An interesting and thought-provoking article by Jim White in the Daily Telegraph, 10 April 2012, on the success of the Masters champion, Bubba Watson.
It is reported that Watson has never had a formal golf lesson in his life. Watson has learned to do what he does so well by experimentation and trial-and-error. This, in a sport which is renowned for its technical difficulty and with an emphasis on technical coaching which breaks down every movement involved in swinging a club towards a ball into minute detail. What results is a non-conformist swing not found in any rule book, but one that is devastatingly effective. To analyse it might be to destroy it. (Although elsewhere in the same newspaper another journalist attempts to do just that).
White goes on to list other athletes who have achieved great things without the need for reference to a coach. Elsewhere, Mark Cavendish in his autobiography, 'Boy Racer' pays due respect to the contributions of Steve Peters, the psychiatrist who has helped many GB cyclists win medals. Cavendish, on the other hand, on race day just wants someone to 'Blow sunshine up my a**e' - to tell him that he is the best there is and that no one can beat him. What I find interesting about White's article is it is really asking the question, 'What is a coach for?'
As someone who coaches in the world of business and who has an interest in sports psychology, of course, I'm going to say that a coach can be a useful asset. But I don't believe everyone needs a coach. Some people may want technical advice which is provided by an expert. (Some call this teaching or mentoring). Others may just want a quick confidence boost, like Cavendish, a reminder of their extraordinary talents before the race begins. (What is crucial to Cavendish is that this confidence boost is provided by someone he respects). But there is also the science of what people need to learn and how best to learn it. In the world of sport and in business there is a commercial/economic element to be considered, so we also need to pay attention to the most effective ways of learning. (If you are first to learn something, you can also be putting yourself in first place in the race). The work of Wulf (on external focus) and of Masters (on reinvestment) are two approaches which look at the best ways of learning so that expertise can be acquired effectively and, more crucially, not lost under moments of pressure. (These two approaches are more concerned with the outputs achieved rather than the motor-movements involved in the performance). The renowned sports psychologist, Ken Ravizza, says that before working with an athlete or a team, the coach has to be clear what he/she is there to do. (It's not always straightforward to find out!)
Finally, there is the issue of replication. If Bubba Watson, for example, has stumbled on the new template for playing championship-winning golf, then other people are going to want to learn it too. If what he does is 'natural' he may not be the best person to explain how he does what he does. So, let's leave room for the natural geniuses - that's where creativity and innovation are going to come from, but let's also tip a hat to the role of the coach too. It's not always about giving advice.
What about his caddy? I suspect he does a lot of 'coaching' when it counts - before each shot. I also suspect he provides feedback when it counts - after each shot. Or maybe he helps boost his confidence when it counts - whenever he thinks it is needed.
ReplyDeleteGood point Simon. There's something around timing and having permission that seems important here. There's now a growing body of research around the concept of 'social support' - who gives it, when to give it and exactly what to give (emotional, technical, material etc).
ReplyDelete