I volunteer at a local high school as a cross country and track (distance - 800m, 1600m, 3200m) coach. It's my second year at this school and I have a group of guys who never ran before I came and are now in their fourth season with me (xc 2008, track 2009, xc 2009, track 2010). One of them, after having a poor region meet in November, fully committed himself to try to go to state in track (top two people from each region go per event. We have 11 teams in our region). Him and I have been working all winter, except for the month when I was in Los Angeles where he was on his own.

Our first meet was on Tuesday, and this guy ends up running a 4:57 mile (PR) and 10:46 2 mile (another PR) on a freezing evening. Everyone else on the track just looked like a scrub from the two teams that were there. When I was looking at him go, the difference between him and the rest of the field was huge. His approach and overall look was that of a pro running among amateurs.

Now - for those of you who have raced in very competitive programs, these times might not be that impressive, but this is a 100 lb kid with confidence issues and other problems who only started running as a junior. For him to be running those times is truly a reflection of his effort and general approach to training. He simply trains harder and cares more than the others. His results reflect this.

When I got home from the meet, I told Katy the whole "He looked like a pro running among amateurs" angle and while we talked about this, I started thinking about the general differences between pros and amateurs. Before the movie 300 came out, I remember reading Steven Pressfield's book "The Gates of Fire" which to this day is one of my favorite books. It's about the battle of Thermopylae and talks about how the ways in which Spartans, who were professional soldiers, differed from other armies they matched up against. Discipline was a huge part of it. Early on, the two sides might be evenly matched (or the Spartans seemingly overmatched), but as the battle went along, the professionalism shone. There was a funny scene in 300 which hinted at this. An Arcadian leader talks to the Spartan king Leonidas about the small number of soliders the Spartans brought (which was historically inaccurate - the Spartans initially brought over 2,000 men and only kept 300 for the last day). Nevertheless, the quote captured the general feel of what I was talking about:

Daxos: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
King Leonidas: Doesn't it?
[points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
King Leonidas: You there, what is your profession?
Free Greek-Potter: I am a potter... sir.
King Leonidas: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
Free Greek-Sculptor: Sculptor, sir.
King Leonidas: Sculptor.
[turns to a third soldier]
King Leonidas: You?
Free Greek-Blacksmith: Blacksmith.
King Leonidas: [turns back shouting] Spartans! What is your profession?
Spartans: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
King Leonidas: [turning to Daxos] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did.

So all this got me thinking about professionals and amateurs in other ... well ... professions - specifically in poker. What are some of the things which make one player able to be a professional and others simply seemingly stabbing around. We know that overall skill level is important, but I would say secondary. Case and point are all the break-even/losing players who are able to make seven-figure incomes from poker on Stars by becoming an SNE. The line is so thin because as I've said many times before - I don't think the overall thought process of a solid winning player at your limit is that different from yours in 95% of the cases. I also refuse to believe that the remaining 5% is what separates a pro from an amateur. There has to be something much more fundamental.

I think part of it comes down to passion, discipline, and commitment. This is what my runner has. He has a dream of going to the State meet and it drives him. He is not the most talented runner on our team, but he is smart and disciplined. He does the little things right - brings gloves and a hat to a cold practice (where others even forget a long sleeve shirt and suffer). He puts in an extra lap here and there knowing that it will make him better in the long run. He is committed to excellence.

Recently, I hit a really bad downswing in my Climbing Mt. Micro Challenge. I felt that I didn't handle it professionally and felt ashamed. I should know better. A professional would have dealt with the matter better than I did. So ... in what ways do you feel a poker professional differs from an amateur?