IMPORTANT 

Performance anxieties and skill acquisition are innately intertwined. Every athlete has their own personal relationship with the mental game. Thus, every athlete should be treated as an individual.

GOAL: Enhance golf performance using a peer-reviewed scientific model of skill-focused imagery & hypnosis

Adding hypnosis as a method to upgrade skills imagery is akin to turbocharging your practice. Like using a magnifying glass to focus, hypnosis clarifies imagery and emotions.

Each of the following disciplines/techniques are stand-alone methods for enhancing sports performance. I have incorporated them into a unique and extraordinarily successful multi-sensorial tool. The purpose of this article is not to go into detail about each of these techniques. Rather the focus is to integrate these methods into the PETTLEP model of imagery.

"I never hit a shot even in practice without having a sharp in-focus picture of it in my head. It is like a colour movie. First, I "see" the ball where I want it to finish, nice and white and sitting up high on the bright green grass. Then the scene quickly changes, and I "see" the ball going there: its path, trajectory, shape, even its behaviour on landing. Then there's a sort of fade-out, and the next scene shows me making the kind of swing that will turn the previous images into reality, and only at the end of this short private Hollywood spectacular, do I select a club and step up to the ball.” -Jack Nicklaus

“When in trouble, I always stand directly behind the ball, stare intently at my target, and wait patiently for the movies to begin. Sometimes I see so many shots come to life that I think I’m looking into a kaleidoscope. When that happens, I stay in the same spot as I rerun all the options until I ‘see’ one working better than the others. Then, and only then, do I visualize the specific swing needed to execute the shot, and finally select the proper club for the task.” —  Seve Ballesteros

The PETTLEP Model of Imagery

Considerable scientific research has demonstrated imagery to be an influential tool in sport psychology(Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994). 

Brain imaging techniques suggest that imaging a skill accesses the same neural regions of the brain as actually performing the action(Ehrsson, Geyer, & Naito, 2003; Fadiga et al, 1999). Overlap in brain activation is called functional equivalence. This is one reason why imagery leads to beneficial effects on physical performance.

Holmes and Collins(2001) developed the PETTLEP model of motor imagery. This framework heightens the functional equivalence between imagery and physical performance.

Each letter in PETTLEP represents an important factor when implementing imagery interventions. The model proposes seven elements. When manipulated, these can increase functional equivalence. PETTLEP means Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion, and Perspective.

I’m going to specifically focus on the golf swing for these seven elements. However, any other mental or physical skill can be substituted.

Physical – The physical element of the model refers to the physical responses within the sport’s context. Thus, a golfer should be holding a golf club during the imagery session…preferably in the correct hand position. Other physical elements, specific to the golfer’s personal style, should be encouraged. An example is the feeling of getting one’s feet in the most balanced and comfortable stance in preparation for the swing.

Environment – The imagery envisioned should be in the same environment that the golfer would be in during the actual task. So, using imagery as practiced in a lab or office would not maximize the imagery under this proposed model. Rather, an environment as close as possible to a golf course is ideal. The smell of the green, a breeze in the air, the warmth of sunshine or the dampness of light rain, transport the golfer to the moment of preparation for the swing.

Task – The task element is individual to each golfer. The focus is to image details specifically relevant to the task. To achieve this ideal, the golfer focuses on the elements of their own golf swing. A novice golfer should aim to visualise the level of skill that they are currently practicing. An expert golfer aims for their exacting ideal, perceived within the environment where they will compete.

Timing – The most ‘functionally equivalent’ approach is to image in real time. But slow-motion imagery is used to emphasise and perfect more difficult aspects of a skill. The timing component adds imagery that includes the precise timing of the movements. In this case, the golf swing should be imaged in full speed as it would look during a normal golf swing. 

Learning – Another important aspect to the model is adapting the imagery used to the rate of learning that takes place during the intervention. Continually adapt and review the imagery over time. As the participants progress through the sessions, they will learn more about imagery and their golf swing. Adapt the imagery to accommodate for this effect. 

Emotion – has been referred to as “the missing link” in sports performance(Botterill, 1997). All of the emotions that the golfer feels during competition should be included in the imaging process. Add only the feelings that go with performing the skill correctly. Avoid debilitative emotions (e.g., fear, panic).

Perspective – Imagery perspective can be first person (through your own eyes) or third person (like watching yourself on video). One perspective may be more advantageous depending on the task characteristics. First-person perspective may be more beneficial for tasks including open skills or a focus on timing (the follow-through of the swing). On the other hand, a third-person perspective (or external visual imagery) is preferred for tasks where form and positioning is important.

Review of Literature 

Ploszay, Gentner, Skinner, and Wrisberg (2006) studied imagery for putting, and the use of multisensory imagery in a physical routine. The number of successful putts, and the distance from the hole in missed putts, were recorded. Successful putts increased from baseline to post intervention. Distance of putts missed decreased as well. Studies by Thomas and Fogarty(1997) also found that putting performance could be enhanced using imagery training.

Research has not only shown that performance can be improved through the use of imagery, but mental obstacles resulting in poor performance can be overcome through the use of imagery as well. Bell, Skinner, and Fisher(2009) examined the effect imagery could have on reducing “the yips” in elite golfers’ putting. A yip is an interruption in the putting stroke by a jerk or tremor(Smith et al., 2000). Participants played at least four rounds of golf, while the researchers recorded the number of putts hit, the number of putts hit within five feet of the hole, and the presence of any yips. The intervention used Solution Focused Guided Imagery(SFGI). Researchers guided the participants through the process of creating vivid images of thinking, feeling, and behaving, to rid themselves of the problem… in this case, the yip. Analysed data from in the intervention results revealed all three participants no longer exhibited signs of the yips.

While most studies within golf have focused on putting, a few have looked at other types of golf shots. Nicholls and Polman(2005) investigated imagery’s effect on golf shot percentage. Shot percentage is calculated by the amount of successful shots divided by the total number of shots taken. The tested golf scenarios chosen were the shots self-designated by each participant as their weakest shot. For example, one participant chose to evaluate wedge shots, from 60-100 yards, from the hole hit to within 15 feet of the hole. Participants played five rounds of golf while the researchers observed the success or failure of the individuals’ chosen weak shots. The number of times the chosen shot was hit, as well as the number of times the chosen shot was executed well, were documented. Following the imagery intervention, participants completed four more rounds of golf while the researchers, again, collected data. Results concluded that every golfer’s shot percentage increased from the pre-intervention test to the post-intervention test.

One of the only studies conducted on a long-distance golf shot used a 55-meter pitch shot (i.e., about a half swing). Brouziyne and Molinaro(2005) investigated how mental imagery combined with physical practice would affect the performance of beginner golfers on a pitch shot. The green was divided into four scoring zones, and the scoring test consisted of each participant hitting 13 shots for which the best 10 were scored. Participants were then assigned to one of three groups: imagery combined with physical practice, physical practice only, or the control group. Following the intervention, participants repeated the scoring test. The researchers found both the imagery with physical practice and the physical practice only groups performed significantly better than the control group in terms of the number of balls hit into the zone closest to the target. Only the imagery with physical practice group performed significantly better than the control group in terms of balls not hit into the zone furthest from the target. These findings suggest that imagery could be impactful for eliminating poor shots more so than improving shots close to the hole.

Further, PETTLEP imagery applied to golf reveals increased accuracy from bunker shots(Smith et. al, 2008). Swainston and colleagues(2012) used PETTLEP imagery and found it to increase accuracy when used in a pre-shot routine with full swing shots(Swainston, et al, 2012). Given the apparent effectiveness associated with the use of PETTLEP-based imagery interventions, future imagery-related studies might also consider using such a framework when implementing similar interventions among other shots in golf as well.

Where research has examined putting and full swings, studies investigating imagery’s effect on shots closer to the green are scarce. Wiseman and Chatterjee(2006) found that putting average, and the number of greens hit in regulation, account for the greatest proportion of variance in the scoring average on the PGA Tour. Imagery interventions on putting average, in particular, have been researched. Yet many shots considered part of the short game have not been examined. Such shots have the potential to have a large impact on the above-mentioned greens in regulation. The short approach-shot, in particular, may require the most creative imagination, but remains to be researched(Swainston, et al, 2012).

Smith and Holmes(2004) found that the method of imagery could have an impact on putting green performance. In this study, participants were divided into four groups: (1) written script group, (2) a video group, (3) an audio group, and (4) a control group. They found that the audio and video groups performed significantly better than the written script and control groups. This result suggests that video and audio imagery could be useful and provide an extra dimension in preparing athletes for competition, although this form might prove challenging to use during competition.

Gregg and Hall(2006) correlated the use of imagery to skill level and age. They found a negative correlation between a golfer’s handicap and imagery use, that is, as handicap decreases (higher skill level), their imagery use increased. All five types of imagery were significantly related to handicap, highlighting the importance of including a script and measures that are comprehensive (Gregg & Hall, 2006).

Woolfolk, Parish, and Murphy(1985) found that golfers who use positive imagery (i.e. imaged the ball rolling in the cup) increased performance significantly, while the golfers who use negative imagery (i.e. imaged the ball missing the cup) performed significantly worse. Taken together, the findings of these studies show that imagery has immense real-world application.

Smith and colleagues(2008) investigated the effects of a PETTLEP imagery intervention on golf bunker shot performance. Four groups were created – a control group with no imagery, a physical practice with PETTLEP imagery group, a PETTLEP imagery group, and a physical practice group. All groups significantly improved, while the imagery and practice group improved the most. This provides evidence that multiple shots can be enhanced through imagery use.

Swainston and colleagues(2012) examined the effects of a PETTLEP imagery intervention on golfer’s full-swing accuracy (120 yards). They found that the imagery group increased significantly from pre-test to intervention, while the control group did not improve. The results suggest that the PETTLEP imagery had positive affect on full-swing golf shot accuracy. Those findings support the idea that a similar PETTLEP imagery intervention in a pre-performance routine could be beneficial in short shots.

McCann and colleagues(2001) looked at the effect of a pre-shot routine on golf wedge shot performance. They divided their 68 participants into two groups: golfer(with a registered handicap), and non-golfer(little to no experience). Next, the groups were subdivided into no practice, physical practice only, and a physical practice with pre-performance routine. The study found that the non-golfers significantly improved from pre-test to post-test. While the golfers improved, their improvement was not significant. This demonstrates that imagery may be more beneficial for  pre-performance routines in beginners than in intermediate or elite golfers (Smith, et al, 2008).

References

Bell, R. J., Skinner, C. H., Fisher, L. A. (2009). Decreasing putting yips in accomplished golfers via solution-focused guided imagery: A single subjects research design. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology(21), 1-14.

Brouziyne, M., Molinaro, C. (2005). Mental Imagery Combined with Physical Practice of Approach Shots for Golf Beginners. Perceptual and Motor Skills(101), 203-211.

Botterill, C. (1997). The role of emotion in sport performance: The missing link? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology(9), 12.

Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice improve performance? Journal of Applied Psychology(79), 481–492.

Ehrsson, H. H., Geyer, S., & Naito, E. (2003). Imagery of voluntary movement of fingers, toes, and tongue activates corresponding body-part-specific motor representations. Journal of Neurophysiology(90), 3304-3316.

Gregg, M. & Hall, C. (2006). Measurement of motivational imagery abilities in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences(24), 961–971. 

Gregg, M. & Hall, C. (2006). The relationship of Skill Level and Age to the Use of Imagery by Golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology(18), 363-375. 

Nicholls, A.R. & Polman, R. (2005). The effects of individualized imagery interventions on golf performance and flow states. Athletic Insight(7), 1–24. 

Ploszay, A.J., Gentner, N.B., Skinner, C.H., & Wrisberg, C.A. (2006). The effects of multisensory imagery in conjunction with physical movement rehearsal on golf putting performance. Journal of Behavioral Education(15), 249–257. Retrieved from: doi:10.1007/s10864- 006-9034-6

Smith, A., Malo, S., Laskowski, E., Sabick, M., Cooney, W., Finnie, S., (2000). A multidisciplinary study of the “yips” phenomenon in golf: An exploratory analysis. Sports Medicine(33), 13-31. 

Smith, D., Wright, C. J., & Cantwell, C. (2008). Beating the bunker: The effect of PETTLEP imagery on golf bunker shot performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise(79), 385-392.

Smith, D. & Holmes, P., (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology(26), 385-395. 

Smith, D., Wright, C., Allsopp, A., & Westhead, H. (2007). It’s all in the mind: PETTLEP based imagery and sports performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology(19), 80–92.

Swainston, S., Gentner, N., Biber, D., Czech, D. R., Joyner, B., & Easton, L. E. (2012). The effect of PETTLEP imagery in a pre-shot routine on full swing golf shot accuracy: A single subject design. International Journal of Golf Science(1)2, 140-163.

Thomas, P. R. & Fogarty, G. J. (1997). Psychological skills training in golf: The role of individual differences in cognitive preferences. The Sport Psychologist(11), 86- 106. 

Wiseman, F. & Chatterjee, S. (2006), Comprehensive analysis of golf performance on the PGA tour: 1990-2004. Perceptual and Motor Skills(102), 109-117. 

Contact: barryhypnotist@gmail.com and barryj@barryjones.com