There is rearch out there (see bauemeister (1984))to show that implicit learning can develop skills that are less likely to breakdown under pressure, where as skills that are more explicity learnt are more succptable to anxiety.

The would add an interesting viewpoint to your argument that real knowledge is essential to putt well under pressure.

Dear Phil,

The sort of research performed by sports science people in academic programs is pretty limited. All sports science academics do the same "cookie cutter" pattern of research, which is to compare "Condition A" to "Condition B" with a "Control" for performing a given "task". Unfortunately, these researchers often default to studying putting because it can be studied indoors on their usual equipment / technology using readily available college students. The problem usually lies in the definition of "task" and in the choices of "Condition A" versus "Condition B".

In the sort of studies you reference, the researchers typically don't know much about putting or putting "tasks" and their selection of "Condition A" and "Condition B" is abstract, arbitrary, guided by peer acceptance as a dichotic pair, and not founded as a choice upon a substantial understanding of the mechanism of learning in the brain.

What, for example, is meant by the term "implicit"? What exactly are these researchers attempting to measure?

This study is pretty typical:

The implicit benefit of learning without errors
Authors: Maxwell, J.P.; Masters, R.S.W.; Kerr, E.; Weedon, E.
Source: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, Volume 54, Number 4, 1 November 2001 , pp. 1049-1068(20)

Abstract:
Two studies examined whether the number of errors made in learning a motor skill, golf putting, differentially influences the adoption of a selective (explicit) or unselective (implicit) learning mode. Errorful learners were expected to adopt an explicit, hypothesis-testing strategy to correct errors during learning, thereby accruing a pool of verbalizable rules and exhibiting performance breakdown under dual-task conditions, characteristic of a selective mode of learning. Reducing errors during learning was predicted to minimize the involvement of explicit hypothesis testing leading to the adoption of an unselective mode of learning, distinguished by few verbalizable rules and robust performance under secondary task loading. Both studies supported these predictions. The golf putting performance of errorless learners in both studies was unaffected by the imposition of a secondary task load, whereas the performance of errorful learners deteriorated. Reducing errors during learning limited the number of error-correcting hypotheses tested by the learner, thereby reducing the contribution of explicit processing to skill acquisition. It was concluded that the reduction of errors during learning encourages the use of implicit, unselective learning processes, which confer insusceptibility to performance breakdown under distraction.

The "task" here was putting and "Condition A" was putting while thinking about how to make the stroke to correct errors, and "Condition B" was putting while not thinking and not making any errors. Implicit learning is sort of equated with "learning without awareness of rules for how".

The two groups were then "tested" by having them putt while occupying their explicit consciousness with an irrelevant (secondary) task, to simulate "pressure" or "distraction". The implicit-learning group did better. Then the researchers tried teaching golfers while also preventing the use of rules with the same sort of "secondary task".

Fine and dandy. But read what these same researchers now say: "Several practical problems need to be overcome when using a secondary task to encourage implicit motor skill learning. In the work of Masters (1992) and Hardy et al. (1996), implicit learners consistently showed a lower level of performance than those learning explicitly. This has subsequently been shown to remain the case after as many as 3000 trials (Maxwell et al., 2000)."

I say that the brain actually does not neatly divide learning into "implicit" or "explicit" and always combines conscious learning with non-conscious learning. I teach explicitly, I teach implicitly, and I also teach how to play without using or thinking about the rules used in learning explicitly. The time course of motor learning in the brain shows initial conscious problem solving and rules application that dissipates over time as the movement and non-conscious processes take on a greater more competent role in the execution. Eventually, the conscious processes are normally not reverted to in play, but the explicit rules are still available for problem occasions.

Which is better: a good putter who does not know how to perform consistently or how to overcome a problem or get out of a slump or a player who has rules that allow him to play consistently with instinct and to fix problems immediately and get back to a high level of performance without streaks and slumps?

I also use analogies in teaching: a putting stroke "is like a pendulum," is "like swinging a wrecking ball", is "like the way a pet door hinged along the top swings when a dog enters the house", the shoulder frame moves "the same way an oxen yoke hanging on a peg on the barn wall rocks if tipped down on one side and then released", the putter head goes thru and past impact in relation to the surface "in the same manner that a fighter jet takes off the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier at sea", etc.

The same "implicit-learning" researchers are now turning to analogy teaching-learning methods as a way to share explicit rules in an implicit manner, avoiding the thinking part during performance in favor of an intuitive understanding that is less- or even non-verbal. Analogy learning: A means to implicit motor learning, LIAO, CHU-MIN ; MASTERS, RICHARD S.W., Journal of Sports Sciences (May 2001). They probably should just ask a good putting instructor about all this before they turn their "academic guns" on putting.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

The problem with these types of experiments is that there is no way to simulate pressure in a lab setting. How do you recreate a putt to force a playoff on the 72nd hole of a tournament, etc? The people they use for the experiments don't care about the results. They have nothing riding on whether or not they make the putts or not. Personally, I don't think the way that clutch players handle major championship pressure is through having perfect technique. There have been too many different clutch players with different swing/putting styles for this to be the case for the majority of them. Rather, they are so mentally strong that they can distinguish that at that point in time, their goal is to make as high quality an effort as possible. They realize that in order to do this, they must treat it like any other shot of any other meaningless round, even though it is the most important shot of their tournament. They take comfort in knowing that even if they miss the shot/putt, they have done everything in their power to make the shot/putt.

I take it then that you firmly believe that only players that have 'real knowledge' of how to putt can put well under pressure?

What knowledge would this be geoff would you say? Knowledge of where they have the club or where they think it should be?

I believe that great putters have a strong understanding of how their putting works, from reading the putt to executing the stroke with touch, so that there are a number of beliefs they have about what to do to "give the putt it's best chance", as Brad Faxon says. Over time, these beliefs become rock solid in a putting routine so that during the performance of the routine, the golfer can either "zone out" or self-monitor whether they are executing in the usual process. In other words, "zoning out" and just playing the game as well as the golfer is capable is the preferable circumstance, but the golfer who knows how their routine got that way and why he believes in it being that way is able to putt well when things are not the usual "just playing and enjoying using your skills."

This would be true of Walter Travis, Walter Hagen, Bobby Jones, Bobby Locke, Paul Runyan, George Low, Jackie Burke Jr., Bob Charles, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer in his heyday, Ben Crenshaw, Loren Roberts, Brad Faxon, and others.

I don't say that these players are immune from the bad effects of pressure, but I do say that their skills competencies are skills the details of which they are familiar and satisfied that they are using the best techniques they know about and can execute with. This makes their skills detailed and mindful, allowing them to self-monitor if they wish to or need to.

When people say that "golf is a game of misses" and Walter Hagen says "the secret of golf is turning four shots into three or three shots into two", there are two sides to this sentiment: getting close to completely successful with any shot, and not getting far from complete success with any shot. Under pressure, the mindful putter with knowledge of his skills will do both at once and be quite prepared for the result to come out "success" or "nearly so" and accept this result with a balanced mindfulness.

Loren Roberts and Ben Crenshaw and practically all great putters when facing a 35-foot putt with lots riding on the result will approach this putt with the "usual" double-sided mind set or attitudes: make sure you don't three-putt AND make sure you do your best to sink this putt. The trick is that these golfers don't see any difference between these two attitudes because they believe that the best way to make sure they give the putt its best chance of sinking is ALSO the best way not to three-putt, and this belief comes about by mindfully knowing how their putting works best.

The putting works best ONLY when you use the usual technique, because the usual technique is what the golfer has taught himself is the best he can do. So in learning and mastering putting, the golfer is always (at least for years at the beginning) sorting out how to do the skills as best as he can, so he can settle down and HONE these techniques into as good performance using them as he can muster on a consistent basis.

By far, most golfers never get this far with knowing what works and why, including PGA Tour pros. The mistake that coaches make in golf is not imparting an understanding of the skill at a foundational level so that the golfer knows why to believe in the specific technique. Merely getting the golfer's stroke looking pretty is nowhere near good enough for competitive performance. And merely using a jargon-y approach that "sounds" impressive and scientific without really teaching how the approach is supposed to address the issues and problems of putting skills is similar to throwing magic powder in a golfer's eyes. The golfer has to have a solid belief in the techniques he uses (not just "blind faith" that he is good or "he can do it"), and this is best attained by the combination of seeing good results in line with competitive expectations of performance level with knowing how and why the good results are occurring. Then the "feedback" the mindful golfer gets over months and years of performing with the best technique he believes in generates meaningful feedback that locks in the techniques and the beliefs.

In comparison, non-mindful golfers (who may putt lights out but don't have an earned appreciation for how and why) don't really have mental filters in place to use when putting to understand on a given putt why it missed left or long or the read was off. They guess at what caused the problem, and never really have good educated guesses. The quality of feedback for these non-mindful golfers is unquestionably very poor perhaps to the point of non-existent or even WRONG. Over the years, these golfers never really advance their skills. Just ask Joe Durant or any number of pros who thought they were good putters until they got on Tour and then struggled for years just to keep up and not fall backwards in the competition, and usually didn't ever get very high in the competition.

Whether the great putter ends up believing in "staying loose" or thinking of the stroke for a putt like painting the vision with a paint brush onto the green (Faxon), or seeing a movie of the successful putt in the "mind's eye" during the routine and then waiting at address until sure the vision will become reality when the trigger is pulled (Jack Nicklaus, Ben Crenshaw, Tiger Woods), or standing closed to the line with a hooded backstroke and an inside-to-out delivery of the stroke thru impact with a square face down the line (Bobby Locke), the details of technique have been sorted and critiqued and modified until the golfer settles into his mindful putting.

I'm sure that Scott Verplank, for example, does not simply wrap his putter handle and milk his grip prior to putting without doing so for a reason that he believes in very clearly. That is, he has a cause-and-effect belief about what the softness of his grip and the setting of his grip pressure has to do with the success or failure of his effort, as he has thought about this for years and has explored the issue for years and has settled down to a belief about what works and why. Under pressure, Scott Verplank would certainly not want to start this whole process from scratch, and he is going to use what he believes works best to give his putt the best chance he knows how to give it to sink.

Less skillful golfers on the green haven't gotten to this point with their mind for putting and how their personal putting works. they may and probably do believe that "these guys are good" as the marketing says all the time, and this belief is justified if you are comparing pro golfers and amateurs, but stacked against a golfer who knows and has earned his beliefs in his technique(s) by mindful exploration, thoughtful critiquing and search for improvement, and a cause-and-effect understanding of what works best and why for that golfer, the un-mindful golfer on the green may get lucky occasionally but over the long-haul doesn't stand a chance.

I don't say knowledgeable putters are immune from mistakes under pressure, but I do say that in the main these golfers are knocked off their best techniques by pressure FAR LESS OFTEN and FAR LESS SEVERELY than non-mindful golfers.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.