Instruction Versus Environment

In an earlier post (The Problem with Stack and Tilt) I stated that the most adaptive co-ordination patterns are those that are soft assembled and in tune with environmental fluctuations - this new post is will look at this notion in more detail.

 When movement patterns are soft assembled the player is able to focus ‘externally’ on the anticipated outcome of the action, instead of ‘internally’ on the specific movement itself.  In other words the player begins with the outcome in mind (based on how they perceive the shot/situation) and this perception is then orientated to an appropriate movement pattern – this is called action-perception coupling.

In contrast to this, movement patterns that begin life as instructor led demonstrations of the correct posture, weight shift, arm position, hip action etc.,  have been shown to degrade performance under pressure and in some cases are more detrimental to performance than receiving no instruction at all.

(Typically this type of instruction occurs in highly managed, static environments that are characterised by safety and control. In order to reduce information overload ‘part task' practice activities are learned as a precursor to performing the whole skill)

It is likely that during the initial rehearsal of these new movements the player experiences a degree of improved performance. This is likely caused by practicing in a stable environment that allows fine tuning of movement parameters from one attempt to another. This often results in an artificially high level of performer confidence which often results in poor or negative transfer to a stressful performance situation.

It would of course be wrong to suggest that an emerging performer/novice needs no instruction at all, however skill acquisition practitioners advice that as soon as the learner acquires a rough approximation of the movement pattern they should shift their training to a more random schedule.

Whilst time spent in an instructional context would seem to diminish positive transfer to target context this should not have negative implications for the golf coach/instructor/teacher. Instead it would be hoped that a generation of cutting edge coaching research begings to inform the future direction of the industry.

References

Davids, K; Button, C; Bennett (2009) Dynamics of Skill Acquisition, A constraints led approach, Champaign, Human Kinetics

Schmidt, R.A & Wrisberg, C.A (2008) Motor Learning and Performance, A situation based learning approach Champaign, Human Kinetics

Wulf,G., Lauterbach,B., & Toole,T. (1999). Learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Spor

The Problem with Stack and Tilt!?

Never before has a golf coaching innovation divided opinion to the extent that the swing classification system known as ‘Stack and Tilt’ has. For this reason it needs no introduction apart to say that discourse on this subject is almost always dominated by arguments about its bio-mechanical principals.

Let me be clear about one thing, bio-mechanically and for the purpose of striking a golf ball, I believe the principals of S&T to be sound; however I also believe that this may well be its critical weakness!

The organisation of the system came about based on the research/advice of noted coach Mac O’Grady and by the principals laid out in the book “the golfing machine”. For this reason I will refer to S&T as being created in a laboratory setting characterised by predictability and control.  The ultimate evaluation of a laboratory creation is the degree to which the system is able to interact with the environment that it was designed for.

It would seem that at this stage in time S&T for many interacts perfectly with the environment that created it, exemplified by impressive ball striking by its advocates in closed contexts, but not so well with its target environment. As such its functionality or fitness in a naturalistic setting has been drawn into question which has hindered its implementation on a far greater scale.

The situation is not surprising, nor is it exclusively an S&T issue; research into motor learning and skill acquisition provides an interesting explanation for this. In open systems movement orientates itself to information sources in the environment (ecological constraints), such constraints (weather, playing surfaces, pressure, perception etc.) shape a systems behaviour and as such the most adaptive coordination patterns are those that are ‘soft assembled’ and able to tune into the prevailing task conditions. In other words the environment creates the movement pattern and not the other way about.

S&T, and any other swing conception, created and learned in a static controlled environment will always orientate best to static and controlled conditions. Unfortunately few sports are played in more unpredictable and interchangeable environments than golf. That is why the research shows that the most transferable skills are those that are created and mastered when all information sources are present and flowing.