diving Women said, we learn things about them and they learn things about us, "when we can bear the news."
My question is, "What does it mean to 'bear the news?'"
I've often thought that I agreed to be married to Kevin more than once. The first time, I did it publicly, kneeling across an altar, and promising to give myself to him and create a union with him. The other times were just between me and myself. Those moments when, looking at the situation, you agree again, in your heart and mind, to be married this new particular way. You know, when you see that, no matter what you thought and hoped and dreamed, he will never sing you to while he plays the guitar and the two of you stare into the flames of a campfire he has started himself. I remember one night when we had been married about eight months (which means I was about seven months and three weeks and five days pregnant), we were awakened to footsteps on our roof. I nudged Kevin, and said, "Go out there. See who it is." He replied, without hesitation, "You go out there. I don't want to go out there." Moments like that, when the heart of a lion you always imagined shows itself to be, in this particular situation, the heart of a lion cub. That's when you think to yourself, "Hhmmm . . . That's how it's going to be." The corollary is one of two possible responses. Either, "I suppose I will agree to live with that." Or, "That I cannot do."
The incident on the roof is small compared to finding out your wife is cheating on you, or your husband has a longstanding addiction to pornography that he cannot, and seemingly does not, want to break. But I think the question one faces is the same: "What do I do now?" I know there are some people who have said, only half in jest, "If you cheat on me, I'm cutting it off." But, I'm not so sure the next action in a marriage when you run up against the line you've drawn is a given. You don't have to stay—as you might feel pressured into by your faith. You don't have to leave—as you might feel advocated by your parents and close friends. You can choose to leave or you can choose to stay. Either choice is a valid choice. Perhaps not the choice that would be made by your husband, or was made by your mother who encountered something similar, or that is advocated by your local minister who, in a spirit of full disclosure, is mandated to advocate for the preservation of the marriage and the family. But either choice is a valid choice. Neither one is an easy choice or the end to all your troubles. Both choices have work attached to them.
Here's what I would think about if I were at what I thought was a marital crossroads:
1) I take me with me.
I do know that if I left Kevin today, I would take with me my insecurities; my almost pathological need to eliminate all financial risk; my weird wiring when it comes to intimacy and sexual fulfillment and its direct correlation to the size of my stomach; my shoe fetish; my seeming inability to pack away laundry and throw away old issues of Sunset magazine because I might need to know the location of the west's most beautiful secret campsites which have now been revealed to 235,000 readers and which, if I'm married to Kevin, I'll never need anyway; my longing to be somewhere else other than where I am that rears its ugly head every few months; and my inarticulate love for him in the face of his actually requesting to be told by me that I love him. I'll take all of me with me. And, when or if I start again with somebody else, it will be with me still. That's the news of me. So, even if Kevin did go out and hire the entire Laker Girls team, I'd still be taking me with me if I left. (Just to put the record straight, in our marriage, it is far more likely that it would be me hiring Michael Flatley and his flock of Riverdancers.) And this man, flawed as we both are, loves me and the junk in my trunk.
2) The news is not altogether unexpected, and cuts right into the heart of our own frailties.
As much as we try to pretend we are shocked at what our spouse has done, the news is, more often than not, not altogether surprising. Their acts seem to be attached by a nylon cord right to the very center of our own frailty. Their act/tendency is what we have seen and refused to name because by naming it, we have to acknowledge that there is this thing about our spouse that really makes us feel nervous, unloved, unwanted, threatened, or even fearful. I have found that there are certain qualities in Kevin that I am attracted to, which, in their unadulterated, pure state also happen to unnerve me. I've come to understand that, in some strange cosmic algorithm, we choose partners whose strengths cut into our weaknesses, and who will force us, just by being who they are, to move out of our comfort into new and better ways of being—if we so choose.
3) Most acts don't have automatic consequences, especially not the ones we want to be affixed.
There's a legal concept called strict liability. It means that once the act is done, the punishment is affixed. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to do the act or you didn't know the act was a crime. If you do it, you're guilty. For example, speeding is a strict liability crime. It doesn't matter if you thought the speed limit was 85, and so kept it at 84. All the police officer needs to do to prove you guilty of speeding in a 65 mile per hour zone is clock you going over 65.
Adultery doesn't work that way. Being the wife of an adulterer does not mean you get out of the marriage free. Nor does being the husband of a shoplifter or a manic depressive. There aren't many strict liability crimes in the gospel law reporters. Nor have I found a gospel sentencing guideline that mandates that some acts are just so much worse than others. What makes a seeming inability to turn away from pornography more abhorrent than a woman who refuses to give herself willingly and joyfully to her husband, choosing instead to lie in the bed made for her by some abusive male in her past. Tell me why an inability to stop spending on credit cards to fill the emptiness inside is less troubling than the man who is still playing Modern Warfare 3 at the age of 37. The impact on the other spouse is equally as painful in each circumstance. However, when it comes to sexual improprieties, our community seems to think that the particular piece of news of infidelity is an instant get out of jail free card.
If, in the face of our spouse's infidelity or unceasing bad moods and inability to love and appreciate us or our long-standing unhappiness, we choose to leave a marriage, the choice is actually ours. That's an important distinction to make. Their act might have driven you to ask the question, "What do I do now?" The answer to the question is not an automatic "This marriage is over."
4) The invitation to become "even as I am" is never more meaningfully issued than in a marriage between two equally flawed partners.
At times, it would appear that the choice before you is completely clear. It's those times when your stomach's heaving, and your mind recoils at what has been done. At this moment (and in those other moments where the rage will rear its head and infect your present), you want to rip his head from his shoulders, kick it down the stairs, and then stop to bandage the wound. At this particular moment, the need to inflict equal pain to the pain you feel is probably the overwhelming urge, followed by waves of an almost self-pitying, "How could I let this happen to me? How could I have been so blind? I'll never be able to trust him again. " Even in this moment, when face to face with your partner's frailty, that has, it seems, ripped through the heart of you, one very real option is to stay and to learn, with this person, what it means to be married "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for time and eternity".
In reality, ninety-nine percent of what the human mind can conceive of doing is forgiveable, and the doer redeemable. Even by us. Christ forgave the adulterer a.k.a the cheating spouse—real or virtual. He embraced the unbeliever, a.k.a. the non-church attending spouse or the one who left the fold even when she promised she wouldn't. He welcomed the thief a.k.a the spouse who takes what is not his; and forgave the betrayer and his accusers, a.k.a. the spouse who puts other interests before his/her family and the spouse who believes every false rumor and innuendo. Christ forgives them all. He does not refuse them membership in his church, or entrance into his temple. He allows their lives to go on, and continues to bless them in accordance with their efforts and best intentions. The quality of His mercy, like Portia describes, "is not strain'd/ It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven/Upon the place beneath."
This concept of Christ's mercy is what I would think long and hard about the most. Because, long after Christ and my spouse have worked their issues out, I might be standing, with my arm raised, waiting to be called on to offer my opinion as to the injustice of it all and the appropriate punishment. I would be waiting for the pound of flesh that is never taken. And I would have missed completely the invitation to become even as He is.
In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock, tired of being persecuted for being a Jew by the Christian merchant Antonio, writes a contract the breach of which allows him to take a pound of flesh from Antonio. Salerio, his friend, asks Shylock why he would write such a contract. What would he do with a pound of flesh? Shylock replies: "To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge." I suspect there's many a good woman who stands with her broken marriage contract in hand waiting for God to take his pound (two would be better) of flesh out of the man who broke her heart and broke up their family. And she keeps on waiting. God, it seems, allows the man to go forward with little or no apparent consequence for his actions. It's rather a conundrum to find oneself in: watching as a man who promised to love you and honor you and be faithful to you breaks his promise, then gets only what appears to be a disciplinary slap on the wrist, while you are left with the kids, and he remarries—in the temple! Hardly seems fair; his probation doesn't seem equal to the pain he caused you. Yet, on he goes, while you stand helpless to stop his progress and unable to gain fitting revenge.
The conclusion to Portia's speech on mercy is particularly poignant here: Mercy "droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven/Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
I suppose what I am trying to say is that at the moment where we see clearly the particular news of our marriage, there is a very real opportunity to step forward into a new space, to stay and work through this with the one person to whom we have bound ourselves in a union larger than our present, individual feelings and needs. I don't believe that extending mercy means we have stay. It's not mandatory. But there is always contained within the act of one who hurts us, an invitation to forgive. When it's our spouse, the invitation to forgive includes an invitation to stay. And, if we do, I sense that there could result from that decision a kind of union that many of us perhaps never reach. Imagine the relationship that is forged between those who chose to remain married, and honestly work through each other. Imagine the intimacy, the depth of feeling. It could be, I think, a sweet, deep and powerful life together.
Title: "Should I Stay or Should I Go," by The Clash.


text:
Thankfully, we don't need it for groceries or anything, but every time I receive $ that is supposed to be 'just for me' it is SO hard to spend it on myself without thinking there is a 'right' way to spend the money. This is especially difficult when there are things you wind up needing as a family (new car seats for instance) that aren't necessarily budgeted for on a regular basis.
I do great coming up with ideas for what to use this gift for, it's just the making a final decision part that is tough. So here are the ideas I have come up with so far.
#1. Turning our guest bedroom into a playroom. A new coat of paint, new curtains, repainting some furniture would help me reserve my living room for more adult use and keep the toys out of sight and out of mind. :)
#2. New clothes. It has been a year since I had Melody and I am still not into those pre-pregnancy clothes. Maybe it is time for some new ones? Summer is coming up and I have very little that I can wear!
#3. Decorating the kitchen. Our kitchen is sad. White and off-white, nothing on the walls, clutter everywhere. Our kitchen could use some serious love in the color, decor and organization department. It is seriously depressing in there.
#4. New car seat. As I mentioned last week, car seat recommendations are changing. We are keeping the forward facing seat we already bought since it will fit Melody up to 100 lbs, in a 5 point harness for a long time and functions as a booster after that. But now she will likely have an interim where she won't fit the infant seat nor will she be ready to be forward facing.
#5. Registration for a conference for my business. It is an awesome training opportunity and very motivational. My business can obviously cover this expense, but if I went ahead and paid for it now with my birthday moo-lah, I wouldn't have to worry about making enough this month to cover it and I could focus on earning for the plane ticket, hotel cost, etc. (If you are interested, check out my business website here.)
So there are lots of options. Let me say that I know for many people these are difficult economic times, so I am thankful for this gift from my parents. Having extra money is definitely a good problem to have, and one that not many people get to enjoy right at the moment.
But just for the fun of it, here's my question this week.
If you had extra money this month, what would you spend it on?
Thanks for reading again this week!
Love, Rachel

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thanks to Mark at work, I've begun to harbour a plan to walk the South Coast Path from Minehead in Somerset down and around Devon and Cornwall to end up in Poole, Dorset.
Looks like it might take a while...
Last weekend I set off straight from work to embark on the second stage of my walk, starting from my previous end point and basically going as far as I could get and back again. Rach was away at her parents' in Devon with the boys so I had friday night and the whole of Saturday before I had to get home.
When it comes to these kind of micro-expeditions (and let's face it I never do any major expeditions), what I lack in organisation tends to be compensated for by enthusiasm - Rachel calls me 'Affable Matt' when I'm in this mode and always remarks on the contrast to my usual dour defeatism. Giving the owner of Broomstreet Farm his due, he took my 'please can I park at your farm' congeniality in his stride.
From the gate that marked my last turning point and then through sheep fields and down to the woodlands that skirt the immediate coastline.
There was a group of stags on the skyline, I watched them regarding me whilst two of their number idly leant their antlers forward to absently headbut one another. I lost the light beneath the trees after a mile or so and began to question whether I should have stayed in the enclosed spot-that-would-have-done amongst the spruce and Dougies. Grey gateposts capped with wild boar heads emerged into the headtorch beam. There were definite tones of the Whicker Man here. The presence of the surrounding darkness of tree mass drew closer and then, around the corner, a brightly lit lodge house emiting the sounds of soap opera with the door just opening.
She'd come out to tip some cooking fat into the wood and told me that the coast path was not a place to be out on at night.
"It'll be alright," I said hefting my pack and trying to sound like I did this shit all the time. My affability must have let me down on this occasion because she didn't ask me to stop for tea or let me pitch up in her garden. Through the windows I saw many pairs of antlers mounted on the wall and pictures of hounds just about to rag the life out foxes.
"Stay on the path..." it was all getting a bit American Werewolf...
Ended up pitched on the path itself at the one point where the vegetation seemed to clear. I had panoramic views across the Bristol Channel to the level orange strings of lights in Wales and a clear mobile signal through to Rach. The evening meal was international: chille con carne, pilau rice and dutch lager. I am a profoundly simple soul - apart from a softer piece of ground, it takes no more than this to make me feel very complete.
Awoke in a forest of rhododendron and heavy dew. Clear skies.
Through woods with horizontal bands of sunlight and lichen sponges. Washed my face in a waterfall, surrounded by mosses blackened with saturation. Heard a raven's croak and the beat of its wings in the still air on the walk to the lighthouse at Foreland Point.
Lighthouses really were built to last. Granite steps that were barely worn after all this time. The place was deserted, so I took the opportunity to have a good nose round and a look through the windows into the rooms that had been converted by the National Trust into a holiday cottage. They looked a bit spartan, but then maybe that's the thing about lighthouses - the contrast between the romance of the setting and their sheer solidity and functionality.
Travelled through Lynton with its hill railway, past the mountain goats on the way to the valley fo the rocks. The hanging oak woodlands of woody bay and the subsequent coastline were perhaps the most attractive of the whole walk. I hit my furthest point at 3pm and realised that the walk back was going to be a bit of a killer. A pint of shand and some pork scratches were taken on board during refuelling...
On the bridge at Lynton and the hanging oak woods of Woody Bay
The last six or seven miles were done quickly and by head torch with only minor navigational problems caused because I couldn't recall the first 15 mins of the walk. Squelched through a bog for the first time in the whole walk and finally made it back to the car at 22.30.
The drive back home was less of a tiredness duel than I'd expected. Seized up spectacularly the next day.


text:
UFC 107 Predictions: How Small Can A Big Star Be?
Crap, we're going long on this one, as long (and likely as accurate) as a JaMarcus Russell deep throw. Odds are I'll end up picking Manny Pacquiao to win one of the undercard bouts.
BJ Penn is unquestionably a star fighter: considered probably the best 155 pounder in the world, he's one of only two UFC fighters to hold titles in multiple weight classes, he's headlined PPVs before and has for all his flaws the reputation of a bit of a living legend. He's special- pound for pound special and one-of-a-kind special, the kind of fighter everyone knows will be in the hall of fame for this sport whenever they get around to building a real one. In Diego Sanchez he has in theory a near-perfect opponent for business purposes: an entertaining fighter with several excellent wins including one over a star (Clay Guida) on television recently, a TUF winner from the early days when that meant something, and a guy who brings an odd, larger-than-life charisma into the bargain. It's a first-time match as well, which always helps. There's two problems though which will make the performance of this show on PPV interesting to track: there's not a great track record of lightweight title fights as headliners on PPV without a major co-main like Griffin-Silva, and virtually no one inside or outside the sport gives Sanchez all that much of a chance. We may not learn anything definitive when the buy numbers for this show come back, but given all the overexposure of late we should have at least some understanding of just how many people are willing to see BJ Penn defend his title. 380,000 buys is the prediction there. As for the fights….
Main Card
* Lightweight Championship bout: B.J. Penn (c) vs. Diego Sanchez
When two well-trained, professional fighters go at it wearing small gloves in a sport which has produced an amazing number of upsets in its short life, it's hard for me to ever pick one guy as a 100% mortal lock. Too much can go wrong, too many odd things happen- Vitor Belfort over Randy Couture by cut stoppage in 40 seconds or whatever it was, Frank Mir over Big Nog by staph infection, Matt Serra over GSP by lucky barroom punch, the list goes on from there. So I give Diego the 5% chance, the exact same 5% I gave to Forrest Griffin against Anderson Silva in a prediction post which opened with "Forrest falls head first into a wheat thresher, dies, the end."
What Sanchez has going for him is activity level and gas tank, and while BJ hasn't been falling victim to his failings in those areas as much as he used to his problems haven't disappeared- many people had Florian even or ahead in his fight with Penn at the time Penn choked him out (some 3-0!), on the theory that Penn just wasn't doing as much as Florian. That line of thinking has it that he seemed worried about gassing out in a five round fight, and thus left himself open to being outworked since he couldn't go 100% for 5 minutes of every round. I don't really agree with that, but all you need are two judges who do and for Diego to avoid getting clapped or choked for 25 minutes, and he could steal a sketchy decision that way. Sanchez has never been finished in 25 pro fights, and his two losses were to naturally larger high-end wrestlers one of whom he faced while suffering from a bad staph infection. If Penn can be the first to stop him, that really is a feather in his cap; if he can't, that's Diego's way out.
With all that said, there's two ways of analyzing a fight: paper qualifications, and comparison of what the fighters actually do. On paper, Sanchez seems a solid matchup; in the cage, well…it's very hard to figure out what he's going to do with Penn even if he is going at it in his crazy-go-nuts fashion to try and hustle his way to a points win. He doesn't hit particularly hard and his striking, while improved, is still a long ways from world class; he's not as good as Kenny Florian, not as diverse or as powerful, and Kenny got his ass kicked. There's no way in hell he's KOing BJ, and I'm not entirely sure he can even hit him hard enough to make Penn respect him. Penn is a masterful counterpuncher with very quick hands, excellent head movement and surprising power, and Diego will give him chances to dodge and counter. The odds are that Diego's ferocity and aggression will make Penn back up calmly at first, but by the second round he'll have adjusted to the timing and be smashing Diego repeatedly when he charges in with short hooks when Sanchez's hands drop. Sanchez strikes seemingly with the belief that he can just physically overwhelm his opponent, and many he can; but Penn is so superior in his technique that every little opening is exploitable to him. He's got the master striker's trait of seeming to be moving through time at a different rate than everyone else with an eerie sort of grace and calm, as though he knows what's going to happen before it happens. Anderson Silva has it, Floyd Mayweather has it, Roy Jones used to have it, and it's one of the most amazing things to see in action in all of sports. Diego Sanchez has improved his striking, but he could train with the best from now 'til doomsday, and he'll never have it.
Grappling wise his BJJ isn't in Penn's league right now either, and while he's a good wrestler he's also been out-wrestled himself before; it's almost impossible to see him regularly taking BJ off his feet against his legendary sprawl to get points for the takedown, and even if he does he's in BJ's guard which is not a great place to be for a lightweight. The idea of Sanchez tapping Penn doesn't even need to be discussed. So how does he beat him? About all I can come up with is that he would have to fight an ugly, ugly fight- push Penn against the cage, physically muscle him around, use footwork and make him chase, make him sprawl and defend shots, probably even deliberately foul him to be honest. Anything to make him expend energy, get his heart rate up and the adrenaline flowing, and do it early. Write the first two rounds off, hope he slows in the 3rd, 4th and 5th, and try to outwork him from there. It is the slimmest of hopes, especially since it's not really how Sanchez fights by skill or inclination.
With all that written, the pick is BJ by 2nd round RNC in a not overly-competitive fight. You know exactly what you're getting from him these days, and it's up to other fighters to scale the mountain. Sanchez has the heart and the desire, but he just does not have the skills right now in all likelihood. Penn will likely stun Sanchez at least once with a counter punch in the first against one of Sanchez's reckless charges, badly enough to make Diego want to try and wrestle; at some point in the second, possible after being hurt again, he'll probably try a shot which will end up with Penn reversing to top position, and from there it's a matter of time. It's very hard to see anyone in the current UFC lightweight division beating Penn.
* Heavyweight bout: Frank Mir vs. Cheick Kongo
I could be dead wrong on this, but it says here that Frank Mir is an accidental conman. A jovial, often likable, ticket-selling conman rather than a mustache-twirling snakeoil-selling 19th century carnival conman, but a conman nonetheless. His resurgence in UFC is based on three wins: beating Antoni Hardonk on the mat, a guy with infamously little ground game who's probably about to be released if he hasn't already been, beating Brock Lesnar in Brock's pro debut, and beating Big Nog who looked and moved like the living dead in that fight due to health issues. Yes, there's always an excuse for every loss and a way to devalue every win, but the mitigating factors here are pretty darn compelling especially factoring in the results of the second Brock-Mir fight and what a healthy Nog looked like against Couture. Kongo is a really, really big test for Mir, which will amount to: is Mir physically durable enough and has his striking improved to the point where he can hang with Kongo long enough to find a way to get him off his feet? As a pure striker, Kongo is a scary, scary man: he's fucking huge, he hits fucking hard, he can fight at almost any range and uses all 8 points effectively. He bullies guys and uses his size. He's only been KO'ed once (by Gilbert Yvel of all people, 5 years ago) and he takes a shot well, and he has a certain ineffable aura of meanness about him- the way he deliberately fouled Mostapha Al-Turk after Turk fouled him was not particularly sporting, but it got the message across loud and clear. He will run right over a guy who doesn't make him step back in respect.
Mir, of course, will win a ground battle. Kongo frequently looks lost down there especially off his back and is coming off a loss in which he was taken down, pummeled, taken down, pummeled, and taken down again. But can Mir get it there? Kongo's sprawl is meh, but Mir hasn't exactly been using his wrestling a great deal of late and his standing defense against a living opponent has been highly questionable, as has his chin. I started off with this fight thinking Kongo was going to kill Mir dead- he's never been tapped, and after the better-trained version of Lesnar he'll easily be the best opponent Mir has faced since his apparent career resurgence began. And yet… if you accept that the UFC version of Cro Cop was nothing close to the Pride version for various reasons, than Mir would be fairly easily the best win of Kongo's career, a career also dotted with losses to late-stage Heath Herring and Carmelo Marrero. That says something for a 34 year old who's been fighting professionally in MMA for 8 years and in UFC for 3. In some ways it's a battle of underachievers. There's apparently also talk that the otherwise inexplicable booking of this fight was intended as a punishment of sorts for Kongo- setting him up with a decent wrestler and arguably the UFC's second best heavyweight BJJ practitioner as a means of teaching him through experience that he needs to work on his ground game if he wants to compete at the highest level. I have no idea if that's strictly true, but if it is it tells you who insiders expect to win this one. It's a fight which gets more interesting the longer you think about it.
I've ended by talking myself into Mir. I have a recurring image of him getting Kongo along the cage, forcing him down, and just dominating from top position and eventually locking in a kimura. Alternately, I can see him going down when tagged by Kongo on the feet in order to induce Kongo to come down after him (the old Nog move) and either sweeping him with ease when Kongo gets too aggressive with his GnP, or else just catching him with an armbar off his back. Let's say Mir SUB Kongo 1, kimura. And if he does, I'll stop calling him a con man.
* Welterweight bout: Jon Fitch vs. Mike Pierce
No one outside the close families of these two fighters gives a tin shit about this one. It's sad but true. Few fighters with Fitch's talent have found themselves drifting quite so badly: not good enough to beat the champion, too good to put in with other top contenders lest he prove a spoiler, too well known to bury on untelevised undercards Okami-style, yet too bland and boring as a fighter to promote as a personality or minor draw in featured undercard fights. He's become the accidental gatekeeper, the guy used to tell just how real possible fluke winners are. He beat Paulo Thiago after Thiago beat Koscheck; but Thiago won a round of that one and looked good enough to ensure that he's being treated as a real guy and a developing fighter by UFC. Now Fitch draws Pierce, a relatively inexperienced 2 year pro with a college wrestling background who beat the respected veteran Brock Larson last time out by more or less out-wrestling him in a minor upset. Stylistically this should be different from the Thiago fight of course, but functionally it should serve the same purpose and turn out the same result- Fitch, decision.
* Lightweight bout: Kenny Florian vs. Clay Guida
Odd fight. Florian is like five Jon Fitches at this point, deader than dead at 155 as a title contender following two title fight losses but still alive as a spoiler since he's certainly not moving down and couldn't really be taken seriously moving up. On the upside he's got a bigger name and personality, so he's at least usable for 3rd fight on the card type fights like this, especially when the top two fights need a little help. And yet, therein lies the issue: if Guida wins this, him getting the next shot at Penn is a pretty decent bet promotionally and probably even makes some sense sporting-wise given Florian's ability, but for that to happen Guida has to beat a man most people will make the favorite over him. If Florian wins it's not as though UFC is screwed in the short term with Frankie Edgar and the Diaz-Maynard winner waiting in the wings, but nevertheless it will have the effect of retarding or killing off a potential 155 pound contender and the most popular one at that. In a division in which Penn is the prohibitive favorite over everyone, that becomes an issue- see what's happened at welterweight where GSP is reduced to fighting the likes of Dan Hardy. It's going to be a fun fight to watch, but the matchmaking here is quizzical.
I take it as given that Clay Guida can and will take down Kenny Florian. He's limited as fuck, but within those limits he's a very strong competitor and he has the virtue of staying close to his strengths, a bit of an anti-Wang. I also strongly doubt that Florian will be able to tap him off his back- Guida seems to be improving in the area of submission awareness, and if he's a blanket he's at least a heavy one. Florian's best stuff off his back is sweeps rather than submission attempts, and I'm seeing Guida stuffing most of that before it starts. If not, he's in trouble; he's almost never on his back and there's not much to say about him when he is, and Florian will tap him if they end up in that position. In some ways then, the dynamic of this fight is a re-run of Guida vs. Sanchez: can Florian, in the Sanchez role, do enough damage while they're standing to win rounds before he gets taken down? MMA judging being what it is there's sadly no chance he'll win a fight off his back despite the likelihood of his elbowing the living shit out of the top of Guida's head in this one, much as Sanchez did (and was unable to win a round so doing). Florian isn't as dynamic and hyper-aggressive a striker as Sanchez which could work against him as his slower and more technical style may be easier for Guida to shoot against, but his sweeping ability may make up some of that difference making this more of an up and down fight than Guida-Sanchez.
I'm going to end up going with Florian in this one. I hate (hate hate HATE) the "he has too many weapons and/or ways to beat you" line because it often tells you nothing at all about a fight, but in this case it has some slight validity- standing Florian is stronger and his kicks give him range over a pure boxer like Guida, he's not helpless off his back, his footwork is probably good enough to frustrate some of Guida's shot attempts by denying him proper angles to shoot from, and he's going to have chances to finish the fight in a way which Guida does not have, and which his close adherence to his style doesn't afford him. Florian would be easily the best win of Guida's career so far; Guida would be a solid to pretty good win for Florian. Florian RNC 3.
* Heavyweight bout: Paul Buentello vs. Stefan Struve
…On the main card? When Gouveia and Belcher is on the untelevised portion? Queer. I honestly don't know what to make of Struve at this point- I picked against him last time and was wrong, I think I picked against him previously and was wrong, and I (obviously) am having trouble getting past how unbelievably bad he looked against Junior Dos Santos. Time is proving kind to that loss however given how good Dos Santos has looked and how well Struve has rebounded from it, to the point where he almost seems a little like an MMA Amir Khan- hyped prospect with a memorable trait (for Khan his amateur medal, for Struve his enormousness) who suffered a brutal early loss in a step up fight, only to rebound and look impressive since then. I'm going to take him here, on the theory that he's probably as good a striker as Buentello is at this point and almost certainly superior on the ground; throw in his physical freakishness and 14 year age advantage, and he's the pretty easy pick. Hard to figure out how Buentello ended up on the main care of a UFC in 2009, frankly.
Preliminary Card
* Middleweight bout: Alan Belcher vs. Wilson Gouveia
This should be a good one, a damn good one really. Both guys are coming off of high-profile losses, Belcher at UFC 100 and Gouveia to Nate Marquardt in something of a 185 pound eliminator, and are at the stage where they need to prove something. Gouveia is 31; either he starts stringing together wins which will get him money fights, or time's going to catch him from behind half way there. Belcher is only 25 but he's already slipped towards gatekeeper/trial horse status, being used as such for both Yoshihiro Akiyama and Denis Kang in their UFC debuts and going 1-1 in the process. He's on the cusp of having to go re-prove himself in Strikeforce or somewhere. On the ground they're likely to largely nullify, Gouveia being better but not better enough to get the tap on a survivor like Belcher, and I suspect it'll likely be mostly a standing affair in any case. Gouveia does gas, but I suspect he'll win the first two with more precise and heavy striking and top game, and then hang on in the third for the decision win. Belcher really is a talent, but his development seems to have stalled of late.
* Lightweight bout: Matt Wiman vs. Shane Nelson
It's a good thing I don't watch many of these at home anymore, because if this makes TV on a set I own I'd be throwing bottle caps, shoes, junk mail, all kinds of crap at the screen. Shane Nelson makes me angry ever since I had to suffer through his last fight live, and Matt Wiman has an almost perfect chickenshit heel face/name combination. A loathsome matchup, this. Wiman's lost his last two but against better opposition than Nelson's ever faced, so I'll take Wiman. Decision.
* Welterweight bout: Johny Hendricks vs. Ricardo Funch
I ended up buying into Jake Rosholt just about the time he definitely proved against Kendall Grove that he was not ready for prime time, so perhaps my judgment on the Team Takedown crew is not the best; but I like Hendricks, like him a lot in fact. He's far too reckless and overconfident which leads to him giving up takedowns despite an excellent wrestling pedigree (2 time national champion), but he's got athletic gifts which so far have more than made up the difference. Good gas tank, strong, quick, and more than anything else he has the God-given unteachable power of the punch. He's got *WHUMP* power, bone-snapping power, Julio Cesar Chavez power- take your heart power. It's a one-shot eraser he can hit at any time against almost anybody from a variety of angles, and if he's a Wanger he's closer to a Josh Koscheck "so skilled it's almost not Wanging" sort of Wang than some of the more career-destroying varieties out there. All I know about Funch is that he's an undefeated newcomer out of Team Link with no particular buzz on him. I may be wrong on this, but I think Hendricks has the chance to be special, and while he'll have to adjust and improve to reach all of that potential I think even at this stage of his development it'll probably take more than Funch to take advantage of the openings he leaves. Hendricks KO1, horrifying right uppercut of death.
Now watch him Takayama-takedown himself into an armbar in the first.
* Middleweight bout: Rousimar Palhares vs. Lucio Linhares
I always like a good grappling battle on the card, and with luck this'll make PPV just for the variety. Palhares is younger and very, very skilled (even gave Dan Henderson a run, doing better than Bisping in losing a decision) so I'll take him by decision.
* Welterweight bout: DaMarques Johnson vs. Edgar Garcia
Garcia, KO. UFC seems to have all but given up on Johnson, not that I would argue.
* Welterweight bout: Kevin Burns vs. TJ Grant
Fun fact: Wikipedia lists Burns' win over Rumble Johnson as "TKO (Eye Poke)" Additional fun fact: Grant once fought a guy called "Elmer Waterhen" according to Wikipedia; of course, by the time I hit post that may well have been changed to "Amanda Huginkiss" or "Hugh G. Rection" or something similar, for all I know. And yes I'm making dick jokes because there's not a lot to say about this one. Grant, decision? Yes, let's say so.
I have no idea why this post is so long. Let's end it here- this should be a fun show.
I Love Anderson Silva
Because he saved that fucking show. This was enough of an experience that it'll probably get a few posts, so here's some initial reflections just on the show itself (bear in mind, I have no idea what made TV):
First off, it must be said, this was one of the worst UFCs in God knows how long until the main events, and I'm sure not all of that came across on PPV. The undercard was just an ocean of endless low-action decisions, some of them botched by the judges (more on that below), with a few fuck-finishes thrown in for good measure. This show was no good; this show sucked. It was dildos, it was very poor. It was….
No Buys.
And that is why I love Andy Silva, because when he dropped the hammer of Thor on Forrest- never my favorite guy- and finally looked like the doom-of-the-living fighter he used to be, the place came unglued and it was magic. One of those great, great memorable moments that makes a 20+ hour sleepless round trip to Philly worth while. When they showed the replay footage of that last jab which finished poor Forrest off, I'm sorry, but I cackled like a madman. 3 hours of pent up tension from a grotesque and disappointing undercard all let out in one go, when one of my least favorite fighters collapsed to the canvas like a toy robot with its batteries suddenly removed. Epic, glorious, superior. Silva saved the whole fucking show with that performance, and given that he turned around my first live UFC from "I hate life" to "YEAH AWESOME", I can't even be mad about his previous performances anymore. Come back Andy, all is forgiven!
– The Baba O'Riley video is absolutely everything it's cracked up to be. They'll never show it on TV because it's become this legendary live-events-only thing and the rights fee would be pretendous, but my God would that thing make some fans for life if you opened a network show with it.
– In the first bout, Villefort vs. Lennox, the finish was all fucked up. It was a good competitive fight (which Philly began booing literally 8 seconds in…) which could have gone either way, but Villefort caught an unintentional headbutt while going for an armbar and the fight was stopped due to a cut. Trouble was, the cut was ruled to have come from a punch so it was called as a shady TKO victory for Lennox. If they'd made it to the cards either guy could fairly have won; I thought it was even, with Villefort edging the 3rd. I'd actually like to see a rematch as it was one of the better undercard fights.
– Roop vs. Sotiropoulos was just one-sided, as George S. was the far superior grappler and largely ran over Roop.
– Riddle vs. Cramer was…ugh. Not the worst fight ever, but Riddle just took him down, and laid on him, and punched him a little…and laid on him…and changed position slightly…and punched him once….and laid on him….and my eyes glazed over…and he laid on him…..
Cramer had a guillotine early on, but it was arm-in and a hard finish, and after that he didn't have another good position until Riddle slipped on a kick attempt early in the third. Not much happened, but Riddle did use an armbar attempt from the bottom to set up a sweep, so he's starting to learn some skill to go along with his hugeness.
– Leites vs. Sakara was an abortion. It actually wasn't quite the sort of fight I was afraid it would be, but it was in fact equally bad in a different way. Both guys did very little but if anything Sakara stunk the joint out even worse- he was on his bike for huge chunks of the fight, fleeing into the night like he'd stolen something from Leites. Leites sorta kinda woulda coulda tried to chase him, but he'd throw these idiot high kicks that never had a prayer of connecting, or else he'd do these weird hopeless shots from far, far outside that really only worked once or twice, and other than a few brief moments on the ground he didn't do anything either. The crowd booed this to death and the ref actually called time in the third to tell both guys to stop fucking dancing and fight. And then to top this off, the judges completely fucked up the decision because as bad as Leites was, Sakara was twice again. So he had our second godawful fight of the night concluding with our second fuck finish of the night.
– Howard vs. McCrory was a perfectly fine and fun wrestling match, but a bit hard to take by this point as it was obvious that neither guy was going to finish. Howard deserved the win, but in fairness McCrory looked totally blown up in the 3rd and may have just hit the wall at 170. His future's clearly at middleweight, as he's a very young guy and looked more filled out and mature that ever before tonight.
– I hated Pellegrino vs. Neer far more than I hated Leites vs. Sakara. I just have no words for how much I hated this fight. Mostly it was just the wrong kind of fight in the wrong position on the wrong card I think, because it wasn't THAT bad; I'd just had enough lay-and-pray, obvious-2-minutes-in-it's-going-to-the-cards type of fights on the evening. Neer did not look like the guy who tooled Mac Danzig, and I wonder if his legal/substance issues are catching up with him or distracting him. Hope he can get those sorted out.
– Big Dog and the other guy was a better fight, and I'm glad to say that my total lack of faith in Kendall Grove has once again been rewarded with a performance commensurate with my estimate of his potential. How a 6'6 middleweight can have absolutely zero control of distance as a striker I have not a clue. Ultimately this one just seemed to boil down to: he couldn't keep Almeida off of him, and he couldn't keep it standing once Almeida got close. From there he was outworked, and there you are. Grove LOOKS like a guy who should be a tough package for anyone, but he just doesn't have the skills or the mental approach to take advantage of his physical gifts.
– Hendricks and Sadollah, well…look. Was it stopped early? A lot of people will tell you yes because Hendricks wasn't landing solidly in his final flurry, but all my instincts say Sadollah was OUT. He visibly tried to stand up twice after he went down and couldn't get his legs under him, and if you're the referee you're looking at a guy taking unanswered shots in a vulnerable position which he doesn't seem able to get out of. It wasn't the best stoppage of all time, but to my mind it's not an outrage. I thought the screwed up cut determination in the opener was a far worse offense, since there it gave a TKO win to the wrong guy as a result of a foul instead of going to the cards where the fight was in the balance, whereas here Sadollah was getting his ass kicked and the only question was whether that had happened long enough yet or not.
– Riley vs. Nelson got booted up from the unteleviseds for timing reasons and ended up screwed by the decision as it was another fight where it was obvious 2 minutes in that only one guy could win and he almost certainly wasn't going to be able to finish, so the crowd tuned out almost immediately. About halfway through a pretty decent fight broke out on the lower level which honestly had more action than 70% of the undercard, so of course that got the crowd's attention as well. Bit of a clusterfuck.
– Andy and Forrest was touched on above, but I'll add that word going around after the show was that Forrest had a broken jaw which accounted for his sprinting from the ring like that. No confirmation, just rumor. Ed Soares apparently almost got into a fight with the crowd as well, which I missed and just read about now at home. The more details I read, the weirder this show seems. It was very Philadelphia.
About Anderson's performance, what else can you say really? He just destroyed Forrest, either breaking his will or his jaw and eradicating him in the first round of a fight where Forrest may not have landed a single meaningful offense maneuver. If he wasn't taking Forrest seriously, you know what? Maybe he didn't need to. That was one of those performances which establishes both that stylistically it's an awful matchup for one guy and great for the other, but also that those two guys as fighters are in completely different classes. I cannot imagine Forrest winning a rematch in any way now; outclassed barely does it justice. Silva has this weird thing going in which he was first a babyface who no one was that into and wasn't a draw, then he was a heel that no one was into because of his awful fights, but he almost became this weird anti-hero tonight; he treated Forrest with outright disrespect in the cage, motioning him up and shaking his hands after he'd knocked him down and just acting like a giant prick…and then he got huge, huge cheers after the fight. Some of it may have been timing, some of it may have been some nice touches he threw in acknowledging the initial boos, but whatever it was I think this may just have finally made him at least something of a real star as opposed to just a truly great fighter.
– And the main event…was actually really, really good and the best overall fight of the show I thought. I honestly think the story of the fight was that at least one of two things occurred:
1. Kenny saw how GSP used clinchwork to tire Penn out, and decided to replicate that strategy without being able to make it anywhere near as effective.
2. Kenny got clocked hard in the first round and just went blank, retreating to a safety first mode either from instinct or because he felt overwhelmed.
For what it's worth, and I may be alone here, I had it 3-0 BJ entering the 4th. Florian got a lot of clinches but did so little with them, most of his kicks were blocked, and Penn was obviously landing the much, much (MUCH) harder blows. They were close rounds, but in none of them would I rather have been Kenny Florian than BJ Penn. Florian seemed very afraid to pull the trigger on his strikes and not even all that eager to roll despite a few nominal takedown attempts, and seemed to my mind (obviously I couldn't hear corner advice) to be essentially using the clinch because nothing else seemed to be working to him, and doing so at least partially nullified what BJ could do. And yet, even in those clinches, Penn landed very hard uppercuts and sharp elbows as the clinch broke and I got the sense that Kenflo was actually wearing down faster than Penn was. Obviously once Penn got top position it was over; the only surprise to me was how vicious his GNP looked- those short elbows just destroyed Florian.
Anyway, more on this later. The crowd dynamics of this one were at least as memorable as the fights themselves.
UFC Predicamications
No in-depth preview this time; I'll be attending my first live UFC for this one, and will probably be back Monday with comments on the live experience. Format stolen from Wikipedia because I'm lazy.
* Lightweight Championship bout: B.J. Penn (c) vs. Kenny Florian
Ah yes, the Prodigy and the Winner, the Beej and Kenflow, guy-who-hates-the-media vs. guy who works on ESPN's MMA show, Boston vs. Hawaii, orthodox vs. southpaw, natural heel vs. natural face, awesome talent vs. incredibly hard work. If one of these guys is a Democrat and the other a Republican, I would not be surprised; it's a good bet one's a Coke man and one for Pepsi as well. Other than being similarly-sized human beings they come to this fight with little in common and very different stories and styles, which to me is utterly fascinating. I absolutely love this fight, and while I freely acknowledge that Griffin and Silva is the big draw on this show, this is the fight which holds the most interest for me by far.
Stand up wise, it's an interesting contrast. As a boxer alone, BJ Penn actually is probably the best I've seen in MMA; he's become almost scarily good for a guy who first last and always will be known as a jiujitsuman, skilled at all the little tricks. His chin is excellent, it's rarely tested as his head movement is so good, his jab has become terrifying of late, and he's got enough power to hurt even granite-chinned types like Sean Sherk (yes, a knee KO'ed him, but punches set it up). He has a wide variety of punches in his arsenal including a nasty uppercut, and he throws them all in a defensively responsible fashion. His major weakness is simply that he's just a boxer; there's few if any kicks in his back of tricks, so he's somewhat one-dimensional. Florian, meanwhile, is a lefty Muay Thai guy with awesome footwork, and if there's a striking style out there to beat Penn standing, he's it- his movement is good enough to keep out of Penn's grasp and fight going forwards or backwards, he throws sharp elbows and cuts people, and he's developed a nasty kicking game to legs and body which seems to wear guys out. He comes in at odd angles, and his kicks probably give him a functional reach advantage. Not good news for Penn. If Florian lacks something, it's power- his official record has him with only 3 wins by KO- one a cut and another a 7 second fluke- and he doesn't seem to have the ability to really hit and hurt top-level opponents. But his strikes tell over time, and now he's got 5 rounds to work with.
On the ground, well, one guy's BJ Penn and if the other isn't GSP, the result is pretty clear. Penn's jiujitsu is legendary, and no more need be said. Florian's very good but if they're rolling for any length of time the best he can hope to do is survive and either get an escape when BJ tries something, or else stall it out for the standup.
So what happens? The X factor here is as always Penn's conditioning, and despite the bag of mouth emanating from Penn's camp I assume the usual BJ Penn will show up: deadly as fuck for 2-3 rounds. To win this fight Florian needs to keep it standing, move, point-strike his way to winning one of those rounds and then hope or cause BJ to gas so he can take the last two. I don't put much faith at all in Florian winning this fight on any kind of stoppage; Penn doesn't cut much, he's got a great chin, all jokes about his heart aside he's shown the ability to grit his way through even when blown up, and Kenny's not a megapowerful striker. There's always the chance he whacks BJ with a head kick unexpectedly or knees him to death when he's gassed, but I wouldn't put money on it. For Penn to win, he either needs to be seriously in shape for once or he needs to get it to the ground and keep it there, and in either case he has to be prepared or adjust in the cage to Florian's movement and odd angles. If it takes him too long to get comfortable, or he expends too much energy chasing Kenflo around, he will be in serious danger of losing the fight by just not being able to do enough to win rounds; he survives when gassed, but often does so by becoming passive, languishing in clinches and failing to move.
In the end, I have to pick BJ- he's more talented, I think he's going to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder for this fight given what happened last time out, and at some point in the early rounds I expect them to end up on the ground. My hunch is that Penn draws Florian in and cracks him with a big uppercut, follows him down and eventually gets the RNC while Florian's still stunned. Call it the 2nd.
Side note: speaking of BJ, it's past midnight here as I finish this up, and it sounds like two of my neighbors are just finishing something else up in the yard. Good on them.
* Light Heavyweight bout: Anderson Silva vs. Forrest Griffin
Griffin falls into a wheat thresher, dies, the end.
Seriously, this is not a great matchup for him if he fights like a doofus, which he may. People picking him have been saying that Silva is vulnerable to the takedown especially from the clinch, and from top position Griffin can GNP his way to winning rounds and possibly a TKO. Maybe. On the feet those same people are saying that Griffin is MUCH larger, that he's durable, that he'll engage a Silva who hasn't looked great of late and make him exchange with a larger, stronger man. Maybe. They're throwing in that Silva hasn't looked impressive in a while, that his last three opponents were respectively a coward, a joke as a challenger at this level, and a junkie, and that he lost the first round to Dan Henderson in their first fight. Arguable. And I would agree that if Griffin decides he wants to win above all, uses his chin to get past the initial flurries and ground Silva and punches steadily but cautiously from that position, he can definitely win this thing. But.
But folks he's got to fight Anderson Silva for 5 rounds. For a decent portion of that it's going to be standing- Silva's not that easy to clinch, he moves well, and if he thinks he needs to dipsy-do dodge and stink the joint out to avoid that takedown he will. And while they're standing, well: no one's ever been able to consistently compete favorably with Andy from that position and he's a counter-striker facing a guy who will come towards him and give him opportunities. Forrest is going to catch an almighty ass-whipping in this one even in the scenarios where he wins, and at the end of the day in 5 losses in his pro career Griffin's been KO'd three times, including last time out by a naturally smaller man. In a lot of ways Silva offers the same challenges that Keith Jardine did, except that Andy's bigger, a much better athlete, a more skilled and disciplined striker, and a more naturally vicious finisher. I think Anderson Silva wins this by TKO, I think it's competitive only in spots, and I think it lasts until the 3rd round only because I suspect Andy's still going to fuck around a bit out there and Forrest, whatever else you can say about the guy, is insanely physically tough.
* Welterweight bout: Amir Sadollah vs. Johny Hendricks
S'dollah dollah billl y'all! Amir's so cute you want to put him in your purse and take him home, if you have one, but I do not and frankly I've somehow become completely sick of this guy despite the fact that the reason I'm sick of him is that he NEVER FUCKING FIGHTS. It's been over a year since the last time he's gotten in there and he's pulled out of two previous fights, and despite that he's all over UFC advertisements and such. I recognize this bothers me more than it should, but what can you do?
Anyway, this one is going to turn on how good Amir's grappling actually is because he's facing a 2 time national champion wrestler who WILL take him down. What gives me pause is that Hendricks trains with a guy he wrestled with at OSU, Jake "watch the guillotine" Rosholt who's so far demonstrated exactly zero standing defense, head movement, or meaningful grappling acumen beyond wrestling so far in his short career. I don't have strong memories of Hendricks from his first two WEC appearances (at least one of which wasn't shown on TV, and the other may not have been either) so it's hard for me to judge from him directly, but it's a worry. On the other hand Amir tapped out CB Dollaway and Matt Brown to make his reputation; Brown's tapped in 5 of his 7 career losses, and Dollaway's tapped in his only 2, so all we know for sure is that Amir is death to shitty grapplers from Ohio. Meh. Let's say Amir hangs around long enough to tap Hendricks with an armbar from the bottom.
* Middleweight bout: Kendall Grove vs. Ricardo Almeida
I don't buy Kendall Grove. Don't even rent him, frankly. But Big Dog hasn't looked all that great since his comeback and had no real business losing to Patrick Co-fucking-te by decision last year. On the other hand, he just lost his way and then a decision in that one- Grove got KO'd by the same guy about a year previously. The MMAth here doesn't really add up for either guy. I throw up my hands. In their respective primes on their best day Almeida taps Grove quicker than instantly, but the Brazillian's now 32, his two comeback wins are over a guy who never won a fight outside of Alaska and another guy who's lost 3 of his last 4 on his way out of the UFC, and he just hasn't looked that good. An 8 year age gap. I'm taking Almeida- that's how little I buy Kendall Grove. Taps him in the 2nd, say RNC.
* Lightweight bout: Josh Neer vs. Kurt Pellegrino
Another bout which invites MMAth-type analysis. Both fought Nate Diaz, both lost, Neer by split decision and Pellegrino by triangle. Both fought Mac Danzig and won, although at radically different points of their and Danzig's career. Both fought Joe Stevenson, Pellegrino losing a decision and Neer winning one. Both will be having their 9th (!) UFC fight on this show, but Neer's piled those up in a year's less overall experience and somehow has nearly twice as many fights listed on the records I'm working from as Pellegrino- despite being 4 years younger. Pellegrino's 5-3 in the UFC; Neer is 4-4. It's actually quite good matchmaking in that both guys have an all-actions rep and there's nothing obvious to pick a winner off of, and whoever takes it will start to get some steam on them as a result. I'll take Neer, just because he seems meaner and more determined, seems to believe in himself more and is younger; he's been doing some stupid stuff recently though, so if his attention is divided he could easy lose this. Should be one of the better fights on the show.
Preliminary card
* Lightweight bout: Shane Nelson vs. Aaron Riley
A rematch of an apparently infamously crap stoppage which went untelevised at UFC 96 ("the forgotten show") and won by Nelson. Meh. I'll say Riley is motivated and takes it on the rematch. Decision.
* Welterweight bout: Tamdan McCrory vs. John Howard
For no better reason than that he seems intensely creepy I'm not a McCrory fan, but I'll still pick him here since he's probably more talented and gihugic for the weight. Decision.
* Middleweight bout: Thales Leites vs. Alessio Sakara
Christ. This one pisses me off. Tallest Ladies puts on one of the most shamefully reticent performances in recent UFC history because he's afraid to engage with a striker, so here he is selected as an injury replacement to face… a pure striker. Blah. My hope is that he redeems himself with a (vastly) more aggressive performance, because there's absolutely zero reason he shouldn't choke Legionarius out here. Let's say second round, arm triangle. If this is 3 more rounds of his last performance I'm going to be furious.
* Welterweight bout: Matt Riddle vs. Dan "Non-Dairy" Cramer
Riddle. He's a goofy muppet, but he's a big, strong goofy muppet. 3rd round KO?
* Lightweight bout: George Sotiropoulos vs. George Roop
Give me Sotiropoulos in this one. RNC, 2nd.
* Welterweight bout: Jesse Lennox vs. Danillo Villefort
Two guys, 22 fights listed on the records I'm working off of, 1 decision result between them. Should be fun at any rate- I'll take Villefort simply on suspicion that he's more skilled and has a better pedigree. Let's say triangle from the bottom.
Apparently TROLLS~ got into the UFC101 media conference call today and asked BJ Penn if he got his nickname during his days in gay porn. I really shouldn't laugh, but this is the same guy who apparently announced later in the call that he would never speak to Sherdog again because of things said in their FORUMS. He may be the most trollable man in the sport.
Best moment was apparently after they booted the gay porn troll, the next question was asked by Franklin McNeil who opened with "I have a followup…."
Boxing/MMA Conversion Chart, Pt. 2
Back with the second installment of these.
5. BJ Penn converts to Juan Manuel Marquez.
Similarities: Technically excellent and physically unimposing fighters who've fought their careers out slightly in the shadow of an important rival, in Penn's case GSP and in Marquez's, Pacquiao. Both as a result have something of a public reputation as whiners. Both are far from imposing physical specimens, and thus rely on a perfection of technique to achieve results- both are amazingly accurate strikers, and Penn adds his famous jiu jitsu while Marquez is the more varied puncher. Both are probably first-ballot hall of famers who've somehow always seemed a half-step behind the top 2 or 3 P4P guys in their eras.
Differences: Penn has a sort of perpetual fog of disappointment around him, a sense that he's not getting the most out of his career whether through lack of conditioning, or lack of improvement, or insistence in fighting at weights which don't suit him. Marquez by contrast has probably accomplished now more than had been expected of him early in his career, and there's really no fight you can point to and say conclusively that Marquez beat himself in through lack of preparation. Penn has fought all over the place weight-wise and sought out the big fights, while Marquez has seemed content at times to hang around at one weight and fight scrubs instead of seeking out career-defining superfights. Oddly enough though, when he does have those fights Marquez has shown the heart of a lion in coming back from adversity (recovering from 3 first-round knockdowns against Pacquiao, for instance) in a way which Penn never really has.
6. Randy Couture converts to Bernard Hopkins.
Similarities: The inspiration for this list and the most obvious comparison, it's two old men who've won multiple titles in multiples weight classes and succeeded far past the age of 40, beating up younger men despite being counted out and written off again and again. Both are possessed of brilliant insight into their respective sports and have demonstrated it as excellent TV analysts, both retain far more of their youthful quickness and endurance at this age than they have any right to, both hit harder than they're expected to and can be counted on for one unexpected knockdown in a thrilling decision victory (vs. Tarver, vs. Sylvia, etc.), both are really good wrestlers, both have a remarkable understanding of positioning and timing, both have a knack for suckering opponents into fighting their fight. Both (if Hopkins vs. Adamek is made) are likely to win their next fight despite being older than things like weather and the moon. Both have fought just about everyone with a nametag in their weight range at one time or another. Both have retired on occasion, and neither has ever meant it. Both have headlined huge shows, and both are regarded as one of, if not the, foremost fighters of their era.
Differences: One's Sub-Zero, the other's Scorpion; they're palette swaps of each other for all intents and purposes, with biography the only serious difference. Couture was a military man and amateur wrestler who was obviously great from the start ("The Natural"), winning the UFC heavyweight title in his 4th pro fight. Hopkins was a criminal who did prison time (5 years), and who lost his pro debut before dropping down in weight and becoming what he became. If you want to really look for something, Couture is more beloved while Hopkins is more respected; Couture has also won more total titles, while Hopkins dominated middleweight in a way Couture never quite did at any weight class.
Fun Fact: in all the furor over this horrible pro wrestler invading UFC, it's fun to remember that Randy Couture's first UFC opponent was this guy.
A few other quicker ones, which are more provisional:
7. Cain Valasquez converts to Jorge Linares
Similarities: Both are fantastic young prospects with awesome reputations and a strong measure of early pro success, marred by one crucial flaw. In Linares' case, he can't stay healthy enough to fight consistently; in Velasquez's, he's got a chin about which people are starting to ask serious questions after Cheick Kongo cracked it twice. Neither guy is so far exactly a killer KO artist either.
Differences: A vast weight difference, and most importantly simply that each guy is early enough in their career that we don't really know what they'll become.
8. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua converts to Miguel Cotto
Similarities: Both have been dominant fighters in their division and at times considered the best regardless of who held the actual titles, and both are defined as fighters by their offense. Both had serious setbacks due to physical injury, Cotto from the illegal and disgraceful beating he received from Antonio Margarito's loaded gloves, Shogun from a long series of knee problems which kept him out for over a year. Both may be walking into a buzzsaw next time out against Manny Pacquiao and Lyoto Machida, though there are people who are picking both men as underdogs. Both have records with very few goobers, derelicts, butt-scratchers and humanoids on them. Both had a good win last time out, but with real questions attached- Cotto about his durability, Rua as to whether the guy he beat was any good any more.
Differences: Rua has a much better and longer track record against top, top, top opposition; however that record is also suspect for a reason Cotto's can't be, given the switch from PRIDE rules to UFC.
9. John Duddy and Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. convert to Kimbo Slice
Similarities: Vaguely ethnic drawing cards whose fame has come from means other than actual in-ring accomplishments, and who owe the careers they have to shrewd promotion and matchmaking. None are really any good, and all either are likely to or already have folded against the first serious opposition they faced.
Differences: Kimbo's a lot more famous than those other too goofs, and he's also shown a resilience as an attraction which they haven't by getting himself on TUF. Heard anything about Duddy recently since the Billy Lyell fight? Me neither.


text:
Randy Willis
Randy Willis
Randy Willis is an American novelist, biographer, and music publisher.
He is the author of Twice a Slave, Three Winds Blowing, Louisiana Wind, Beckoning Candle, The Apostle to the Opelousas, The Story of Joseph Willis, and many magazine and newspaper articles.
Randy Willis…novels about adventure, family, faith, and the character of a man that touched generations.
Coming soon: A series of Children's Storybooks beginning with Ole Sally Swims the Mighty Mississippi.
Amazon author's page:
One of my favorite novelist, Lewis Wallace, was inspired to write his second novel, in 1880, by an agnostic. The novel was conceived after sitting on a train, listening to Colonel Robert Ingersoll for two hours.
Wallace wrote that Ingersoll poured out "a medley of argument, eloquence, wit, satire, audacity, irreverence, poetry, brilliant antitheses, and pungent excoriation of believers in God, Christ, and Heaven, the like of which I had never heard."
Until then, Wallace had been indifferent to the claims of Jesus. He wrote, "Yet here was I now moved as never before, and by what? The most outright denials of all human knowledge of God, Christ, Heaven… Was the Colonel right? What had I on which to answer yes or no? He had made me ashamed of my ignorance: and then–here is the unexpected of the affair–as I walked on in the cool darkness, I was aroused for the first time in my life to the importance of religion… I thought of the manuscript in my desk. Its closing scene was the child Christ in the cave by Bethlehem: why not go on with the story down to the crucifixion? That would make a book, and compel me to study everything of pertinency; after which, possibly, I would be possessed of opinions of real value."
Wallace subtitled the book, a tale of the Christ. He later wrote, "It only remains to say that I did as resolved, with results — first, the book Ben Hur, and second, a conviction amounting to absolute belief in God and the Divinity of Christ."
Vaya con Dios,
Amazon author's page:
The year was 1920. The son of a poor sharecropper from the now-ghost town of Beech Springs in north Louisiana decided he wanted to get an education. His family was so poor that he did not have a bed in which to sleep until he was nine years old.
Upon graduation from high school, he began the task of choosing a college. One of his neighbors had something called a college catalogue. Later he would recall, "I was amazed and believed you could order a college just as you ordered something from Sears. I'd never seen a college, had never been on a college campus, but I read it and it told all about Louisiana College at Pineville. I decided that's where I would try to go." The college had been established just fourteen years before in 1906.
But how could he pay for tuition, books, housing, and food? He didn't have any money or know anyone that did. He decided to try and get a job at the college. On his second day on campus he went to the college employment office and found a job in the soon to be named Hattie B. Strother Cafeteria. Hattie was the beloved Dean of Women of Louisiana College. She would serve as Dean of Women for 21 years. Hattie Strother's maternal great-grandfather, Joseph Willis, had preached the first sermon by an Evangelical West of the Mississippi River, but it would be a decision by her brother that would forever change Louisiana history.
Hattie's brother, Willie Strother, was a history professor at Louisiana College. He would teach there for 35 years. The young sharecropper's son would attend his classes. He wished to get his degree in history. It would also be during the student's freshman year that a classmate of his and Willie and Hattie's brother, Harry Winfield Strother, would die from injuries in a football game at Louisiana College.
After acquiring the job in the cafeteria he joined the glee club. Professor Dunwoody soon assigned him to the college quartet. He sang lead. About the same time he received a gift, a used guitar. He taught himself how to play it. As winter approached he became desperate for money. With his guitar, he began to sing on the street corners in Alexandria. When an officer would tell him to move on he would move to another street corner.
The young student's name was Jimmie Davis. He would graduate from Louisiana College, earning a bachelor's degree in history in 1924 and in 1927 a masters degree from Louisiana State University. He would become a two-time governor of Louisiana and record one of America's best-loved songs, " You Are My Sunshine. " He was inducted into six halls of fames, including the Country Music Hall of Fame, the Southern Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame, and the Louisiana Music Hall of Fame.
But none of this would have happened had it not been for two encounters on the campus of Louisiana College. In his third year of college Jimmie simply just did not have the money to continue. He tried banks for a loan. They all turned him down. Later, he would write, "Everyone ought to be hungry and try to borrow money at least once in their life. To be broke and turned down, well, it's something."
With his dreams put on hold the college boy found himself in back of a mule again, plowing and picking cotton from sunup to sundown . Jimmie made $75 and supplemented that by slipping back into Alexandria and singing on street corners. After one year in the cotton fields he was able to return to Louisiana College and obtain his degree in history when Willie Strother loaned him $120 (the equivalent of $1,500 today).
But, there would be yet another encounter on the campus of Louisiana College that would have a greater impact on Jimmie's life. While walking across campus a man introduced himself to Jimmie. The stranger was striking looking, well dressed, and friendly. Jimmie said, "At first we talked about football and baseball." He was the son of a sharecropper too.
Then he began to ask Jimmie questions and explained who he was. "I'm Robert G. Lee . I'm holding a revival in Pineville tonight and you're invited." Dr. Lee had served as pastor of First Baptist Church of New Orleans for four years. The bold and future three time president of the Southern Baptist Convention (and future pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis) added, "Jimmie, can I ask you something? If the Lord would call you today, would you be ready to go." Jimmie replied, "Dr. Lee, I hope He doesn't call me today because I don't think I could make it." Dr. Lee replied, "The Lord's been good to you, and it's something you ought to think about." He closed by saying, "I hope you'll come to church tonight."
Jimmie later wrote, "I realized that everything I had, everything I had ever had, and everything I would ever hope to have on this earth had come and would come through the grace of God."
Jimmie continued, "That night I went to church. Dr Lee gave one of his most famous and beloved sermons, Pay Day, Some Day. There's no doubt of it, the man had the finest command of the English language that I have ever heard. Before he had finished, I was ready to go down the aisle. And when he gave the invitation, I was the first one down and made public my profession of faith and united with that church." Willie Strother was there. He was a deacon in the church.
Jimmie would write of his beloved college, "Every man needs God as a partner because you can't make it by yourself. I knew it was my duty to try and contribute something to life, not just take from it, and I determined to try to be a better citizen. I believe that was the most important thing I learned at Louisiana College."
Jimmie Davis would go on to change Louisiana history and impact the lives of thousands through his music and life. In 1999, "You Are My Sunshine" was honored with a Grammy Hall of Fame Award and the Recording Industry Association of America named it one of the Songs of the Century.
"You Are My Sunshine," was designated an official state song of Louisiana in 1977.
The Sunshine Bridge was completed in 1963 over the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Governor Davis named it after his signature song. His horse was also named Sunshine.
Governor Davis died in his sleep peacefully at his Baton Rouge home on November 5, 2000. He was 101 years old and had continued to make public appearances until a few months before his passing.
~ Randy Willis
Amazon author's page: http://amazon.com/author/randywillis
Bibliography: Jimmie Davis's papers can be found at the Louisiana State Archives, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. An obituary appears in the New York Times, 6 Nov. 2000. An uncritical biography is Gus Weill's You Are My Sunshine: The Jimmie Davis Story, an Affectionate Biography (1977). Davis's first term of governor is well covered in Jerry Purvis Sanson's Louisiana during World War II: Politics and Society, 1939-1945 (1999).
Website: www.threewindsblowing.com
Amazon author's page: http://amazon.com/author/randywillis
Bibliography: Jimmie Davis's papers can be found at the Louisiana State Archives, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. An obituary appears in the New York Times, 6 Nov. 2000. An uncritical biography is Gus Weill's You Are My Sunshine: The Jimmie Davis Story, an Affectionate Biography (1977). Davis's first term of governor is well covered in Jerry Purvis Sanson's Louisiana during World War II: Politics and Society, 1939-1945 (1999).
A "chance encounter" with an unknown preacher and a question from Hollywood's most famous movie star would change his life. ~ Randy Willis
He was a huge star. And, the composer of many hit songs. The original manuscript of one of those songs is buried in the cornerstone of the Copyright Building of the Library of Congress, in Washington, D.C. He acted in motion pictures with Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, and his good friend John Wayne. And, he could sing. In 1934, he became the first recording artist signed by the American subsidiary of Decca Records. When television was in its infancy, in the early '50's, he was the West Coast's biggest radio star with a show syndicated nationwide.
But he was not happy and didn't cope well with the pressures of his high-profile career and sought relief in alcohol. His drinking and gambling problems began to severely affect his life and his family's life. Many times his drinking landed him in jail. Born in Kellyville, Texas, The Texas State Historical Association records that he identified himself as the "original juvenile delinquent."
His name was Stuart Hamblen. His life would change forever with a "chance encounter" with a young and unknown preacher and a question from America's most famous movie star.
In 1949, Stuart's wife Suzy, encouraged him to attend a prayer meeting with her. A young preacher by the name of Billy Graham was to speak to the group. Not a single newspaper had carried the story of young Billy being in town for a tent revival. But, among Billy's supporters was the influential Presbyterian Bible teacher Henrietta Mears, who had invited him to her home in Beverly Hills to speak to a group of Hollywood notables. The group was called the Hollywood Christian Group. It's goal was to reach the entertainment industry with the Gospel. Many were impacted by these meetings such as Ronald Reagan, Dale Evans, and Roy Rogers.
Suzy made sure they were there early, and she and Henrietta disappeared into the kitchen, leaving Stuart and Billy alone. The two men hit it off right away, and Stuart asked Billy if he would like to come on his radio show to promote his tent crusade. Billy show up at the radio station, and after the radio interview, Stuart urged his listeners to go down to the tent to hear more of Billy, and ended by stating, "Make sure you all come, cause I'll be there too!"
He had no intention of going, but Suzy wasn't about to let him forget his promise. That evening, as Stuart started to settle in for the night, Suzy appeared, all ready to go out the door. She looked at him and said, "You ready to go? You told everyone that you were going to be there. You don't want to disappoint your fans!" Reluctantly, Stuart went. She lead him down to the front row—dead center—right in front of the pulpit. Night after night, she would drag Stuart down there, front row center, until finally he couldn't take it no more. He had had enough and decided to escape. He packed up his hound dogs, and headed out for a hunting trip. It didn't seem to matter though, as the three-week campaign neared its end, since there was no sign that Stuart was under any conviction—of any kind—except to get out of there.
Sensing that momentum for the meetings was building, the local crusade organisers wanted to extend them, but Billy was hesitant. He put out a "fleece," and asked God for a sign. The next morning at 4:30, he was awakened in his room, at the Langham Hotel, by a phone call. It was Stuart Hamblen, and he was in tears. Billy shared the Gospel with him. The result was that he surrendered his life to Christ. That night, Stuart was at the crusade again and publicly gave his heart to Christ.
Stuart told the story of his conversion on his radio show. William Randolph Hearst heard it and sent a telegram to all his newspaper editors: "Puff Graham." Soon all of Los Angeles was buzzing about Billy Graham's meetings.
The Los Angeles Crusade of 1949 was the first great evangelistic campaign of Billy Graham. The campaign was extended to eight weeks. During the campaign Billy spoke to 350,000 people . By the end, 3,000 of them accepted Christ as their Savior. After this crusade Billy became a national figure in the United States.
Fourteen years later, during his 1963 crusade, in Los Angeles, Billy called Stuart's conversion "the turning point" in the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's ministry. Billy added, before Stuart accepted Christ the crowds were rather small.
Before his conversion, Stuart's radio sponsors regularly bailed him out of jail and smoothed things over because of his popularity on the radio. After his conversion, he started a new radio program titled The Cowboy Church of the Air which became nationally syndicated. A confrontation developed with his sponsors, however, when he refused to advertise alcohol. His much publicized departure from the program resulted in his being asked to run for President of the United States in 1952.
Now, about that song that Stuart wrote. The one that is buried in the cornerstone of one of the Copyright Buildings of the Library of Congress. It has been translated into over 50 languages around the world and was the first song to 'cross-over' becoming #1 in Gospel, Country, and Pop categories and starting the trend for ballad style gospel songs. It's been recorded by many artist, arguably most famously by Elvis Presley.
Shortly after his conversion, Stuart ran into his friend John Wayne on a street in Los Angeles. "What's this I hear about you, Stuart?" asked Wayne. "Well, Duke, it's no secret what God has done for me and he could do it for you too," Stuart replied . "Sounds like a song," said Wayne. Stuart went home, sat down at his piano and wrote It Is No Secret What God Can Do, in ten minutes.
It's No Secret (What God Can Do) by Stuart Hamblen
"The chimes of time ring out the news
Another day is through
Someone slipped and fell
Was that someone you?
You may have longed for added strength
Your courage to renew
Do not be disheartened
For I have news for you
[Refrain] It is no secret what God can do
What He's done for others, He'll do for you
With arms wide open, He'll pardon you
It is no secret what God can do
There is no night for in His light
You never walk alone
Always feel at home
Wherever you may go
There is no power can conquer you
While God is on your side
Take Him at His promise
Don't run away and hide"
Stuart went on to write 225 other songs including, This Ole House, Open Up Your Heart (And Let the Sunshine In) and Remember Me, I'm The One Who Loves You.
Vaya con Dios,
Randy Willis
Novels | Family | Friends | Ancestors | Newsletter
Amazon author's page:
It took me a year to gain his trust. I named him Big Jake after my Dad. He arrived at sunrise (at my barn) this morning for breakfast.
Much is spoken about the word love but with Big Jake it's all about trust and respect. I agree with him.
Vaya con Dios, Randy Willis
Website: http://threewindsblowing.com
Amazon author's page:
Three Winds Blowing trailer
Twice a Slave trailer:
Twice a Slave, the play trailer:
"Jimbo ignored them all, except to say, 'She's not crazy, just afraid.'
"Didn't take long for him to get a saddle on her. He climbed on her real slow like and rode with a new found confidence. She seemed to trust him.
"Suddenly someone cracked a bullwhip and yelled, 'Ride 'em, cowboy.'
"She must have jumped ten feet. And, as everyone hooped and hollered she reared up falling over backward on top of Jimbo. The horse got up but not the boy. He just lay there in the dry dusty dirt. I was the first one that got to him and he sure didn't look good. He tried to talk, so I bent down close to his mouth to hear his words.
"'Please get my Book, the one that boss Jake gave me.'
"First I thought I hadn't heard him right, but he said it real clear again.
"'Please get me my Bible.'
"I sent one of the others to fetch it from his saddlebags. I tried to make him comfortable, but there wasn't much I could do. Wondered how we'd explain all this to boss man Jake. When the Book arrived I show it to him. 'Here, Jimbo, here's your Bible.'"
"'Lay it on my chest and open it to John 3:16, please. Put my finger on those words.
"He spoke all raspy like.
"'Please, do it, please!'
"I found that verse and lifted his hand. He cried in pain cause his arm was broken. I placed his finger on the verse."
"'Tell boss Jake I made that decision just like he told me I should.'
"With that he closed his eyes and was gone." The barber had tears in his eyes as he ended the story.
✯ ✯ ✯
I paused a minute, then said, "Boys, I made three decisions after I heard the barber's story. The first was to name the creek we now live on Barber Creek. The second was to have you boys bury me one day with my Bible opened on my chest with my finger placed on John 3:16. And the third was to give every cowboy that works with us a copy of the good Lord's Word. Your copies are in the chuck wagon. Rooster will show you where."
Jeremiah and Jacob seemed to be moved the most.
Jeremiah spoke first, "Mr. Willis, our sister Mary told us about that Carpenter. Is He for real?"
"Boys, He's as real as the skin on my bones."
"What does that verse say Mr. Willis?"
"It says that whosoever puts his trust in Jesus will have everlasting life."
"What does whosoever mean? Who's that?"
"I reckon, Jeremiah, that's you and me and every cowboy and cowgirl. Even the mavericks, the culls, and the undesirables. God swings a mighty big loop. But, there's many a cowboy that doesn't want His brand."
There was a peace in the camp as an unseasonable cool breeze blew in.
Then Jeremiah said, "I want His brand."
Jacob added, "Me, too."
✯ ✯ ✯
An excerpt from Louisiana Wind by Randy Willis
Amazon author's page:
Sometimes you just have to hitch up the mules and ride. "Take a deep seat and a faraway look and keep your mind in the middle." ~ Jake Willis
photo: Josh Willis, Adam Willis, Randy Willis and Aaron Willis
Vaya con Dios, Randy Willis
Novels | Family | Friends | Ancestors | Newsletter
Website: http://threewindsblowing.com
Amazon author's page: