Other/Mixed Difference between pros and amateurs

[North Coast Miller]

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

I don't think talent ever trumps training in a general sense, but when everyone is training, talent makes the difference. Or the other way around, when nobody is training, ANY training even without much talent will make the difference.

With very few exceptions, the pros have been weeded out from an early age through adaptive response, knowing their sport, resilience to injury. By the time you're getting paid to do it, subtleties in strength or speed training are not going to be the deciding factor compared to timing, intuition, experience, specific long term adaptations, build appropriate for the job (there's a good TED talk about improvements in athletic performance over the years).

 

[Kozushi]

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.

I think you've added in some pretty important facts here to the discussion. Proprioception is something that as far as I understand is developed through basically "living it". The more you are out there handling those bells, the more you're actually physically involved in holding onto your partner's judogi, the more you're actively holding that kendo sword and feeling where it is in space, tapping your partner's sword, jostling, the better your proprioception gets, and this is something absolutely critical that differentiates the good from the bad from the ugly (so to speak - I don't really think any athlete no matter how unskilled is ever anything other than at some level of "good"!) You know where you are, where your tools are, where the opponents are and you also know through training how to move and how to think in the moment very quickly. High level kendo fencers talk about time slowing down for them. Something that happens in the blink of an eye has several stages of intelligent activity within it, but the thought is happening at lightning speed.

I'm blessed to have professional and Olympic level judo coaches and that my kendo coaches are international level too. Luckily also they don't mind explaining everything in a lot of detail. Also, professional competitors are in and about the clubs (there tend to be specific professional or "highly competitive" classes also which I do not attend). This proprioception point does indeed seem to apply to ALL of them.

To make all this more concrete at least to myself, I've gotten over my fear of doing S&S with the 24 in addition to the 32, and I think I'm feeling some increased proprioception creeping in because of it. I'm simply spending more time in the week swinging kettlebells around, and so I'm developing a better "feel" for the art overall. --- yet another plug for training higher volume lighter weights fairly regularly!

 

[vegpedlr]

Genetic gifts don’t mean being able to get off the couch and rule the world. But research has shown there’s quite a spread amongst individuals in their response to training. Some people recover and improve freakishly fast, and others take forever. Most of us fall in the middle. If someone else can do 50% more work than me and benefit, how will we compare after 10,000 hours of training?

On a bit of a tangent, there is an interesting social element involved as well. People don’t have equal access to different sports for a variety of reasons. What if Michael Phelps never joined a swim club but played basketball instead? Would he be battling Lebron? How many world class Olympic lifters have never been found in the US because they stuck with American football instead?

On another tangent, folks tried something like this years ago with Olympic Nordic ski racing. They tried taking some fast Kenyan runners and putting them on skis, thinking that their incredible aerobic fitness would carry over. Nordic racers run a lot because snow season is so short, so it should cross over right! Not exactly. There is a lot of technique on skis that Scandinavian kids learn early on and develop over time that no amount of running can equal.

 

[the hansenator]

On a bit of a tangent, there is an interesting social element involved as well. People don’t have equal access to different sports for a variety of reasons. What if Michael Phelps never joined a swim club but played basketball instead? Would he be battling Lebron? How many world class Olympic lifters have never been found in the US because they stuck with American football instead?

This is something I've put some thought into. There are many sports I might have been successful in if I ever had the opportunity and there were things I was interested in but wasn't able to pursue. In fact, if I had a good coach when I was younger my life might be different today.

 

[WhatWouldHulkDo]

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 don't think anyone is discounting the need/value of training, but it's simply a question of what eschelon you are trying to reach. When some one asks, "what separates amateurs and pros", I actually find it generally dishonest to say "hard work and dedication". Not because it's not true, but because its a glaring omission.

Just to put some numbers on it - here's some statistics on basketball in the US:

Men's Basketball: Probability of competing beyond high school

Men's Basketball: Probability of competing beyond high school

www.ncaa.org

To summarize it, only 3.5% of high school basketball players go on to play in college, and then only 1.2% of those go on to be pros. From my experience with college athletics, I would say that at the college level, you've already weeded out almost all of the people who lack hard work / dedication. That's not what determines whether they go on to reach the pro level. There are a huge number of factors, of course, but my observation remain that generics really matters there.

Absolutely improved training methods have improved the performance and longevity in sports over the years - but I would argue that it has done so at all levels. I would wager that the average college basketball team from today is better than the average college basketball team from 50 years ago. I don't personally thing that training improvements over time are what separate pros from amateurs.

 

[LukeV]

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

It's not that talent trumps training but the fact that training approaches are replicated across competitors leaving genetics and, I would argue, psychology as their primary points of difference. At elite level it's often hard to justify the statement, "I'm better than you because I train differently." They are often training pretty much the same, in fact often training together

 

[LukeV]

Genetic gifts don’t mean being able to get off the couch and rule the world. But research has shown there’s quite a spread amongst individuals in their response to training. Some people recover and improve freakishly fast, and others take forever. Most of us fall in the middle. If someone else can do 50% more work than me and benefit, how will we compare after 10,000 hours of training?

On a bit of a tangent, there is an interesting social element involved as well. People don’t have equal access to different sports for a variety of reasons. What if Michael Phelps never joined a swim club but played basketball instead? Would he be battling Lebron? How many world class Olympic lifters have never been found in the US because they stuck with American football instead?

On another tangent, folks tried something like this years ago with Olympic Nordic ski racing. They tried taking some fast Kenyan runners and putting them on skis, thinking that their incredible aerobic fitness would carry over. Nordic racers run a lot because snow season is so short, so it should cross over right! Not exactly. There is a lot of technique on skis that Scandinavian kids learn early on and develop over time that no amount of running can equal.

If you think about the nationalised sports systems that operated (still operating?) in China and the eastern bloc, children were assessed for ability then allocated to a specific sport or artistic pursuit. Often they had never played that sport, or danced, or performed in a circus, before being identified as a potential high performer (pardon the pun) in that area. I understand drop out rates were high, as was transfer from one program to another as the child's mind, body and skills developed. But the starting point was innate ability, the children were too young for anything else to be measured

 

[vegpedlr]

I read two interesting books bout talent a few years ago that were interesting. If I recall correctly, they were The Talent Code and Talent is Overrated. Very interesting and quite germane to this discussion.

But then I had to try to reconcile that with the instantaneous and meteoric rise of my niece in running. She started winning races her freshman year in HS with no background in running. Her only athletic pursuit to that point was jui jitsu a couple times a week. She trained with the varsity boys, and is now a Division 1 runner at Oregon State, if NCAAXC and track ever come back. Because everybody knows the only college sports that matter are football and basketball. A bit of irony, Title 9 means OSU has women’s running, but no men. The football program took it.

 

[Anna C]

I read two interesting books bout talent a few years ago that were interesting. If I recall correctly, they were The Talent Code and Talent is Overrated. Very interesting and quite germane to this discussion.

An interesting video along those lines... Suggesting luck has more to do with success than we like to think.

 

[Steve Freides]

There's a difference between improving and being good. Improving is about advancing the relative level of performance while being good is about the absolute level. From my life in teaching music:

To teach someone to perform at a high absolute level, I'll take talent any day. One of my current students is six years old and in the first grade, and he can play rings around others of my students who've studied for a lifetime. I can state accurately that I did teach him everything he knows over the two years he's been my student, but my job was easy. For everyone else, I try to do what I see Pavel do, teach those who have less talent those things they don't come to naturally. The less talented can and do make great progress. I try to reverse engineer what the talented do without my help, and teach that.

As a teacher, I'm interested in progress - I don't care about your talent. As a member of a musical audience, I don't care how you got there - a little talent or a lot, a little work or a lot. It doesn't matter how you got there, it only matters that, somehow, you got there.

-S-

 

[Antti]

I don't think anyone is discounting the need/value of training, but it's simply a question of what eschelon you are trying to reach. When some one asks, "what separates amateurs and pros", I actually find it generally dishonest to say "hard work and dedication". Not because it's not true, but because its a glaring omission.

Just to put some numbers on it - here's some statistics on basketball in the US:

Men's Basketball: Probability of competing beyond high school

Men's Basketball: Probability of competing beyond high school

www.ncaa.org

To summarize it, only 3.5% of high school basketball players go on to play in college, and then only 1.2% of those go on to be pros. From my experience with college athletics, I would say that at the college level, you've already weeded out almost all of the people who lack hard work / dedication. That's not what determines whether they go on to reach the pro level. There are a huge number of factors, of course, but my observation remain that generics really matters there.

Absolutely improved training methods have improved the performance and longevity in sports over the years - but I would argue that it has done so at all levels. I would wager that the average college basketball team from today is better than the average college basketball team from 50 years ago. I don't personally thing that training improvements over time are what separate pros from amateurs.

The genetics have been exactly the same for both football and basketball for as long as they have been played. The teams of today are still vastly better than those of the past. And still there are vast differences between teams that do not come down to some just getting the more gifted players.

Consider a team of the gifted players of yesterday and take a team of average joes of today. Both have trained according to their times. Which would win?

I would say that most of the people who can play football for money are gifted. Yet, even in that class, there is such a division in quality. Both via training and via genetics. And the best of the best can't but excel in both.

Just genetics gets you nowhere. Training hard and smart may. But of course there are predispositions. No one is arguing against that. It's like a game of cards, some have better hands than others for certain things, but everyone has to learn to play to really get good.

 

[Starlord]

Well I believe there's a Pavel article around that discusses this. And that is that the same resources for pros can be effectively adopted to some degree by amateurs. He made connections to glock handguns ("the dubious distinction of being the choice of professionals and the first gun recommended to beginners") and Globe knives, for professional chefs and home cooking enthusiasts alike.

I agree a lifestyle more focused around training as a priority will always have better recovery and less missed sessions. Both things that really help consistency and thus reaching higher levels.

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?

Professional darts...beta blockers.

 

[LukeV]

The genetics have been exactly the same for both football and basketball for as long as they have been played. The teams of today are still vastly better than those of the past. And still there are vast differences between teams that do not come down to some just getting the more gifted players.

Consider a team of the gifted players of yesterday and take a team of average joes of today. Both have trained according to their times. Which would win?

I would say that most of the people who can play football for money are gifted. Yet, even in that class, there is such a division in quality. Both via training and via genetics. And the best of the best can't but excel in both.

Just genetics gets you nowhere. Training hard and smart may. But of course there are predispositions. No one is arguing against that. It's like a game of cards, some have better hands than others for certain things, but everyone has to learn to play to really get good.

We know the result if the competition is:

genetically gifted and untrained VS genetically gifted and trained

It might be bit more iffy if the competition is:

genetically gifted and untrained VS ordinary joe and trained

 

[offwidth]

I grew up with 3 brothers who lived next door. All played hockey from day 1. All had equal opportunity. Same teams, coaches, and training (separated by a few years) and all were good. Only one made it to the big show, (2nd pick first round) where in his career he became team captain and went on to win a Stanley Cup.

 

[Anna C]

I grew up with 3 brothers who lived next door. All played hockey from day 1. All had equal opportunity. Same teams, coaches, and training (separated by a few years) and all were good. Only one made it to the big show, (2nd pick first round) where in his career he became team captain and went on to win a Stanley Cup.

Was he born in January? It's an interesting example from the video I linked above -- starting at 1:10 in the video -- statistically he's 4x more likely to excel in hockey if born in the first quarter of the year, yet most wouldn't think to attribute that factor at all to their success.

 

[offwidth]

Was he born in January? It's an interesting example from the video I linked above -- starting at 1:10 in the video -- statistically he's 4x more likely to excel in hockey if born in the first quarter of the year, yet most wouldn't think to attribute that factor at all to their success.

I have read about that line of reasoning before; and he was indeed born in the first quarter....

 

[Steve Freides]

statistically he's 4x more likely to excel in hockey if born in the first quarter of the year,

Fascinating - I wonder if this can be explained, and I wonder if any similar exists for other sports.

-S-

 

[offwidth]

Fascinating - I wonder if this can be explained, and I wonder if any similar exists for other sports.

-S-

If I recall... it’s something to do with the age eligibility when kids can join teams. If you are born later in the year, you have to wait until next year to join a team. So the first quarter kids get a sort of head start in the game from day one.

 

[bluejeff]

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.

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.

This. I was always told this by my old kung fu instructor when I was in high school. It's better to be able to, say, hit really hard and well with one technique, to be able to apply it really really well, than to know a mulititude of techniques and only be "versed" in them. In other words, mastery of few things as opposed to being "sort of proficient" at a ton. Professionals always excel at and continue to train the basics.

Genetic gifts don’t mean being able to get off the couch and rule the world. But research has shown there’s quite a spread amongst individuals in their response to training. Some people recover and improve freakishly fast, and others take forever. Most of us fall in the middle. If someone else can do 50% more work than me and benefit, how will we compare after 10,000 hours of training?

I have two thoughts on this. First, I have been wondering what anyone here thinks of Charles Poliquin's "chinese elements" training. I am not sure what to think about it yet.



Basically, he does seem to agree that there are just certain types of people who won't ever excel at strength sports or bodybuilding. He also goes on to state that he believes that people who aren't adapting to a certain program are doing the wrong program for their body. Coach Sommer of Gymnastic bodies used to say the same thing. Some people NEED a lot volume to excel, while others get destroyed by it, and need less volume to get similar results. Some people need variety and others need intensity. Interestingly, I have been wondering if this is why the soviet style, SF style of "waviness" generates such good results. It checks all the boxes without overdoing any of them, so any type of person will likely see a decent degree of benefit from it.

Secondly, I don't know if this specifically applies to strength sports, but I have read that hard work only gets one ahead of the competiton until a certain level of professionalism or "elite-ness" is reached. At that point luck/chance play a much a greater role in determining who at an elite level will succeed over who.

Lastly, my own two cents:
I really really like the stories Pavel always included in his books of old time ("tyme"? ) lifters who just lifted heavy for a while at the end of their day, never going to exhaustion, etc. because it exemplifies: mastering the basics, lifting heavy and fresh and often, and sustainably. if memory serves me right some of them got incredibly strong doing so. Regardless of the differences between pros and amateurs, I do believe that being consistent with our goals in a sustainable way will allow us to acheive greater heights than we expect.

 

[Kozushi]

This. I was always told this by my old kung fu instructor when I was in high school. It's better to be able to, say, hit really hard and well with one technique, to be able to apply it really really well, than to know a mulititude of techniques and only be "versed" in them. In other words, mastery of few things as opposed to being "sort of proficient" at a ton. Professionals always excel at and continue to train the basics.

I have two thoughts on this. First, I have been wondering what anyone here thinks of Charles Poliquin's "chinese elements" training. I am not sure what to think about it yet.



Basically, he does seem to agree that there are just certain types of people who won't ever excel at strength sports or bodybuilding. He also goes on to state that he believes that people who aren't adapting to a certain program are doing the wrong program for their body. Coach Sommer of Gymnastic bodies used to say the same thing. Some people NEED a lot volume to excel, while others get destroyed by it, and need less volume to get similar results. Some people need variety and others need intensity. Interestingly, I have been wondering if this is why the soviet style, SF style of "waviness" generates such good results. It checks all the boxes without overdoing any of them, so any type of person will likely see a decent degree of benefit from it.

Secondly, I don't know if this specifically applies to strength sports, but I have read that hard work only gets one ahead of the competiton until a certain level of professionalism or "elite-ness" is reached. At that point luck/chance play a much a greater role in determining who at an elite level will succeed over who.

Lastly, my own two cents:
I really really like the stories Pavel always included in his books of old time ("tyme"? ) lifters who just lifted heavy for a while at the end of their day, never going to exhaustion, etc. because it exemplifies: mastering the basics, lifting heavy and fresh and often, and sustainably. if memory serves me right some of them got incredibly strong doing so. Regardless of the differences between pros and amateurs, I do believe that being consistent with our goals in a sustainable way will allow us to acheive greater heights than we expect.

We are all limited by our natural potential, but we humans are fairly adaptable creatures and we seem to have a lot more potential than we'd realize without trying!