Greatest P4P: DECISION

And the Winner Is...

DECISION
[page 7]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

So far it's been Fedor for ROUND 1, a tie for ROUND 2, and if Anderson Silva can't get ROUND 3, it's going to be the Russian, Emelianenko by decision.

For the last round, I think there's a very good reason why Anderson Silva is considered as the P4P best. It's simply because he more convincingly dominates everyone in the middleweight division. Like what was mentioned in the last part, he seems invincible right now. Yeah, Fedor dominates, but sometimes he has to struggle to it.

Of course there are good arguments against judging a fighter as best P4P simply because no one can hurt him. Some will say, and I'll agree with them, that greatness is not necessarily invulnerability. Rather it is the ability to prevail against challenges. Being called best without facing adversity somehow feels wrong.

Still, Anderson Silva at least deserves to be given the last round for just being a goddamn invincible fighter. So maybe--maybe--he is, in practice, the P4P best. So fine. It's his.

Anderson Silva takes round 3.

FINAL FINAL DECISION

What!?! After all that, it's still a freakin' tie! It's been a long hard fight, though. I guess it was the right thing to happen. Here it is officially,

IT'S A TIE!

How did that happen, again? BACK TO PAGE 1>>>

Now that that's settled, it's time for me to troll and just share my partiality. Fedor Emelianenko vs. Anderson Silva? Winner? It has to be Fedor.

Greatest P4P: ROUND 3

Claim to Fame
ROUND THREE: P4P, in practice
[page 6]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

I think the title Pound-for-Pound Best is decided in the real world on how a fighter fares against his own weight-class, period. The question then is of how much better [a fighter] is in his own division compared to [another fighter] in his. Therefore it is the difference in each top fighter's skill level against their immediate competition that is compared. It's actually a respectable criterion.

To gauge how far apart Fedor and Anderson are from their competition, we are going to have to collect and view all their fights for analysis. But I don't nearly have that much time to review everything. If only there was a graphic summary of their history as MMA fighters. Something that serves as a visual representation of their achievements--a proof of their dominance. But how can we acquire such academic data?

Oh, Fan Highlight Vids.

Fedor Emelianenko

Highlight Vid#1 (7:34)


Highlight Vid#2 (3:25)


Anderson Silva

Highlight Vid#1 (7:51)


Highlight Vid#2 (5:11)

There are several observations we can make from watching only these four videos; mostly concerning how each fighter fights, style-wise. But what we're more concerned about is the aforementioned over-all dominance of either fighter. For me, the following statements apply:

Fedor overcomes
Anderson overwhelms

Fedor overcomes - as a Pride heavyweight, Fedor has battled against the toughest and the freakiest opponents available. Although he has amazing stand-up with his punches I personally think the most impressive aspect of his game is his devastating ground-and-pound. Because this is very well supplemented by excellent takedown and ground control techniques, he usually gets a stoppage victory once he takes top position on the ground.

Unfortunately, "The Last Emperor" is not as invincible as fans declaring him as "cyborg" or "not-human" or "God" would suggest. Fedor has been into really tight spots and opponents have threatened to defeat him. It's just that it has never really happened. Somehow, someway, he creates a scramble or a reversal or some other situation and suddenly he's the one dominating. And really, it's DOMINATING. A few seconds later he has his fist punching the air and the referee is declaring him the winner.

In the face of defeat, Fedor overcomes.

Anderson overwhelms - I knew a time when I didn't care for "The Spider." Years, ago watching Pride, it was all about the heavyweights--Nogueira leading the pack and then eventually Fedor. The only Silva people knew at the time was Wanderlei because Anderson wasn't much of a top fighter. It was only in the UFC that Silva started receiving attention.

Every fight he has come into for the last two years have him completely destroying the competition. After a few fights, you realize quickly that, yes, his aligity and precision are amazing to witness, yes, his clinch is terrifying. Now unlike Fedor, Silva, at least recently, appears to be invincible. I don't think I've even seen him draw blood or tire yet. I don't think he's been put into a bad spot. So it's all about the efficiency of the attack for the Spider. With superior offense and intensity, Anderson Silva overwhelms whoever is in front of him.

We go to the score cards: LAST PAGE>>>

Greatest P4P: ROUND 2.3

Fighting Chance
ROUND TWO: P4P, in theory
[page 5]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

The results are in. Using the TOTALS equation stated in 2.1 where, for each phase, we add up all the offensive phase-action scores of one fighter and subtract the defensive phase-action scores of the other, we get the PHASE TOTAL.

After getting all the PHASE TOTALS we add them all up and we then arrive at the OVER-ALL TOTAL SCORE. Whoever gets the higher Total score here receives the title, Greatest Pound-For-Pound (in theory).

And the winner is...

...It's a tie?

I swear to you I was just as surprised (and disappointed) as you when I first got the results. Nevertheless, I was as unbiased as was possible so these are more or less pretty accurate for me. But that's just me so don't get so upset about it. Besides there's one more round to go.

Third and final round: NEXT PAGE>>>

Greatest P4P: ROUND 2.2

Fighting Chance
ROUND TWO: P4P, in theory
[page 4]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

I've filled out everything here.

*"others" in STAND-UP = unorthodox techniques/movement fighters use for increased unpredictability and control
* subs are given 0.5 weight because you need substantial control to properly submit an opponent

As you can see there are no zeroes on the RATINGS column, because I think neither fighter can be considered poor in anything. However, there some are 1s. Let me explain my basis.
0 = poor
1 = good/average/untested/questionable
2 = very good/proficient
3 = excellent/superb

I'm sure some of you will still argue about the ratings so let me explain further. I give 1s for phase-actions that they barely use or they've used only against not-so-tough opponents. 3s are for those phase-actions which get the job done nearly all the time; that means, for example, a KO or sub for a phase-action that is weighted 1. The rest fall in between and are 2s. Also, be reminded that I'm comparing them to everybody so Fedor's STAND-UP kicks are rated 1 to Anderson's 2 to Cro Cop's 3. Good enough?

Finally, I'd like to point out the numbers in dark blue under the SCORE column. They appear in this format off. x (def. x) and refer to the phase's offensive total (defensive total).

Looking at the totals for each phase, we can see that Anderson Silva has a better stand-up and clinch game compared to Fedor. On the other hand, on the ground Fedor has significantly better defense and reversals. All others stats are virtually equal.

Analyzing the actions for each phase, we see each fighter's specific strengths (and weaknesses). Fedor's path to victory is through a takedown which leads to Ground-and-Pound or submission. In contrast, Anderson's requires him to get to the clinch to inflict close-range elbow or most probably knee strikes. Of course, before either of these finishes happen, Fedor will have to deal with Anderson's striking efficiency while Anderson will, in turn, have to take care that Fedor doesn't burst into his explosive throws and takedowns.

Ok, so using our equations to get the over-all TOTALS, who's the better fighter p4p, in theory? You'd be surprised.

Over-all TOTALS: NEXT PAGE>>>

Greatest P4P: ROUND 2.1

Fighting Chance

ROUND TWO: P4P, in theory
[page 3]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

Each fighter has his unique fighting style. Some prefer to stand-up. Some go for the clinch. Others want to take to the ground and grapple. Although this doesn't automatically say how good a fighter is at the different phases of the game, it does provide a clue to his tendencies and his preferences; the things that inevitably translate to his personal fighting style. This part seeks to figure out what particular brand of fighting Anderson Silva and Fedor Emelianenko bring to their fights with the aim of judging, as best we can, who the better fighter is. For this we need to keep in mind two things:

One, we're dealing with p4p best, in theory meaning, "Had the fighters been naturally of the same weight-class, who would the best be?" This implies a full-on comparison of all fighters in all divisions. As much as we're comparing Fedor and Anderson to their own weight-class, we are also going to cross-analyze the two against other competition outside of it. I know it's getting complicated, but let's move on. I'll clarify on the way.

The second thing to keep in mind is that we're going to attempt to breakdown the fighter's game per phase (stand-up, clinch, ground). We're going to do this by standardizing a rating system. Here it is:

• For each phase, there will be listed under it the available options/actions to a fighter.
• Each action would then be weighted with either a full point (1) or a half point (0.5) decided by the nature of the action--a full point if it tends to create (or prevent) direct win conditions, half if it does not.
• After this is the players rating, which ranges from 0 to 3. A zero (0) means that fighter is no good at all in that aspect of the phase, a three (3) means he's one of the best.
• Multiplying the weight and the rating, we get the fighter's score for that action.
• We add them all up and see what happens.
• A peculiarity is the defense aspect of each phase (grey horizontal). This is subtracted to the other fighter's offensive score.
• In an equation, phase-action weight x fighter rating = phase-action score
• (Sum of phase-action scores) - (sum of def. phase-action scores) = Phase Total

Still confused? Why don't we just look at the stupid table? It's simpler that way.

Explanation & Analysis: NEXT PAGE >>>

Greatest P4P: ROUND 1

"Real Fedor" vs "Real Anderson"

ROUND ONE: ABSOLUTE
[page 2]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

Suppose the "real Fedor Emelianenko" and the "real Anderson Silva" fought in an MMA match, who would win? Well, how can we fairly speculate in the first place? By comparison.

Please refer to the following table for the basic statistics of each fighter.

The biggest difference we can see between Fedor and Anderson--based on the above information--is their weight, with the latter giving up 50 lbs to the former. (Silva is walking around at 205 lbs these days but he hasn't really proven anything yet in the UFC's light heavyweight division so let's stick to 185 for the meantime.) And in spite of what your jiu-jitsu friends tell you, size matters. That's why Royce Gracie was badly beaten by Matt Hughes a few years back. Yes he'd been older. But the real point is, Matt had been stronger. Without the "surprise factor" of BJJ submissions (as there had been in the early UFCs), Royce had to contend with proper defense. And a lot of power to back it up.

If you're still finding "size matters" hard to accept imagine what would happen if fighters of equal skill, but not of equal strength fought. The fact of the matter is, size and strength play into many aspects of a fight simply because it is a physical person-against-person direct contact sport. The person who can control the other with less effort has a natural advantage.

But you ask, "light fighters are quicker." True. They're more agile. They move faster. They're quicker on their feet. That's good for them because at long range, strength is more or less cancelled--the other fighter can't grab onto you! So the lighter fighter can just go for the knock out, right?

Not really. Although slower on their feet, bigger, heavier fighters can also hit quite fast. The only difference is that they also hit quite harder. That's why boxers don't have open-weight matches.

Again, size matters.

Nonetheless, this is Fedor vs Anderson. Not some heavyweight vs some middleweight. That said, let me break it down properly.

The Real Match-up

STAND-UP
Striking is Anderson Silva's forte and it looks like a good strategy for him against Fedor because he's long, has fast strikes, and has more agility. The only problem is that Fedor has shown that he in fact excels against strikers (Cro Cop and K-1 champions). More than that, I think we can agree that he is no slouch--he has a very aggressive, explosive style to his game and his hand-speed is one of his best points. True, Anderson may be quicker on his feet, but when it comes to striking efficacy they're not that far apart. In fact, I may even give this to Fedor if only because he'll take harder hits, and likewise hit harder.

(Oh yeah, don't tell me Anderson's going to kick Fedor into oblivion. Fedor has a habit of catching kicks so he can take his opponent down.)

THE CLINCH

Well, The Spider has one hell of a clinch. He lands his knees in convincing fashion. On the other hand, Fedor has never really been properly stuck in the clinch. Fighters have gone zero distance with him but only with the intention of taking him down.

Although Anderson is deadly here, it is only because his opponents are of the same weight. They're easier to control. Trying to tie-up with a natural heavyweight who's stronger and heavier is another matter. Never mind doing that to Fedor. Still, those knees are scary. I have all the respect for them.


GROUND
If there is one phase of the game which may ironically prove to Anderson's advantage--it would be the ground game. If Anderson Silva has vastly superior skills in this aspect then he may possibly nullify Fedor's strength and size. Specifically, this means submission techniques and proficiency.

But that is a huge ass IF. Like BJJ, Sambo is at least partially about submissions and both fighters, incidentally, are top level BJJ/Sambo practitioners. Furthermore, Fedor has great reversals at the bottom and has a sick armbar that comes from out of nowhere. Oh and lest we forget, once on the top, Fedor ground-and-pounds like an angry bear. Honestly.

Verdict: I would have to say that in a real MMA fight, based on the above, I would be putting my money on Fedor. The only real chance I see for Anderson is if he's smarter with his strikes and combinations, landing some quick blows, mixing things up with surprise knees and backfists, etc. or if he turns out to be a vastly superior submissions artist, after all. Otherwise--if Anderson Silva cannot inflict substantial damage with his strikes or if he can't control his opponent on the ground--I think it's going to be a ground-and-pound victory for Fedor.

Round 1 goes to Fedor.

But of course, that's in a real fight, where Fedor has 20-50 lbs more muscle power. But that's not what pound-for-pound means. The term "pound-for-pound best fighter" implies the competitors naturally being on the same weight-class. If so, then would the same conclusions hold?

A deeper look into each fighter's unique style and technique: NEXT PAGE>>>

Greatest Pound-For-Pound MMA Fighter: Fedor Emelianenko vs Anderson Silva

Cry Havoc!

WHO IS THE GREATEST POUND-FOR-POUND MMA FIGHTER IN THE WORLD?
[page 1]
<1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6>

Let's get right to it.

Who is MMA's best pound-for-pound fighter? It all boils down to these two. Is it the Russian powerhouse, Fedor Emelianenko or the Brazilian dynamo Anderson Silva?

While either fighter surely has his legion of fans behind him--each side eager to prove that their man (or "GOD!") is the best--the dispute is still open to contention. Anderson and Fedor both have shown tremendous skill against competition and not too many weaknesses, making them tough to compare intelligently. Fans are then left to arguments of personal taste whenever the topic of best MMA fighter p4p comes up--the winner being decided by sheer conviction.

Now I'm sure that you, by virtue of the fact that you're reading this, have your own answer regarding this matter. I have mine as well. But let's put that aside for the meantime. This post is entitled Fedor vs Anderson after all; and I'm here to try to do just that in a manner rarely ever done. That is, intellectually and without bias. (Well, I hope.)

Welcome to the Greatest Pound-For-Pound MMA Fighter Ever Match-up. The main event: Fedor Emelianenko vs Anderson Silva, this consisting of three (3) rounds with the following parameters:

Round 1: Absolute (real life)
Round 2: Pound-for-Pound, in theory (if they had been naturally of the same weight)
Round 3: Pound-for-Pound, in practice (what P4P really is)


Let's get it on!

The Tale of the Tape: NEXT PAGE>>>

Anderson Silva Entrance Theme
(DMX - "Ain't No Sunshine")


Fedor Emelianenko Entrance Theme
(Era - "Enae Volare Mezzo" )

The Tale of the Tape: NEXT PAGE>>>

HELP ME IMPROVE THIS BLOG

Help me improve this blog by commenting (on this particular page or on any of articles). Any constructive comment would GREATLY be appreciated. Improvements? Criticisms? Praises? Questions? Requests? Just want to say something? Here's your chance!

Speak your mind. Comment! =)

On Overthinking Love (A "WTF!" Day ad)

A guy, visibly anxious, nervous, and a little sweaty, once remarked to his friend, "Man, this is terrible. I don't know if I should even do this."

"What do you mean?" his friend asked nonchalantly.

"I mean," he stammered, "What if I've read all the signals wrong? What if she's just playing me for a fool? What if she's just being nice? What if she just wants to be friends?"

"So?" The friend answered impatiently.

"Are you even listening!?! What if I'm wrong? What if she doesn't really like me? Jesus, maybe I should stop all of this nonsense."

His friend laughed loudly and shamelessly. "Are you freakin' crazy? So what if you're wrong!?!"

The guy was in mild shock. There was a look of defeat on his face. He felt betrayed.

"You don't understand," the friend explained, calming down a little, "Who cares if you're wrong? What if you're right?

Moral Lesson: Some things are just worth the try.

"Welcome Travelers From The Future!" Day is still on January 1, 2010.

see: all posts about it

Think you can improve this and/or translate this into another media? Do it! Turn this into a better "ad."

Don't forget to share this blog! Use the bookmarking buttons found below this post and all over the page.

What Guys Really Go For In Girls

Question: What do guys go for? A pretty face, a fit body, flirtatious behavior, or "inner beauty?"

Since time immemorial, girls have been criticizing us guys for being "shallow." They say we focus too much on the "superficial stuff" and the "things that won't last." They want us to look deeper, way down to the core of her being, to the things that matter the most.

Now what girls can't seem to understand is we're doing exactly that. We want to go deeper, into the core of your being, to the things that matter most. In fact, let me tell you what, nothing would make us happier. Nothing. So what are we waiting for, honey?

And then she rolls her eyes, folds her arms, and just glares at you disgustedly. Like you did something wrong. Sheesh. What the hell did we do now!?!

But I ask you people, do we really have to add to all the negativity in the world? For the sake of everybody getting along--or at least trying to--let me attempt to set things a-right.

What Guys Go For #1: Gorgeous Looks

What All The Fuss Is About: Frankly speaking, I've had two or three experiences when I'd lost at least partial control of myself in the face of well, a beautiful face. This is because, if you haven't experienced it yourself, stunning beauty is exactly that--stunning. It's not a metaphor. So I don't know why girls are complaining about guys ogling girls when they're the ones that go through hours--hours!--of preparation with the obvious desire to catch our attention. And when it doesn't come, they get depressed...or hostile. Go figure.

What All The Fuss Is Really About: Beauty has long been considered a primary female attribute. Throughout the course of human history, perhaps not one trait in a female is instantly more desirable than said apparent facial beauty. Helen of Troy exemplified the zenith of this potent capacity to turn the male world furiously over its head with her title as "the face that launched a thousand ships." So it is acknowledged, in myth and in truth, that a woman with exceedingly captivating looks can and does hold sway over the supposed stronger sex.

Still, the question "Why?" lingers. Why are we--guys--attracted to "beautiful faces?" The answer is that beautiful faces are indicators of youth and health. As a woman grows older, you will see that a number of facial features (such as the eyes and the nose) change in size or just appearance. Wrinkles and spots begin to show. The face begins to look old. Indeed, when we say ugly, we may actually mean old and vice versa. The appearance of youth--and therefore beauty--is why older women get their faces lifted and their skin conditioned when they can.

Sure, men can accept dating older women, but only if they look young. It's a different matter when the woman looks old as well.

What Guys Go For #2: A Perfect Body

What All The Fuss Is About: Very, very few things can turn guys into unrestrained creatures of carnal lust and tempestuous desire like a girl with a hot body. Of course the fairer sex may think that it's just all about their breasts and/or their ass, but this is not true at all. Guys are not generally picky. They will go for anything you can give them! Any unexpected manifestation of shape or skin will do. It makes for good conversation in groups, and when alone...

What All The Fuss Is Really About: This answer is closely related to the first one. Like facial beauty, the over-all appearance of the body also serves as an indicator of youth and health. But arguably to a greater extent. There is after all very little natural change which can be applied to the face since only cosmetic and artificial ones have big effects. The body, on the other hand, with its visible curves, tone, and proportions can not only mean youth and health but it can also directly point to real-time energy and fitness. In fact, even the celebrated hour-glass figure--perfect breasts, waist, hip, and ass--provides clues to the quality of a female's physical status. All these, while seemingly superficial, are indicative of something more basic and more primal; finally, something deeper: the woman's true and innate potential to bear children with equally "perfect" bodies.

What Guys Go For #3: Sexy Attitude

What All The Fuss Is About: Some girls just know how to work their charm. They know what they want and they just go out there and get it! These girls know that guys are overly receptive to signals of the suggestive kind so they've turned female flirtation and seduction into a personal craft all their own. A guy can find himself getting more comfortable or more intimidated with all the explicit advances, but one thing is still for sure, he'll want it.

What All The Fuss Is Really About: From the pharaoh-queen Cleopatra to the actress/sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, history is rich with capable temptresses. In popular culture, teen movies such as Cruel Intentions and Wild Things have reinvented the art of seduction to modern interpretations. We all understand the appeal of this sort of movies because we all understand the appeal of a seductive female. The explanation couldn't be simpler. Usually it's the guy creating all the sexual advances; this time, and wouldn't you know it, it's reciprocal. And the guy thinks, We're finally on the same page. Good. Less work for me.

What Guys Go For #4: Conversation Skills (aka "Someone You Can Talk To")

What All The Fuss Is About: We don't ask for much when it comes to the intelligence department because we believe in our heart of hearts that courtship and dating is not some achievement examination or a company interview. We don't go for over-elaborated answers because that just numbs the both of us to the feelings involved in the process. We prefer to keep things simple. So open up a little more. Move a little closer. How can we share our feelings when you're sitting way over there?

What All The Fuss Is Really About: If human beings did nothing but have sex, there would really be very little need for a girl to have conversation skills. But the fact of the matter is, a guy has to navigate through a girl's life before and, more importantly, after sex. Otherwise, the relationship cannot go to the next level, which is sex or child-rearing, respectively.

This means that there is a sub-conscious mechanism that inclines a man to be "mature" in his decisions. Simple wisdom: A person is never devoid of peripheral attributes/attachments (family, friends, work, etc). So when a guy seeks his intellectual compatibility with a girl--when he tries to get into who she is as a person--he is signaling his application for a serious relationship which implies fitting into the girl's life as much as possible.

Ok on second thought, maybe it is some kind of examination/interview. Whatever.

What Guys Go For #5: "Inner Beauty" (aka "Someone You Can Fall In Love With")

What All The Fuss Is About: Guys have the reputation for relegating this characteristic to shamefully lower priorities. Yup, I know you girls think all guys want are looks and body and sex and even more sex. You've even noticed that all guys seem to have in their minds is sex. Moreover, you've accepted the popular fact that all guys really go for is sex. But sex aside...

Ummm.

What All The Fuss Is Really About: Eventually a guy has to settle down. That means, marriage. That means children. That means working no longer for himself but for his family. He of course understands this, even if it never really occurs to him on the surface of his thoughts. At the same time he understands that a kid with both a dad and a mom receives more benefits than just having one parent. Therefore just as he judges himself from his ability to put bread on the table; he likewise judges women for their ability to care and nurture, to express compassion and concern and kindness. He judges women for their potential to become worthy mothers. It matters to him because it will matter to his child.

And like I said, he doesn't have to think it. He only has to feel it. And he calls the feeling, all lust and sex aside, luv.

On that note, I present to you this video.

So...now are we good, baby?

The "Welcome Travelers From The Future!" Day: A REAL Time Travel Experiment (I'm Not Kidding, Read On)

An Introduction (Be Patient)

Our culture has been pondering and fantasizing (if you're that kind of person) about time travel ever since Samuel Madden made an angel the first literary agent of time travel in his novel Memoirs of the Twentieth Century. H.G. Wells then popularized it more than a century later with The Time Machine in 1895. Other notable authors and their works then followed after, expanding and elaborating on the entire concept, exploring theories and potential problems until it graduated into other forms of media. From Isaac Asimov's 1955 classic, The End of Eternity to the epic 1985 action-adventure comedy Back to the Future to the gamut of today's modern interpretations of it, time travel has become one of the most readily understood and accepted plot devices in fiction and science fiction.

Somewhen between Samuel Madden and Adam Sandler, science caught up. Einstein's theory of relativity gave scientific credibility to the otherwise eagerly generous postulating of fiction. Time travel became scientifically plausible. But what's really weird and unusual about this whole affair is though time travel has been in the minds of our scientists and the general population as a plausible reality for close to three generations, we still don't know if it is actually doable. This is only because we haven't tested the hypothesis yet. Not really.



My Friend & The "Welcome Travelers From The Future!" Day

I had a friend once who, slightly frustrated about how scientists and smart people were dealing with the matter, put forward the idea of The "Welcome Travelers From The Future!" Day. This was how it happened.

[dramatization]

"Why not just, you know, have a Time Travel Day?" said my friend from out of the blue, partially to himself. We were in our high school classroom.
"Huh?" I said, "What?"
"Time Travel Day. People meet up from everywhere and then they wait for time travelers from the future to arrive," he continued.
"What?"
"People agree on a certain date and then they just gather and wait...for the time travelers from the future. They can have banners and stuff, 'Welcome Travelers From the Future.' And a stage. Or something."
"..."
"People just have to agree on the date and the time and then we'll finally know if there's such a thing as time travel."
"..."
"And then, you know, we can just get back to our daily lives knowing we tried. No matter what. Right?"
A pause.
"Yeah...But there has to be enough people who know about it for it to work."
"Yeah."
And then the bell rang and everything was pushed back to the subconscious and my friend and I went back to school mode and the grind of everyday life and then it's suddenly today and me writing about my friend's idea. And it's been years since that conversation.


The Experiment Proper

This shouldn't be too difficult. If we can agree on a time and the place then it should work. If enough people take the initiative to make sure that it becomes a global event that will be remembered well into the future then we take away the possibility that the would-be time travelers don't know about it.

I'll set the date. Let's set it approximately one year from now so the news can spread and we can all make preparations. There can be a big supporting social event just in case our time traveling visitors fail to make it for whatever reason (impossibility/great risk of disrupting something important). There can be a big social event just for the heck of it.

Organize yourselves. You can tell people you know, people who can spread it to other people better. Friends, family, the media. While we're at it, let's see just how much power this Web2.0 thing can generate. Make sure to post regularly--once every two weeks?--on your blogs about the upcoming event. It can be about anything about it. Scientific background. Ethical issues. Concerns. Speculations about the result of the event. Preparations.

Make the initiative yours. Make blogs. Make music. Make movies. Anything to keep the hype up. Remember, the world has to know it for it to work. And we have everything we need to make the world listen.

I'm serious about this guys. So, in the spirit of fun, curiosity, discovery, participating in something bigger, doing something unprecedented in scope and scale, and grabbing an opportunity that doesn't come too often, I hereby declare January 1, 2010 "Welcome Travelers From The Future!" Day!




Wait up!

Vote on which timezone to use. State your case and submit your proposal on when exactly "Welcome Travelers From The Future Day!" should be. Myself, I'd want it to be according to my timezone (for obvious reasons) but that may not be the smartest way to go. For example:

• Maybe we should consider global availability to witness the event in unison.
• Maybe we should have a sponsor country.
• Maybe we should consider until everyone's gone through their New Year's celebration.
• Maybe we should make it the New year celebration.
  
• Maybe we should make it coincide with some sort of global phenomenon.

I don't know. What do you guys think?

***

Now that it's been more than a month since I first posted this, maybe it's time you checked out related posts and some campaign material. Help me spread it around. =)