Other/Mixed Difference between pros and amateurs

[WhatWouldHulkDo]

I would go so far as to argue that genetic potential is by far the most distinguishing characteristic between pros and amateurs. Despite what the motivational posters say, yes, you do have a limit. I've seen plenty of guys who "stuck to the program," did what a good coach told them, had all the motivation and toughness in the world... and still get dominated by a more physically-gifted specimen.

And as far as motivation goes... which actually takes more motivation; pursuing your limits when you have the very real prospect of achieving tremendous wealth and world-wide glory? Or pursuing your limits when the best you can hope for is an occasional moment of glory that perhaps you will be the only witness for? Not to say that the pros aren't actually motivated, but I don't think they're superhuman in this regard - I think a great many amateur athletes deserve the same admiration for their motivation.

As far as "training like the pros"... you have to treat them collectively. Training like any one particular pro is not likely to make you perform like that one particular pro, unless you happen to be similarly gifted. Instead, we look for trends among them, the things that they all do... and try to emulate those things within the scope of our own capabilities.

 

[offwidth]

Let’s not forget that most ‘pro’s’ are getting paid to do what they do. Often times their paycheque is tied to their performance.
That being said I also concur with my friend @WhatWouldHulkDo ... I know some amateur athletes that do have a work ethic and motivation that does border on ‘superhuman’...

 

[coachnathanwhite]

@Kozushi
Read "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield. The entire book is about this topic.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Pros have a very specific destination, and assume certain health risks as part of their profession. They also have a limited shelf life before they simply become irrelevent to their sport. Theyhave considerably more time to devote to skill and strength/conditioning that is specific to their craft.

None of these conditions apply to an amateur or someone who simply wants to be athletic. Many pros have terrible health in later years.

While there is much to be learned from pros, the idea that amateurs or fitness minded non competitive folk should emulate their training is misguided, unless you have the exact same destination in mind.

 

[LukeV]

In sport in order to be paid (pro) for doing what others do for free (amateur) you have to be so much better than them. Not just a little bit better but freakishly, super-humanly better. Because there are thousands of them for every one of you and if you weren't so much better one of them would have got past you and taken your spot. But at one stage, maybe many years before, you and they were pretty much the same - even the child prodigy has to start somewhere. And so what you did to succeed in a way that they can only dream about could well be entirely relevant to how they might, for example, get better.

 

[Jamesjones]

Yes, he was unreal strong, and never ever ever got tired! These physical attributes already gave him a huge edge over us amateurs. Added to this was his unreal level of technique and knowledge of movement patterns specific to winning judo. I'm 220lbs and strong, he was 165lbs and strong, but he was much faster, much more tactical, much more energetic, much more aggressive. Literally NOTHING worked against him, NOTHING! Nothing! Standing, on the ground, nothing!

When I was training I used to regularly get to grapple with former UFC heavyweight and Britain’s strongest man oli Thompson incredible how strong that man is I weighed around 80kg at the time but by god was he strong I can only imagine how strong someone smaller is but feels like a heavyweight amateur

 

[Hung]

I suppose drugs will enter this discussion eventually - it can't be ignored as being a professional sportsman without drugs is likely impossible. Except for competitive darts maybe?

This is not always the case. At least in my country. For example, weightlifters in here still not get much affect by PED (except the top one, but also the government refuses to pay for the drug, althetes need to find the sources by their own).

Young weightlifters in my country are poor. The government pays them about 3 to 6 millions per month (about 130 usd to 260 usd), but pay two times per year. They need to take care the food and supplement by themselves (and the street restaurant near every sport centers always annoy that athletes didn't pay the meals on time).

(In the south, things quite different. All the sport centers have kitchens and dining hall, but the amount of protein the athlete has in one meal is still low like their salary).

Drug is mostly use in here by bodybuilders and powerlifter - two individual sport that mostly "played" by decent people (but not amateur).

 

[John Grahill]

I perused this thread this morning and one thing kind of hit me. Let's face it, some people are just born with certain talents and attributes that puts them ahead of us no matter how hard we train. I am not suggesting giving up training but I am a realist. I remember some athletes smoking, drinking beer and soda, eating chips and staying out late and watching them dominate everyone on the field.

 

[Don Fairbanks]

View attachment 11909

@Kozushi
Read "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield. The entire book is about this topic.

Good book, also read Do The Work and Turning Pro. Cool looking bells.

 

[Anna C]

I may have asked a question like this in the past, I don't remember, but in any case I don't think there is much dispute that professionals are the ones typicaly leading the way in pretty much every field. I'm wondering when it comes to exercise, what is it that makes professionals different from amateurs,

You did But it was also a good discussion, for those who like the topic:

Other/Mixed - Expert/Professional versus Amateur Disconnect

This is kind of philosophical but I think a very real problem in sports. If we're talking about sports for participation, for health, which is why 99% of us or more do them, we're talking about different goals, motivations and needs from pros. Yet, we go to pros for advice and for training...

www.strongfirst.com

 

[Kozushi]

View attachment 11909

@Kozushi
Read "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield. The entire book is about this topic.

Does he have a special affinity for pressing by any chance? It would go his name "Pressfield".

Kind of funny with this thread in that I thought I'd get some pros to say, 'Hey, I'm a pro and this is what I do." Interestingly that hasn't seemed to happen. There are pros here though, no?

 

[IMayAgainKnowChris]

Pros ask questions on the forum. Amateurs post answers ...I kid...

 

[John K]

I have two comments:

1. Looking at what pros are doing isn’t very instructive unless you happen to have a similar training history, faults, and strengths. Take strength training for an NFL team - I spoke with one coach who basically said it wasn’t about being optimal but about what you could get everyone to do without hurting anyone.

2. From when I had a very active profession, I was told quite clearly there were no “secrets” to make you better, only that we practiced the fundamentals until we were better at them. There weren’t tricks or secret strategies, but we mastered the basics while everyone else was looking for and working on fancy techniques.

 

[LukeV]

I would go so far as to argue that genetic potential is by far the most distinguishing characteristic between pros and amateurs. Despite what the motivational posters say, yes, you do have a limit. I've seen plenty of guys who "stuck to the program," did what a good coach told them

Even between professionals (I'm talking serious professionals) genetics probably ends up more signficant than training approach. After all, professionals who are competing with each other are often still training together whether under the same coach or within the same team/facility. Training must have its limits. To borrow the famous strength training advice, is to possible to lift heavier, more often, while staying fresher than the other guy?

 

[Antti]

I think some in this thread underestimate the need for training or overestimate the benefits of genetics.

Take the most popular sport in the world, football, with crazy amounts of money in it. Still, there is a massive difference between individuals and teams and how they train. The football world is full of wonderkids who shock everyone as a teen but never make it to the big stage.

And the best of the best? They are undeniably gifted, but they train, and train, and train.

Also, football players as a whole are getting better and better and their careers have unprecedented longevity. I don't believe any of this has anything to do with their genetics.

 

[Kozushi]

I think some in this thread underestimate the need for training or overestimate the benefits of genetics.

Take the most popular sport in the world, football, with crazy amounts of money in it. Still, there is a massive difference between individuals and teams and how they train. The football world is full of wonderkids who shock everyone as a teen but never make it to the big stage.

And the best of the best? They are undeniably gifted, but they train, and train, and train.

Also, football players as a whole are getting better and better and their careers have unprecedented longevity. I don't believe any of this has anything to do with their genetics.

I'm also a bit surprised at the "talent trumps training" mindset I'm seeing here.

 

[Kozushi]

I have two comments:

1. Looking at what pros are doing isn’t very instructive unless you happen to have a similar training history, faults, and strengths. Take strength training for an NFL team - I spoke with one coach who basically said it wasn’t about being optimal but about what you could get everyone to do without hurting anyone.

2. From when I had a very active profession, I was told quite clearly there were no “secrets” to make you better, only that we practiced the fundamentals until we were better at them. There weren’t tricks or secret strategies, but we mastered the basics while everyone else was looking for and working on fancy techniques.

I think though that the "basics" aren't really as basic as we tell ourselves they are. There are lots of subtleties within the basics that only intelligent and assiduous training can cultivate.

This is why S&S is not just 15 goblet squats, 100 1h swings and 10 getups - it's 150ish pages of detail!

 

[Period]

I would say that in general, the biggest distinction between amateurs and pros is that the pros do A LOT more specific work. That means that the time they spend on GPP is usually proportionately less, though it can still be more overall. In my experience, people tend to underestimate what that means, both in terms of results and in terms of exercise choice. The pros I have known will usually go for whatever S&C allows them to be freshest while still making progress. Interestingly, this doesn't mean "shortest possible time", but rather "fastest recovery". A 1RM squat or deadlift takes like 4 seconds, but can leave your CNS wiped for days. A circuit training or 8 km run, on the other hand will take half an hour, but if you're accustomed to it, you will feel literally nothing the next day... in fact, it may even help your recovery. I know some wrestling pros (most of them Russian freestyle wrestlers) whose only regular S&C consisted of going for a 20-30 min roadwork first thing in the morning, did some strength-intense partner and BWE work for 10-15 min at the end of practice, and did a session of longer (ca. 1h) roadwork on Saturday, usually done on a hill if possible. However, they spend an average of 4-5 h per day on the mat, sometime averaging 800 takedowns per session.
PS: I should mention that pulling bungee cords is usually part of roadwork (they call it "cross"), as are certain drills and BWEs. The Saturday roadwork is usually more intense and contains sprints etc., on the other days it's supposed to be easy.

Cheers
Period.

 

[Bauer]

I'm also a bit surprised at the "talent trumps training" mindset I'm seeing here.

I guess it depends largely on the Quadrant we are looking at, in Dan John speak.
Here is crazy infographic about it from otpbooks

When we look at the pros there are two types of pros:
Specialists and ... well, not generalists, but allrounders.
(Actually, allrounders are both Quadrant II and Quadrant III, and even elite athletes often fall ounder that jack-off-all-trades category)

I guess genetics are far more important for Quadrant IV (specialists) than for Quadrant II, where you can for example make up for a lack of speed by being really good at reading your opponent (for example in soccer).

And the more complex the skill is, the more important deliberate practice becomes, moderating the effect of genes/talent.

 

[John K]

I think though that the "basics" aren't really as basic as we tell ourselves they are. There are lots of subtleties within the basics that only intelligent and assiduous training can cultivate.

This is why S&S is not just 15 goblet squats, 100 1h swings and 10 getups - it's 150ish pages of detail!

Being a fundamental or basic doesn't necessarily imply simple, or even easy. Being able to refine those fundamentals until you've mastered them doesn't require a secret squirrel program or technique, but it does require a great deal of work and training, and in some cases, aa great deal of proprioception. The more you master the fundamentals, the more you can apply them in increasingly complex situations and increasingly quickly. Having never been or coached a professional athlete, it is possible I don't know what I'm talking about, and that what I've learned is more narrowly applicable then I think.