1/? A thread...Why am I right about certain aspects of strategy, even understanding it better than Nicklaus? Far too often players of past generations hold their playing background out as an appeal to their authority. I did not play on the PGA Tour, why?
More from Sport
A (long) thread on why Andrew is correct but ultimately incorrect…
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
Many coaches advocate for picking and choosing methods from a variety of theoretical camps, on the premise that which is best \u2018depends\u2019 on the player, the coach, etc and you want the biggest toolkit you can get.
— Andrew D Wilson (@PsychScientists) November 27, 2020
I think this is an error, which I will now attempt to defend
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
Watching this play sent me down a memory hole that gave me goosebumps as well as a pang of guilt. Let me explain. A THREAD!
In 2011, I was hosting the ESPYs. Marshawn’s run was nominated for Best Play, an award that was voted on by fans online. It was considered a front runner if not a lock.
Two days before the show, we're all watching the US/Brazil game in the Women’s World Cup. In the 122 minute Abby Wambach scored a header from a brilliant cross via Megan Rapinoe. I asked ESPN’s estimable producer, the late, great Maura Mandt if we could add it to the nominees.
The best thing about the ESPYs is, unlike other award shows that take themselves too seriously, there is a “fuck it, why not” attitude so Maura just made it happen. Maura was great at making things happen. Want another example?
One of the highlights of the ESPYs is the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. When my son Ashe was born Maura gifted him this fake ESPY for BEST CHILD NAMED ASHE. I am confident this is the only ESPY anyone related to me will ever win.
Exactly a decade ago today, Marshawn Lynch caused a Beast Quake.
— Field Yates (@FieldYates) January 8, 2021
One of the most memorable runs in NFL history. pic.twitter.com/VBb8Lc0yGW
In 2011, I was hosting the ESPYs. Marshawn’s run was nominated for Best Play, an award that was voted on by fans online. It was considered a front runner if not a lock.
Two days before the show, we're all watching the US/Brazil game in the Women’s World Cup. In the 122 minute Abby Wambach scored a header from a brilliant cross via Megan Rapinoe. I asked ESPN’s estimable producer, the late, great Maura Mandt if we could add it to the nominees.
The best thing about the ESPYs is, unlike other award shows that take themselves too seriously, there is a “fuck it, why not” attitude so Maura just made it happen. Maura was great at making things happen. Want another example?
One of the highlights of the ESPYs is the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. When my son Ashe was born Maura gifted him this fake ESPY for BEST CHILD NAMED ASHE. I am confident this is the only ESPY anyone related to me will ever win.
You May Also Like
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
