Today July 21st I am officially launching my marketing for the upcoming release of my first book, the Instruction Manual to learn How to Destroy a Country.
In the upcoming weeks I will be post updates related to the book launch, its cover, pre-order status, advanced reviews, a few excerpts, and of course the official launch date, as well as continue to write as I have been doing about current news, sports, movies and other themes. I will also share a few of my personal ideas related to the book and a couple of personal experiences which I consider should be fair for the reader to get to know me and learn a bit about me.
Twenty-five years ago and for the course of thirty days, the world witnessed magic in the basketball courts of Portland and Barcelona when the gods of the game graced together along a unique experience that most likely we will never be seen again, ever. A collection of eleven NBA players and one college player made up the Dream Team: The Best Team ever assembled
Today’s entry is a tribute to them and to that memorable ocassion. My intention is to share a bit of history and my take on the whole Dream Team subject before, during and after their Olympics venture.
The Best Team ever assembled
It all started in 1988 when the United States went back home from Korea’s Summer Olympics with an embarrassing Bronze Model. The International Basket Federation finally had enough of external pressures on globalizing the sport and gave in allowing professional players to play on international competitions -including the Olympics-. The NBA then, was asked to supply a list of players for the upcoming 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Initially the league was not too much into the idea, but eventually, NBA commisioner David Stern was convinced that the best players had to be selected in order to redeem the image of American Basketball as the world’s elite level nation. By May 1992, the squad was officially complete eleven NBA pros who were near or at their absolute peaks, plus one college player would make the trip to Barcelona in order to show the world who was the superpower of the world when it came to basketball.
Larry Bird
At 35 Larry Bird was the oldest of the team. He was also in his last season and he actually had announced that he would retire after playing in the Olympics. He had been plagued by back problems since the 1988-89 season, which he missed almost entirely, and was the only player that could be argued was way past his peak. Yet, any Larry Bird season past his prime, was still better than any season of any other NBA players. In his last season, 1991-92, he averaged 20.2 points, 9.6 rebounds, 6.8 steals and 0.9 steals. He also shot 47% on field goals, 41% on three-pointers and 93% from the free throw line.
As you can see, to say that Larry Bird did not deserve to be on the team, was as insulting as it could get. I will say though that, when looking at the numbers of that 1991-92 season, you can say it was his worst season by far. This is a man who in 1983-84 posted 24.2 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 6.6 assists, 1.8 steals and shot 49-25-89. In 1984-85, his stats were 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 assists, 1.6 steals and shot 52-43-89. In 1986-87, he posted 28.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 7.6 assists, 1.8 steals, and shot 53-40-91! So, you pretty much get the picture. Larry retired averaging 24.3 ppg, 10 rpg, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.8 blocks, shooting 50-38-89. Simply put: insane numbers.
Larry being picked for the team was a no-brainer, despite everyone (including fans) knowing he would not see too much action because of his back injury. He was selected not only because of his numbers, but because of his legacy and the historic nature of the team. He was a six time NBA finalist, three time NBA Champion, three time MVP, and the best shooter of all time.
Larry and Magic revived the NBA in the 1980s and paved the way for Isiah, MJ, Barkley and many others
Magic Johnson
Along with Bird, Magic was the other veteran. Magic was still at his peak in 1991 -despite losing to Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls in the NBA Finals-, when an unfortunate news broke out for him. He had been diagnosed with HIV, which made him take the decision of retiring from the game. In that 1990-91 season, Magic averaged 19.4 ppg, 12.5 assists, 7 rebounds, 1.3 steals, and shot 48-32-91. He didn’t play in 1991-92 and almost everyone expected him to die of AIDS. He was still healthy and able and willing to compete and play, so he was chosen to serve as co-captain of the team alongside his rival and friend Larry Bird.
Like in Bird’s case, to claim that Magic was past his prime is ridiculous. Magic and Bird had always been in their primes, from the day they first set foot on the NBA, until their very last game. To pick Magic’s best season is an almost impossibe task, because Magic’s contribution to the game was beyond posting 20 ppg and 12 assists along with 8 rebounds and 1.8 steals per game. In Magic you had arguably the second best NBA player of all time. You had a player who could play any position comfortably. You had a player who was dangerous in offense and in defense in any position. You had a player who was the leader of the team. You had a player who was charismatic and who brought the positive momentum to your team.
Magic being picked cemented the historic nature of the Dream Team. With the second best player of all time, and the absolute best clutch shotmaker of all time, the only remaining element the team needed now, was the man that was positiong himself to become the absolute best player of all time.
Michael Jordan
Let me be crystal clear: in 1992, Michael Jordan was not the best NBA player of all time, yet. He was the best player of the league, and that was it. But before 1992, Jordan was first seen as the superlative talent who could score at will 35 points per game, who nobody could stop and who could play defense better than any one had ever played before. However, he had hit a brick wall against the Detroit Pistons, led by Isiah Thomas, who knew exactly what Jordan’s weakness was, which was, being selfish and not trusting his teammates.
Three times the Pistons beat Jordan’s Bulls and taught him important valuable lessons on what exactly was needed to become a winner in the NBA. The fourth time Jordan faced the Pistons, he was a more mature player and a more mature person. He took his 35 points per game signature and his skills with the ball, and took his game to a whole new level. A more cooperative Jordan, learned that basketball was a team game, and that despite him being the leader and absolute best individual player of the league, sometimes his teammates could also share some of his glory. In 1990-91, he swept the Pistons and went on to win his first NBA Championship, defeating Magic Johnson’s Lakers in five games. The following season, he would reach the finals once again and defeat the Clyde Drexler’s led Portland Trail Blazers.
Jordan gesturing after his famous six straight 3-pointer shooting vs Portland in the 1992 Finals
With two rings in his fingers, Jordan had tied Isiah Thomas, the other great player who had dominated the 80s, but was still behind Bird’s three, Magic’s five and Kareem’s six. Still, it was a no brainer to pick the best player in the league. The point that I’m trying to make is that just like I did with Bird and Magic, you have to put things in perspective when talking about the Dream Team, and Jordan’s case. In 1992, he wasn’t the best NBA player of all time. He was on his way, yes, but he wasn’t there yet.
Karl Malone and John Stockton
Like with Bird, Johnson and Jordan, it’s an understate ment to say that the pick and rollers were at their absolute peak when chosen for the dream team in 1992. With Magic retired and Isiah Thomas recovering from injuries sustained in the 1990-91 season, John Stockton had established himself as the best point guard in the NBA, averaging 14.5, 14.3 and 13.7 assists in the three seasons preceding the Olympics.
Karl Malone was arguably one of the two best power forwards of the time -the other one being Charles Barkley-, and had been posting insane numbers such as averaging 28 ppg, 11.8 rebounds and 3.8 assists, while shooting over 55% from the field in 1991-92. Many cronists argue that to pick one you had to pick the other, but in all honestly, both John and Karl were picked because of both their on-court chemistry and also by their individual achievements.
Charles Barkley
One of the biggest debates of the 1990s was, who was the best power forward: Malone or Barkley? Pick your choice, but I would chose Barkley any day. While their numbers were pretty similar -Barkley doing 27.6 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 5.1 assists, shooting 55% from the field-, Sir Charles had always struck me as more of a leader and a hustler. Also, Charles was a better 2P shooter, averaging 63%, way above Malone’s 52%. The good news for the Dream Team is that there wasn’t any need to pick one of the two and leave the other one behind.
By 1992 Charles had been playing for eight seasons with the 76ers and was seen as one of the best players in the NBA without a ring. A lot of people -including myself- believed that if anyone could be able to stop Michael Jordan in the NBA Finals, it would be Charles. He was also the only true physical player chosen. No one else would even dare to hustle the way Charles did; not that it would be needed anyway, but still it was good to at least have the option there, had the ocassion presented itself.
Always a controversial figure, Barkley would become the Dream Team’s best ambassador and public speaker
In a nutshell, Barkley was a combination of many great players who would definitely not be chosen for the team. He had Dennis Rodman’s aggresive rebounder nature, Dominique Wilkins showmanship on offense, Kevin McHale’s defense and James Worthy’s effectiveness. Put all those talents in a blender, and add some extra something special, and you have Sir Charles Barkley.
Chris Mullin and Scottie Pippen
Before Reggie Miller and Ray Allen became the best shooters in the NBA, there was Chris Mullin. Chris was a quiet player, who led his numbers do the talking for him. He averaged three-pointing shooting of 37%, 32%, 37% and 45% in the seasons preceding the 1992 Olympics, along with 25 points per game, 5.9 rebounds and 2.1 steals, meaning not only he was a great shooter, but also a great defender. He also averaged over 54% from the field. In all honestly, only Barkley was able to top Chris’ shooting abilities.
Then we have Scottie, who in my opinion was chosen more because of his defensive skills than because of his offense. Scottie was at the time the most dangerous player in the defensive line of the entire NBA. He was also Jordan’s sidekick and to have MJ on the team without Scottie, would have been wrong. There has been a lot of controversy regarding Scottie and Isiah Thomas’ selection, with the former claiming he did not want Isiah on the team, and the latter claiming that Scottie had no right to say anything about Isiah’s selection on the team. Some fans even argue that Scottie should have been dropped in favor of Isiah. I myself being a Pistons fan, have to swallow my pride and admit that Scottie deserved to be in the team, and that Isiah not being chosen had nothing to do with him. I’ll get to that in a few parapraphs below.
David Robinson and Patrick Ewing
Another no brainer. David and Pat were the #3 and #2 best centers of the NBA in 1992 -the #1 being Hakeem Olajuwon-. Like it happened with Barkley and Malone, David and Pat’s numbers were both pretty similar and pretty insane. Also, they were the pillars and leaders of their respective teams, the San Antonio Spurs and the New York Knicks. Both of them averaged around 25 points per game, 12 rebounds, 3 blocks, and were as physically intimidating as you can get. Hakeem’s game was a level above theirs, but fortunately there was no need to worry about him.
The Final Choice: Clyde Drexler vs Isiah Thomas. And… Chris Laettner (doh…)
By 1992, the NBA history was like this: with the exception of one season, every single NBA Championship since 1980, had been won by Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird, or Isiah Thomas or Michael Jordan. Magic, Larry and Michael had been picked for the team, therefore it would only make so much sense to pick Isiah Thomas, who was arguably the second best point guard of all time, behind Magic Johnson.
The NBA decided they would pick a college player as a nod to the previous selection system, so that meant that there would only be one spot left for an NBA pro, and it was either Clyde The Glide or Zeke. In the end Clyde was chosen over Isiah, in a decision that has generated controvery for years and will likely continue to do so until the end of time. My opinion on the case, is that Clyde deserved to be on the team. Clyde was arguably the second best shooting gard of the league next to MJ, with his talents spanning on both ends of the court. His numbers prove it just like they do with the other chosen players: 25 ppg, 6.6 rebounds, 6.7 assists, 1.8 steals, shooting 48-38-80. What were Zeke’s numbers by 1992? 19.2 ppg, 9.3 assists, 2 steals. Like I said, second best after Magic. At the time, fans complained that Zeke was dropped in favor of Clyde, but years later the truth went out and it was discovered that it was Michael, Magic and Larry -along with Karl, Chris and Scottie- who didn’t want Isiah on the team, due to his aggressive competitive nature shown in the many years he spent competing against them, that involved brawls, fights, broken noses and a team walk-off the court when facing defeat against MJ in the 1991 Conference Finals. Anyway, back to the Clyde issue against Isiah.
Thomas had also beat Drexler in the 1991 NBA Finals
In my opinion, the problem wasn’t Clyde being chosen over Isiah, it was Chris Laettner being picked over Isiah. Honestly, Laettner had no business to do on the Dream Team, other than to carry their bags and serve as their ring bearer. The nod to the “old college system” kind of back fired, because Laettner ended up turning into a big nothing in the NBA, whereas it was Shaquille O’Neal -the #2 college player who was considered along with Laettner- the one who really became the legend he was destined to be.
Because of the historic nature of the team and because who Isiah Thomas was and what he meant to the game, he should have been chosen over Laettner. I honestly have nothing against any of the other choices, and I believe there wasn’t a single choice that should have been dropped in favor of another player. The Dream Team should have featured zero college players and that was it, because of the simple reasoning that never again you would be able to gather a collection of such elite legendary players such as the ones that would represent the United States in the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.
Shaq and Laettner in their college years
Regarding the controversy of picking Laettner of Shaq, I don’t make a big fuzz about it. In 1992, Chris was the most accomplished NCAA player and that was it. Sure you could make a case that some people saw and believed that Shaq was going to be a huge thing, but there wasn’t any insurance on that. I mean, how many times have you seen or heard of someone who is going to become the next big thing, and doesn’t. It was impossible to know where Shaq was headed. Yes, there were many hints, but objectively speaking by 1992, Laettner was more accomplished and had been successful than Shaq.
Final thoughts
The Dream Team went on to win all their matches -as expected- with a 44 point average difference over their rivals. There was no way to stop them or to even pose a threat to them. One thing most people don’t talk about, is how despite this outstanding success and pounding of the rest of the teams that faced them, is the fact that in my opinion the Dream Team never played at 100%.
Even the Gold Medal Match vs Croatia, was played at I would say 70%, or maybe 80% max of their strength. They were so honorable and so respectful that they considered it wasn’t even necessary to show the world their full power, which I believe had they done, they would have averaged a point difference of 60 points over their oppponents, including Croatia.
The 1992 Dream Team mission was successfully accomplished: to show the world that the United States was the superpower in basketball and that even in victory you can be graceful and a true ambassador of what sports is supposed to be: a fun competition that should always be a spectacle to enjoy, for the players and for the fans.
A few nights ago I was able to catch 12 Monkeys on the tube, which I hadn’t seen for quite some time and have always regarded it as a timeless classic in my all time great films list. It’s been 22 years since I first saw this film and I would say at least two since I last saw it. The recent viewing of this week made me realize that as time passes, 12 Monkeys keeps getting better and better. It made me elevate it to the status quo of masterpiece.
Like most masterpieces of cinema, 12 Monkeys has everything going on for it. So let’s go over the film’s elements one by one, beginning with the characters:
Bruce Willis is at his very best here. A lot of fans will argue that his best dramatic performance is on The Sixth Sense -and I can partially agree with that affirmation-, however I give a slight nod to James Cole in 12 Monkeys, because of his inner intensity that never drops, not even for a single second. Whether if it’s internal or external, Bruce is able to portray James’ never ending conflict within himself and the world that surrounds him -real or not-. One minute he’s an action hero, the next minute he’s a very fragile human being, the next minute he’s trying to make sense of a mind-boggling time-travel situation. His many facets in the film would even rival what many consider Bruce’s all-time best performance -John McClane in Die Hard-.
Madeleine Stowe is a pleasent and wondeful surprise. While you shouldn’t compare her to Isabelle Adjani’s Queen Margot or Meryl Streep’s whatever movie Meryl Streep is in, her performance as Dr. Kathryn Railly is so natural, you basically forget you are even watching an actress playing someone and instead you take her for real on both her actions and her words. Bruce also accomplishes this fact, which is an incredibly tough feat to achieve on both your leads, who from the second act forward look like two random people who are stuck in an unbeliveable sequence of events that make them question their own existence.
However make no mistake: if both Bruce and Madeleine get lost within their characters, it is Brad Pitt the one who is completely impossible to recognize. This is Brad at his absolute peak right here -and yes, I mean he’s even better than Tyler Durden-. Brad’s screen time isn’t long, however he steals the show every time he shows up. He’s sort of a mixture between Heath Ledger’s Joker, Anthony Hopkins’s Dr. Lecter, and Benicio del Toro’s Fenster, in the sense that’s he’s crazy (Joker), he’s noticeable (Dr. Lecter), he’s not essential to the main plot of the film (Fenster) and he leaves a mark in your mind (all three). Seriously, ask yourself: how much would Jeffrey Goines’ absence would affect the film or the plot? Trust me, not that much. But, he’s an unvaluable asset, because of the one single action he does that has a direct consequence on the events of the film -which is lead his father to believe that he is the one planning to attempt to steal the virus-. And why was this action triggered? Because of his brief stint with Cole back in 1990. Those are the small details that made me elevate 12 Monkeys to the status of masterpiece. From there and on, Jeffrey is just a huge misdirection tool to distract the audience -and the protagonists- from what is really taking place.
The structure of the film has drawn comparison to La Jettée and to another masterpiece you may have heard called Vertigo (many consider it the greatest movie of all time). I honestly believe that if 12 Monkeys had a bit more marketing, its status would keep growing stronger and eventually it could be mentioned in the same sentence as 2001. Like Scotty in Vertigo, I like how Cole’s arc gradually goes from completely sane to completely insane, while Railly’s arc goes from being completely sane to completely insane in a totally different way. Cole starts as sane believing in everything he has been told for his mission, but eventually becomes insane because he starts questioning reality and even doubts his own existence is real, to the point he starts believing in Railly’s theory that he simply is just another crazy person living in the 1990s. On the other hand, Railly goes from being completely sane because she believes in everything she has studied as a scholar and a professional, to then becoming gradually insane because she starts believing in Cole’s story and everything that surrounds and represents him. This juxtaposition of arcs of the main two characters in fascinating.
Then you have the little details. There are many key scenes, like the World War I scene, the spider scene, and the Railly at the Police station after being rescued scene; however one of the most memorable scenes is the one when Kathryn and Cole rent a room at a hotel for hookers. After paying the teller, he picks up the phone to ask if the pimp has a “new girl who is sort of shy.” At first, it seems like this small piece of dialogue is a filler, but instead it is actually a setup for what follows next, which is Cole and Kathryn’s intimate conversation being interrupted by the pimp showing up to confront them, which serves as setup for Cole taking off his teeth in the bathtub, hence serving as setup for the pimp then crying for help after being attacked by a woman and a crazy dentist.
Finally of course -or last but not least- we have the plot. I like how the time travel concept -which had been done by The Terminator, Back to the Future and La Jette- was handled, in the sense that they never attempted to fix or change the past or present to keep the timeline of the future intact. Instead, the time travel was just a resource to help people from the future. Hence no matter what Cole did or resist to do, things would develop exactly as they were supposed to, regardless of how hard you tried to change it. So many memorable moments affirm this, especially in the third act. My favorite one is after the voice message left by Kathryn, how she joyfully approaches James to celebrate that they’re crazy, when in reality it’s one of the first things we as the audience hear at the beginning of the movie.
In all, 12 Monkeys is a collection of very well crafted scenes, supported by memorable performances by Willis, Stowe and Pitt, backed up by a superb direction by the master of illusion, Terry Giliam.
Almost every week I get asked one of those existential questions sometimes people ponder about. One of such questions is: “Are geniuses born or made?“, or a variation of it like: “Is intelligence and talent an inborn skill or can it be taught?” I was having dinner with a client a couple of nights ago, and as we discussing the natural ability some people have to comprehend and efficiently solve work problems, my client inquired my opinion about this matter.
Update September 15, 2021: The rest of this story has been removed, as it is now part of Chapter #2 of my book.
HBO’s WWII miniseries “Band of Brothers” is one of the best miniseries of all time. It’s the story of one of the paratrooper companies of the 506th Infantry Regiment that made the invasion of Normandy (D-Day), told in the perspective of several of its members and leaders, one of them being Richard “Dick” Winters.
Winters is first seen as 2nd Lt in the miniseries, under the orders of 1st Lt Herbert Sobel (who makes Captain in the very first episide, before D-Day). Winters is respected by the entire company (and even the other companies of the batallion), whereas Sobel authority is largely questioned. Due to reasons not relevant to this entry (and avoiding spoilers as well), Captain Sobel is transferred from the company and with a few exceptions, is not seen again until the end of the series. At that point, he is still a Captain, however Winters is now a Major and outranks him, which is quite amazing considering he was below Sobel at the beginning of the series. In one of the final and most memorable scenes of Band of Brothers, Sobel and Winters coincidentally meet at a German field. By this time, Sobel is clearly resentful of Winters, and his resent is even bigger when he sees Winters’ golden oak leaves. Sobel walks by Winters and instead of saluting him, he simply says “Major Winters”, which is known as an offense to a superior officer. Winters knows Sobel is resentful of him, but he also knows respect of authority goes beyond feelings towards the person, and what he does next is nothing short of amazing:
Winters couldn’t be more right: you salute (hence respect) the rank, not the man. This rules applies in several situations and contexts, including the Chain of Command of the United States Executive Government.
The reason why I bring this up is because it was brought to my attention today, an incident that occurred in the Press room of the White House, where a reporter stood up and asked President Trump to give him the right to ask a question. Trump quickly dismissed him and gave the right to speak to another reporter. The reporter -still standing and with no right to speak- insisted having the right to a question and proceeded to make several statements I am assuming he wanted to inquire about. Trump then ordered the security personal to remove the reporter from the room.
No matter how much against people can be about Trump being our President, I can’t condone the behavior of the reporter who wants and demands to ask a question. Like it or not, Trump is the President of the United States, and like it or not, people have to respect the rank (even if they do not respect the man). If the President doesn’t give you permission to speak, you cannot keep talking at him, because that is more disrespecful and doesn’t improve the situation.
We can make fun of President Trump, disagree on his views and actions, and even go as far as not respect him as a person. What we definitely cannot do, is not show respect for the figure of the President of the United States of America.
This country has a lot of freedom and a lot of liberties, but one thing that we really have to keep in place at all times, is respect.
As we are just hours away from what may be the last encounter of the greatest rivalry in tennis, that is Nadal vs Federer at the Australian Open final, I’m still marvelled at Rafa’s friday’s semifinal performance, where once again he wrote another page in the book of tennis history. I’ll probably won’t write a follow up entry after the result of the finals, because at this point, it simply doesn’t matter.
Nadal celebrating his semifinal victory
Rafa had already made a statement on his third round match when he faced up and coming, rising star 19-year old Alexander Zverev, beating him in five close sets 4-6/6-3/6-7/6-3/6-2. Zverev played as great as anyone could, and there is no doubt in my mind that had he won that match, it would have been him playing Dimitrov in the semifinals.
Nadal shakes hand with rising star Zverev.
But Nadal simply refused to pass the torch to the new guard, instead out-playing and out-lasting Zverev with a combination of shots, strategy, fitness and experience, and in the end he sent a clear message to everyone on the tour: He’s still around and he’s still hungry.
Against Dimitrov -known as Baby Federer for his similar game to Roger’s-, the story was a bit different. Dimitrov had a remarkable second half of 2016 after hiring a new coach, who worked on the mental aspect of the game, which is known to be Grigor’s weakness. Success included his first victory against Nadal, after seven losses. So when both men met at Rod Laver’s arena on Friday, there was a considerable amount of fans who thought that this time Dimitrov would beat Nadal, especially when you come to think that Nadal’s recovery may have impacted his endurance and stamina, probably folding against Grigor’s overwhelming forehand and dazzling backhand. While Nadal is known to exploit one-handed backhand with his heavy top spin, tennis experts agreed that Dimitrov’s backhand would not be threatned by this, due to Grigor being taller and more athletic than other players, hence more able to handle Nadal’s top spin. Zverev was a good test, but Dimitrov was going to be the real deal.
Dimitrov’s new coach Daniel Vallverdu has become a significant positive addition
This proved true as the match progressed, and as the scoreboard read 6-3/5-7/7-6/6-7/3-4, things were starting to look gray for Nadal’s future. Then, they turned dark, when at the eigth game, Nadal was serving 15-40, which meant that if Dimitrov broke, he would be serving for the match.
Then, all of a sudden, something happened: something inside Nadal, “clicked”.
Playing the best tennis of the match, Rafa saved both breakpoints, sent the game in advantage to his favor, and won the game to tie the score at 4-4. Dimitrov’s skin went pale, his eyes looked lost and his body language began to tell the story of a man that would soon lose the match. Nadal on the other hand, looked as if he was ready to lift the trophy. So what exactly happened in that 15-40, the point where the sealing of Nadal’s victory started?
Nadal celebrating after saving two break points
There are moments in life when suddenly everything you have heard, learned, known, dreamed, believed, and you have the ability to do, just happens. To one degree or another, and to a certain extent, there is a special moment when you realize that you are able to achieve great things in life. Those moments are huge, monumental confidence boosters, because they are the ones that take you from being good at something and turn you into being great at something. Some of them come in the form of an awakening call at a very low point in the career of the involved person.
Most people around the world probably don’t even know who Steve Kerr is, and that’s nothing to be ashamed of, because he’s not exactly a great NBA player with a legendary status such as Jordan, Magic, Bird, Thomas, and so on.
However in 1997, Steve went from being a good player, to a great player. Earlier in the season, he had been punched on the face by Michael Jordan during a heated practice session for missing a few shots. Kerr was new in Chicago and he was brought as an alternative great shooter, to support Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc. However during the first games, Kerr’s supposed great skills at shooting didn’t show up. He lacked concentration, passion and that special edge that was needed in such a competitive team as Chicago. Jordan probably got fed up with it, and it all blew during a practice game.
The incident went unnoticed back then and only today it has gained popularity thanks to both Jordan and Kerr openly talking about it. Kerr states that being punched by Jordan was an awakening moment. He realized that Jordan didn’t punch him because he was bad at shooting or because he had missed shots in practice. He punched him because he wanted Steve to raise his competitiveness, to raise his skills, and to raise his game so that while he definitely would never be legendary material, at least he would be teammate enough to work next to Michael Jordan, so that in a moment of crucial need, Michael -as the leader of the team- could count on him. That moment came in game six of the 1997 finals.
With 28 seconds left in the game, the score was tied at 86 between Chicago Bulls and the Utah Jazz. A timeout had been called by the Bulls, and most of the world watching the game believed and expected that Jordan would be the one taking what would probably be the final shot to win it for Chicago. The Jazz probably expected that too. Jordan -being the wise and intelligent player he was- also expected it, so he came up with a solution: since the Jazz would likely double-team him, he would need someone to pass the ball to, so that that person could take the shot. That person had to be a great shooter, and that person was Steve Kerr. Jordan told Kerr what would happen (the Jazz double-teaming on him) and he told Kerr to “be ready”. Kerr’s reply -now immortalized on youtube- was: “I’ll be ready”.
From that day and on, Kerr became known as a great shooter and master of the 3-point shot. Eventually, the moment would bring a larger and broader impact on Steve’s career as a player and as a coach.
It would be pointless to say that Nadal’s achievements depended on that 15-40 3-4 game against Dimitrov. However I will go as far as saying that the remaining of Nadal’s career from that night and on, depended on that whether he won point or got his serve broken and faced Dimitrov serving for the match.
In a few hours, Nadal will face Federer for the 35th time in their careers, for the 2017 Australian Open Grand Slam title. I believe Nadal will beat Federer and claim his 15th Grand Slam, all because of him winning that 15-40 3-4 on Friday night.
EDIT: In an amazing breathtaking performance, Roger won. I really thought Rafa would win; then again, on Dec 30th Roger tweeted this:
Talk about the moment when it all clicks.
Thanks Roger and Rafa, for teaching us what true motivation is.
In this new era of social media, tweeting and deleting tweets, one can be grateful for these huge tools that keep your word recorded on stone, like the ten commandments that were handed to Moses, or like Hamurabi’s code written in 1750 BC. You’ll probably be wondering, what does my linking of social media with the ten commandments have to do with anything, and especially with Theranos.
Over one year and two months ago, I shared this thought with some of my friends:
Today, Elizabeth Holmes -Theranos’ CEO-, faces a fate that so far looks quite similar to the road Jeff Skilling went back in 2001-2002.
Elizabeth Holmes dropped Stanford in 2003 to start up Theranos, a company that was supposedly able to to hundreds of blood tests using just a sample taken from the tip of your finger. 13 years later, it looks like that sentence I just wrote should have the word “supposedly” replaced by “not”.
My issue in all of this, is how come investors and stakeholders put up with this for so long? It has been discovered that Holmes lured investors with preferred stock, in exchange of keeping privacy and confidenciality with the internal procedures of Theranos, that is, confidentiality of how did the testing worked… or, whether if the testing actually worked.
If you watch this video, you’ll probably have similar conclussions than mine:
The most important one is that Holmes is a psycopath. This woman has lost complete sense of reality and is in total denial of her situation, her company’s situation and the huge problems she’s creating to her employees and her clients. It’s the exact same behavior that another psycopath had: Jeff Skilling.
The irony is that she idolized Steve Jobs. The thing is, that Steve Jobs didn’t go around telling people he had this little gadget thing that fit in your pants that was able to carry 1,000 songs, but kept it hidden from the public for 13 years, kept promising to show it but never showed it. Steve didn’t even mention that he was working on his products when they were on development stage. He just launched the product once it was ready for public release. That’s why Apple is one of the most valued companies in the world. Theranos on the other hand, was valued at Nine Billion Dollars last year by Forbes. Now it’s valued at $0, also by Forbes.
You know, just because someone’s blonde, gorgeously beautiful, has a baritone deep intimidating voice and is really smart, doesn’t mean that person is able to do what he/she claims he/she can do.
Around this time last year, I remember laughing out loud at this image:
Last night there wasn’t any laughing at all.
This morning as I drove to work I kept asking myself the same question over and over: how exactly did Donald Trump win this election? I recalled the image and remembered that a year ago, while funny and original, I believed the image had some truth in it: there was indeed a real chance that Trump would win the election, despite a large amount of people being sure he wouldn’t and who now may feel despondent at the outcome of the elections.
Last night as I felt the enlightenment, I realized Trump won not because he is a good politician, but because he is an excellent marketer and an excellent salesman. Trump not only gave a political lesson, he taught a few important Sales and Marketing mastery life-lessons:
1. Have a brand and a slogan
I never really understood why Hillary didn’t have a strong catchy slogan. Her taciturn nature needed something to boost her through the crowds. Trump on the other hand from day one, engraved four words in the American minds that became synonymous of what he believed in. “Make America Great Again.”
Whatever Trump could say or do, it didn’t really matter, because all anyone could think of whenever his name was brought up were the words “Make America Great Again.” You could read them on his Twitter, his Facebook, his caps, hats, posters, podiums, over and over non-stop. Trump also backed up his slogan with his brand name: TRUMP, which you see in all his real estate developments. So how could one not associate TRUMP with Make America Great Again?
Trump’s slogan ameliorated his campaign. In contrast, Hillary had nothing. The lesson to be learned here is that one must have a slogan. What derives come it is my next point…
2. Have a slogan with a meaning… even if it isn’t true!
The first time read the words “Make America Great Again”, I thought to myself: “America already is the greatest country on the planet. Why is Trump talking about making it Great Again? It’s already great.” But to some people’s reality, it wasn’t -even if it was a reality invented by a mendacious politician.
Today November 9th, there is no doubt in my mind that America is the greatest country on the planet. However, Trump’s slogan achieved what seemed impossible: it made 59 million people believe that America is not the greatest country on the planet, and more importantly, it made them believe that Trump is the one person that is able to change that reality and make America the greatest nation on Earth.
The is no nation on the planet that is greater than the United States of America. Yet somehow Trump deceived almost 60 million people, that some other nation in the world IS the greatest nation on Earth (or at least, greater than the US). Which nation is it? Well, Trump never actually mentioned it. And that’s the beauty of his slogan. He said his slogan, he repeated his slogan, he wore his slogan, he breathed his slogan.
He made a masteful use of a red herring, by giving a logical fallacy that led people toward a non-existent fact.
3. Promise, with no actual plan.
If you’ve seen that masterpiece of Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart, “It’s a wonderful life” you’ll probably remember one of George Bailey’s most iconic quotes:
“What is it you want, Mary? What do you want? You want the moon? Just say the word and I’ll throw a lasso around it and pull it down. Hey. That’s a pretty good idea. I’ll give you the moon, Mary. ”
The scene is memorable because surely there is absolutely no way someone can throw a lasso around the moon and pull it down. George Bailey is being romantic. All that he wants is Mary’s love. In order to conquer her, he devises several ideas, including dancing with her, visiting her, being nice to her, and offering her to pull down the moon with a lasso. Of course, there is absolutely no way Mary will want the Moon to be pulled down to her. She just wants to hear those pretty words, and imagine -even if it is for one minute- how beautiful would the Moon look in front of her as George had pulled it down for her.
One of Trump first promises was as astounding as George’s Moon pull-down: “If I get elected, I’m going to build a wall on the US-Mexican border, and I’ll make Mexico pay for it,” During the entirety of the presidential campaign, not one person confronted, questioned or directly asked Trump, how is he planning to build the wall, and more importantly, how is he planning on making Mexico pay for it. There were some vague questions here and there, but never a direct confrontation seeking a direct answer from him. He just kept repeating the same thing over and over: “We’ll build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it.”
59 million Americans, heard Trump’s words and imagined how beautiful the wall would look on the US-Mexico border.
4. Sometimes taking the high road doesn’t work.
In the early 90s, there was a point where the console wars between Nintendo and Sega got really nasty. During the peak of the NES’ popularity, and the birth of the Genesis -Sega’s new console- Sega launched a very aggressive marketing campaign that featured a really great slogan: “Genesis does what Nintendon’t.” It was quite effective because in four words, it praised the capabilities of the new 16-bit Genesis, while degrading the capabilities of the 8-bit Nintendo”
During one of the debates between Hillary and Trump, when referring to the disrespectul tone Trump used on her, Hillary responded by saying “when they go low, we go high”, alluring to Trump’s insults and degrading comments. Apparently, Hillary doesn’t know that in politics, sometimes taking the high road doesn’t work. Her classy act got old really fast and Trump sticked to going low all through the campaign. He was relentless and never paused for breathing. Hillary on the other hand, had her chances to go low and attack Trump, but she missed them or chose not to capitalize on them.
5. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This one is quite simple. Trump:
Insulted Vietnam veterans
Insulted Iraq veterans
Insulted LGBT
Insulted muslims
Insulted latins
Insulted women
Insulted, insulted, insulted and kept insulting.
Then, he…
Was discovered saying he “grabbed women by the pussy”
Lied about paying taxes
Bragged about not paying taxes
Bragged about lying about not paying taxes
Bragged about buying Chinese workforce and manufacturing.
and still, with all this said and done, 59 million Americans, voted for him.
————————————————
These are the five of the main reasons why Trump won this election. Overall, he did exactly what he promised to: he never became a politician. All he did was run a one-year Master’s in Sales and Marketing. And he graduated with honors.
Over the past weeks, a select group of friends have been complaining about my lateness in answering their calls, texts, WhatsApp messages, IMs, Twitter/Instagram/Facebook updates, and pretty much any online call to action that requires my attention in social media that is controlled by perhaps the most important device in our lives in current times: the cell phone.
This led me to ask an inevitable question: Am I really not answering and responding to my personal messages/calls as fast as I should, or are my friends falling for the ‘Cell Phone Addiction’?
Let’s begin by defining this concept.
The ‘Cell Phone Addiction’ is a phrase I came up with after watching two of my friends conducting several activities over the course of five days, such as: watching movies, playing cards, cooking, taking care of their garden, driving, grocery shopping. During the exercise, at all times my friends would immediately respond to any notification received on their cell phones. Give or take, they would respond in less than ten seconds. When I was at work -meaning, not watching them-, my friends would call me and at times I was not able to take their calls (meetings, driving, jobsite). When I was able to get a hold of my phone, I would notice that I would have five or six missed calls from the same contact. Needless to say, after I called back, the matter needed to be discussed over the call was far from being an emergency, and more like a “What are we doing for dinner tonight?”
When engaged in a chat with someone, (IE: WhatsApp), they would complain about how that person would take several minutes to respond to a chat, having seen the double blue checkmark: “He left me double-blue checked! How dare he?” Other times they would see a notification pop-up on their locked phones, but then they would not unlock it or login to WhatsApp, arguing that: “I can’t login, because if I do, people will see I’m online and I haven’t answered their messages.”
So now that I have given an insight of my friend’s relationship with their phones, I will share mine.
When I open my house’s door, the first thing that I look at is my large beautiful and comfortable couch to my left. When I enter, I normally drop my keys and my cell phone on the table next to my door, then I proceed to wash my hands and my face, take off my shoes, get myself into comfortable clothes, and land on my beautiful and comfortable couch. I do this because I place more importance in taking care of myself, than taking care of my phone’s contact list, which I can do at a later time, preferably, after I have settled myself in my home.
When I’m at work I focus on my work responsibilities, and I rarely check my personal phone. I do this because my job pays my bills; answering personal calls/IMs does not. If I have nothing to do at work, work is slow, or I am on a break, I can borrow a few minutes to check my personal phone, otherwise, I don’t touch it until after work hours. Did you know that 58% of cell phone users cannot go more than an hour without checking their phones? One can only wonder how much work can they get done?
When I’m driving, well… I’d rather pay attention to the road than to my phone. When I play cards with my friends, I pay attention to the game, even when it’s not my turn. I like to win, therefore my phone is a distraction.
I have no blocks or filters on my WhatsApp: anyone can see my last online time, my double blue checks, my icon, and so on. I understand the fact that there are people who deserve or expect an immediate response, but is that percentage really that high?
Finally, when I go out with someone I like to focus on the person I’m with and enjoy spending time with them.
This is why I believe that there is no excuse that can withhold to anyone going five minutes without checking their phones, especially if it is in an environment like the ones I exposed earlier. If you feel you have a few things in common with the friends I just described, perhaps you already share the symptoms of a cell phone addict. If that is the case, then the best thing you can do is admit you have a problem of dependency. You should start working on a solution to get rid of you addiction and enjoy the pleasures of life that do not need you to be hanging on to your phone.
Some tips to start working on losing the dependency to your phone include:
1. Monitor your cell phone usage: it may be shocking at first, but once you find out you have been using your phone for more than five hours a day, reality will hit you hard. Five hours is a lot of time. Also, do a detail search on the usage per app.
2. Create no-phone time zones: give yourself a period of time when you simply do not check your phone. Cook, eat your meal, whatever you do, just put it away and let it ring.
3. Turn off your phone when driving: safety comes first. Whatever is happening to your friends when you are behind the wheel, there is little you can do to change it while you are driving. If you really need to check it because of an urgent matter, then make a stop at a gas station.
4. Find a friend you can talk to who is not a cell phone addict: perhaps that person will have a thing or two to teach you about enjoying things in life that are not cell phone related.
5. Turn off your cell when going to bed: pretty much similar to #3. Of course, some conditions and exceptions apply. Like for instance if you are a parent waiting for your daughter to inform she arrived safely at her date destination, or if you are waiting for them to get home. But if your daughter is in another country, there is not much you can do about her, so let her live. The rest of the world can wait until tomorrow.
6. Think and measure the need to answer: ask yourself questions such as “Do I really need to call/text this person right now?” and “Is this a life-threatening situation or is this a mundane event that can be taken care of later?”
7. Find a hobby: perhaps you are using your phone as a mood thermometer, which means you feel better when you use it and when people respond quickly to your texts, and you get upset when you don’t use it and people do not respond to your online activities.
8. No devices at meals: if you are by yourself, just eat. If you have company, enjoy your company. If you don’t enjoy your company, be polite.
9. Don’t use your phone as an alarm clock: get an actual alarm clock and leave your phone downstairs / outside your room.
I do not have all answers, and as I stated at the beginning, I admit that I may respond to personal messages / calls a bit slower than other people do. However I will say that answering to every single notification in less than ten seconds is not good either. I feel that one must learn how to balance the two extremes, and manage their relationship with their phone. Unless you are an influencer who requires absolute control of their cell phone, ask yourself the question if handling your cell phone is managing your social life.
It has been said many times that all you need to die is to be alive, and that only when you die, is your legend born. That is not the case with Muhammad Ali.
In our current era of social media technology, with millions of views on random YouTube videos, likes, dislikes, pokes, Facebook and Instagram sharing and other media frenzy, some of the glorified words reserved for certain situations and people have become misused on a regular basis. Even the phrase “Living Legend” has fallen into dispair being constantly misused at times with people who are great but not worthy of that qualification. However up until yesterday there was one person who was absolutely worthy of being referred that way in our planet, a person who maybe would have been humble enough to dismiss being called that. Yet to me, that was the only way to describe Muhammad Ali: A Living Legend. Well… that, along with his self-proclaimed way to describe himself: The Greatest.
I was named after Muhammad Ali and as a kid my parents always told me that they chose Ali because he is “a great man.” My parents rarely agreed on anything, however on this particular subject I will never forget that particular choice of words coming from both of them: “a great man. As a curious four-year-old kid, I wondered to myself: what exactly is “a great man“? How does a man become “great“? What did Ali do to become “great“? What was so special about him that both my parents agreed to name me after him? Days later, I asked both my parents the same question again, this time separately. One day to my mom, another day to my dad.
My mom replied that first of all, Ali was an incredibly handsome man. A man with presence. A towering man, with a huge back, great legs and huge chest. A gifted man with a gorgeous body and a unique face. But not only was Ali physically handsome; he was a man with a beautiful soul and a wonderful heart. He spoke from his heart and he was sincere, and he had the best intentions for his people. He had strong principles and beliefs, and he fought for them. He took a stance against the Vietnam War, and war in general. He refused to serve for his country on the premise that he wouldn’t kill people he had no quarrel against. He was a peaceful man who wanted peace for all mankind. For those of you wondering, my mom is a blonde, caucasian.
When I asked my dad -a hispanic mixed african american-, he said: “I told you. We named you after Ali, because Ali is The Greatest.” It impressed me and I was kind of left puzzled that my dad simply reiterated what he had already said me before. Plain and simple, that was his answer. I responded to my dad: “Dad, that is not an answer. I need a logical answer.” So he handed me two Betamax video tapes: “Watch them“, he said.
The video-tapes were a two-part documentary about Ali’s life. The first video covered Ali’s beginnings, his victory in the Olympics and his surprise victory against Sonny Liston. I particularly remember that when the documentary reached the beginning of the Ali vs. Liston fight, I thought Ali was going to lose. Then it moved on to their subsequent rematch, and then through his complete dominance of every single opponent he faced, including the dismantling of Floyd Patterson, Ernie Terrel, Zora Folley, and what arguably is the greatest display of utter heavyweight power brilliance on a ring, his fight versus Cleveland Williams. I was completely shocked after seeing the way Ali moved, hit, and overall put on a display of a perfect performance in those three rounds.
Then, the documentary got interesting. It was no longer about fights anymore and about a great fighter. This guy was now refusing to serve in the US Army, in a stance that was completely unheard of coming from a celebrity. I thought to myself:
“Why is this idiot refusing to serve for our country? Who does he think he is? If the US Army tells you, you have to serve for America, then you must serve for America. Ted Williams did it on WW2 and Korea, and so did James Stewart, Joe Di Maggio, Elvis Presley, and many others. What’s the big deal? Why is he refusing? He must be scared of going to war, and that’s it.“
I also thought to myself: “This guy is an idiot. I am ashamed I was named after him. I have to get my name changed as soon as I can. It’s embarrasing that my parents named me after him. I will not carry with this through my life.“
Despite being very young, I was a precocious kid. I learned how to read at a very early age. You could say that I was somewhat of a prodigy. By the time I was five years old, I had read about American history, famous American personalities, and I remember I had glanced the name Muhammad Ali here and there, but for some reason I was not too interested in him, perhaps because to me at that point he was only a boxer. On the other hand, guys like Ted Williams “The Greatest Batter who ever lived”, Jimmy Stewart “the best classic actor of Hollywood”, and Elvis “The King”, were my role models and examples of what I should become as a grown man. Ted Williams gave up five years in baseball to serve in WW2 and in Korea. Had he played those five years, his numbers and his records would have been even more impressive than what they are. The same reasoning applies to Di Maggio. So to me, I saw serving for your country as a sacrifice. People like them deserved respect and praise. Therefore, to learn that Muhammad Ali had refused to serve for his country, when several other personalities enlisted and fought to defend America before him, felt to me like a complete degradation of his name, his career and everything he stood for.
It was at that point when the first part of the documentary suddenly got cut off, and I realized I had to switch to part 2 on the other tape, which I did. The last lines of the first tape were something around the lines of “Ali was facing jail and about to be sentenced to prison.” While switching the tapes, internally I wished that he had been sent to prison.
The second part resumed where the first one had ended. Now we were getting on the task of explaining and answering all my questions. “Why did Ali refuse to serve? Who does he think he is?”… as well as to answer other questions that hadn’t occurred to me like: “What were the consequences? What happened next?”
In a matter of minutes my mind was blown away. I quickly began to understand the reasons behind Ali’s actions, and realized that as painful as it was to refuse to serve and defend America, Muhammad Ali actually had a point behind his actions. In fact, he had a very good point.
The documentary spent around 45 minutes addressing the complicated issue of communism, the Vietnam War, the USSR, the hippie movement, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and the similar context of the culture of the time. Still, every film, every piece of interview, every extract in which Ali spoke, made more and more sense with every passing minute. All of a sudden I started to feel proud. Whereas the hippies were a bunch of… well, hippies, and other personalities like Dr. King and John Lennon were… well, personalities, there was something different about Ali. I remembered my mom’s words. Ali spoke with sincerity and from his heart. He wasn’t looking to congegrate thousands of people with peace songs like John Lennon, or was academically skillful and politically trained as Martin Luther King. Ali simply spoke from his heart what he believed was -and is- right: war is wrong. Killing people for no reason, is wrong; and he, just like any other 25 year-old from Kentucky, or Idaho, or Oregon, or Michigan, had no reason to fight against other people, and die for absolutely no cause that wasn’t peace.
The film then followed the overrule of his sentence by the US Supreme Court, and his glorious comeback to recover the title that at first I believed had been justifiably taken away from him, but that now I understood that in reality what had happened was that three years of his peak time were taken away from him.
As the documentary reached the part where Ali was about to face Foreman in Zaire, I thought to myself: “This is it. This is IT. He will win this fight.” It’s hard to put yourself in the context of 1974, but I guess I could understand why most people thought he wasn’t going to beat Foreman. I mean, this guy Foreman was huge and he had knocked Frazier out six times in just two rounds, and knocked out Ken Norton out like twice in two rounds as well. Ali on the other hand hadn’t been able to even beat them without going the full distance of 15 rounds, and hadn’t been able to send either of them to the canvas even once.
Finally, once the documentary reached the part in which Ali knocked Foreman out for good, and he was crowed as World Champion, it was at that precise point that everything came together and I had finally understood that Ali is The Greatest.
