“Chance
favors the trained mind.”-Louis Pasteur
Oh, that’s a good one, one so worthy of repeating that
we all have heard/encountered some version or variation of it in this or that
business office or sundry Facebook status update. The truth of it is so obvious
that it needs no explaining, but…I’m going to all the same; let’s make sure we
make a distinction here, one that adheres to what Dr. Pasteur intended.
In his domain(s) of chemistry and bacteriology his
“training” was not simply his “book learning” so to speak. His training was his
use of the experimental method to continually refine, confirm, and most importantly
disconfirm any and all ideas pertinent to his field of study
Pasteur’s training lies in what he did via experiment and experience
(mighty close words, huh?) and not what was read or pontificated upon in the classroom
or textbook. Yes, book learning and lectures can act as aids/assists but if we
do not act upon what we encounter in our studies then we have merely consumed
trivia.
OK, dead horse flogged. Moving on.
Years ago, working with one video producer or another
I was told of an in-house study where they speculated that a significant portion
of their instructional DVD sales never even had the cellophane popped off of
them once they arrived in the purchaser’s hands. This was followed by the next
largest percentage of sales that they speculate were viewed once and no more,
this followed by those who viewed maybe a handful of times.
Now, how they conducted this sales research I have no
idea, so I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but if (if) the idea holds true we
would be looking at a large majority of folks who assume that exposure to
knowledge, seeing text or video demonstration is akin to training.
Now we all, surely, know that this cannot be further
from the truth. Seeing and being aware of something does not make one competent
or trained. This holds even if one has viewed/read something hundreds of times.
Knowing physical material inside and out at a cognitive level in no way implies
it will manifest at the physical level.
Example—Every
Autumn weekend in the states millions of people log hundreds of hours of
watching football games. Now these viewers may know the rules of the game and
may have some ideas about this or that strategy, but I don’t think any of us
make the leap that these “knowledgeable” viewers are by dint of this “training”
made ready to enter the very games they watch.
If this cognitive knowledge were all that is necessary
to master physical movement Bob Costas would be the most talented multi-sport
athlete on the planet.
Ludicrous, right?
In combat sports/street work viewing material, reading
material, talking about the material just ain’t gonna cut it. The practitioner,
the combat scientist must actually experience the curriculum, must actually
test it against his own experience. We’ve got to give up this mistaken idea
that knowing and being aware is the same thing or even related in any way to
actually doing.
Even here we must push Pasteur’s wisdom further. Knowing
and then taking the extra step to drill are absolute musts but…they mean
nothing without adding in the conditioning training that best reflects our
combat game. This is another truism that we all know at a gut level but often
ignore. We sometimes allow our elevated knowledge garnered by years of study
and drilling to take the place of the, oh, so valuable conditioning portion of
our games. Let’s face it, book learning and superior technical knowledge has
often lost at the hands of a better conditioned athlete in boxing, MMA, Muay
Thai, and, most unfortunately, the street. Many up and coming fighters earn
victories over veterans who “know” more, but who have allowed the conditioning
to slide.
We’ve got to engage all three implied aspects of
Pasteur’s hedge against chance.
With that in mind we can re-configure his axiom to one
that better reflects our combat goals.
“The fighting chance
favors the well-conditioned athlete with the trained mind and body.”
A question for all my combat athletes and
“street-ready” practitioners.
Which
is the higher number: The number of YouTube videos of other
people training you have viewed this week or your own number of training
sessions?
To
my non-combative Brothers & Sisters: Does the number of this
week’s viewings of meals you’d like to prepare, crafts you’d like to concoct,
experiences you’d like to have come close to what you have actually done or
prepared to do this week?
Viewin’ ain’t doin’.
Plans uncommenced are likely broken promises until
acted upon.
Comments
Post a Comment