Time Lag Between “Knowing” and “Doing”
Ray Brown
The post by Ray Brown.
A long and complex mathematical computation may take several trials to complete. Each trial is a practice run at getting it right. The combination of trial followed by “gestation” can take as much as three days. After three days there is a good chance the solution is right.
There is no difference between this activity and learning to hit a tennis ball in that it takes a lot of trials to get it right. We know from brain evolution that mathematical skills were built on top of physical skills requiring many of the same processes in the brain. However, physical skills also required the development of a neuromuscular infrastructure that is not required in mathematics.
The implications are significant. When a student of tennis believes that they have got the stroke right in only a few days, it may be true as far as the brain part of the stroke is concerned. But they still cannot execute correctly. The difference is that the neuromuscular infrastructure to “hit it right” takes far longer to develop. Hence the student may become frustrated because their view of what is possible does not agree with what their body can execute. This is particularly true of juniors.
This frustration may be acted out in various ways that are mostly unproductive. Whereas if they understand that there is a significant time lag between getting the right sequencing in the brain versus developing the neuromuscular infrastructure to execute the stroke, there might be less frustration. The frustration can also delay development significantly.
Patience is required to allow for the time lag between “knowing how to execute” and “being able to execute”. There is no cure for this time lag but the exact amount of time from “knowing” to “doing” can be reduced by separate training activities.
Help us to reach more tennis parents, players, and coaches. Share the post and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you.
I couldn’t disagree more. Players CAN and DO execute strokes correctly in just a few days (or less) when given the appropriate data. Frustration comes primarily from false or misleading information on how to best execute the stroke, not a lack of understanding of neurological characteristics. The individual is far more capable than the “theory” presented in this article implies. It is just such theorizing that inhibits a player from utilizing his innate ability, which is far greater than the limitations of “brain sequencing” and “neuromuscular infrastructure”. Such notions inhibit the player’s opportunity to utilize his inherent ability by imposing self-restricting ideas. Of course, competence develops with repetition and “patience is a virtue”, implying a time factor, but to suggest to a player that he cannot correctly execute a stroke in a few days is a disservice to the player and would, in itself cause frustration. An understanding of the player’s natural instinct and feel (far superior to the much slower computations of the brain) and knowledge of optimal technique deftly delivered will facilitate the player’s ability to achieve competence and gain confidence quickly. Self-limiting advice such as that hypothesized in this article will do the opposite.
Lucy, please present your evidence.
For future reference: If you have to hide your face or identity, I will not bother to reply to any comment you make.