During the 1996 Masters golf tournament at Augusta, one of the world’s finest golf courses, Greg Norman played one of the greatest eighteen hole games he had ever played. Norman shot an incredible score of 63, which still stand today as a course record. Norman went into the second day of gold with a fifteen stroke lead, only to choke under pressure scoring a 78 the day after shooting such an amazing game. Nick Faldo managed to come from behind and defeating Norman by a five stroke margin winning the 1996 Masters Tournament. While Normans defeat is still today known as one of the worst chokes in sports history, many people fail to see that he never performed well under pressure. For many athletes like Norman, playing the physical part of sports
…show more content…
There is physical pressure, which affects the body itself. Then there is psychological pressure, which affects the brain. An example of both in a situation would be a professional golfer approaching the 18th green on the final day. He has physical pressure on his body because he played a full round of golf for 3 consecutive days. The golfer also has physiological pressure added due to the high stakes and the many fans watching. These two types of pressure, and the situations designed to inflict this pressure are the main dependent variables our experiment portrays (Cooke et al. 2010).
The students from UAB chose the ‘within’ subject study design because they planned on using the same group of people in more than one treatment. A ‘within’ subject study not only allows for more subjects, but it also reduces error in a study. This is good for the experiment because the more subjects tested, the more accurate the data will be. This allowed for the 50 golfers, who were significantly differently to be tested in the same ways. This ‘within’ study resulted in some really unexpected results (Cooke et al. …show more content…
They also discovered that golfers placed in high pressure situations lead to failure, but some success. While on the opposite end of the spectrum, golfers whom were under little to no pressure also failed. These unexpected results produced proof that athletes can use pressure to perform better. It also confirmed that a situation with little pressure, such as a small crowd, hurts athletic performance. The average difference between the 3 levels of pressure was only a meager half putt. To the average person that’s not a big difference, but to golfers, every shot counts (Cooke et al. 2010).
The researchers incorporated every aspect to a pressure situation an athlete will go through in a normal every day situation. They also calculated even the most trifling differences, such as heart rate and grip strength. Each tested golfer that underwent experimentation performed differently. Most putts lead to results that were unexpected, others not as much. These unexpected successes and errors are what make this experiment so intriguing. But solemnly through the average end results, the researcher’s conclusions were justified (Cooke et al.
There is physical pressure, which affects the body itself. Then there is psychological pressure, which affects the brain. An example of both in a situation would be a professional golfer approaching the 18th green on the final day. He has physical pressure on his body because he played a full round of golf for 3 consecutive days. The golfer also has physiological pressure added due to the high stakes and the many fans watching. These two types of pressure, and the situations designed to inflict this pressure are the main dependent variables our experiment portrays (Cooke et al. 2010).
The students from UAB chose the ‘within’ subject study design because they planned on using the same group of people in more than one treatment. A ‘within’ subject study not only allows for more subjects, but it also reduces error in a study. This is good for the experiment because the more subjects tested, the more accurate the data will be. This allowed for the 50 golfers, who were significantly differently to be tested in the same ways. This ‘within’ study resulted in some really unexpected results (Cooke et al. …show more content…
They also discovered that golfers placed in high pressure situations lead to failure, but some success. While on the opposite end of the spectrum, golfers whom were under little to no pressure also failed. These unexpected results produced proof that athletes can use pressure to perform better. It also confirmed that a situation with little pressure, such as a small crowd, hurts athletic performance. The average difference between the 3 levels of pressure was only a meager half putt. To the average person that’s not a big difference, but to golfers, every shot counts (Cooke et al. 2010).
The researchers incorporated every aspect to a pressure situation an athlete will go through in a normal every day situation. They also calculated even the most trifling differences, such as heart rate and grip strength. Each tested golfer that underwent experimentation performed differently. Most putts lead to results that were unexpected, others not as much. These unexpected successes and errors are what make this experiment so intriguing. But solemnly through the average end results, the researcher’s conclusions were justified (Cooke et al.