I recently listened to an interview with Daniel Coyle, author of
The Talent Code:
http://wellroundedathlete.net/021-danie ... t-podcast/He distinguishes between "hard" (classical music, synchronized swimming) and "soft" skills (jazz, standup comedy) and the different processes that are necessary to master each. Most skills have aspects of both, however -- basketball is a good example of a sport that's right in the middle. You could make a similar argument about fighting.
Here’s another Ido post that speaks to the difference between hard and soft skills:
“In order for your Movement Practice as well as life to be complete, there is a need of two approaches to be used alternately:
1. The Classic approach - the pursuit of quantifiable markers of movement - sets, reps, time, numbers, etc.
2. The Romantic approach - the pursuit of sensations, feelings, images, analogies, even... legends!
NO PRACTICE WILL BE COMPLETE WITHOUT BOTH APPROACHES.
This kind of double approach have been my way since day one, but in the 2013 Movement Camp I was introduced to the words and terminology by my friend Frank Forencich from Exuberant Animal. (Frank's ideas and philosophy can be found here:
http://www.exuberantanimal.com)
Many people fall into the trap of using one approach - for example some view the logging of training variables such as number of seconds spent in a handstand or reps performed in a chin up as 'limited', 'OCD', 'Short Term', etc, while others view the pursuit of sensations and images as 'esoteric', 'fantasy', 'non-scientific'.
For best results - combine both approaches - the Classical approach for the induction of proper momentum in the training process and the repetition and perfection of skill as well as the Romantic approach for refinement of positioning, movement quality, alignment, mindfulness, etc.”
There's no question that a purely classical approach can be very effective. A friend and sparring partner of mine is a pro MMA/BJJ guy and recorded himself each day throwing a couple hundred perfect jabs, crosses, uppercuts and hooks one summer as he was preparing for a match. This sort of an approach makes no sense to me personally -- I'm mostly interested in all the shots that are "between" each category -- but it was hard to argue with it as he was landing those punches.
Different approaches work for different people. I could never stick with my friend’s training regimen, not for a single day – but somehow I still manage to hang with him in sparring! I’m sure he finds my approach equally alien to his sensibilities. Of course, a different approach will also lead to a different quality of skill in the end. But I’m convinced that there are multiple ways up the mountain.
As far as comparing oneself to the 1%, I don’t think that’s a very productive approach. For one thing, the 1% are typically concerned with performance at the expense of longevity. But more to the point, I think that judging one’s own training by the standards of the 1% leads to a disconnect in one’s training, a type of cognitive dissonance. It’s a bit like RBSD types who have never been in the military or been the victims of a crime, but wear camo all the time and talk about tactical this and tactical that.
Far more important to really understand where you're at, at a given moment in your practice.
AK
