Schlagwort-Archive: Wolfgang Schöllhorn

The one-degree-error and about consequences for your game

Have you ever heard of the „1 degree error“? The slovenian colleague Tomaz Mencinger has calculated on his blog how much the direction of the ball flight changes with a one degree deviation within the contact ball-racket. He calculated this using the simplest of mathematical methods, not including additional factors such as the deviation of the racket position, such as air flow, the condition of the ball, and the tension of the string and neglecting vertical and horizontal deviation of the club position. But he gives us an idea.

He comes to the conclusion that with this minimal deviation in the racket position one misses the aimed target in the playing field by up to 41 cm. Of course, this explains why it is better to play the ball in the middle of the field in pressure situations. Actually mundane knowledge of a successful tactic on the tennis court.

It gets exciting when we consider what neurobiological research tells us about the “choking under pressure” phenomenon or the observation about “paralysis through analysis”.

The one-degree-error and about consequences for your game weiterlesen

Die „1-Grad-Abweichung“ und die Konsequenzen

Schon mal vom „1-Grad-Abweichung“ gehört? Der slowenische Kollege Tomaz Mencinger hat auf seinem Blog ausgerechnet, wie stark sich die Richtung des Ballflugs bei einer 1-Grad-Abweichung beim Treffpunkt Ball-Schläger verändert. Er hat das mit einfachsten mathematischen Methoden berechnet, die zusätzliche Faktoren wie Abweichung der Schlägerstellung, wie Luftströmung, Zustand des Balles, Bespannungshärte. vertikale und horizontale Abweichung der Schlägerstellung vernachlässigen.

Er kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass man schon mit dieser minimalen Abweichung in der Schlägerstellung das anvisierte Ziel im Spielfeld um bis zu 41 cm verfehlt. Das erklärt natürlich, warum es besser ist, in Drucksituationen den Ball eher in die Spielfeldmitte zu spielen. Eigentlich banales Wissen über eine erfolgreiche Taktik auf dem Tennisplatz.

Spannend wird es dann, wenn wir berücksichtigen, was uns die Forschung der Neurobiologie über das „choking under pressure“ Phänomen oder die Beobachtung zu „Paralyse durch Analyse“ sagt.

Die „1-Grad-Abweichung“ und die Konsequenzen weiterlesen


Constraints led or is there more? Back to the question.

Can we say, that the sportive action in this picture shows elements of differencial learning in tennis? Constraints change seeing, hearing, time, speed, field size, target, emotion,…

(Thx Mark O Sullivan for the picture, Mark is doing a wonderful job at AIK Stockholm and is writing about constraints led coaching, childrens rights in sports and more on the blog „Player development project„)

Wolfgang Schöllhorn, who has thought and researched about the best way of learning skills in sports, is helping me to understand the differences between Differential learning (DL) and the Constraints Led Approach (CLA) fixing one’s eye on the picture above.

„This is a nice example for explaining the difference of constraints led approach and differencial learning 😉 . Here you see extraordinary constraints in order to feel what you should not do in future (variant of contrast learning). But this only would become differencial learning if the boundary conditions would change next time, e.g. if the „other side“ would change the flying objects (size or speed) or if this guy would change his glasses, the mask, the racket, the technique, the target … next time. In differencial learning it is rather about the rate of change of boundary conditions, it is less about the stressful constraining situations that should be avoided next time. ;- ) “

from a facebook discussion

Constraints or should we…

find another word to describe what we do in our exercises in tennis? I think, that the way of differential learning (DL) is a better way for learners and players to develop technique and tactics in a sport like tennis. Still tennis coaching is dominated by methodical traditionalism and explicit learning.

Wolfgang Schöllhorn, scientist at Johannes-Gutenberg-University at Mainz, after long research about motor learning, has written an nice article about the history of nonlinear pedagogy und the constraints led approach (CLA). And why they are different to DL.

In this blog I use nonlinear pedagogy and CLA very often. They are following systemic theory and implicit learning. Making this real on courts, would be a milestone. But Schöllhorn has researched about motor learning and discovered, that there is a more effectiv way to learn. He called this Differential Learning (DL). In this article from 2019 he describes, why CLA is still dominated by the idea of leading the learner and that the coaches goal is still to bring him to a nonautonomous goal.

I think, Schöllhorn is right. This means in consequence: I have to overthink the terms I use to describe what my players do in trainings. Constraints can be understood as a term for changing courtsize, material, partners, tasks, emotions,…. but not from a pedagogical view and in distinction to CLA.

Effects of complex movements on the brain as a result of increased decision-making

Variation statt Wiederholung

In der nächsten Ausgabe der Fachzeitschrift TennisSport befasse ich mich erneut mit dem Differenziellen Lernen im Tennis. Diesmal geht es um die Taktikentwicklung. Im Vordergrund stehen vielfältige Trainingsbeispiele, die ein kreativitätförderndes, spielerzentriertes Training ermöglichen.

Spieler*innen legen Zielfelder oder „Tabufelder“nach eigenen taktischen Überlegungen.

Happy Easter or the „Easter-Bunny-Pedagogy“

Happy Easter, dear followers!

This reminds me of a conversation with Prof. Wolfgang Schoellhorn in which he explains the differences between differential learning and a hidden traditional  „I-know-how-to-do-it“ .coaching philosophy

He calls this „Easter Bunny Pedagogy“: the coach hides the solution (stroke technique) in front of the player and later he suggests that the player has found the (given) solution by himself. Happy Easter or the „Easter-Bunny-Pedagogy“ weiterlesen

Differenzielles Lernen im Sportunterricht

„Kein anderer Beitrag der Veranstaltung stieß auf so viel Beachtung und rief so heftige Reaktionen hervor, die von Erstaunen und begeisterter Aufnahme der Thesen bis zur ungläubigen Ablehnung reichten: War doch die Leitthese des Vortrags, während eines Lernprozesses einer Bewegungsfertigkeit führe nicht die ständige Wiederholung der angestrebten motorischen Fertigkeit zu einer optimalen Bewegungsausführung, sondern die Variation der Bewegung.“
Ein Sonderheft zum differenziellen Lernen von sportunterricht.

Differential learning enhances skills

from Ian Renshaw, Keith Davids et al: Motor Learning in Practice – A constraints-led approach. New York 2010, p. 79

Prof Wolfgang Schoellhorn has published about new methods in motor learning in sports research. His studies about differential learning form one of the most important fundamentals in our learning and coaching approach.

We transform this theory in games and drills for tennis. In the book „Motor learning in practice – a constraints led approach“ published by Jan Renshaw, Keith Davids and others, Schoellhorn describes in the article „Stochastic perturbations in athletics field events enhance skill acquisation“ of 2010 why differential  learning improves processes in comparison to traditional methods  significantly.

But read here: Stochastic perturbations in athletic field events