USC great Ronnie Lott once said, "if you can believe it, the mind can achieve it." This blog is about the psychology of such athletes both on and off the field. Unlike nearly every other blog on sports psychology, you will not be "suggested" to buy a product, and more often than not, the posts will not help you improve your performance. It is a blog for those interested in how an athlete thinks, and what separates the elite players from the rest.
Does this man look like the best athlete of his generation? (source)
Physically, Babe Ruth was not the most impressive athlete. To put it lightly, he had a bulky frame and would be considered over-weight by today's standards. Click this link to watch him run and you'll see what I mean. So how could this man be the greatest baseball player of all time? The greatest athlete of his generation?
Luckily for us, Hugh Fullerton wondered the same question in 1921 and decided to commit Babe to a litany of tests. The results of the study, conducted by Albert Johanson, M.A., and Joseph Holmes, M.A., of the research laboratory of Columbia University's psychological department, were released in Popular Science Monthly (Issue 99, 1921) under the name, "Why Babe Ruth is the Greatest Home-Run Hitter."
Wasn't his lifestyle that led to his success (source)
The scientists knew before they started that Babe Ruth must have some special mental abilities, I mean, you must have some secret if you can react and swing accurately threw a baseball traveling 90 mph. However, nobody could have expected just how spectacular Babe Ruth's mental capacities were.
The scientists discovered that the secret to Babe Ruth's batting abilities, reduced to non-scientific terms, is that his eyes and ears function more rapidly than those of other players; that his brain records sensations more quickly and transmits its orders to the muscles much faster than does the average man's. The tests proved that the coordination of his eye, brain, nerve system, and muscles was practically perfect and far better than the average person.
For instance, Babe Ruth's eyes and ears were about 12% and 11% faster than the average person's, respectively. His nerves were steadier than those of 499 out of 500 people. He rated one and a half times above the human average in attention and quickness of perception. Finally, in intelligence, as demonstrated by the quickness and accuracy of understanding, he was approximately 10% above normal.
The Columbia University researchers were shocked. Not only did Babe Ruth have above average hand-eye coordination, but his brain was freakishly efficient at processing data and sending orders to the rest of his body. Ruth would have been phenomenal at nearly anything that he committed himself to because his brain functioned so abnormally well.
That he choose to entertain hundreds of thousands of people and dominate America's pastime is a testament to his intelligence, skill, and abilities. Of all of the potential career paths in which he would have excelled, I can't think of any as fun, prestigious, and rewarding as that of a professional baseball player in the 1920s. Babe Ruth was an extraordinary baseball player, as well as a remarkable man, and thanks to this research, we now know why.
Dr. Blaslotto of the University of Chicago orchestrated a study testing the effectiveness of visualization techniques on free-throw shooting. He split his participants into three groups and tested each group on how many free throws they could make in thirty minutes. He then had one group practice free throws every day for an hour. The second group spent an hour every day visualizing themselves making free throws - they were told to visualize themselves from the first-person, to feel the ball as it left their fingertips, to hear the noise of the crowd, and to watch the ball go through the hoop. The final group was told to continue on with their daily lives and not to play basketball.
After thirty days, Dr. Blaslotto tested his participants' free-throw shooting again. The third group who changed nothing, shockingly, did not improve at all. The first group, who spent an hour each day shooting free throws, improved by a respectable 24%. Practice obviously helps you improve your skills. However, how much does practicing in your head help?
Well, the second group, who hadn't physically touched a basketball in thirty days, improved by a remarkable 23%! Just 1 measly percent less than those who got out and practiced on the court.
Practice makes perfect, but now we know that you don't need to physically do so as mental practice is nearly as effective! Visualizing may not be as fun as going out and shooting a basketball, but if I'm feeling lethargic and still want to accomplish something, I just may consider grabbing a beer, jumping on the ole hammock, and closing my eyes to visualize.
This study is the first of its kind, and obviously may have been a fluke, but its implications are vast. Imagine if this were the case for golf, if visualizing your swing could improve your score. Do you have any idea of how many rounds would be played at the office? in class? or even on dates? The possibilities are endless. What if it were true for dating? If visualizing yourself with a Victoria Secret model would help you land one. Heck, not such a bad thing to think about. One can only hope that further studies duplicate these results and prove them to be accurate. So badly do I want to be the next Marko Jaric.
B- NBA Player, Marko Jaric, and his wife, Adriana Lima. (source)
The psychological concept of "contagion" is based on the idea that an object somehow absorbs the qualities of its previous owner. This is why the majority of people would not want to wear a sweater worn by Adolf Hitler. They know logically that evil doesn't stick to a sweater, but something about wearing it makes them feel uncomfortable. It's not that people believe logically or consciously that contagion exists, but on some unconscious level, it effects the way that we feel about and use items that we know have been used by someone else.
Would you wear this sweater if you knew that Hitler had? (source)
For example, a recent study shows that contagion can lead to confidence, and ultimately superior performance in sport. The study was conducted by Undergraduate Charles Lee of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville (UVA), and was intended to quantitatively measure the effect of contagion in golf. The study was conducted by assembling a group of 41 avid golfers, all of whom knew of putting expert Ben Curtis. The golfers were then broken into two groups; one group was given a "really nice" putter, and the other group was given a "putter owned by Ben Curtis" (the trick being that they were both given the same putter, which had never been used before by anyone.) Each subject was then told to make an identical series of putts. Low and behold, for every ten putts, the group that was putting with the "Ben Curtis putter" sank 1.5 more golf balls. The study was featured this month in PLoS ONE, an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science.
The most likely explanation for these results is the psychological phenomenon known as the "placebo effect" whereby results occur simply because someone thinks that they will. In other words, since the subject believed that they would putt better with Ben Curtis' putter, they did. However, that's not to dismiss that the reason that they believed that they'd putt better with it is because of contagion - that for some reason, the fact that Curtis had used it made it better than what it was. Both groups knew what kind of putter Ben Curtis had used, the only difference was that one group performed better because they thought that they were using his actual individual putter.
So if I were to break down the reasoning for these results, which the study never concluded, I would say this is the sequence: unconscious contagion --> placebo effect --> confidence --> improved performance. Positive contagion is something rarely seen in the world, the Hitler sweater is an example of negative contagion, and this clear example of it is a breakthrough in quantitatively measuring its effects.
Perhaps some day in the future, every amateur athlete will use equipment actually used by other athletes.Hopefully nobody is ever convinced that by buying Tiger Wood's old clothing they'll be able to... you know.
To the average viewer, the verbs to "choke" and to "panic" may go hand in hand. In reality, they are two entirely different phenomena. To prove my point, I will embed two videos; the first is of someone choking, the second is of someone panicking. In both instances, their psychological weakness led to defeat. I will then discuss the psychological instances that define and differentiate these two experiences. Enjoy,
"Choke"
Jean Van De Velde's epic collapse at the 18th hole of the 1999 British Open Championship. Needing only a double-bogey to win on a par-4 hole, Van De Velde managed to hit into the water, the sand, and the rough on route to a triple-bogey to force a playoff - that he went on to lose.
"Panic"
With 20 seconds left in the 1993 NCAA Championship game, Chris Webber grabs a rebound off of a missed free throw and proceeds to travel (which somehow didn't get called, I suppose the ref panicked as well), dribble downcourt, and call a timeout that his team didn't have. The resulting technical foul led to two more points for the opposing North Carolina Tar Heels, and ultimately a 77-71 loss for Webber's Michigan Wolverines.
A player chokes when they recognize the significance of the moment and begin to think explicitly about the actions that they perform during sport. The human brain has two types of memory: explicit memory, used for consciously remembering experiences and information, and implicit memory, which unconsciously aids in tasks through the use of previous experiences. For instance, when a golfer is learning his swing, they will explicitly think about certain aspects of their swing (keeping their knees bent, rotating the hips, etc...) until they believe that they have the implicit "feel" of the swing. The basal ganglia, where implicit learning partially resides, is concerned with force and timing, and when that system kicks in you begin to develop touch and accuracy, for example, the ability to hit a drop shot in golf. With practice, this system gets stronger and eventually, the golfer isn't consciously thinking about the aspects of their swing, but rather just implicitly swinging the way that feels best for the shot needed.
However, once that golfer recognizes that they are one hole away from their first major championship, their explicit memory starts to kick in due to the fear of their implicit memory failing them. This is what happened to Van De Velde at the 1999 British Open. Knowing that he had the tournament sealed with a double-bogey, Van De Velde proceeded to hit every shot as if he was a beginner. He explicitly thought through the motions of his golf swing and couldn't hit the ball the way he wanted to. Had he simply trusted his intuitive swing the way he had all 71 previous holes of the tournament, which had him up three strokes with one hole to play, he would have won the tournament. Unfortunately for him, Jean recognized the gravity of the situation and no longer trusted his gut, he wanted to make sure that he accomplished his goal by consciously thinking through every aspect of his stroke
Panic, on the other hand, is an entirely different process. When a person panics, they experience what psychologists call "perceptual narrowing" - they focus on one thing, and one thing only. For example, Chris Webber gets the ball with 20 seconds left and his team down two points. He knows that he has to score and that he has little time to do so. Instead of passing right away or dribbling, he panics and thinks "get me out of here." He takes a few steps, finally realizes that he has to dribble, and calls a timeout, one that the entire country, himself included, knew that they didn't have. In his moment of panic, Webber's one thought was to escape the situation, he forgot entirely about the obvious fact that he didn't have any timeouts left.
In effect, panic is much the opposite of choking. Choking involves over-thinking, whereas panic involves under-thinking. Choking is loss of instinct, wheres panic is reversion to instinct. The only way to avoid these mishaps is through rigorous practice. Practice in instances of intense pressure helps your mind trust your implicit memory to prevent choking, and will provide experiences for your mind to draw from when experiencing perceptual narrowing, or panic. So fear not, its simply a matter of mind over body mentality.
Ahh... Tiger Woods, what an interesting case study you are. In the world of sports, there may be no athlete more scrutinized (actually, Lebron is #1 on that list) than Tiger Woods. The face of golf, the classiest sport in North America, who was caught having cheated on his gorgeous wife (with whom he had two children) with over a dozen women. None of whom were even close to as attractive as his wife, Elin Nordegren.
Was there something going on subconsciously with Tiger Woods, daring him to escape his perfect public image, or was it simply a successful man succumbing to the temptation of numerous women expressing interest? South Park asks, "why would a man who is famous and has lots of money, use that to try to get with many women?" - watch here (it's hilarious and right on point.)
Kenneth Hartline, who wrote a post on his blog entitled Tiger's Intrapsychic Conflict, hypothesizes that on some level, whether unconscious or consciously, Tiger wanted to get caught. Tiger wanted to shed his public image of perfection because that's not who he is. The media often ignores the fact that Tiger's father, his mentor, cheated on his wife numerous times. Of course Tiger knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he also knew that his inspiration, his father, had done this act numerous times before.
Renowned sports psychologist, Dr. Gio Valiant, states "I’m certain that as bad as Tiger feels, on some deep level, he is relieved." Hartline, himself a professional sports psychologists, concurs on this sentiment, and feels that Tiger has had his whole life constructed around him. That from the age of 2, when he was featured on the Mike Douglas Show for his golf talents (below), he has been pressured into being this iconic golf star. His game followed suit, and by age 20 he had millions of fans watching his every move. He had endorsers who had invested millions into his public image. He was the man with the mental toughness to dominate golf who could tell the media exactly what they wanted to hear. In Elin Nordgren, his future wife, he found the beautiful blonde supermodel who would raise his children. For his endorsers and his public persona, everything was going right for Tiger.
However, nobody ever knew what Tiger wanted. And yet, that is where the question lies. Why did Tiger get married in the first place? Did he really love Elin and was committed to her? Or did he feel that he needed to add a wife and kids to his public resume? If only Tiger had never gotten married, he would simply be compared to a lower-class Derek Jeter in the sex department. (For those who don't know, check the link for the reference.) No public black eye for Jeter and his exploits.
To be honest, I'm not even sure where I stand on this. If Tiger wanted to be single, then why did he get married? I think that it had something to do with him continuing his crusade to be the most reputable athlete in the world, while forgetting what he really wanted. It's hard to feel bad for Tiger for what he did, but I don't envy the amount of pressure that he has to deal with.
Will his game every be what it once was? Believe it or not, I'm not convinced that this is a psychic issue. Tiger has not been the same since his knee injury. Besides, his best performance since the "sex addict" fallout was his first one back... when psychological pressure was at it's highest. Tiger has since worked with three different swing coaches and even has a new caddy, a testament to the change in his game. I may be in the minority thinking that Tiger's performance issues are not mental, but there is a huge physical aspect to the sport. When you can't pivot on your knee a certain way, it's hard to swing the way you once did.
I recently watched "Bigger, Stronger, Faster," a movie about steroid use in sports and the American obsession with victory. It chronicles the story of Christopher Bell and his two brothers, who both use steroids, and why the country is so concerned about a drug which causes only 3 deaths annually. Why is it that performance-enhancement is so hated in sports, and yet American Air Force pilots are required to take amphetamines when behind the wheel? Why does the news embellish the negative effects of steroid use while research shows that it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco? Finally, why does U.S. culture dictate the importance of body image in males?
As a sports enthusiast who maintains a performance-enhancement-free vision of sports, this movie did bring to light a series of convincing counter-arguments to my view of sports enhancement. Firstly, the drug Aderall is often prescribed to students with ADD to help them do well in school. The students without ADD don't have this advantage. Is that so different than someone who has a naturally small build and takes steroids to do well in football? I'm not convinced that it is. Bear with me for a second, I acknowledge that ADD is a serious medical condition and I've seen the adverse effects that it has on students first-hand. It is way harder for them to focus on writing a paper than it is for me. Nevertheless, I've also seen first-hand the negative effects of poor athletic genetics on football players, and trust me, it is way harder for them to put on weight and be successful in football.
Sports, like life, are unfair to begin with. Dwight Howard is stronger than I can ever dream to be, and he never even lifted weights before he got into the NBA as a 19 yr. old 245-pound specimen. I, along with 99.9% of the population, will never be able to grow to 6'11 and jump 40 inches high, so obviously I will never be as good at basketball as him. That's life. I only mention this to bring to light that steroid use is equally as unfair as the genetic lottery.
The movie also brings to light an interesting topic which is about the psychology of the U.S. public in general. The public is obsessed with the size of the male body. A good case study is that of the G.I. Joe dolls who in 1960 were small men in uniforms and are now jacked up bulldozers wearing cut-off military tanks. The insurgence of jacked up movie stars in the mainstream media is the most likely cause, the success of the Rambo, Rocky, and every Arnold Schwarzenegger series' led to the desire to look like the conquering commandos. Maybe it was the Cold War and the U.S. dog-eat-dog culture. Whatever it is, it's getting a little out of control. The supplement industry for males is growing at an incalculable rate, with little to no FDA intervention. Anyone can create a "supplement" and sell it on the market, only if the FDA chooses to investigate and deem it unsafe will it be removed. No pre-market tests required. To cap it all off, there are no ethics in the industry, as demonstrated by the before and after pictures taken below of the director. They were both taken the exact same day, and yet they claim to show the positive effects of the supplement that they endorse.
He got shredded in 6 weeks, even though these pictures were taken on the same day. These pictures may or may not have been tampered with. (source)
In closing, I would like to recommend this movie to any sports fan as it brings to light a series of interesting points about athletics, psychology, and the American public.
I woke up yesterday and couldn't remember where I was. My dream was so vivid and moving that I felt that I had awoken from a coma, having missed the last 8 years of my life. My move from Toronto to Los Angeles was drastic to say the least. Suddenly, I had no friends. I had no home. I had no girlfriend. I had no snow. I started from scratch, as was the plan when I made the decision. Since this blog is about psychology, I should let you know that I am a big fan of Freud and the power of the subconscious. People often get sad, depressed, invigorated, happy, or even goosebumps from certain feelings that they simply can't explain, and in my humble opinion, that is the subconscious expressing itself consciously. The subconscious has been studied in many ways, and my next post, about Mihály CsÃkszentmihályi's concept of flow is just one example. I say all of this to relate to my dream, to my first life that was lived before this new one began.
I'm playing basketball in the Lett Gym at my high school Upper Canada College. I'm probably 12, and I'm with my oldest friend from home, Ed Cottingham. There's a slight feeling of anger, as if we had just gotten into a big argument, when abruptly, he trips me as I sprint to the hoop. I take this slight as a challenge, the anger (from an argument that I have no recollection of) is unleashed and I head full steam to rugby tackle him. Growing up, Ed was always bigger than me. He would have the upper hand in arguments because I couldn't really defend myself. Now, there's a sudden shift in my dream and all sorts of feelings start to pour out. I'm 6 foot 3 inches, 220 pounds, and I am not scared anymore. With people yelling (faceless noises coming from the backdrop), I pick him up, slam him down, and hope that I don't hurt him too bad. Suddenly, I propose two options; I ask him, "we can either fight this out and risk ruining our friendship, or talk it out in the locker room." We decide on the latter. Fast-forward and we're jovial, kicking it in the locker room, and decide to go have some fun.
I'm not convinced that we can explain our subconscious, and as much as I believe in Freud, I don't think that we can rely on our dreams to reveal it. Nonetheless, this dream really summarizes our relationship. We're always competitive against one another, always caring for each other, and always willing to put the past behind us and have some fun. The reason that this dream was so powerful was because it reclaimed these feelings of my oldest friendship, something that I've forgotten about as I have an entirely new network of friends, and no memories of home other than a few pictures.
Life is a book of chapters, and sometimes it's nice to re-read certain pages. For now, it's back to the California dream.
I have spent countless hours perusing through mindless corporate attempts to sell me, “The Latest in Sports Psychology Techniques, Success Guaranteed!” products. As result of this frustration, I’ve taken to the social world to find useful, informative websites that can help us analyze the psychological factors and phenomena that affect athletes. In doing so, I’ve stumbled upon (not a pun, I used delicious) what I would call, a “social bookmarking soulmate.” No, I have not met this person, nor do I know their age, gender, or profession, but what I do know is this; we share similar online interests. This “soulmate” of mine goes by the name of PsyProf and I believe that his/her discoveries could enhance your ability to learn about sports psychology.
On delicious, you can search an area of interest, find an article, and then find out how many people have tagged that item. You can then discover how they’ve tagged it, and what else those people are interested in. Now, there were innumerable people using the tags “psychology,” “sports,” and “lifehacks,” on articles that I found to be interesting, but none of these people shared a focus on sports psychology. As such, I was ecstatic to find out that someone had tagged a favorite articleof mine with “sports_psychology.” Upon further research of this tag, I discovered a community of users who shared my interest, none more intriguing than my online soulmate. PsyProf had more than three times as many “sports_psychology” tags than any other user, so naturally, I checked out his bookmarks and found some gems.
The first is an article entitled, “Self Confidence, Motivation, Focus &Pressure – Athletes vs Entrepreneurs,” written by Stephen Walker, PhD. This article compares the lifestyles and psychological traits of both athletes and entrepreneurs, referred here as “corporate athletes.” Although the article doesn’t compare any of the specific psychological differences of the two, it discusses the similar traits that they share, and the way that each applies them to their career. It quotes and compares top athletes of both professions, such as Michael Jordan and Ray Kroc (of McDonalds fame.)
Another gem is an article entitled, “Injury Prevention in Sports,” written by Geoff Michaelson, PhD. By examining how psychological factors create increased risk for injury in sports, Michaelson creates a window to connect psychology and physicality, something that I intend to profile. One example is the analysis of how anxiety causes overly tense muscles, leading to increased risk of injury.
PsyProf’s bookmarking topics are primarily animal cognition, photography, and web 2.0. He has 364 bookmarks, 40 of which are related to sports psychology – as his 5th most tagged topic, clearly PsyProf isn’t primarily focused on my area of interest. On another rather unfortunate note, PsyProf’s bookmarks are poorly organized and rarely have a description. Although he is not an ideal candidate, I can’t afford to be overly picky due to the niche nature of my interest. I suppose I’m looking for too much in an online soulmate; for now, PsyProf will have to do.
Disclaimer: Although DylanBotB is not a sports psychologist, his blog often discusses, with statistical reference, what separates the most mentally tough athletes from the rest.
Dylan Murphy, better known as “DylanBotB,” writes a sports blog aptly named “Bottom of the Barrel.” This title is synonymous with the style of its content, described self-deprecatingly as “bad sports journalism.” Simply, the blog’s purpose is to “criticize and make fun of sports personalities, events and issues, mostly using run-on sentences and marginally correct grammar.” However, BotB (if I may be so inclined) is selling himself short. Although he describes his style as one of a lazy frat boy, too lethargic to correct his grammar or bother to fix run-on sentences, the voice that appears in his post is not so. Rarely are grammatical errors made, and despite the occasional run-on sentence, his prose is easy to read. Is it possible that BotB is selling himself short in order to attract a wider audience? It appears that his goal is simply to attract readers to his blog, as he even offers a Twitter feed of content - “Need your bad journalism and useless sports commentary in 140 characters or less?” What BotB either fails to recognize, or intentionally chooses to ignore, is that his sports commentary is more compelling than much of what is available by professional sports journalist. Sports journalism is simply a means for one to express their opinions on performance, and if it’s graded on their ability to justify their opinion with statistical reference then BotB isn’t such a “bad sports journalist.”
His post, “Clutch Players in the Playoffs,” (05/11/11) opens with the question, “did you know that oysters are aphrodisiacs?” Although this question may seem trivial, it works as a very accurate metaphor for what ensues. He continues to discuss that although you may not have known that oysters were aphrodisiacs, the question may not have surprised you because of the feeling that oysters give you; the same “know-it-when-you-see-it” sensation that is felt while witnessing athletes with the strongest mental toughness. He continues the metaphor while discussing athletes of different tiers of mental toughness, “A grilled chicken sandwich, of sorts. It’s going to be good, maybe great, but it’s not going to unequivocally bewilder and amaze your taste buds.” What’s fascinating about this post is that it proves the disingenuousness of BotB’s self-description. The metaphor of comparing taste to a feeling that an athlete summons is imaginative and the diction is equally impressive, yet he maintains his “bad journalism” stance by opening the post with the subject of aphrodisiacs. BotB is talented at disguising his inner genius.
To further the point, the post continues by comparing stats of the top closers in the league but not revealing which stats belong to whom. In doing so, the reader is enticed to guess who they think matches with which stats and BotB gains more credibility by backing his opinion with statistical evidence. Perhaps by chance, the conclusion that BotB determines from his analysis of the statistics is the unlikely, but ultimately true, conclusion that the Mavericks would win the championship in 2011 because of the clutch abilities of their star player, Dirk Nowitski.
The post, “On Dirk...” offers even more insights into the mastery of sports journalism that BotB is seemingly trying to cover up. Not only does he convince the reader that the unlikely Mavericks would win the championship (despite 3:1 odds, he was right), but his voice continues to impress. He compares Dirk to “a modern day Sisyphus,” the loyalty to his seemingly failing team being his boulder – how does he expect to invoke this kind of voice in his 140-word Twitter feed? To cover up this educated voice, he mentions that Lebron “didn’t give a shit” about team loyalty, again, perhaps in an attempt to appear more accessible to the average reader.
I really like the voice that BotB conveys, however, I worry that he is dumbing it down so as to not seem as scholarly as he may be. His arguments are sound, concise, full of impressive rhetoric, and yet he still refers to his work as “bad journalism” and “useless commentary.” In no attempt to judge this strategy, I would love for his perceptive voice not to be marred by these futile attempts to sound less educated. I personally think that he would gain more traction with professional sites if he simply gave up the “bad journalism” act. And yet, maybe that’s not his goal.
If you ever get the chance to read this DylanBotB; kudos for the most perceptive voice I have yet to witness in the field of sports journalism.
Blogs have been violated. When it comes to blogs on the topic of sports psychology, nearly every one is an attempt to sell you a self-help book or set of videos. What happened to blogs being an expression of self, of opinion, an area of the Internet untainted by the sleaze that is profitability? Alas, Kenneth Hartline has come to the rescue. His blog, “The Athlete’s Psychology,” is the lifeboat that keeps interested readers from letting go of their curiosity.
The Athlete’s Psychology is a blog that asks the questions, “Why did Michael Jordan appear unfazed in every pressure situation? How does Tiger Woods appear to be so calm standing over a putt worth $1 million?” Kenneth Hartline is a Doctor of Psychology candidate at Pepperdine University who graduated from the University of Oregon with concurrent Bachelor's degrees in both psychology and journalism with minors in Communications and Human Physiology. Although he has started a company that seeks to help athletes and coaches utilize sports psychology, he rarely mentions the business and continually seeks to inform his readers. He understands that athletes are as human as everyone else, and utilizes his education in psychology to analyze the performance of modern athletes. Unfortunately, posts that used to occur on a monthly basis in 2010 have since slowed; only one post (June 23rd, 2011) has been made since August 22nd of 2010. The site is no longer popular, as indicated by the fact that neither Alexis, nor Technorati, had any information on the site. Nonetheless, his posts are still relevant and unbiased, informative for both a psychology such as myself, or just an interested sports enthusiast.
Young crushing the hearts of my fellow Trojans (photo cred)
In his post, “How Vince Young's rise and fall illustrate a growing problem inprofessional sports,” Hartline considers the effect of the off-field stress that accompanies star athletes. He profiles Vince Young, the quarterback who single-handedly willed the Texas Longhorns over our Trojans in the 2006 Rose Bowl and became a marquee name in the sport. When Young took a day off from work and failed to contact the team or his family, the media jumped on the news and pronounced him suicidal. What Mr. Hartline suggests was merely a case of “adjustment disorder” – a stress-related mental illness, was perceived to be a suicidal tendency. Hartline diagnoses the problem between psychology and sports, “Ahletes simply aren’t allowed to struggle with mental illness and are stigmatized negatively by the public if they dare take any time off for something intangible that the fans can’t see.” This post exemplifies Hartline’s perception of the business of sports and its affect on the psychology of its athletes.
The post, “Landon Donovan's Exclamation Point,” explains the psychological effect of being the underdog. He profiles the US World Cup victory over Algeria, a game that the US had dominated but failed to capitalize until a 93rd minute goal by Landon Donovan, to show the effect of playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose. He states, “it is a normal human reaction to be much more terrified of the criticism that comes from underperforming than from seeking the praise that results from achievement” – highlighting the fact that fear is the strongest human emotion. I found this post illuminating because even though it doesn’t use any psychological jargon, it stills highlights a natural tendency in the human psyche.
This blog relates well to my work because I want to do exactly what Mr. Hartline does, analyze the performance of athletes, both on and off the field, from the perspective of a psychologist. I want to explain a player or team’s performance using the information that I have learned through my studies in psychology. This blog, despite its casual tone, is still scholarly in that it utilizes many psychological terms and refers to many leading professors of psychiatry. This blog will feed my work in that I can utilize many of its examples and come to my own conclusions. I can link to, and critique, many of the points that it makes and offer a contrasting opinion. Although the blog lacks the voice that I hope to portray to my readers, it succeeds in making its content accessible to both psychology students and sports enthusiasts alike.
“Shit. You’re carrying the game in your hands with this final free throw and you know that you’re going to miss it. You’re more trapped than R. Kelly in the closet. I may have missed these in regulation, but people knew I’d miss them. Have fun at school tomorrow after having pulled one of the worst Mickelsons of all time,” says the Dennis Rodman-esque devil sitting up top on my shoulder. Sure, his diction is somewhat archaic, but one can only imagine that that’s the kind of vocabulary that a man of his great stature would utilize.
I’ve presented a fictional situation, that in their own voice, all athletes have faced; the anxiety of wasting years of practice in one moment. That weight on your shoulders, shared only by the great Atlas, that nobody in the stands could understand until they’ve felt it. An athlete’s legacy is determined by how well they can handle that pressure. Whether it’s a mental strength that the athlete appears to have been born with (we’ll call it the Tiger Woods pre-2008 ability) or an acquired skill (hey, even Mickelson eventually figured out how to win a major), an athlete will never be “elite” until they can pull through when it counts.
Just a few days ago, during the U.S. Open of Tennis, the No. 2 tennis player in the world explained the quality quite concisely, “If you watch the No. 10 player in the world and the No. 500 in training, you won’t necessarily be able to tell who is higher up in the rankings. Without the pressure of competition, they’ll move and hit the ball much the same way.” The great, and eccentric, basketball coach Bobby Knight reiterated the sentiment in a more concise manner, “Mental toughness is to physical as four is to one.”
So far, I’ve framed the theme of this blog to be about mental toughness and choke-artists. I’ve done so because that is what got me interested in the topic, and when I think of sports psychology, I feel that that’s the first thing that comes to mind. Choking is the most prevalent and most obvious phenomenon where psychology enters the world of sports. I intend on covering it, but also other topics, such as; who the hell is Dennis Rodman, and why is he the way that he is? What mental state was Tiger Woods in when he thought that he could get away with so many infidelities? How did Phil Mickelson overcome the panic that he consistently faced when he was so close to finally winning a major? (Speaking of psychology, those athletes were the first to come to mind because of a phenomenon known as priming.)
Sports have long been my passion and I am an avid fan of nearly all of them (cricket being the exception.) I’m a student of athletics, much like I’m a student studying psychology at USC, and I’m in a perfect place to study the cross-section of these two passions: sports psychology. There are limited online resources on the topic of sports psychology, especially those that aren’t a sales pitch, and thus I will be addressing a specific niche.
Finally, I need for something to be made clear. This blog is not like the majority of sports psychology blogs; my posts will never have advice on how to be mentally tougher, they will not teach you how to become mentally stronger, and I will never attempt to sell you any products. I am here simply to inform you of all of the interesting sports psychology phenomena that have been taking place. To start you off, enjoy the story of Jason McElwain, an autistic basketball manager-turned-player who scored 20 points in the final 4 minutes of a game. Choking is at the extreme of the Yerkes-Dodson law, what J-Mac experienced was at the apex. Enjoy.
Disclaimer: Although DylanBotB is not a sports psychologist, his blog often discusses, with statistical reference, what separates the most mentally tough athletes from the rest.
Dylan Murphy, better known as “DylanBotB,” writes a sports blog aptly named “Bottom of the Barrel.” This title is synonymous with the style of its content, described self-deprecatingly as “bad sports journalism.” Simply, the blog’s purpose is to “criticize and make fun of sports personalities, events and issues, mostly using run-on sentences and marginally correct grammar.” However, BotB (if I may be so inclined) is selling himself short. Although he describes his style as one of a lazy frat boy, too lethargic to correct his grammar or bother to fix run-on sentences, the voice that appears in his post is not so. Rarely are grammatical errors made, and despite the occasional run-on sentence, his prose is easy to read. Is it possible that BotB is selling himself short in order to attract a wider audience? It appears that his goal is simply to attract readers to his blog, as he even offers a Twitter feed of content - “Need your bad journalism and useless sports commentary in 140 characters or less?” What BotB either fails to recognize, or intentionally chooses to ignore, is that his sports commentary is more compelling than much of what is available by professional sports journalist. Sports journalism is simply a means for one to express their opinions on performance, and if it’s graded on their ability to justify their opinion with statistical reference then BotB isn’t such a “bad sports journalist.”
His post, “Clutch Players in the Playoffs,” (05/11/11) opens with the question, “did you know that oysters are aphrodisiacs?” Although this question may seem trivial, it works as a very accurate metaphor for what ensues. He continues to discuss that although you may not have known that oysters were aphrodisiacs, the question may not have surprised you because of the feeling that oysters give you; the same “know-it-when-you-see-it” sensation that is felt while witnessing athletes with the strongest mental toughness. He continues the metaphor while discussing athletes of different tiers of mental toughness, “A grilled chicken sandwich, of sorts. It’s going to be good, maybe great, but it’s not going to unequivocally bewilder and amaze your taste buds.” What’s fascinating about this post is that it proves the disingenuousness of BotB’s self-description. The metaphor of comparing taste to a feeling that an athlete summons is imaginative and the diction is equally impressive, yet he maintains his “bad journalism” stance by opening the post with the subject of aphrodisiacs. BotB is talented at disguising his inner genius.
To further the point, the post continues by comparing stats of the top closers in the league but not revealing which stats belong to whom. In doing so, the reader is enticed to guess who they think matches with which stats and BotB gains more credibility by backing his opinion with statistical evidence. Perhaps by chance, the conclusion that BotB determines from his analysis of the statistics is the unlikely, but ultimately true, conclusion that the Mavericks would win the championship in 2011 because of the clutch abilities of their star player, Dirk Nowitski.
The post, “On Dirk...” offers even more insights into the mastery of sports journalism that BotB is seemingly trying to cover up. Not only does he convince the reader that the unlikely Mavericks would win the championship (despite 3:1 odds, he was right), but his voice continues to impress. He compares Dirk to “a modern day Sisyphus,” the loyalty to his seemingly failing team being his boulder – how does he expect to invoke this kind of voice in his 140-word Twitter feed? To cover up this educated voice, he mentions that Lebron “didn’t give a shit” about team loyalty, again, perhaps in an attempt to appear more accessible to the average reader.
I really like the voice that BotB conveys, however, I worry that he is dumbing it down so as to not seem as scholarly as he may be. His arguments are sound, concise, full of impressive rhetoric, and yet he still refers to his work as “bad journalism” and “useless commentary.” In no attempt to judge this strategy, I would love for his perceptive voice not to be marred by these futile attempts to sound less educated. I personally think that he would gain more traction with professional sites if he simply gave up the “bad journalism” act. And yet, maybe that’s not his goal.
If you ever get the chance to read this DylanBotB; kudos for the most perceptive voice I have yet to witness in the field of sports journalism.
Blogs have been violated. When it comes to blogs on the topic of sports psychology, nearly every one is an attempt to sell you a self-help book or set of videos. What happened to blogs being an expression of self, of opinion, an area of the Internet untainted by the sleaze that is profitability? Alas, Kenneth Hartline has come to the rescue. His blog, “The Athlete’s Psychology,” is the lifeboat that keeps interested readers from letting go of their curiosity.
The Athlete’s Psychology is a blog that asks the questions, “Why did Michael Jordan appear unfazed in every pressure situation? How does Tiger Woods appear to be so calm standing over a putt worth $1 million?” Kenneth Hartline is a Doctor of Psychology candidate at Pepperdine University who graduated from the University of Oregon with concurrent Bachelor's degrees in both psychology and journalism with minors in Communications and Human Physiology. Although he has started a company that seeks to help athletes and coaches utilize sports psychology, he rarely mentions the business and continually seeks to inform his readers. He understands that athletes are as human as everyone else, and utilizes his education in psychology to analyze the performance of modern athletes. Unfortunately, posts that used to occur on a monthly basis in 2010 have since slowed; only one post (June 23rd, 2011) has been made since August 22nd of 2010. The site is no longer popular, as indicated by the fact that neither Alexis, nor Technorati, had any information on the site. Nonetheless, his posts are still relevant and unbiased, informative for both a psychology such as myself, or just an interested sports enthusiast.
Young crushing the hearts of my fellow Trojans (photo cred)
In his post, “How Vince Young's rise and fall illustrate a growing problem inprofessional sports,” Hartline considers the effect of the off-field stress that accompanies star athletes. He profiles Vince Young, the quarterback who single-handedly willed the Texas Longhorns over our Trojans in the 2006 Rose Bowl and became a marquee name in the sport. When Young took a day off from work and failed to contact the team or his family, the media jumped on the news and pronounced him suicidal. What Mr. Hartline suggests was merely a case of “adjustment disorder” – a stress-related mental illness, was perceived to be a suicidal tendency. Hartline diagnoses the problem between psychology and sports, “Ahletes simply aren’t allowed to struggle with mental illness and are stigmatized negatively by the public if they dare take any time off for something intangible that the fans can’t see.” This post exemplifies Hartline’s perception of the business of sports and its affect on the psychology of its athletes.
The post, “Landon Donovan's Exclamation Point,” explains the psychological effect of being the underdog. He profiles the US World Cup victory over Algeria, a game that the US had dominated but failed to capitalize until a 93rd minute goal by Landon Donovan, to show the effect of playing to win, as opposed to playing not to lose. He states, “it is a normal human reaction to be much more terrified of the criticism that comes from underperforming than from seeking the praise that results from achievement” – highlighting the fact that fear is the strongest human emotion. I found this post illuminating because even though it doesn’t use any psychological jargon, it stills highlights a natural tendency in the human psyche.
This blog relates well to my work because I want to do exactly what Mr. Hartline does, analyze the performance of athletes, both on and off the field, from the perspective of a psychologist. I want to explain a player or team’s performance using the information that I have learned through my studies in psychology. This blog, despite its casual tone, is still scholarly in that it utilizes many psychological terms and refers to many leading professors of psychiatry. This blog will feed my work in that I can utilize many of its examples and come to my own conclusions. I can link to, and critique, many of the points that it makes and offer a contrasting opinion. Although the blog lacks the voice that I hope to portray to my readers, it succeeds in making its content accessible to both psychology students and sports enthusiasts alike.
Jason McElwain was born on October 1st, 1987 and was diagnosed at a very young age with severe autism. Early on, he struggled socially in school, until his brother introduced him to the sport of basketball. With this new passion, McElwain experienced the world from a new perspective and began to make friends. He attended Greece Athena High School in New York, enrolled in the special needs program, when the coach for the varsity basketball team decided to name him team manager. Ecstatic, Jason attended every practice, every game, and every team meeting; he was an icon for the team. And then one day, magic happened. During the divisional championship game, Coach Jim Johnson, decided to put Jason on the roster to give him the opportunity to wear a jersey and sit on the bench. With four minutes left in the game, the crowd went wild when Jason was put in the game. His first two shots, a three-point attempt and a lay-up, both failed to hit the rim. The crowd was silent. Finally, Jason took a three-pointer and made it. Then he sunk another, and another. Nobody could believe it. The opposers double-teamed him, put their best defender on them, and Jason wouldn’t miss. He would finish with six three-pointers and a lay-up, for an astounding twenty points in four minutes. After the game, Jason mentioned, “I was hot as a pistol!” McElwain has since been celebrated nationally by the likes of national news coverage, an introduction to President Bush, and Lionsgate Films are now making a movie about this amazing story.
Stories like this are the inspiration for my blog, the Psychology of Basketball. Although, “psychology of basketball” might seem vague, it will explore the effect of a player’s psyche in relation to their performance on the court, and what psychological factors might separate the best players from the rest. Of all the team sports, basketball may be the one where one player can have the most influence. It is also a sport where more often than not, the final play is determined by one player; the star gets the ball and he does what he has to in order to score. I’m intrigued by what separates the “clutch” player from those who lack the confidence to take or hit the game winning shot. I’m also intrigued by the phenomenon that players describe when “they’re in the zone,” “on fire,” or “hot as a pistol.”
Basketball has long been my passion and I am an avid fan. I am a student of the game, much like I am a student studying psychology at USC, and I am in a perfect place to study the cross-section of these two passions: the psychology of basketball. There are limited online resources on the topic of sports psychology, and even fewer specifically relating to basketball psychology, so I will be addressing a specific niche of interest.
As far as subtopics are concerned, there are limitless combinations and innumerable online resources relating to basketball to be explored. Some examples include:
·A case study comparing the “clutch” gene that certain players appear to have, comparing Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan to Lebron James or Karl Malone.
·A case study comparing Dennis Rodman’s personality to his style of play, both equally unique, yet successful.
·The psychology of championships, why certain teams can win in the regular season but not in the playoffs.
·The effect of the coach; a case study on Phil Jackson and his phenomenal mental composure and “zen-like” demeanour.
·A case study on Ron Artest, the “Malice in the Palace” fight that he started, and his championship speech where he mentions his psychologist numerous times.
·“We’re talking about practice. We ain’t talking about the game. Practice man. Practice,” speech by Allen Iverson, and the effect that this played on his teammates.
·An analysis of the Jason McElwain story, autism in basketball.
·Is there a psychological “home court advantage”
·The collapse of the Lakers in the 2011 NBA playoffs.
·Gambling and basketball, why it is so rampant in the lives of retired legends.
