The Dream Team's 25th Anniversary

25 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.

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, he did 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.

Jordan gesturing after his famous six straight
3-pointer shooting vs Portland in the 1992 Finals

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.

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.

Always a controversial figure, Barkley would become the
Dream Team's best ambassador and public speaker

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.

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.

Another point in favor of Zeke is that he had beat Drexler in the NBA Finals the year before (1991)

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.

Twelve Monkeys: The underrated masterpiece

A few nights ago I was able to catch Twelve 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, Twelve Monkeys keeps getting better and better. It made me elevate it to the status quo of masterpiece.

Like most masterpieces of cinema, Twelve 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 Twelve 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 Twelve Monkey 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 Twelve Monkey 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, Twelve 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.

A++

The Case of United Airlines Flight 3411

Every now and then, huge corporations give us the opportunity to experience a rare incident in their daily operations, that require an immediate PR reaction. The most recent of these is the incident of United Airlines' Flight 3411.

As most of you may know by now -thanks to social media-, airport officers forcibly removed passenger Dr. David Dao from the aircraft, after he refused to give his seat away to United's crew because the flight was overbooked and the crew had to be at their destination for another flight. Passengers recorded the incident and the video went viral in a matter of hours, with the video showing an injured Dr. Dao being carried by two officers. The internet went nuts -as usual- with thousands vowing never to fly on United ever again, and others wishing the airline went bankrupt.

United CEO Oscar Muñoz, issued a very unsympathetic tweet, kind of apologizing for the overbooking, while sending an internal memo defending the actions of the crew. A following public statement was issued in which Muñoz apologized to the passenger and announced a review of the procedure.

So what can be said about what happened?

First things first: like it or not, the crew is in right to remove a passenger if he/she refuses to leave a flight. This is crystal clear in the contract suscribed within the United and yourself once you purchase an airline ticket from them. In general, as soon as you seet foot in a commercial aircraft on US soil, you are bound to obey any instruction delivered by the aircraft's Captain and his crew. It's federal law.

Second: the whole incident was poorly managed by United. They shouldn't have ever allowed passengers to board the plane, if they knew the flight was overbooked and another flight crew needed to board the aircraft. This issue should have been sorted before boarding.

Third: I'm quite sure almost everyone has experienced living through an overbooked flight in which the airline offers to compensate you if you give away your seat. I can remember at least six times when this has happened to me and I specifically remember having thought that if I was offered $1,000, I would have given my seat away. The opportunity hasn't happened yet though, because some people accept $200 or $400 offered by the airline. Maybe the issue would have been solved had United offered more money?

Four: As CEO, Muñoz was clearly caught off base with the incident. He clearly dismissed it with his initial tweet as something minor that wasn't too much of a big deal -and, objectively speaking, it is true: this is not a big deal-. He clearly underestimated the power of social media and the internet of things.

Five -and perhaps the most important-: calling for a United boycott or wishing a 90 year old business that has over 80,000 employees to go bankrupt, just because of an isolated incident that was poorly handled by a crew of what, 10 people, is complete non-sense. It doesn't make sense that more than 80,000 people lose their jobs, if United went bankrupt over this. I mean, it may be possible that perhaps at least 40,000 of those people would have handled the incident in a different way.

I've flown United several times and to me, their services are pretty much what I expect from them. I've flown several other airlines, with way worse customer treatment, yet I see no one calling to boycott them or wish them bankruptcy.

Even with the fact that the law favors United in this case, I believe that 1) a procedure review, 2) maybe some sort of penalty to the people involved for unnecessary excess use of force, and 3) a fair settlement with Dr. Dao, should leave United with a better image.

A story on Geniuses Born vs Made

Almost every week I get asked one of those existential questions sometimes people ponder about, such as "Are geniuses born or made", or its variant "Is intelligence and talent inborn or can it be taught?" I was having dinner with a client a couple of nights ago, and as we discussing the ability of some people to comprehend and understand work problems, my client inquired my opinion about this matter.

Everytime I get asked this question, I always give the same answer: I use the example of my friend Raul.

The year was 1995 and it was the first day of "getting to know each other week" in college. With a 5% acceptance rate, it's safe to say that I studied at the university where I would get to meet the smartest people in the country. The top. The elite. La crème-de-la-crème of every high-school. The kids with the highest GPA and the Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympic medal recipients. How many of them would be as smart as me? Would there be anyone smarter than me? I know these statements are a bit cocky and pretentious, but I swear that was exactly what I was thinking on the first day, and most likely, what pretty much every other student was thinking as well. Also, I want to build context on what I'm about to share.

We were divided into three blocks: morning, mid-morning and afternoon. Each block was divided into sections, with my section being assigned to a classroom where we sat down to proceeded to introduce each other. Most of the introductions would go like this:

-"Hi, my name is John. I studied at x high-school. My GPA was x (really high). I'm an Math Olympics medalist. I also have the following extra-curricular activities in my resume, and did this, this, and that."

-"Hi, my name is Mary. I studied at x high-school. My GPA was x (really high). I'm an Physics Olympics medalist. I also have the following extra-curricular activities in my resume, and did this, this, and that."

...and so on.

Of course not everyone was a geek olympics medalist, but still, almost everyone had other fantastic extra-curricular activities to compensate. One of the students was a short-bulky looking dude. Had he not been seating with us, you could have easily mistake him for a construction worker: he was sweaty, his forearms and hands were huge as if he worked operating a driller every day, and he talked loudly with a gruesome voice. He kind of looked like an orc from Lord of The Rings. I'm dead serious. His introduction was:

-"Hi, my name is Raul. I went to military school in (some random unknown town from the country). My GPA was x (it was high). And that's it. Sorry, I have nothing else to brag about."

The way he said that last part was funny and everyone else got a laugh of it. One could say they sort of laughed with him and at him as well. At the end of the day, everyone kind of had an idea of everyone else in the group. Everyone kind of had an idea of who could be smart and who could be REALLY smart. Also, everyone kind of had an idea of who would either dropout or would be expelled. Almost everyone thought that Raul, having studied in military school in some random town and with no extra-curricular background, was belonged in the latter group.

As classes began, study groups began to form and Raul wasn't studying in any of them. He then hooked up with some of the misfit students who also were labeled as potential dropouts. Math -by far the toughest subject of the first term- was evaluated in three exams: a first one worth 20 points, a second one worth 35 and a third one worth 45 points. You needed to accumulate 50 points of of 100 to pass the subject. The first exam came on and Raul got 12 out of 20. The exam was quite hard, and the average grade was 8 out of 20, which meant that not only Raul passed, but he actually did quite better than the average. Nothing too impressive, but interesting, considering his background. Then the second exam came, and Raul got an 18 out of 35. The exam's difficulty was similar to the first one, and the average grade was 15. Again Raul, both barely passed and did slightly better than the average student. With the third and final exam was worth 45 points, Raul had to get 20 out of 45, which considering the trend, was do-able. However, the third exam was rumored to be the hardest of all three. To put things into context, my friend got a 15 out of 20 in the first exam, and an 18 out of 35 in the second, meaninig he needed 17 out of 45 to pass.

In one of those life reasons that make our existence interesting, Raul bonded with a friend of mine and myself, and for about three weeks, we formed a trio study group. After a few sessions, it became clear to my friend and to me, that Raul was not dumb at all, and that it hadn't been luck or cheat the fact that he had surprinsingly passed both the first and second exams -and even did better than the average-. We both acknowledged that Raul was actually smart and that he could even be in our level. Kind of figuring that Raul was smart, we kind of wondered why he hadn't done better in the first two exams. His answer was: "I had never been taught that in school. Most of the questions were filled with stuff I had never seen before. I had to figure out everything all by my self."

This was interesting because it set the tone of how Raul studied with my friend and me. While my friend and me were studying the content that would be evaluated in the final exam, Raul studied the actual theory preceeding the entire subject, including going back to content of the first and second exams. I can't recall him studying anything for the third exam. He was focused on building a strong theoretical base for him to actually understand the math of what was being taught. In the end, back then, I felt I was as well prepared for the third exam as Raul was. Maybe Raul was slightly better prepared because of his focus on building that base theory, but only by a tiny tiny bit. My friend, felt the same way about himself, and himself compared to Raul.

Then the day of the final exam arrived and the test was placed on my desk. It was 9:30 am and I vividly remember, I felt I had just been handed a wrong exam, like maybe something from Sophomore Math or at least from a more advanced class different than the class were I was. I looked around the classroom and the look of confussion was the same as mine in the rest of the students -and some even worse-. I tried to make sense of the questions and tried to answer them to the best of my abilities. I remember that at one point the professor left and I turned around to the person sitting behind me and asked him "dude, do you even understand question #4?" and he gave me this look of frustration, as if he had been handed a newspaper that was written in arabic.

I was sitting on the right of the auditorium. Raul was sitting on the first row, to the very left. I remember looking over where he was, and I saw him writing sort of in what appeared to me as a desperate way. He was moving his pencil quickly and never looked up or paused for a second. I figured he was desperate. Needing 20 points out of 45 in this god forsaken incredibly impossible exam, he was probably worried that we would fluke and be expelled, so he was probably writing the most he could to squeeze those 20 points out of somewhere.

Prior entering the exam, most of the freshmen made an agreement, not to talk about the final exam until the publication of the grades -which was the very next day at precisely 9:30 am-. So as the exam ended, we went out and had a party at some guy's house or something. We drank ourselves out to make those 24 hours go as fast (or slow) as we could.

The next day, we were once again reunited in the same place. The professor walked in and said "I didn't have time to post the actual grades, but I can give you your exams and you can do the math to see who passed and who didn't."

Out of 45 points, the average grade was 11 points, which meant the exam was one huge slaughter. Over 80% of the mid-morning block failed the course. The group in my classroom was filled with tears and crying students. Others were still half-drunk from the party of the night before, still trying to grasp the reality of the situation. My friend -the one I had been studying with-, came over me and after sharing our results, he said:

-"Can you believe Raul?"
-"What do you mean, what happened? Did he fail badly?
-"No dude. He got 41"

I couldn't believe my ears. I got up immediately and went over his desk. He was still sitting, staring at his exam with a look of satisfaction I'll never forget. As I approached him, the professor was on his way out, and he told Raul: "Congratulations. This was the best exam in the entire faculty." Without even saying hi, I asked Raul to hand me his exam, and I just couldn't believe what my eyes were seeing.

That desperate writing I had seen, was in fact no desperation at all. There wasn't any sign of improvisation, or disorder anywhere. It was like the writing of a symphony. There wasn't a scratch, a stain, a correction, not even an eraser mark. Nothing. It was literally, like someone had been dictating him what to write. What's funny is he didn't get the full 45 points, because in one of the answers as he was simplifying the final equation, he forgot to write two terms. I think it was because he was short in time and he probably just moved past them, because it was a really stupid miss, that had not been made, he would have had a perfect score. Not only his 41 was the highest grade of the block, it was the highest grade of all three blocks. He beat nerds and geeks with the highest high school GPA, he beat the olympic medalists, he beat the extra-curricular heavy resumes, and he beat me.

Raul went on to have a very successful college life, playing sports and socializing, while barely even studying for any exams. As time progressed and we got into more advanced classes, it became clear to me that that 41 out of 45 had been no accident, just like the 12 and the 18 hadn't been. The 41 was the result of Raul's intelligence engaging theoretical concepts in a way that his mind could interpret any practical application, by keen understanding and disecting of its associated elements.

So why do I say all of this? Because to answer the original question, and having contextualized what kind of environment surrounded Raul -including the people he is being measured against-, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that genius, talent or intelligence is a naturally born acquired skilled. It's within you. It comes with you in your package.

Back in retrospective and the way I look at it now, I have to admit Raul was not slightly better prepared than me for the final exam. He was way, way better prepared than me. Actually he was miles ahead. Once he was able to actually be familiar with the content of the course, he understood the theory of every theorem and concept that was taught.

I have never seen since, such an amazing display of brilliance as the one I witnessed in the final exam by Raul.

Think Before You Act (Oscars Best Picture Mistake)

"Ok folks, ugh..."

"Someone gave me the information. I read it"

"I opened the envelope and it said Emma Stone, La La Land"

If you don't recognize them, these three quotes correspond to the announcing of Miss Universe 2015, Trump's last week's press conference, and last night's Best Picture mix up. All three events can be considered as high stakes, with a lot of vital information that can set new trends worldwide, depending on the magnitude of their impact.

Now let's go over what happened last night at the 2017 Oscars, first, what the audience saw:

Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway took the stage, with Warren carrying the Best Picture envelope (at least that's what everyone thought he was carrying). He proceeds to open the envelope and after a few seconds, he looked a bit confused. He looked at the Faye, at the envelope again, at the audience, at the envelope again, at Faye again, then at the audience again. Most of the audience took it as he was trying to pull some sort of joke for dramatic effect. I even thjnk Faye thought that too and she kind of lost her patience, so Warren hands her the card to read, to which she immediately proclaimed "La La Land" as the winner. As the producers made their way up to the stage, Warren and Faye moved back to let them grab the microphone and throw their thank you speeches. Not long passed, until finally someone realized the mistake and acted on it.

Now let's go over what happened, with all the information I have gathered:

Two PwC partners had a set of envelopes at opposite sides of the stage. One of the partners, Brian Cullinan, was tweeting a few seconds before Warren Beatty would take the stage and after finishing his social media interaction, he handed Warren the envelope for Best Actress, instead of the Best Picture. At no point Mr. Cullinan realized he still had a Best Picture envelope with him and Warren was about to open a wrong one.

On the stage just about to announce the winner, Warren opens the envelope and he silently reads "Emma Stone - La La Land." I can only speculate what went over his mind:

• Hmmm, this says Emma Stone. Isn't she the actress?
• Wow, oh wait, did Emma Stone produce this film?
• It took me fifty years to become a producer, I didn't know Emma Stone was a producer already!
• This is probably some sort of mix-up or misprint. They must have printed Emma's name, instead of the actual producers. There must be no other explanation, this is the Best Picture winner card.
• Or is it?
• Hello? Can somebody help?
• Faye?

Faye Dunaway didn't know what to make up of Warren's hesitation with the card, and as soon as she could get a glimpse of whatever was written on the card, she didn't hesitate and with no doubt she read out loud "La La Land." Two and a half speeches in a timespan of over two minutes later, finally Jordan Horowitz -one of "La La Land"'s producers- in a very gracious and incredible gesture, took the microphone and said "guys, there's a mistake. Moonlight, you guys won best picture." Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel -the host- stood there like an idiot, trying to make sense of the situation in his brain.

After seeing many mix-ups -including the mentioned three-, it makes me wonder whether if we are entering an era in which making mistakes at a high-profile situation is becoming normal, and more importantly, it can be passed without any consequences, or if we have lost the sense of what has to be done for something to be done the right way.

Let's face it: had Steve Harvey read the Miss Universe card, there would have been any mix-up at all. Just like, had Trump verified by any means that his electoral vote margin wasn't the largest since Reagan.

Beatty tried to fix things before Dunaway announced the wrong winner. He possibly knew he had the wrong envelope, or at least he probably figured that something was wrong with the envelope. He paused but he didn't stop, and that's when things go bad in business. It was worse for Faye, because she didn't even pause. She just acted without thinking, looking to get the job done as quick as possible. Faye assumed everything was perfect, and in all sense, who could blame her?

The true responsibility lies with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm that is incharge of managing the envelopes.

So what can we conclude of all this mess:

Take in account your environment and the variables that surround you. Know your implications and eventual results of your actions. Lead, take the initiative. If you see something wrong, point it right away and don't let it slip hoping for the best.

In short, think before you act.

Sometimes you respect the rank, not the man

About five days ago I finished an entry in which I addressed my view regarding Trump's ban of immigration. I haven't made it public yet, because I have been waiting for the right time to do it, mostly because well... it will be controversial. I decided I have to wait until the tides settle down, so I've held releasing it for a few days -maybe weeks, maybe months-, until the time is right. Instead I will make a short entry about something that was brought to my attention just today.

If you haven't seen HBO's WWII miniseries "Band of Brothers", you haven't seen one of the best -if not the best- miniseries of all time. It's the story of one of the companies of the 506th Infantry Regiment that made the invasion of Normandy (D-Day), told in the perspective of several of its members, 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 this video was brought to my attention today, in which a reporter (with somewhat of a muslim accent) standing up, inquiries to Trump about him having the right to ask a question. Trump quickly dismisses him and gives the right to speak to another reporter. The Muslim-American reporter, still standing, then insists on Trump giving him the right to a question and then proceeds to make several statements about the deportation of immigrants. Trump then orders the security personal to remove the reporter from the room. A lot of people over the internet have sided towards the reporter -mostly due to everything that has happened during the last days-. On this particular ocassion, I cannot side with him and I cannot side with the majority of the people, siding with him.

As distasteful and disgraceful, and as much as I hate the fact that Trump is our President, I can't condone the behavior of the reporter who wants -and sort of, demands- to ask a question. Like it or not, Trump IS the United States President, and like it or not, you have to respect the rank (even if you 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. Plus, he's standing up like in a defying stance, so that doesn't help either.

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.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether if the video is from these past days, or if it is from Trump's campaign. Even if it was from Trump's campaign (meaning Trump hadn't become President yet, hence held no rank), it's still disrespectful to keep talking to a someone who hasn't given you the right to speak. 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.

The moment when it all clicks

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.
He probably said something like
"Maybe another time you'll beat me, but for now, I'm still the man"

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.

Dimitrov's new coach Daniel Vallverdu
has become a significant positive force for him.

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.

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 pumps himself up after saving both breakpoints

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.