Jump to content

James Smith

Administrators
  • Content Count

    775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Blog Entries posted by James Smith

  1. James Smith
    Contrary to public misconception, we do not gain understanding knowledge by imitation.
                The reality is that “All knowledge is conjectural, and comes from within at first”- David Deutsch
                What this signifies, though non-intuitively at first and in refutation of the fallacy of Empiricist claims, is that we do not gain or create knowledge by way of observing, bearing witness, watching, listening, being mentored, or in any other way explicit derivation. Imitation, sure, but not explanatory knowledge.
                In order to gain or create knowledge, we, often unconsciously and especially in the case of ‘relative’ knowledge gain (some knowledge that is already known elsewhere), always, and without exception, criticize, conjecture, and test/experiment in order to arrive at our own understanding. If not, we do not know, and merely repeat/mimic- which, is a sort of knowledge (how to copy), however, not the level of understanding type that is assumed.
                In sport, and elsewhere, however, a propensity to seek ‘recipes’ instead of methodological understanding is the driving mechanism behind the relatively static environment of sport culture. The explanatory reason for the ‘stasis’ is rooted in the suppression of critical faculties/reasoning and creativity that is overshadowed by dogma and received wisdom.
                According to the rules of sentential/propositional logic (the logic of implication) it is invalid, and a fallacy, to affirm the consequence of the antecedent.
    If antecedent, then consequent, or in logic, If A, then B If A, then B B Therefore, A This logical fallacy is what coaching thrives upon and is, in fact, a violation of correct reasoning (affirming the consequent). In words this reads:
    If I use this coaching method, then we will win the game. We won the game Therefore, it’s because of the coaching method This is, and has been, in effect, the bedrock of sport coaching and it violates the rules of correct reasoning. The ends cannot justify the means. The most that can be done is the exact opposite (affirm the antecedent):
    If A, then B A Therefore, B  This presupposes the theory, that was criticized and attempts were made to refute it, is what is represented by A, and thus, it is rational to suggest that if this is done, the result will follow.
    The amount of champions, or championship wins, a coach has associated with his/her name means ZERO with respect to their coaching knowledge. It is only a coach’s knowledge that has the possibility of developing championship level performances; yet the sport results can never explain the coach’s knowledge. The coach’s knowledge is only demonstrable via his/her explanations, and knowledge of logic in general, specifically the rules of propositional logic and correct reasoning, provide a criterion for analyzing such explanations.
    Email James@globalsportconcepts.net for consulting information on coach hiring, interview preparation, and education
     
     
  2. James Smith
    Sport coaches, task yourself with assuming an objective (non-emotional, and purely factual) reference frame such that your perspective for considering this write up is not influenced by any possible bias or preconception.
    Now, ask yourself if your “strength coach”, if you have one, is a positive or negative component of your organization. The key, is to ask yourself this question based upon the objective knowledge of what is required to optimize your athlete’s competition results.
    Your athlete’s competition outcome is a product of their competition performance. Their performance is a function of the aggregate of what substantiates their skill and competitiveness. This aggregate is predominantly a composite of psychological state and tactical execution. The tactical execution is a function of sensory processing, access to working memory, and technical execution. Their technical execution, over the course of competition, is supported by physiological, biomechanical, and output related factors.
    The ‘strength’ coach’s education is ill-conceived. It is NOT a product of “this is the sport, this is the sport structure, and these are modes of enhancing the skill of improving competition outcomes”. It’s a function of “this is a weight room, this a tool, this method of using the tool causes this adaptation in the body” Thus, analogous to Elon Musk’s criticism of education in which he chastises convention for teaching about tools as opposed to the engine, how to disassemble it, and then elucidating the tools purpose, you must question whether what your strength coach is prioritizing, in fact, has anything to do with improving sport skill.
    This, then, mandates, that YOU, sport coaches, have a quantitative understanding of sport skill. Which is to state, that you must have an objective mode of measuring skill improvement such that the most important indicator exists to determine if all supportive modes of sport preparation are, in fact, supporting improvements in sport skill.
    Understand, that the prevention of injuries is a substrate of competition outcome because the injuries that occur in preparation and contests are detractors to competition outcome.  Thus, if no quantitative improvement in sport skill is measured, and injuries are not reduced, then the additional psychological, physiological, and structural cost of “doing what the strength coach says” is not a positive attribute- it is a negative one.
    The extra 10kgs on this or that exercise, the extra cm’s distance on this jump, are meaningless, if no quantitative improvement occurs in sport skill.
    Consider a simplified example: a female 100m sprinter has a personal best of 11.0sec. She increases her squat 5RM by 15kg, her power clean 1RM by 10kg, and her standing broad jump by 10cm and for the remainder of her season she fails to run faster than 11.0. What use was the improvements in the squat, power clean and broad jump? No competition improvement occurred, however, the psychological, physiological, and structural cost of all the work that went into increasing the squat, power clean, and jump were a profound competing stress against THE MOST IMPORTANT part of sport preparation- SPRINTING.
    So, consider, what is the nature of these competing demands being placed on your athletes who compete on, or in, tracks, pitches, ice rinks, courts, courses, mats, cages or pools? Do you have the diagnostic means in place to determine causal links? Or do you exist under the misconception that when your “strength” coach reports the improvements in non-specific aspects of preparation, you consider it a job well done- while not actually knowing whether the “strength” work positively improved sport skill or reduced injury. If this has piqued your interest, consider having a look at the book that was written to evolve and revolutionize sport coaching itself:
    The Governing Dynamics of Coaching
     
  3. James Smith
    It is critical to discuss the mistake of expanding upon the volume of specialists in an organization if there is no unification between them.  In the absence of an individual who, like a general contractor, possesses the applied understanding of all specialty domains and is, thus, qualified to orchestrate them, no amount of specialists is likely to make the organization any better.
    In theory…
    We may discuss the supposed understanding that the Manager, Head Coach, Assistant Coaches, Physiotherapists, Player Development, Psychiatrist, Psychologist…are supposed to have. This is only in theory, however.
    If…we grant that each one of them is actually operating at the forefront of their respective specialties, and that is a massive assumption, we must still determine how well each one integrates with the other, such that the whole of the organization is, in fact, greater than the sum of its parts. 
    As it regards the any efforts to expand upon the organization’s performance through the lens of psychology, as soon as we distinguish between what the organization requires from the standpoint of brain and behavior, we must then recognize that no amount of psychological understanding directed towards sport is better than the degree to which this individual, or individuals, work seamlessly in the organization, and NOT only amongst themselves, but with the rest of the organization’s staff, coaches, and players. 
    The psychologist who possesses a PhD or PsyD, is a Doctor of Philosophy (in Psychology) or Doctor of Psychology, respectively. PhD curricula in psychology are more research and experimental based; whereas the training of PsyD’s are more based in clinical/professional practice. Psychologists are NOT medical doctors and, unlike Psychiatrists, focus on the psychological, vs the biological, reference frames related to cognitive, emotional, social, behavioral research and/or clinical psychotherapeutic interventions to assist in the mental well-being of someone in terms of reconciling past traumas and diagnosing and resolving any number of psychological conditions such as anxiety and depression. Unlike Psychiatrists, however, psychologists are not licensed to prescribe medication. 
    The sport psychologist, who also possesses a PhD or PsyD is a psychologist who directs their study and practice towards dealing with the brain and behavior in the context of sport preparation and competition. Not all sport psychologists possess a PhD or PsyD (which is an important distinction because anyone with an undergraduate degree can go through a 12month on-line course and get a masters in sport psychology. Meanwhile, any psychologist has gone through an undergrad then a doctoral program to earn a PhD or PsyD. To conflate a sport psychology credential with a PhD or PsyD, who focuses on the sport application, is to conflate a CPR certification with a MD). 
    What is critical to understand for the organization is how the sophisticated understanding of psychological preparation interfaces with tactical execution and this is something that psychologists, and even sport psychologists, are not necessarily trained for.
    What the organization requires is that every coach integrate the requisite knowledge of psychology into tactical/technical preparation, because any psychological limitations from the players or coaches will never be as adequately addressed in the office of the psychologist as it will when its addressed during coaching and practice.
    While there is no such thing as toughness or mental toughness, there is:
    •    Purposefulness
    •    Discipline
    •    Initiative and self-sufficiency
    •    Self-control
    •    Confidence
    •    Resolve 
    •    Perseverance
    •    Courage
    •    Decisiveness
    •    Competitiveness
    •    Concentration/focus
    •    Anxiety control
    •    Composure
    •    Self-awareness
    •    Positive thinking
    •    Team cohesion
    •    Thought control
    •    Self-regulation
    •    Aggression
    And more…
    Each of which mandates, not only the explanatory knowledge of its significance but, how to integrate its development into coaching and player tactical execution.
    Particularly as it regards players, the psychological preparation must be synthesized into off-season sport practices, training camps, and seasonal practices. 
    After consulting with each coach and player and identifying the specific type of psychological skills each individual is lacking, there will be specific practice drill variations suggested that will distinguish both the tactical/technical AND specific psychological skill from another psychological skill. 
    We cannot use ‘tough’ in thinking or speaking because it’s as ambiguous as scrapping all tactical schemes/concepts, and all their complexity, and replacing all of them with the single word- tactical.
    Imagine replacing all American Football, Rugby League, Basketball, Football, Ice Hockey, Wrestling, MMA…tactical terminologies, and all derivations, with the single word “tactical”. 
    To reduce tactical complexity, which varies between team and combat sports, with one single instruction “tactical” would be laughable to any modern-day tactical coach. In this same way, mental toughness must be as laughable to any person because of how differentiated the previously mentioned components of psychological skills are from one another. 
    As laughable and nondescript as it would be for the American Football or Rugby or Basketball Coach to blame themselves or their athletes for not being tactical enough, somehow, these same coaches operate under the misconception that their teams or athletes aren’t tough enough…
    Too often, teams and athletes undergo physically grueling training, sometimes with military units, in an effort to become more ‘tough’. Little do the coaches of these athletes realize is the nuance and distinction of the many psychological skills they misconceive as toughness. 
    Some athletes are strong with resolve, perseverance, and aggression yet lack self-regulation; while others are strong in self-regulation yet lack in resolve, perseverance, and aggression. Due to the lack of sufficient psychological knowledge in coaching we then see, year after year, entire teams being subjected to the same grueling activity in pre-season training that, say, demands perseverance. The coaches and athletes think that toughness is being developed, meanwhile this is the functional equivalent of suggesting chemotherapy for anyone who doesn’t feel well. Meanwhile medical doctors are up in arms trying to explain the myriad of conditions that result in a person not feeling well and how chemotherapy is only appropriate for one of them, and if you use chemotherapy for any other reason you are subjecting the person to a remarkable level of misery and physiological trauma that is utterly misdirected and unnecessary. 
    Coaches with sufficient psychological knowledge recognize the subtleties surrounding psychological skill development and how this process must be highly individualized for each athlete whilst closely satisfying tactical/technical developments, and not diverting from them with the sports analog of chemotherapy. 
    Thus, any organization that requires, or benefits from, a licensed psychologist on staff must fill an even more important role. The organization requires an individual to integrate psychological understanding directly into sport practice. This will not be achieved by a psychologist or sport psychologist. It can only come from an individual who has as deep and wide and understanding of sport structure as they do the requisite domains of cultural establishment, talent ID and selection, leadership, the tactics and techniques of the sport in question, psychology, the theory of knowledge, learning science, language, communication, motion, energy, medical science and rehabilitation, and critical problem solving, that directly implicate winning more competitions. 
    What this describes is the analog of a general contractor for sport. One who has an applied understanding of every contractor. This is the theoretical/strategic role that I describe in my explanation of a Competition Strategist, and the jargon of global load manager in my book “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching” and it is this sort of professional who is required to ultimately unite the differences between managers, coaches, doctors, scientists, analysts, researchers, and trainers so that the entire collective of them works seamlessly together in order that no untapped potential exists in the organization, and more competitions are won this year and beyond.  
    Email James@globalsportconcepts.net for information on psychological preparation from a top down perspective of tactical/technical development
     
  4. James Smith
    In the wake of UFC 235, Tactical preparation  will be explained from a top down perspective so as to elucidate upon one of the most foundational, yet one of the greatest limiting factors in preparation for sport. 
    Tactical Execution begins with the binary, and highly emergent, nature of decisions and actions.
    The focus here is the implications surrounding the failure to execute tactical game plans.
    Decisions
    From the top down perspective, the discussion of each tactical decision must begin with psychological state.
    Psychology
    The state of one's emotional regulation is unarguably, and directly, implicated in his/her ability to make a decision- specifically from the standpoint of how well he/she processes sensory information and accesses their working memory. The very foundations of tactical decision making are remarkably affected by one's psychological state.
    Broad sensory processing (relational processing) vs tunnel vision (item specific processing) are products of emotional neutrality vs negative emotional up-regulation, respectively. The more negatively emotionally up-regulated one is (anger, fear, worry, concern, doubt, anxiety, panic, sadness, dread...) the more that person's sensory experience narrows to tunnel vision AND the more restricted his/her access to memory. Both of which are remarkably inhibiting to effective tactical decision making. 
    For this reason, any coach, athlete, or tactical operator who makes a tactical error who is then questioned by a peer or superior in terms of "what were you thinking?" would almost certainly be more accurately questioned by "what is/was your state of mind?"
    As a professional consultant, one of my preferred ways of offering a 'proof' to this is to remind coaches why it is that when athletes make mistakes in competition they almost always have the correct answer by the time they reflect on what happened (this can be seconds, minutes, or hours later). 
    *while it is easy to criticize the benefit of hindsight, it's important to recognize that the limiting factor that prevented the optimal decision making in the competition was known and understood by the athlete/coach/operator. The problem wasn't a lack of knowledge, it was that something prevented them from accessing it when it mattered most.
    The reason for this is because it's only after the fact when emotions have neutralized and the objective clarity returns to the individual who, only then, is kicking themselves for not having made the correct decision. 
     I have never consulted with a coach, athlete, or tactical operator who, upon my asking what the reason was for the decision making mistakes, then stated "I/he/she just didn't know what to do". Just the opposite in fact, the individual(s) in question nearly always knew what to do, yet state "I don't know why I didn't do it". This confusion that distinguishes knowing what to do, yet not doing it, is quite often a function of item specific processing (tunnel vision) that resulted from a lack of psychological self-regulation. A lack of self-regulation allows for a moderate anxiety/fear state to restrict relational processing and inhibit accessing what the coach/athlete/operator ACTUALLY knew.
    One will be hard pressed to speak, in confidence, with a coach who, in the minutes after his/her team/athlete sustains a significant loss, states "I was simply out couched", who, the day later, says "I wasn't knowledgeable enough". Instead, what almost any coach who states "I was out couched" will, minutes or hours after the game, again once emotions have neutralized, be kicking themselves in recognition of what they well knew before the game that they were not able to access during the game. 
    While the tactical decision is very much a function of preceding strategic preparation, cognition, sensory processing, and accessing working memory, it must be understood that, literally and unarguably, the foundations of tactical decision making are remarkably implicated by one's psychological state- because the knowledge gained through strategic preparation is dependent upon being recalled, which depends upon memory, which is negatively impacted by negative emotional up-regulation; along with cognition and sensory processing. 
    The coach/military leader and athlete/commando, on/in their respective 'arenas' are confronted with an environment. The environmental features, including opponents, objects of sensory perception. The features that the brain identifies as higher value/significant targets are the ones that receive priority in the order of processing and it is here, in the fractions of a second when the processing occurs in which cognition and accessing working memory are put to task to make sense of what is processed and respond accordingly. 
    Here is where motion occurs...
    Actions
    Visually received stimuli, that is then processed via retinotopic mapping, the visual cortex, and related cortical regions that couple a highly complex aggregate of preceding tactical and strategic knowledge through memory recall, and pattern recognition/sensory processing , prior to physical motion, ultimately leads to efferent nerve signals that carry information away from the motor cortex and finalize at the junction with muscles. The product of which is a torque force applied to a bone, and motion follows. 
    What mandates explanation, however, is the disruption that separates what is accurately sensed, and coupled with pre-existing knowledge, and the effective response that fails to occur (even though the individual knew what to do). 
    Using last night's UFC 235 as the example, consider the Woodley vs Usman and Jones vs Smith fights, both of which featured the fighters who lost (Woodley and Smith) demonstrating both a curious lack of effective tactical execution (despite having shown exceptional track records of just the opposite in their most recent previous fights) in addition to post-fight clarity that underlines the distinctions discussed above. Further, it's valuable to note how both Woodley and Smith make it a point to explain how confident they were in their preparation, and maintain this claim even after their respective losses in which the skill sets that characterize their successes were largely nullified.
    Take a look at the following clips, taken from each fighters post-fight interview, and note the important distinction between knowing what to do, yet not doing it.
    Tyron Woodley
    Tyron.mp4
    Anthony Smith
    UFC 235 post fight press conference.mp4
    Note the similarities shared by both fighters who, according to their post-fight explanations:
    clearly saw what their opponent was doing, down to tactical/technical specifics knew what they needed to do to fight more effectively against what they accurately perceived from their opponent, yet couldn't understand why they failed to do it during the fight *stated that their preparation and readiness for their fights excellent and that their preparation was not the limiting factor, even though they were at a loss as to why they couldn't access what they knew when it mattered most The last bullet contains an asterisk because of all subjective claims, this one mandates the most criticism.
    To state that preparation is not the limiting factor necessarily requires that it satisfy an objective criteria.
    In "The Governing Dynamics of Coaching" I explain what such an objective criteria looks like and is based upon. Included in this criteria is psychological preparation as it is an inseparable component of tactical execution; yet it curiously remains absent as an integrated component of preparation for sport and military tactical objectives. 
    Psychological preparation, as a component of tactical preparation, describes a process wherein the tactical preparation of any coach/trainer, athlete or soldier takes part in dialogues and psychological exercises that, unlike what often occurs in the disjointed faction of sport psychology, is fundamentally integrated with the tactical specifics of the sport or tactical objective.
    Sport psychologists, no different than physiotherapists or strength coaches, are ineffectively educated on the specifics of sport or military tactical/technical derivatives. As a result, their contribution to sport/tactical teams/units/athletes/soldiers is as surface level and unintegrated as most other adjunct specialty contributions to sport/tactical populations. 
    Psychological preparation must exist as an integrated component of tactical preparation because psychological self-regulation IS a component of tactical execution. So much so, in fact, that there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the argument that the psychological component of preparation is THE most important facet of tactical preparation because it is the gate keeper that determines whether or not the absolute entirety of knowledge, skill, and ability is manifest in competition and tactical operations. 
    This case study referenced the main and co-main events of UFC 235, however, the logic contained here is universal and applies to every conceivable sport, tactical objective, and, broadly, and endeavor of any human. 
    Indeed, one's ability to manifest their knowledge, skill, and ability, particularly when it matters most, is ultimately determined by their psychological state.
    The brain is as adaptable as any muscle in the body to change according to the way it is stimulated. One potential result of stated changes  is the way in which ideas are dealt with.
    Changing how ideas are dealt with changes perception, thought, and behavior. The narrow result of which optimizes UFC, sport, and tactical decision making; while the broad result changes the person as a whole. 
    Email James@globalsportconcepts.net for psychological consulting information
     
  5. James Smith
    "How do you describe things that don't randomly happen? If they don't randomly happen, you have to have some kind of quantitative framework for explaining what happened"- Physicist Leonard Susskind
    Attention: every coach, of every sport, in every country, on every level, on planet earth... As I've described, and continue to, the quantitative nature of every facet of sport extends beyond motion. Difficult though it is, so many facets of psychology, sensory processing, and cognition (the underlying frameworks of tactical execution) are routinely quantified in the laboratory. Shelving this, however, there's utterly no controversy surrounding the quantifiable modes of measuring motion.
    Sport, in the language of motion, then becomes quantities of force, mass, and acceleration- the components of Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion; from which, so many derivations may be made to answer questions of different quantities (i.e. momentum, power, work, velocity, impulse, impact, linear, angular...).
    And no human motion that occurs in sport is random. 
    Every sport technical execution is the action of a decision.
    Football 
    Passing Heading Throwing In Shooting Tackling Rugby 
    Passing Kicking Tackling Scrummaging Rucking Mauling American Football 
    Passing Catching Tackling Blocking Pulling Punting Kicking Basketball
    Shooting Passing Rebounding Boxing Out Blocking Posting Cricket 
    Batting Bowling Fielding Catching Throwing Wrestling 
    Front Headlocks Whizzers Ankle Picks Double Legs Single Legs Gator Rolls Counters MMA 
    Punches Kicks Elbows Knees Takedowns Wrestling Grappling Submissions Escapes Scrambles Counters Every sport technical motion, the physical actions that clearly and unmistakably distinguish Association football from American Football from Water Polo, are the actions that result from decisions. And every single human action (motion) is both a product of intention/reaction (not random) and quantifiable. 
    YET...
    To what extent is the preparation for competition quantified?
    Show me what 12 weeks of competition calendar practice looks like.
    Show me the detail of your strategy and tactical preparation.
    Show me the series, sets, repetitions, intensities, durations, frequencies, quantities of work and rest of every facet of tactical preparation.
    What does it look like?
    Do these questions look like ones you'd dish off to your fitness coach? If so, that's because quantitative knowledge in sport has mistakenly been relegated to specialists apart from sport coaches.
    You think it's the language of sport science, or fitness to discuss such matters.
    AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM
    The most quantified nature of team/combat sport coaching isn't occurring in the most important aspects of coaching (tactical/technical preparation). It's occurring in weight rooms, sprinting , jumping...but not in tactical/technical preparation.
    One hears words such as sets, repetitions, intensities, and durations and one thinks, aha, strength and conditioning (a literal conundrum)
    When in fact, not only is S&C redundant (because conditioning is an action verb equal to preparation, of which strength is a component), it shouldn't even exist.
    Does the cook require a food preparation specialist who gets the ingredients ready for cooking, or does the cook prepare AND cook the food?
    Is Lionel Messi (football) , or Tom Brady (NFL) , or Stephen Curry (NBA), or Israel Folau (Rugby), or Kyle Snyder (Wrestling), or Khabib Nurmogomedov (UFC), or James Anderson (Cricket) superior, relative, to their national and international competitors because of their bench press, or squat, or 60m sprint, or vertical jump...?
    The answer is a resounding, definitive, irrefutable NO.
    The superiority of every single exceptional team and combat sport athlete lies in their tactical/technical execution which are products of psychology, sensory processing, cognition, and physical motion.
    Do gross physical qualities matter? Of course.
    Are the gross physical qualities, alone, the difference maker in team/combat sport competition- NO
    Even regarding the physical qualities you must recognize the spectrum on which they are plotted. 
    Messi's remarkable control of the ball in time and space is, in part, a manifestation of physical work, however, it is the nuance/subtlety of physical action (guided by the motor cortex) that results in the fine motor coordination required to dribble and manipulate the ball so precisely. This is NOT a factor of how much he can squat, or what type of leg exercises he does in the weight room.
    What about Steph Curry's extraordinary 3 point shooting skill/consistency, or Khabib Nurmogomedov's unparalleled ground control, or Tom Brady's speed of release and accuracy in throwing the American football, or Israel Folau's phase play capabilities, or the dynamics of James Anderson's bowling, or even Kyle Snyder's ability to defeat significantly larger opponents in the US collegiate system? Are these superb athlete's skills explainable solely by way of weights lifted, how much, what type, how often? The answer is unmistakably NO.
    Even in the case of sport tactical/technical actions that are largely constituted by high force, such as facets of wrestling, Rugby, or American Football...it is a question of how the force is applied. This explains why Kyle Snyder, impressive though he is in the weight room, would humiliate any world class 100kg powerlifter or weightlifter in wrestling who, likewise, would humiliate Kyle in a contest of solely lifting barbells. 
    When we speak of quantities such as force, acceleration, velocity, angular momentum, alactic power, aerobic capacity...the thinking of sport coaches must not become cognitively closed and divert this to the talk  of fitness.
    When I strip away your jargon, and you can no longer refer to it as batting practice, shooting drills, wrestling drills, tackling drills, 4 v 4, or 6 v 6, you must then use the languages of motion and energy.
    This is why I describe the future of sport coaching in terms of sport preparatory engineering, in which tactical/technical preparation becomes substantially more quantified in terms of series, sets, repetitions, durations, intensities, and frequencies in order to unify what has been historically, and remains, fragmented. 
    When dealing with things more quantitatively we then possess the ability to engineer with greater reliability and consistency of outcome. 
    This is explains why you, at this very moment, if you're sitting, have not once thought about the structural integrity of the chair you're sitting in or whether the ceiling might collapse on your head. The codes that had to be met in order to bring to market your furniture or private or commercial construction are such that reliability is built in to the process. Otherwise, if furniture and roofs were routinely collapsing, furniture manufactures and builders would be out of business. 
    What about sports?
    Do Messi, Brady, Curry, Anderson, Nurmogomedov, Snyder, or Folau have the ability to still perform exceptionally in contests even if the content and structure of the preceding week of practice is remarkably non-quantitative and poorly structured and sequenced relative to the type of objective analysis I describe in "The Governing Dynamics of Coaching"...?
    ABSOLUTELY
    The reason why is because the human body is an adaptive organism. It heals, it corrects, it overcomes shoddy instruction. UNLIKE furniture, building materials, or the food you eat.
    If you, or the person cooking your food, overcooks the protein only marginally, it's IMMEDIATELY recognizable. The beef, fish, chicken does not self-correct, it does not recover, it cannot overcome being overcooked. It's just irreversibly overcooked and whoever overcooked is immediately exposed. 
    What about if you overcook your football players, basketball players, rugby players, wrestlers, or fighters? Is it as immediately recognizable as the steak, fish, or chicken that chews like rubber? Can your team or athletes still win? Are you as quickly exposed as the person who overcooked your filet mignon?
    We know the objectively truthful answer is that as a coach, you can do a poor job coaching and 'overcook' your athletes, and they can still win. 
    FUTURE
    So what happens when you take the sort of approach to coaching tactical and technical preparation as the engineers took in putting the plans together to build the stadiums that your athletes compete in?
    What would sport (tactical/technical) practice look like?
    I wrote "The Governing Dynamics of Coaching" to answer this question.
    I explain how do to it.  
     
     
     
  6. James Smith
    Another Example of Future of Sport Coaching from Elon Musk
     
    At the recent SXSW (south by southwest) event, Jonathan Nolan (screen writer, television producer, director, author) conducted an excellent interview with Elon Musk (CEO Spacex, Tesla, Solar City, Boring Company).
    Full interview
                Those familiar with my social media presence will be familiar with my references to Elon Musk as an extraordinary example of ‘global load management’. For those who do not own “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching”, global load management is a term I use to characterize the future of sport coaching competency in which every sport coach will become objectively competent in understanding and managing every operational constituent of coaching (I’ve termed the operational constituents of coaching, borrowing from the late Nobel Laureate John Nash, the Governing Dynamics of Coaching).
                Important to recognize is that every subject matter domain has its own set of ‘Governing Dynamics’ with respect to my use of the term, in which every profession is characterized by its own set of parent domains of subject matter. In the book, and in my consulting, I often reference a variety of industry professionals, from a variety of professions apart from sport, in which these industry leaders ubiquitously function as fine examples of ‘global load managers’ due to their impressive knowledge and insight regarding all subject matter domains that govern their particular endeavor. Conversely, the reason it is difficult to observe a single ‘global load manager’ in sport is because of the unique compensating factor represented by athletes’ adaptive capability that renders a luxury to coaches that most other professionals are not privy to.
                Here is some transcript taken from the mentioned interview between Nolan and Musk in which Nolan’s question pertains to the ‘governing dynamics’ of Musk’s/Spacex’s pre-launch environment and Musk’s response, once again, epitomizes my definition of competence in the context of ‘global load management’. The text in bold has been highlighted so as to draw your attention to the type of questions that sport coaches must be held accountable to and how sport coaching education must evolve so as to allow any coach to answer the questions satisfactorily:
    Nolan- We’re sitting in launch control and looking at the sheer amount of variables that you guys are clocking in those moments before the launch. Wind speed at different altitudes, and the status of all the different 27 engines…how do you manage, how do you…you’re very hands on with the details, but you’re also looking at the bigger picture. How do you manage your time? How do you parse, how do you zoom in and zoom out and make sure that all these things are coming together?
    Musk- Well at Spacex almost all my time is spent on engineering and design. It’s probably 80 or 90%. And then Gwynne Shotwell, who’s president/chief operating officer, takes care of the business operations of the company; which is what allows me to do that. I think that in order to make the right decisions you have to understand something. If you don’t understand something at a detailed level, you cannot make a decision.
    I’d like to just point out that what you saw there [footage of the recent Spacex launch], is the result of an incredible team at Spacex. Super talented people who really work like crazy to make that happen. I think my role is make sure that they have an environment where they, where their talents can really come to the fore.
    -------------- 
    Sport coaches, I encourage you to assimilate this Q&A between Nolan and Musk as being inspirational for the following analog being representative of the potential impact the “Governing Dynamics of Coaching” may have on sport coaching and the world of sport in general:
    Sky Sports or ESPN: coach, in spending time with you during the week prior to competition I noticed how many quantitative variables you manage so expertly. You went from analytical film review in which you tracked the motion dynamics of your athletes and spoke the language of biomechanics, to the analysis of their sensory processing and how they mapped the visual field, to the mathematical strategizing and accounting for every exertion throughout each day no matter if it was tactical/competition rehearsal or some technical derivative of it, it seemed as if every motion the athletes performed, no matter where, was the model for mechanical efficiency in that moment, then you’d integrate psychological interventions based on the cutting edge of neuropsychological/neuroscientific/and psychiatric research, to ensuring that the loading of the athletes being rehabilitated was synthesized with competition preparation and their return to preparation with the other athletes was seamless. I noticed how you always had a blueprint with you that accounted for every single exertion your athletes performed throughout the day and how you effortlessly communicated with your sport preparatory engineer. I also thought it was unique how integrated the athletes were in problem solving. At times the only way I could distinguish athletes from your assistant coaches was by what they were wearing. How did you achieve this sort of culture and how are you able to be so hands on then zoom out to manage so many different variables of coaching and preparation?
    Coach: what you saw this week is simply an example of what it means to be competent to do this job. Unlike what you probably see elsewhere, in which the head coach just has some knowledge of the rules of competition and tactical rehearsal, as the head coach I am the operational leader of the organization and this mandates that I have deep insight into every major subject matter domain that underpins coaching. We know from “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching” these subject matter domains are: cultural establishment, psychological preparation, analytical/intellectual advancement, technical/tactical/sensorimotor preparation, bioenergetic/biodynamic/biomotor and active physiotherapeutic integrations.
    As a result, I have to possess a detailed and applied understanding of these domains and how to synthesize them into a coherent model. As the operational leader I am fortunate to have so many sharp assistant coaches/therapists, and my sport preparatory engineer. I run a flat hierarchy and encourage creative freedom from all of my people. Most important is that our culture is based upon criticism, conjecture, and creativity. No one, myself included, is above criticism and everyone, athletes included, is given a voice to criticize anyone else.
    We do not recognize, in the administrative sense, any particular groups. So while I have assistant coaches whose intellect tends towards various domains of the “Governing Dynamics”, and my theorist (sport preparatory engineer), in the practical sense we all work together in problem solving and it is this type of cohesion that allows for anyone to potentially see problems in anyone else’s operations and contribute to that element of problem solving.
    The blueprint you mentioned is a product of my theorist/sport preparatory engineer. Similar to an engineer in building, she engineers the actual workload for everything that we do. Every single rep of tactical/technical practice, every supportive specialized and general motion, and every aspect of active physio/rehabilitation is accounted for on the blueprint she engineers. As a theorist, she focuses exclusively on problem solving so similar to how theorists function in physics, and other areas of science, she is a resource for our entire organization. In effect, we are all experimentalists who rely upon her guidance and theories that we, as experimentalists, test in order to confirm or disprove them. This is the vehicle for constant progress. 
    You probably noticed we don’t have S&C people. If you think about it, it’s unusual that that fragmented profession ever began. Can you imagine a chef who doesn’t know how to prepare his food for cooking? Like chefs, all of my assistants are fully competent which means they’re coaching or rehabbing their athletes from start to finish each day. Our athletes aren’t with one staff in the morning and another staff later on. In this way, I function similar to a general contractor who orchestrates everyone else because I have knowledge of what they do, and all my assistant coaches/therapists function as sub-contractors. We all work off the single blueprint and have the creative freedom within our domains to tailor and individualize what is done from one athlete to the next. As different as this is from any other sport organization you’ve seen, it’s actually the most practical way to do it. We haven’t invented anything new here, it’s just that we’ve assimilated how things run operationally by so many other trades that don’t have the luxury of talented athletes to compensate for a lack of knowledge and cohesion.
    __________________________________________________________________________________
     You’re only an email away from starting the process of bringing this hypothetical scenario into fruition and achieving sport results you hadn’t yet imagined.
    Email James@globalsportconcepts.net for consulting information on The Governing Dynamics of Coaching
     
     
  7. James Smith
    When we grade the magnitude of impact of a professional we must account for all factors related to the impact itself.
    As this regards coaching, particularly at the youth level, we must begin by acknowledging the behavioral impact on young people who, in the pre-adolescent stage, receive, according to evolutionary psychologists and biologists, a more profound behavioral impact from peers than they do their own parents. 
    Now, square this against the influence from coaches who, even if they only interact with the youths twice per calendar week, are influencing them in such a way that must be recognized according to the degree in which the youths are interested in participating in the sport.
    Thus, any youth athletes who are keenly interested in sport will, arguably, receive a substantial behavioral influence, by association, from their youth coach. I state this as a conjecture relative to the influence their peers have and the fact that the more peers they have who are also keenly interested in learning sport the more that social unit is focused on the direction from the coach. 
    Further, we have the physical impact to account for which scales all the way up to the highest level of sport. 
    What occurs in so many sports, around the world, without argument, is physical abuse; and the other thing that distinguishes this physical abuse from the type that occurs in domestic violence is that the bulk of what occurs in sport manifests through negligence as opposed to intent. 
    In my argument, the potential for psychological, emotional, cognitive, and physical abuse from sport coaches overwhelms, by many orders of magnitude, any amount of incompetence that occurs at the level of, for example, a pediatrician, or any other sort of doctor, because sport coaches are, at once, in contact with groups of youths, young adults, or adults AND because the system of error correction that exists in the enterprises of medicine, science, technology...is simply absent in sport. 
    It is the error correction, not found in sport, that explains the exponential growth of knowledge in STEM that has not occurred in sport.
    Sport, unlike STEM, is rooted, more than anything, in dogmatism. The OPPOSITE of what allows STEM to flourish and the antithesis to progress. 
    When we speak of the brain, behavior, and the body, and the potential damage done to each athlete by way of sport coaches who lack :
    a critical rationalist epistemology that allows for cultures of criticism, creativity, and ongoing knowledge creation emotional regulation to lead by calm-focused and demonstrate the merits of rational thinking, logic, and reason; all of which set an extraordinary behavioral example  knowledge of behavioral subtypes and the effective language skills to modulate communication across various groups cognitive awareness of pedagogical, heutagogical, and andragogical modes of teaching to optimize the tactical/technical development of groups of athletes who vary wildly in their cognitive disposition  and the understanding of load engineering so as to optimize all modes of preparation for competition Then perform the mathematical operation of accounting for all the athletes in the world, no matter the level, amateur/professional, from youth to the senior level, we can appreciate the amount of people on earth who, by way of their amateur or professional participation in sport, were/are/will be subject to varying degrees of psychological, emotional, cognitive, and physical abuse by an incompetent sport coach. 
    ...because, sport lacks both the system of error correction, that substantiates so many STEM domains and explains their fantastic progress, and a sufficient objective criteria, such as the one I outline in "The Governing Dynamics of Coaching", for establishing baseline coaching competency. 
    The Governing Dynamics of Coaching on Vervante (suggested for international customers)
    The Governing Dynamics of Coaching on Amazon
     
     
  8. James Smith
    In humans, intellect is tantamount to hardware, while knowledge is tantamount to software; and critical thinking skills are the cash value in most practical circumstances.
    Intellect approximates to IQ (intelligence quotient) and is relatively fixed by early adulthood. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a mutable domain that is namely distinguished between information (data retention) and understanding.  The former serving a utility during trivia games, computations, or cramming for a test, while the latter is, uncontroversially, the area of interest for most. Physicist David Deutsch has expounded upon the corollary between understanding knowledge and explanatory ability; in which one's explanatory ability is the direct line to the degree to which he or she understands something. 
    The mode by which one's intellect, coupled with their understanding knowledge, is put into practice (i.e. through verbal or written explanation) is manifest via critical thinking. 
    A couple podcasts of mine pertaining to this subject:
    Critical Thinking- Why
    Critical Thinking- How
    Oxford Dictionary defines critical thinking as: the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement
    From this, we may further consider the definitions of the key words that compose the definition:
    objective- not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts analysis- detailed examination of the elements or structure of something evaluation- the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something; assessment judgement- the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions It's also worth defining 'thinking'- the process of considering or reasoning about something
    At the dawn of the creation of http://globalsportconepts.net , in 2013, I was taking notes on a thermodynamics class hosted by MIT's open courseware, and the professor, whose name I apologetically have forgotten, started off by explaining how learning the definitions associated with thermodynamics gets one about halfway there regarding understanding thermodynamics as a whole.  This concept resonated strongly with me and I since took seriously the process of looking up definitions of words. I should note that this pertained not only to new words that I would add to my vocabulary, but words that were/are already part of my vocabulary. This is because, upon further thinking about many of the words we use in dialogue, I realize how unconvinced I was that we fully understand their definitions. As indicated, information and understanding knowledge are to be distinguished from one another; yet they needn't be polarized from one another. As, to know well enough how to use a word in a sentence is achievable short of understanding any subtleties of its definition compared to other words with similar definitions; while the deeper the knowledge one has both in terms of information retention AND understanding, the more capable he/she is in their mode of problem solving . Alas, I digress, as the significance of learning the definitions associated with critical thinking (and engaging in the associated practices) are, in and of themselves, a viable mode of improving one's critical thinking skills.  Vital to point out is the self-discovery necessary within each individual that is required in order to determine the most effective process of developing one's own critical thinking skills. 
    Using myself as an example, I realized early on that I was drawn to both analytical as well as synthetic modes of thinking, who was strongly drawn to becoming a polymath:
    Languages:
    German (used to be able to read, write, speak, however this has slipped due to nonuse) Spanish (conversational in the conversational basics, reading, and writing) Portuguese (conversational in the conversational basics, reading, and writing) Russian (learned to read Cyrillic in an afternoon in 2013, continue to plug away at vocabulary) Arts/Aesthetics
    Drawing/sketching Caricature, Figure Drawing, Gesture Drawing, Sketch Music
    Jazz guitar (BA, Cum Laude, Berklee College of Music as a Performance Major) some piano, some trumpet Areas of Research/Self-Learning/Self-Study
    Physics Mathematics NeuroPsychology/Neuropsychiatry/Neuroscience Dynamics/Biomechanics/Neuromechanics Physiology Epistemology/Cognitive Science *Due to their foundational role in critical thinking, I have personally found immense value in studying physics and mathematics
    Professional Consulting Skills
    The process of the research that amounted to the completion of "The Governing Dynamics of Coaching" evolved into facets of what I do as a consultant. The Governing Dynamics of Coaching, themselves, are representative of the polymaths that coaches, according to my argument, must become; in which deep knowledge must be developed as it regards: Cultural Establishment Analytical/Intellectual Advancement Psychological Preparation Technical/Tactical/Sensorimotor Development Bioenergetic/Biodynamic/Biomotor  Foundations Active Physiotherapeutic Typology/Integration Sport Preparatory Engineering Global Load Management While this partly elucidates on the process of advancing my own polymath and critical thinking skills, it is essential that any reader consider, and perform any necessary/associated self-discovery, what end of the analytical-synthetic thinking spectrum you reside at and, as a result, what modes of intellectual stimulation resonate most strongly within you.
    The strategic preparation for sport is an exercise in critical thinking as:
    Culture is the bedrock from which all knew knowledge emerges and the set of ideas that influences all thought and behavior Criticism and conjecture are the only possibilities for knowledge creation Psychological Preparation includes understanding the science of the brain and the development of psychological skills necessary to achieve targeted success independent of all factors outside of one's control Technical/Tactical/Sensorimotor Preparation are the distinguishing tradecraft elements that define the neurophysiological, bioenergetic, biodynamic, and biomotor abilities intrinsic to success in sport and military operations Bioenergetic/Biodynamic/Biomotor Preparation constitute, broadly speaking, the development of energy systems, motions, forces, and motor skill outputs.  Physiotherapeutic Interventions are, namely, the non-surgical therapies and modalities necessary to support the accelerated regeneration and/or rehabilitative return to sport/operations Sport Preparatory Engineering is the engineered blueprint that accounts for all neuromuscular/structural load stress incurred by athletes Global Load Management- the future of head sport coaching/ leadership in which the head individual is truly competent in all relevant fields of influence/preparation  I have not yet provided a definition for 'critical' itself. As a sensible conclusion to this blog entry I have done so on purpose. 
    Oxford dictionary defines critical, in adverb form, (as the word is used in the phrase critical thinking), as:
    having a decisive and crucial importance in the success, failure, or existence of something. Allow for something to be the success or failure of your sport organization. In this way, regardless if you are an analytical or synthetic thinker, I suggest to you that it is fundamentally important that you consider advancing your own critical thinking skills, as they relate to any and all of The Governing Dynamics of Coaching
     
     
     
  9. James Smith
    The Independent Cycles of State-Space in Sport
    "We are collectively ignorant compared to what we could be. We are a vast population, a vast world, lots of smart people/very capable people. We have many great tools, and we just don't pull that together into a consensus that we can use very well" -    Robin Hanson
    https://samharris.org/podcasts/119-hidden-motives/
    The wisdom contained in the quoted text from Robin Hanson is of universal relevance. In his linked discussion with Sam Harris, among many insightful offerings, Robin notes the prudence in identifying a neglected area that few people seem to be aware of and utilizing that opportunity to make a contribution.
    This is precisely what I elected to do in writing “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching”.
    Though, in sport, there are isolated pockets of insightful thinking, the fact that these insights are isolated is a problem. Though, it is only half of a larger binary problem; in which the other half exists as a lack of cohesive interdisciplinary knowledge underpinning the education of any individuals working in sport. This is approximate to the independent cycles of state-space systems in classical mechanics.     
    In classical mechanics, a system represents a collection of particles, fields, waves…and dynamical systems represent a certain level of change and complexity. A state-space is a collection of all states occupied by a given system. In sport, historically and currently, a 3 state system exists with three independent cycles in which sport coaching, physical conditioning, and active physiotherapy/rehab each constitute a state and an independent cycle; in which the loading of each cycle is independent from the next.     
     
    The problem with independent cycles of states in sport is that each one, in which an aspect of structural/neuromuscular loading occurs, exists incoherently with the others, because there is no underlying architectural/compositional framework that both synthesizes and accounts for everything done. In classical mechanics state-space diagrams, the arrows represent the directionality of time; in which one may clearly represent motion from one state to another, or unto itself (you can see the next state from the current state). This renders the deterministic character to classical mechanics (its predictive capability based upon the detailed knowledge of initial conditions); yet the dynamical laws of classical mechanics must not only be deterministic, they must be reversible. In this way, when the arrows are reversed they must still represent a deterministic system.     
    The first evolutionary step in amending this problem of independent state cycles in sport is what I refer to a sport preparatory engineering; in which an individual with the requisite interdisciplinary knowledge engineers the blueprint that cohesively unifies the existing divergent modes of preparation and rehabilitation. This then approximates how engineers function in building, in which the engineering underpins what is creatively (architecturally) achievable and the resulting blueprint underpins what is executed/physically instantiated by contractors.     
    Sport, on the other hand, is, and has been, curiously, tantamount to building without engineering or a blueprint- only contractors working independently of each other with respect to the fact that their work is not based upon a common blueprint; but three separate/independent blueprints. This clearly paints a disastrous notion in the context of building; yet the reason it is not immediately noticeable as disastrous in sport is because unlike building materials, the human adaptive capability of athletes allows them to self-correct.     
    Sport coaches, physical conditioning coaches, and physios may think of yourselves as contractors and while each contractor executes your own creative freedom in practice, the historical and existing problem in sport is described by the independent nature of your operations and the resulting cumulative load incurred by athletes.   For this reason, the introduction of sport preparatory engineering will immediately resolve the existing dysfunction by connecting your independent state cycles with a common blueprint. 

    This is only the first step, however. As the ultimate state of evolution for sport is to advance to a two-state system in which sport coaching subsumes what has mistakenly diverged into sport coaching + physical conditioning. While this is the current dynamical state of nearly every sport program in the world, it is no less dysfunctional as this is not only tantamount to chefs who only know how to cook food, yet cannot prepare it to be cooked; it's worse because of the cumulative load impact resultant of different authors working independently of each other. 
    The future lies in unification to a two state system, in which sport coaches expand their interdisciplinary knowledge to account for all modes of preparation (which I've termed the Governing Dynamics of Coaching)  and existing physical conditioning coaches either become sport coaches or sport preparatory engineers (which also mandates the expansion of interdisciplinary knowledge of The Governing Dynamics). 
     

    As much of a radical change is this symbolizes in sport, this merely approximates what has long since existed in many domains apart from sport in which the medium of tradecraft is far less forgiving than the adaptive capabilities of athletes, and has thusly required the systemic cohesion of all participants.
    Sport preparatory engineering is the first step. 
    email James@globalsportconcepts.net for consulting information
     
  10. James Smith
    Governing Dynamics of Coaching Consulting
    Testimonial/Evaluation
     
    Beginning in 2018 I had come to a point in my education and career where I wanted to expand my knowledge. I felt a need to be pushed in areas that may not be strengths of mine and in the past I possibly felt were not needed for me to know or be successful. I spent many years looking for something or someone to provide this education and to be pushed accordingly. I looked into online Doctoral programs and never could find something that I felt covered a global view of sports. From people I trust James Smith’s new book was highly recommended. I purchased the book “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching” immediately following its release. I had read and viewed James material in the past, but this book was something much more. As I dove through it I was very impressed by the depth and variety of knowledge it provided. It provided a very global perspective for preparing athletes. It gave me perspective of other fields and how the structure that currently exist in these other fields could exist in sports. Naturally the book left me with even more questions and left me at a standstill. I spent 2017 debating how I could implement the information.
     
    At the beginning of 2018 I made a decision to do a full Governing Dynamics consultation. I spent 8 weeks diving into all of the Governing Dynamics of Coaching with James. What I thought I knew and understood from reading the book was given much more context and practical application. The 8-week consultation gave me the knowledge of what could exist and the current dysfunction that exist in each area of sports. It gave me a new perspective of this information and that it was not for strength coaches, but for coaches and can be applied for any sport. I have worked in numerous sports throughout my career always looking from a Strength & Conditioning/Sports Science lens. Now I look from a coaching lens and now feel very comfortable applying it to any sport that I work within. As the book did, following the 8 weeks of consulting I still have more questions and am working on a way to layout my own education to continue to further my knowledge in each Governing Dynamic. This will be an endless process and to apply it and be successful in its application will be the biggest test! I understand that 8 weeks of consulting only will scratch the surface and further consulting will be needed. I will continue this process as there are deeper details I seek.
     
    In the beginning I took time for me to be comfortable to let my guard down to what I do daily and offer criticism for all areas of sports and to criticize even the information James was giving me. Once I did I feel as if I am seeing much clearer and now see what could be possible in sports. As David Deutsch is quoted in the beginning of James book “The limiting factor is not resources, for they are plentiful, but knowledge, which is scarce” Every university and organization I have been a part of in my career has had plenty of resources to be successful, but what was missing was knowledge to allow for continued improvement of the athletes I worked with. James consulting has provided me a deeper knowledge of the Governing Dynamics of Coaching and now it is on me to apply it successfully.
     
     Shea Thompson
    Sports Scientist
    Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach
    Cincinnati Bengals
  11. James Smith
    The following reality exists amidst universal considerations: any physical transformation is achievable so long as it does not violate a known law of physics; and the only reasons a physical transformation is unachievable, if it does not violate a known law of physics, is that there isn't enough knowledge to solve it yet, or it violates a law of physics that has yet to be discovered. The analog to this, regarding the single fixed constraint governing sport/military tactical possibilities, are the rules/laws or rules of engagement, respectively.
    It is a foregone conclusion that the laws of physics exist and ultimately constrain physical transformations, however, the physical transformations constrained by the laws of physics exist well beyond the scope of most human powered motion objectives; and therefore, pose no practical constraint against an athletic or military tactical possibility- specifically regarding a non-technological/mechanical human capability.
    The rules/laws of sport and military, however, are fixed constraints (lest they be amended) and these constraints are simultaneously liberating mechanisms in that any tactical approach is possible, provided ...
    Join the Conclave to continue reading and gain access to over 80 video presentations on sport preparation
     
  12. James Smith
    Sport Preparatory Engineering Consulting
    Testimonial/Evaluation
     
    In 2018 I did a full Governing Dynamics consultation with James Smith. Spending 8 weeks diving into each area of the Governing Dynamics of Coaching. Throughout the last year I revisited each area to further my understanding. When doing this I really drew an interest to Sport Preparatory Engineering. I myself have used technologies such as GPS for 7 collegiate and NFL seasons to help in managing the loading of American Football Players. When studying the area of Sport Preparatory Engineering I was amazed by the planning and the mathematics that guided the development of the training blueprint. This gave detail to every step of the training blueprint and left little chance for unexpected result.
    In April of 2019 I made a decision that this was the area I needed to understand further if I was to really make an impact in assisting coaches and teams. I chose to do a 4-week intensive consultation with James Smith on Sport Preparatory Engineering and I am very pleased with the amount of information and knowledge I was able to gain from it.
    During this consultation we examined all areas of engineering the preparation of the American Football player with a particular emphasis on the NFL structure and constraints. James allowed me to guide the learning and he expanded on areas where I need to improve my knowledge. Examples areas that I was interested in included load distribution, engineering mathematics, and in-season practice design. James was able to display the ideal and then work from there in making adjustments for rule constraints we may be faced with.
    My 2nd consultation with James was a tremendous experience in diving deeper into Sport Preparatory Engineering, possibly the biggest area that can be improved in American Football. Having a blueprint to work from within your team and being able to make yearly adjustments from it is a must. James Smith provided me the knowledge and troubleshooting abilities to apply this for any team I work with!
      
    Shea Thompson
    Director of Performance Monitoring
    Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach
    San Francisco 49ers
  13. James Smith
    Sport coaches, take a few minutes to consider an analogy...
    You function as a type of building contractor, and if you have assistant coaches and you coach a sport with different athletes playing different positions, each position coach is a different type of sub-contractor; in addition to the coaches who specialize in the weight room, and the specialists who conduct active rehabilitation. A staff of different types of contractors and sub-contractors.
    Much different from actual building sub-contractors, however, the aggregate of you, your assistant coaches, weight room coaches, and rehabilitation coaches are operating void of a unified blueprint. Instead, each group of contractors and sub-contractors are operating on the basis of their own blueprint.
    Imagine if this were true regarding the contractors who built the stadiums, arenas, rinks, pools... your teams compete in, or even the house, condo, or apartment you live in?
    What if....the workers who poured the foundation had their own agenda, the framers/dry wallers had their own agenda, the electricians, the plumbers, the roofers, every carpenter....had their own agenda- their own blueprint as opposed to a master blueprint that accounted for the entire structure? Would you even consider bringing your team/athletes into such an unstable environment, let alone ask your family to sleep in such a place?
    Yet, this is exactly how your coaching staff has been operating.
    Sport/position coaches create your own blueprints (plans for sport practice), the weight room coaches create their own blueprints, and the people who take charge of rehabilitation protocols create their own blueprints. Yet, each type of 'work' renders a structural cost to the body.
    The athlete's bodies pay a price every time they practice sport, and every time they lift weights, run, and jump, and every time they do scaled versions of these as they rehabilitate from injury. Each type of 'work' has a price to pay, a set of consequences.
    The body pay's a price every time it does these sorts of 'work' and the fact that you have different sport 'contractors' creating their own independent blueprints that require each athlete pay a price, should, after having considered the analogy on offer, give you cause for concern and have you wondering why this lack of convergence, why this lack of cohesive organization, has existed for so long.
    You may even be wondering how your athletes or teams could have been successful in spite of this glaring contradiction, or, alternatively you may have the light bulb moment that clarifies why your athletes or teams have not been performing to the level you'd hoped for.
    In either case, you owe it to your own careers, to the careers of your staff and athletes, and to your athletes well-being to develop the knowledge that will raise your level of professional trade-craft to the level of the builders who built the structure that you and your families live and sleep in.
    The unified blueprint that will take sport to the next level, that will redefine your conception of 'sport practice', is a result of what I describe as 'sport preparatory engineering'. It is a process I describe in detail in the book "The Governing Dynamics of Coaching" and it is, according to my argument, simply a matter of when, not if, this mode of coaching knowledge becomes the difference maker in every sport, at every level, on earth.
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/194620806X 
     
  14. James Smith
    Criticism to test the open mindedness of sport professionals. Though not for an inflammatory purpose. To the contrary, to inspire evolution; as criticism lies at the bedrock of knowledge creation.   The foundations of sport coaching reside in parochialism, nepotism, gerontocracy, dogmatism, traditionalism, and received wisdom. The entire lot of which are the bulwarks of progress.   Strip away the technological advances that are ubiquitous in sport analytics, diagnostics, and measurement...focus only on coaching methods, practice, and drills, and one is hard pressed to note remarkable change in comparing what is done today, in sport practices, to what was done 50 years ago.   In order for sport coaching and practice to experience the same type of exponential advance as is seen in Silicon Valley it must assimilate comparable cultures that are rooted in criticism, best ideas win, collaboration, innovation, and perhaps above all...a self-driven initiative of all coaches, no matter your tenure, to remain students of learning throughout the entirety of your career.   Instead, however, and particularly once coaches reach the professional level, an unspoken dysfunctional culture exists in which dedicated learning nearly comes to a halt. Coaching conferences amount to the professional level coaches, if you even go, socializing in the common areas as 'one wouldn't dare admit he has much to learn by openly demonstrating his continuing education'. Lest when the time comes that the athletes/team aren't winning, and the draconian finger begins to point looking for a scapegoat, it lands on the coach whose open efforts to learn more suggest to the 'authority' that this open admission that there's more to learn is somehow related to the deficiency associated, via confirmation bias, to the lack of competitive success.   The problem must be solved by correcting for the errors that exist at the very top of an organization; at the highest executive level in which the owners, CEOs, presidents, and managers must be educated to the magnitude of knowledge that goes unknown, yet underpins the fabric of every perception, every thought, every decision, and every action of administrators, staff, coaches, and athletes down to the level of tactical execution.   At present, the perception of what is relevant in coaching is tantamount to the visible portion of an iceberg. This visible portion is only 10% of the iceberg's total mass. The remaining 90% exists unseen, beneath the surface of the water. Yet this 90% constitutes the overwhelming majority of the iceberg. Just the same, the 90% unknown in coaching represents the solutions to every problem that is not yet even recognized by coaches as existing, yet the existence of these problems explains the lack of achieving what is achievable in addition to every hope or expectation that is not realized.   The talent and abilities of professional athletes represent one of the most potent compensators for vulnerabilities at the level of coaching and management.   This dynamic allows for large scale errors to continue to go unnoticed, and even masquerade as coaching excellence, because a talented athlete that works hard can win, IN SPITE OF incompetent coaching.   I thought very hard about this for over ten years, and my solution was to write a book that would serve as the catalyst for causing the largest scale paradigm shift in the history of sport coaching.   Click to purchase:    The Governing Dynamics of Coaching  
  15. James Smith
    The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930’s and 1940s…” showed that variability is conserved by the mechanisms of heredity, that selection can be extremely effective both in changing the composition of a population and maintaining variation, and that random mutations are the source of variability on which selection and other evolutionary forces act.” (Michael Bonsall and Brian Charlesworth, Genetics and the causes of evolution: 150 years of progress since Darwin)
    I point the reader’s attention toward the bold text: random mutations are the source of variability on which selection and other evolutionary forces act.
    This is taken from the scientific Neo-Darwinist context of the actual causes of evolution and reflects modern science’s best understanding of the evolutionary process to date. From this, I ask you to consider what features of mutation may be intentionally generated via mankind’s extraordinary capacity to generate explanatory knowledge.
    This capacity allows for an accelerated rate of progress far in excess of what occurs in its absence; such as what is seen and has been researched in the context of all other life on earth and it’s extraordinary yet extremely slow process of evolution.     
    What has taken ‘nature’ millennia or several generations (regarding life forms with shorter and shorter life spans) to evolve various species, is something that, in the case of the intervention of beings with explanatory knowledge, takes days/weeks/month to evolve in the technological space, for example. Further, as gene editing advances, the same sort of accelerated progress will be made on the biological level in humans (controversial though this subject remains).     
    Essential to recognize is the role that mutation, itself, plays in the course of evolution.     
    In the evolutionary context, mutation is defined as “The changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.” (Oxford Dictionaries)     
    What explanatory knowledge allows for, however, is the intentionality of change at the foundational level in error detection and problem solving.     
    Sport, since its inception by any formal definition, exists in its first hundred years of life. And unlike the exponential advances seen in the technological domains that support sport related efforts, sport coaching and coaching education have failed to integrate the type of explanatory knowledge necessary to cause the ‘mutations’ required to evolve sport coaching and coaching education to the level explanatory knowledge allows for.     
    In simple terms, what is knowable in the world, in the dozens of intellectual domains that are directly implicated in sport coaching (which I referred to as The Governing Dynamics of Coaching) represents a knowledge horizon.
    The questions are:
    Where are coaching and coaching educational references plotted on the spectrum in relation to the horizon? What is the differential separating what is knowable in the world, and known in coaching and coaching education? These are the questions I address in “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching” and if you recognize the objective truth that explanatory knowledge is arguably a ‘super power’ with infinite potential, then you must also recognize that a failure to apply it, and all that is knowable, towards sport coaching and coaching education is tantamount to allowing a winning lottery ticket to sit in your drawer.
    James Smith
     
  16. James Smith
    In this blog entry you are presented with my argument for dedicated theorist/strategist positions to become foundational in sport organizations, in order to guide the staffs of experimentalists who are the coaches. 
    A preponderance of professional domains within science, medicine, and technology incorporate the synergistic work of theorists and experimentalists. The net result of this aggregation of cognitive effort is a sum greater than what each individual part can accomplish on its own. Sport, however, has yet to capitalize on this dynamic.
    Sport coaches, along with coaching adjuncts, are experimentalists. The overwhelming majority of time spent each day regards coaching, itself, and its preparation. 

    Theory, in sport, has largely been isolated to the pedagogical realm and, as of yet, unlike the far more advanced models of scientific, medical, and technological research, not fully integrated into every sport organization.

    A sport theorist mustn’t be conflated with the emerging field of sport science. Sport scientists are also experimentalists who, same as experimentalists in any other scientific domain, are, by definition, engaged in specialized research and experiment. In this way, sport scientific research and publication, same as any other experimental domain of science, does not endeavor to unify.     
    While experiment is essential for progress, in order for experiment, itself, to advance, it not only benefits greatly from, it utterly depends/relies upon, theoretical input and guidance. The late philosopher Karl Popper was the first notable intellectual to rightly and expertly define this objective truth- there is no context to observation without preceding theory. Popper would offer a simple proof to this argument by starting his classes with telling students to "observe". After which he would walk around for a few minutes. After no time at all students would begin looking at each other, unclear as to what they were supposed to observe (was it Poppers motion, the view outside, the noises in the hallway...). In this way, Popper clearly proved the point that the observation itself necessitates theory to give it meaning and context.
    Observation, on its face, is the experience of sensory input; and it has no meaning or context, less the observer enters the observation with a preceding theory to direct his/her attention in such a way as to contextualize the observation. Without this essential theoretical guidance, no amount of isolated experimentation can achieve what is achievable; and instead, further segregates knowledge domains that must be theoretically unified to optimize progress.
    Coaches, sport scientists, and adjunct staff alike, necessitate the guiding influence of a theorist; who, unlike coaches, sport scientists, analysts, and other adjunct personnel, spends the entirety of their working and thinking hours reviewing, summating, extrapolating, assimilating, formulating, calculating, quantifying, and theorizing upon the boundaries of what is knowable as it regards the profession in question. The result allows for the ongoing direction for further experimentation; which tests and either confirms or disproves theory. Such is the mechanism of progress that has afforded the exponential increase in knowledge in so many disciplines apart from sport. Sport need only recognize and accept the value of the theorist to evolve to the level commensurate with unbounded knowledge in order to reduce the chasm separating the knowable and the known that currently, and historically, has prevented sport organizations from fulfilling their potential.
    I am currently amidst the process of presenting this idea to professional sport staffs in the context of a 'strategist' position who possesses the theoretical insights and planning capability that includes what I refer to as 'sport engineering' in my most recent book The Governing Dynamics of Coaching. 
    Email James@globalsportconcepts.net for consulting information in this regard
     
     
  17. James Smith
    Coaches of sport, you undoubtedly seek to win and presumably were indoctrinated into traditions of coaching based upon methods of coaching that are/were associated with winning.
    What's also likely true, however, is that you were NOT indoctrinated into a culture of criticizing those traditions- no matter the success of the athletes or teams associated with the coaching methods that have become canonical in your sport.
    The reason for this statement is because unlike the fields of engineering, medicine, aviation, aerospace, science, technology... as whole, in which the difference between what was done 10, 20, 30, 40...years ago and what is currently being done is DRAMATIC, many sport coaching methods, across professional and Olympic sport, have remain UNCHANGED for over half a century or more.
    In many ways, the most marked changes in sport lie more so in terms of the apparel, equipment, and analytical methods and technologies, but not in coaching itself.
    This is because the culture of global sport coaching is largely dogmatic and resistant to change- no matter how much supportive aspects of its periphery change (i.e. nutrition, physiotherapy, weight rooms...)
    The future of coaching necessitates that it embrace and be built upon cultures of criticism that create the opportunities for coaching methods to evolve commensurate with so many professional domains that have evolved by orders of magnitude beyond sport.
    Innovation is the key and cultures of criticism are its bedrock. The "Governing Dynamics of Coaching" could very well be the book that changes and evolves what you thought would stand the test of time. And the result may be results you've never imagined.
    The Governing Dynamics of Coaching
     
     
  18. James Smith
    As a young adolescent, psychological counseling was encouraged- due to the traumatic upbringing I was experiencing. I denied it and refused to take part. I felt they wouldn't understand, and I would end up in some insane asylum if I opened up to them. However, I stumbled upon James due to my pursuit in coaching, but this transitioned into weekly psychological consultations, which was very impactful for me. Finally, someone who I felt safe to share my thoughts and experiences in which I felt no judgment or condemnation. He encouraged me to process my traumatic upbringing and provided me with tools to help overcome my anxiety and panic attacks that were creeping up on me without conscious awareness of what triggered them. These six months were very dark and I isolated myself to an extreme degree because I felt uneasy being around anyone, so I was very thankful for to have James to be the helping hand. After six months I still hear his voice in my head encouraging me with more than just "you can do this" type spiel to rile me up, but with words based on the reality of the situation, always taking the objective point of view to help regulate negative emotion. In one conversation in particular, when I felt I was recovering better from the tormented states I found myself in, I realized that if I just sat in this tormented state and let it run its course, it actually went away. I further realized that James was telling me this since day one, "Just let it happen." It took a good amount of time for those words James said to settle in and become embodied, but to be where I am right this moment I can honestly say is worth the time and effort. I am beyond thankful for all that James has done for me and recommend his services to anyone out there who is sincere about their psychological development. - Elizabeth Jett Halen

  19. James Smith
    Ask any executive chef, trained in the French discipline, any question regarding the operational specifics of Sous Chef, Chef de Commis, Chef de Partie, Saucier, Poissonnier, Rotisseur…and the executive will provide you with a tutorial on the intricacies of each responsibility and, most importantly, how they are synthesized into the composite of each meal item as a result of either a governing recipe (i.e. blueprint) or what has evolved from what began as a recipe into a broad and deep understanding of ingredient combinations that allow for creativity/improvisation to work because of the pre-existing governing understanding of the fundamentals.
                Ask a general contractor a series of operational questions regarding roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, cooling, framing, flooring, foundation…and the contractor will provide you with a tutorial on the various subcontractor specialties, why and how he sequences and coordinates their interplay the way he/she does, and, again most importantly, the explanation of how the sub-contractor work is synthesized into the composite of the building result of the blueprint(s) engineered by the engineers who possess an understanding of the fundamentals that contribute to the structural integrity of the building. The engineering is what ensures coherency between any number of sub-contractor achievements.
                Head sport coaches…what are your answers to comparable operational questions regarding psychological preparation, technical skill development, sensorimotor training, the mechanisms of tactical understanding, derivative/supportive modes of preparation that underpin technical and tactical execution, and physiotherapeutic integrations…and how do you think your understanding of these domains that you govern compare to the Chef’s or General Contractor’s? Most importantly, how do you justify the absence of an engineered blueprint that underpins, accounts for, and cohesively binds all work required of your athletes either with you, assistant coaches of some type (sport, speed, weights…), and active regenerative and rehabilitative protocols?
                Head Coaches, it is within your ability to demand that this type of knowledge, which is so ordinary in other industry leadership, is no longer so hard to find in sport. The result of you rivaling the knowledge and abilities of Executive Chefs, General Contractors, and many other industry leaders, and operating off of engineered “blueprints” that account for all ‘work’, will amount to paradigm shifting progress in your athletes/teams/organizations development and competitive results. The process begins with you recognizing that the problem exists, and your willingness to solve it.
     The Governing Dynamics of Coaching is the book that explains the ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how’
    Email James@globalsportconcepts.net for consulting information
     
     
  20. James Smith
    Coaches, let's say you construct and coach practices based upon an understanding of how best to improve competition results. The question, however, is what is your understanding; and more importantly, what is your epistemology?   Epistemology is the theory of knowledge and it is central towards your perception, in general, of the world and reality. It underpins what you see from your athletes and how you make sense of what you see.   No matter how talented and hard working your athletes are, It is insufficient to conceptualize coaching based solely upon a knowledge of the laws/rules of the sport, the varied tactical approaches to out execute the competition, and a surface level appreciation/understanding of culture, psychology, and technical development.   It is critical that you take seriously your epistemology and whether or not it would serve you, your organization, your athletes, your family... to modify or change it. Clearly, you must first identify what it is.   Are you an Empiricist, who equates knowledge with experience?   Are you an Idealist, who thinks knowledge is innate?   Are you a Constructivist, who thinks knowledge is a product of human constructions- distinct from unbiased discoveries of objective truth?   Are you a Pragmatist, who selects a reference for determining what is true based upon its practical applicability in the world?   Are you a Fallibilist, who refutes the idea that one can have a good reason for a belief?   Are you a Critical Rationalist, who thinks all knowledge is conjectural and can only be created through conjecture and refutation?   These are only some examples of philosophies/epistemologies and how integral their significance is with respect to how you perceive and think about the world, and more specifically, sport, your staff, your coaches, your athletes, your families...and how to improve the results of competition, cultural establishment, tactical understanding and execution, technical skill, psychological preparation, well-being, professional competency, and life outside and beyond sport.   The discussion of subject matter such as this often renders the question- can you recommend any books that address this subject matter as it regards sport and coaching?   The Governing Dynamics of Coaching  
  21. James Smith
    Coaches of sport
    Competition Strategic planning is fundamental towards attaining the highest possible results, however, it has yet to uniformly exist amidst professional and higher level sport.
    What it defines is the synchronized planning of all sport practice, specialized, general, and rehabilitative preparation by one individual or individuals working in collaboration. I refer to this planning as sport preparatory engineering; however, that is only jargon.
    What matters most is what it solves; which is the dysfunctional system of sport in which independent planning occurs by sport coaches, coaches of specialized and general training, and rehabilitation- in which the outcome of this disjointed an incongruent multi-way planning results in compounded structural and neuromuscular load impact.
    Sport coaches constructing practices independently of specialized/generalized coaches constructing workloads independently of physios/rehabilitation specialists constructing return to competition workloads independently of sport coaches...and around the merry go round it goes...is the primary reason for:
    1: the lack of maximized tactical and technical athlete development
    2: the amount of injuries that occur in practice and competition
    The communication between these departments is no more helpful than building contractors communicating between each other void of a common blueprint.
    The common blueprint in sport is the result of the jargon "sport preparatory engineering" which is the work of the jargon "competition strategist".
    Watch this video demonstrating the result of competition strategic planning utilized during the NFL preseason in which all tactical/technical, specialized, general, and rehabilitative work was engineered in a single blueprint.
     
  22. James Smith
    Sport coaches, I ask you to consider how the insight of a brilliant mathematician might inspire you to transform your perception of coaching and how to revolutionize the process of coaching your athletes for competition.
    The Fields Medal is regarded as one of the highest honors a mathematician can receive, and has been described as the mathematician's "Nobel Prize" (Wikipedia)
    “To me, mathematics has two stages, the first one is to learn what other people have done. That means reading books, reading articles. Reading mathematics, beautiful mathematics, is like going to a touristic, historic, beautiful town. Somewhere like maybe Cambridge. When you walk around, you see monuments, you see beautiful architecture. And that’s like the first stage, where you just see what other people have created. The second stage is like, if I suddenly have wings and I fly over a city and I can see a lot more than before. For example, I can see more monuments; I can see connections between these monuments…the kind of thing I could just not see on the ground. In many ways, solving a problem somehow, quite often has to do with understanding connections between two concepts, two notions. “ -2018 Fields Medal Winner Caucher Birkar-
    Sport coaches, consider how this principle of deepening one’s perspective/raising awareness/insight/knowledge allows one not only to see and understand more individual subjects, but to see more and more connections shared between them. This insight will allow you to see the damaging effects of the independent operations of sport coaching, strength coaching, and active rehabilitation who operate independently of one another without a single unifying mechanism; tantamount to building sub-contractors working without a common blueprint, and each sub-contractor only working according to their own blueprint. While this reads ludicrous in terms of building, this is actually what is happening in your sport organization.     
    What’s more, this perspective will allow you to see that the subject matter that underpins these factionalized aspects of sport preparation exists in the realm of cultural understanding/evolutionary biology, psychology, epistemology, cognitive science, neurophysiology, sociology, and linguistics.
    This is implicated in:
    The behavior of your staff and athletes The rate and quality at which your athletes learn tactics The rate and quality at which your athletes develop technical/positional skill The ability of you and your staff to communicate and teach to ensure proportional development occurs in all of your athletes who possess highly variable psycho/social/behavioral/cognitive dispositions that affect how they interpret and respond to criticism, instruction, and how they learn Sport, particularly teams, too often operate on the basis of military style standardized methods of instruction and communication. As a result, an implicit road block is manifest that prevents the proportional advancement in all competition related preparation of your athletes.     
    Standardized methods of instruction inherently render disproportional advancement in each athlete; some benefiting more and others less. The result of which is a missed opportunity. Take a moment to consider the product of 5 athletes being subject to standardized instruction which results in some of them benefiting more than others.
    Athlete 1 improves by a factor of 3 Athlete 2 improves by a factor of 5 Athlete 3 improves by a factor of 7 Athlete 4 improves by a factor of 4 Athlete 5 improves by a factor of 6 The average improvement is a factor of 5.
    Square this against a method of instruction that takes into account the variability of each athlete’s psyche, temperament, and cognitive specifics which results in proportional improvements in each athlete:
    Each athlete improves, at minimum, by the highest factor achieved by a single athlete in the standardized approach (a factor of 7 across the board)      As soon as you begin to approach the tradecraft competency of professionals outside of sport in whom interdisciplinary knowledge is a prerequisite, the sooner you will achieve a paradigm shift in the coaching process that will result not only in winning, but the moral, intellectual, and psychological development of your staff and athletes that is central to their human well-being during and long after their career in sport comes to an end.
    “The Governing Dynamics of Coaching” is the book that describes how to achieve this and ‘sport preparatory engineering’ is the solution to unifying the segregation that is implicit to the independent operation of sport coach, strength coach, and active rehabilitation.
    James Smith  
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/194620806X
     
     
  23. James Smith
    "I initially used James' services for physical preparation for the military, but I had not fully covered psychological preparation. I specifically wanted to improve my ability to think under pressure, to process information better and thus make better decisions, and also to look at resilience and resolve. James initially provided me with great understanding which was the bedrock for practice exercises and specific strategies I could use and work on. The consults helped me greatly and I performed better at a selection course following these consults. I will continue to use the information and James' services because they have been very high quality, but they are also highly specific to the objectives you want to achieve and so you get the most important thing which is results and better performances.
    In addition I just received feedback off my careers officer and some following comments reflected my better preparation...
    Played an instrumental role in the team Worked collaboratively and provided analysis during discussion Monotone under questioning and unaffected by questioning Confident presentation of individual plan Showed adaptability when any flaws in plans were found Sound instruction and direction to his team on PLT ”
    - RM Candidate- 
  24. James Smith
    The Static Institution of Sport
    “Infinite ignorance is a necessary condition for there to be infinite potential for knowledge. Rejecting the idea that we are ‘nearly there’ is a necessary condition for the avoidance of dogmatism, stagnation, and tyranny.”
    -David Deutsch
    Yet sport remains entrenched in these progress halting factors and the solution to amending this requires a perceptual change.
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/194620806X
    In “The Beginning of Infinity” physicist David Deutsch provides one of the more information dense (i.e. knowledge per sentence) books that one might come across; apart from his first book “The Fabric of Reality”. 
       Of particular note, due to one of the book’s many principles of universal relevance, is the description of static and dynamic societies, that will heretofore be referenced in terms of the institution of sport. In short, static societies are ultimately authoritarian and tyrannical due to their resistance to 
    and supression of criticism and creativity. As a result, these societies are built upon dogma, as opposed to reason, that is forced upon its population and the lack of a tradition of criticism prevents progress. Dynamic societies, on the other hand, are built upon traditions of criticism that support creativity and, as a result, ongoing progress.     
       Perhaps to the surprise of many, is that sport is very much a static institution. The proof of this is relatively straight forward: Consider the accolades awarded to coaches based upon their athlete’s/team’s achievements and how these achievements are equated with said coaches method of coaching. In the context of logical argument this is known as affirming the consequent and is regarded as invalid and a fallacy. Simply put, one cannot utilize a ‘result’ as an opportunity to rationalize what led to the result. The reason- because of how many other possible causes there are for the same result to happen. Yet in sport, this logical truth is, and has been, violated since the dawn of sport. Further, this self-deception by which many individuals operate contributes to the authoritarian nature of how the majority of sport organizations are led in which culture’s are highly resistant to criticism and creativity is constrained to highly finite infrastructural boundaries. In order for sport teams/organizations to achieve objective progress, relative to the set of achievable possibilities, this fact must be recognized and steps must be taken to recitfy it.  The size of the differential separating what is done in sport and what is actually doable, must not be underestimated.    
      Email james@globalsportconcepts.net for consulting information 
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...