Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Rambling About Amateurs

There is a subtle but powerful difference between professionals and amateurs.  People who play (or fight) for money don't think about it the same way as people who play (or fight) for fun.  People who put out cars on assembly lines don't think about it the same way as people who restore cars as a hobby.  Engineers don't think the same way as hobbiest/inventors.

I had the opportunity to work with a very skilled martial artist last weekend.  Yes he had decades of training, all the right credentials... but that really doesn't mean anything.  What mattered is the way he felt- his structure and movement- when we played.  He was good.  Not many people can hold structure while moving.  In the course of a few minutes I had finger locks fail, very reliable spine/face moves get slipped and was taken off balance (taken down if not for a convenient wall) in a more perfect and more controlled way than I have experienced in a couple of years.

Very nice, but like everyone there were glitches too.  You could feel his energy as he tried to think of the right thing; watch comfort level rise or fall based on interpretation instead of damage and control; feel the separation of mindsets between flow and staccato bursts.

This is hard to put into words.  As skilled as he was, he processed things through a filter. (We all do- don't get smug) He wanted to do the 'right' thing, apply his skill efficiently.  That had two effects- sometimes he would focus on moving right instead of moving well, he would try to maintain a sticky-hands control while striking instead of just unloading.  The second, and the probable basis of the subtle difference between someone who fights as a hobby and someone who fights professionally is that he tried to win, not to end it.  At any moment I could have frozen the action and asked: "If you had to kill me right now, right this second, how would you do it?"  He would have an answer, he had the skill... but it would not be what he was actually doing.  What he was actually doing was what he had trained.

So here's another difference: It is almost true that you fight the way you train, but never quite.  Simply in a real fight you want it over and the threat incapable of harming you.  In training, you want the experience without the uke ever actually being injured.  You need to train with the same people next class.

The good professionals, this is never far from their minds.  They don't use the table, maybe, but they know it is there...

And they are always cataloging, remembering, probing:  I know some of what this guy likes, what he avoids even when it isn't tactically necessary to do so; the opportunities that are invisible to him; what patterns he will fall into as familiar ground; what patterns will make him cautious; what patterns will take him a second to interpret...  It's just a way to think.  Fighting minds is separate from fighting bodies and even separate from fighting skills.

Another difference- everything in the last paragraph was tactical skill, a tactical game.  Time to make those judgments almost never exists in the real thing.  It becomes a habit, but when it is ON, it is OVER, with those niceties of thought and interpretation just things that the broken amateur was maybe planning on doing.

Yet another difference- the amateur always has a personal stake.  'This is about me'.  The questions are there- am I good enough?  Can I win?  Will I ever get laid if I lose?  Bullshit masculinity issues and esteem crowding in, messing with a brain that needs to get a job done.  Getting over this (and it is hard: personal violence pushes a huge amount of issues to the fore) frees up a great deal of brain power.  The hobbiest wonders if he can beat the reigning champion.  The professional just has to decide how.

So here is the question- on most of the levels we played at, I believe that my friend showed superior skill.  My advantages were mental and attitudinal.  Can this be taught separately?  Can I graft the professional experience, the way I think, onto his skill set?  Wouldn't that be cool.

7 comments:

  1. Rory --

    Sorry I missed you at the con -- I was there all day Saturday, but my wife was not feeling well, we had a houseful of family, and I bagged Sunday. We wound up driving to the coast to watch the rain.

    Interesting to read your take on your workout with the martial artist we both know. Heard his and they seem to mesh pretty well.
    Sounds very -- sorry to use the word, but -- *reasonable* to me ...

    Maybe after the holiday madness, we can get together for a cup of coffee or somesuch. I'm always willing to learn from my betters ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Simply in a real fight you want it over and the threat incapable of harming you. In training, you want the experience without the uke ever actually being injured. You need to train with the same people next class.

    The good professionals, this is never far from their minds. They don't use the table, maybe, but they know it is there..."

    This is an excellent point, and I'm wondering -- how do you address in in training?

    With a gun, you can use airsoft or paintball; with knives, marking blades -- neither are perfect solutions, but allow a step closer to reality, maybe, than rubber guns and knives.

    How do you keep from breaking your toys?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rory--

    Steven Barnes here, and quite willing to go public. I felt gigantically pleased to finally have a chance to move with you, and it would be a gas to have you try the experiment of grafting. I would have put it of simply helping me integrate my aspects more thoroughly. I think too damned much! But boy, I'm having fun with my training these days...and you helped me clarify my thinking on what could be done next.

    Three deep bows,
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve (P)- Sorry I missed you, too... and reasonable is as reasonable does. Here's a thought (and thanks for making me say things in many ways) reason, by itself, makes for limited extrapolation. Until you see first hand what you are trying to extrapolate to, you can't be sure of how limited.

    The other stuff, on training UAC for real will be a longer post.

    Steve (B) Missing you already! Thanks for saying the right thing at the right time. I knew I was missing something and was pretty sure you would pick it out. FIVE deep bows to you! Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  5. " Until you see first hand what you are trying to extrapolate to, you can't be sure of how limited."

    Sure. The map ain't the territory, no question. And language, by its nature, is limited when it comes to communication. That said, me being reasonable doesn't have anything to do with some yahoo being unreasonable, unless I expect him to behave as I would. I've spent much of my life learning the lesson that people don't do that, even those I most expect would.

    Reason is not limited to tactics -- he does this, then I do that -- but can be applied to strategy. I'm not saying you stand there and think about what you are going to do -- that's too slow, you think, you stink. But it's reasonable to learn a systematic way of movement that might -- might -- be useful when push come to shove.

    There are no guarantees, no matter how much one knows. Guy could be the ultimate master and the earth could quake at the wrong time and trip him up.

    Do I believe my art works on the street? Well, it has for my teacher and for his teacher. I have been able to use an earlier art I knew that, in my mind, is much less effective than what I study now to protect my ass, so it's not unreasonable to think the better one will work.

    Come the elephant, who knows? I might reach for it and it not be there. But if I'm not an expert, I am comfortable with what I know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, the family is about to arrive for dinner -- they'll be fifteen of us, not counting the dogs -- so if I survive, I'll come back to continue this discussion.

    Since we seem to be a loggerheads as to what we each think reason is and does, maybe we can get at it from another direction:

    If not reason as a basis, then what?

    If reason is weak, what is strong?

    Have a happy holiday, and pax.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Rory!

    Mushtaq here.

    That was one of the most succinct (and acurate0 descriptions of the difference between "amateur" and "professional" I have read in quite a while.

    You should think about writing a book man, it would be a benefit to a lot of people.

    ReplyDelete