The Super Mental Training Book (51 page)

The U.S. Olympic Team and Mental Training

During the 1980s substantial progress occurred in making U.S. Olympic athletes aware of what mental training has to offer, and providing these athletes the services of sports psychologists. To appreciate this development, we shall first note pre-existing conditions.

Dr. Suinn, in his July, 1976 Psychology Today article ("Body Thinking: Psychology for Olympic Champs"), made a lofty claim, stating that "my presence at the 1976 Winter Olympics marked the first time that the U.S. provided on-site psychological services for our athletes." With all due respect to Dr. Suinn, Bud Winter provided similar on-site services for U.S. track and field athletes at six summer Olympic Games. We recall, for instance, how at the 1968 Summer Olympics Coach Winter employed his "relaxation" technique on Lee Evans (who was super tense) a few hours before Evans' race. Winter, being an Olympic track and field coach, performed double duty—also acting as a psychologist, whereas Dr. Suinn was merely a sports psychologist, brought in specifically to serve in that capacity; perhaps this specific duty aspect is what Dr. Suinn meant by his remark.

Despite the work of Coach Winter and Dr. Suinn, their efforts constituted a mere drop in the bucket. Most U.S. Olympic athletes during the 1970s experienced little or no exposure to mental training strategies, and this fact led some elite athletes to call for reforms. Russ Knipp, for example, urged that a hypnotist work with the U.S. Olympic team members, and came up with this plan: "Training camp would last three or four weeks before the Olympics. Take that time, and prepare the athletes mentally for competition." According to Knipp, something like his mental training camp plan had to be enacted because at the Games too many U.S. Olympians "just lose it because of mentally lacking confidence in their ability. They start to doubt when they go out and see a world record holder, an Olympian they've admired for five years. They see the guy and say, 'Gee, I shouldn't be here.'"

Decathlon champion Bill Toomey agreed with Knipp on this matter, stating, "Too many great athletes have not been able to concentrate and create their own conditions. If the conditions are not right, they can't perform. As long as their conditions are OK, they're great. But, they fall apart when their environment starts to be challenged a little bit." Toomey, like Knipp, contended that "it would be a great asset to have a team hypnotist" work with U.S. Olympians. No doubt he would approve of a similar arrangement—where the coach acts as hypnotist—for athletes having problems developing good concentration. And this problem of athletes not developing adequate concentration is a large one, Toomey maintained. He noted, "Concentration is something coaches really don't teach young athletes. They sort of talk around it, and do a lot of conning." (Toomey's remark raises the question that if the coach will not or cannot teach you concentration, who will? As I have indicated many times, final responsibility rests with you. When it comes to proper

mental preparation, you must act as your own psychologist. You cannot afford to wait for a team psychologist to be appointed, or wait for your coach to get to the point to where he can instruct you in the use of effective mental rehearsal techniques; because these events will probably never happen.)

Janis Donins makes the good point that Knipp and Toomey's suggestion for hypnosis to be presented to U.S. Olympians has already been tried. He recalls that in 1979 at the U.S. Olympic Training Camp "in Colorado Springs they had some lectures on hypnosis. But, they were group lectures. I think they should be done individually. When it is a group lecture, you are distracted. Each individual has his own problems. One individual is phlegmatic, another sanguinic—many psychological types. There are different problems, too." Donins recommended therefore that the hypnosis lecture or instruction be tailored to each individual athlete. There are three main ways this can be accomplished: 1) the athlete makes an appointment with the hypnotist, and discusses his needs and weaknesses with him; 2) the coach takes the athlete to the hypnotist, and informs the hypnotist what areas the athlete needs help in (as happened with the Service High School water polo team; see Swimming chapter); and 3) the coach becomes proficient in the use of hypnosis, and employs the technique on the athlete (permission having been granted, hopefully). The severe shortcoming of each of these approaches is that the athlete is dependent upon another person—the hypnotist or coach—for his mental preparation. Anything can happen—and too often it does— when you rely on another person for your mental preparation: the person takes off on vacation, quits his coaching job, acquires a major disliking for you, and so on. To insulate yourself from such predicaments, become self-sufficient in your own mental training (learn and apply mental rehearsal techniques on your own).

Ed Arcaro, member of the 1977 U.S. national track and field team in the hammer throw, told me in a May 4, 1980 interview that he heard the same hypnosis lectures given to athletes attending the U.S. Olympic Training Camp. Like Donins, he felt the lectures were ineffective, primarily because most of the athletes in his opinion were not receptive to the lecturer's message. Recounts Arcaro, "There have been people in the past who have tried to inform throwers of mental techniques a little out of the ordinary, and it has never gone over. They take a lot of verbal abuse for their ideas, and suffer a substantial decrease in esteem in the athletic community. It's just hard to get a new idea across."

Arcaro himself knows first-hand how hard it is to get a new idea across. He developed and applied a form of meditation to help himself relax and concentrate during competition ("my focal point is on my breathing"). By regularly employing his form of meditation, Arcaro performed very well (throwing "my lifetime best with only 75% of my strength"). However, he found other athletes to be uninterested in hearing about his use of meditation. Says Arcaro, "I went through a stage at first where I actively told people about it; but, very few people seem interested in what I'm doing. So now, I won't bother. It's too much of a hassle."

Arcaro contends that the initiative for trying a new mental training strategy has to originate with the athlete himself; prodding the athlete to try meditation or other mental disciplines rarely leads to lasting results. He states, "Learning meditation has to be done on your own. Your mind has to be open for it. If you discover it on your own, then you can't be any more open." In other words, the more you put into learning and applying a mental discipline on your own, the more you will get out of it. Bringing in a lecturer on mental training, having the coach hypnotize you, and similar contrivances are simply stopgap measures, Arcaro contends; they are not good long-term solutions. Instead, emphasizes the hammer thrower, "your mind has to be open" to trying out various mental disciplines; proof that your mind is open is if you check out a mental training strategy "on your own"

The constructive criticisms and suggestions of Knipp, Toomey, Donins, Arcaro, and many others eventually bore fruit. Dr. Nideffer describes what transpired:

In 1981, the USOC Sports Medicine Committee funded an elite athlete development project designed to provide special services to five targeted sports (track and field, cycling, volleyball, fencing, and weightlifting). One of the services to be offered was sport psychology, with a sport psychologist available for each of these sports. Athletes and coaches responded enthusiastically and other sport governing bodies became interested in integrating psychological factors into their training programs. Dr. Kenneth Clarke, director of sports medicine at Colorado Springs, was besieged by individuals who called themselves sport psychologists and wanted to offer psychological services. He also found sports governing bodies requesting those services.[42]

Assigning a sports psychologist to an individual sport made it practical to implement the type of one-on-one mental training work Janis Donins urged; an athlete could meet with the sports psychologist, discuss problems or whatever, and devise a personalized mental training program—all this much preferable to sitting through a necessarily generalized group lecture. This individualized service concept is excellent, but controversy arose on another front. The USOC decided to establish a registry, called the U.S. Olympic Committee's Sport Psychology Registry, of "qualified" sports psychologists. A major purpose of this registry is to assist the national governing boards (NGB) of the various amateur sports. If a NGB desired the services of a sports psychologist, it could request names of people listed in the Registry. The catch was: what qualifications allowed one to be included in the Registry? The USOC determined that an Educational Sports Psychologist—one who would mainly work with athletes on performance enhancement—needed to meet rather stiff requirements, they being:

(a) a doctorate in psychology, psychiatry, or a related field such as physical education, with a background in psychology that would meet the requirements for APA (American Psychological Association membership); (b) at least 3 years' experience as an athlete, coach, or practitioner in the application of psychological principles to sport; (c) reference letters from recognized institutions, organizations, and/or individuals attesting to the applicants teaching skills within a sport psychology perspective; and (d) a personal interview with a review board if eligibility cannot be determined from the preceding three requirements.[43]

These requirements, and similar requirements the USOC established for Clinical Sport Psychologist and Research Sport Psychologist, made many people unhappy and/or apprehensive. For example, Steven R. Heyman of the University of Wyoming offered several criticisms of the USOC Registry guidelines. One of Dr. Heyman's concerns was that "the USOC guidelines may have intensified tensions between individuals with backgrounds in physical education departments and those with backgrounds in psychology departments."[44] The reason for this is that "sports psychologists" possessing a Ph.D. in physical education might not meet APA membership requirements, thereby losing out to being listed in the Registry.

Dr. Kenneth Clarke, Director of the USOC's Sports Medicine Division, felt compelled to respond to Dr. Heyman's criticisms, and pointed out that after a year of USOC operation of the Registry, "provision for Registry eligibility was assured for both those coming out of physical education and clinical psychology."[45] Furthermore, he noted that "the Registry remains purely voluntary, however. A sports NGB can utilize anyone it wishes in the name of sport psychology." [46 ] What this means is that although someone like Arthur Ellen, a hypnotist whose work with athletes is legend, would not be included in the Registry (because he does not possess a doctorate in psychology, psychiatry, etc.), still the national governing boards of various sports, as well as individual athletes, could contract his services.

My position on the issue is that the marketplace, meaning the athletes and coaches, should determine who a qualified and good "sports psychologist" is. This determination should be made by the users, not some committee. If a "bummer" occurs due to the "sports psychologist" turning out

to be incompetent, arrogant, etc., primary blame still rests with the athletes and coaches, because they should have learned and practiced mental training on their own to begin with, without calling in an outsider to assume a responsibility that was theirs all along.

Thanks in part to the USOC's belated promotion of mental training, the services of sports psychologists were utilized by many U.S. Olympians in 1984. We shall now take an in-depth look at one mental training consultant's successful work with U.S. Olympic athletes in 1984. You will observe, in reading the following account, that this particular consultant does not hold in high regard shortcut mental training approaches; see if you agree with his perspective.

Ken Ravizza — Mental Training Consultant

One of the best track records in helping athletes learn and apply mental training has been compiled by Dr. Ken Ravizza of California State University, Fullerton. Dr. Ravizza earned his Ph.D. in physical education at USC, and has worked as a mental training consultant to many teams, both amateur and professional, for several years. At Cal State Fullerton Dr. Ravizza's services have primarily been utilized by the baseball team, men's and women's gymnastics team, and women's Softball team. Interestingly, during the 1980s all of these teams were perennial powerhouses within their conference, with some of them going on to win national championships (though Dr. Ravizza will hardly take any credit for this).

Dr. Ravizza's professional training, as we noted, is in physical education, and this fact influences what he calls himself. He points out:

In the state of California, if you call yourself a psychologist, you're liable for that. So, I call myself a mental training consultant, performance specialist, whatever. In other states there is no problem calling yourself a sports psychologist. The irony is: any psychologist, though, can call himself a sports psychologist—and maybe his only experience with sports is he is starting to run marathons at 40 years old, and therefore he now knows the whole field of sports science.

The care Dr. Ravizza exercises in calling himself a "mental training consultant" (instead of "sports psychologist") extends over into his work with athletes and coaches. What he does is offer a comprehensive "state-of-the-art" program to those wishing to use his mental training services. This "state-of-the-art" approach contains these main elements: 1) the mental training consultant performs his duties with extreme conscientiousness, meaning he spends hours/days learning the sport, talking to the coaches, before even meeting with the athletes; then he devotes tremendous amounts of time to the athletes, conducting educational lectures as well as group and individual mental training sessions; 2) he provides each athlete handouts and tapes for the person to refer to as needed; both the coach and the mental training consultant work together to develop the tapes' contents; 3) participation in the mental training program is voluntary and all information remains confidential, 4) emphasis is on enhancing performance and repeating good efforts, rather than "putting out fires;" such techniques as imagery, deep breathing, developing a focal point, etc. are taught; 5) simulations of game situations are carried out, so that the actual competition will seem little different from practice, and therefore less stressful.

Keep the comprehensive nature of this mental training program in mind as we review Dr. Ravizza's work with the 1984 U.S. Olympic women's field hockey team. I interviewed Dr. Ravizza on January 28, 1986, and shall present in full his accounting of his experience with the field hockey team. The story will be lengthy, but highly instructive, because it shows how much effort is involved and required in doing a thorough and effective job, with no corner cutting, as a mental training consultant. Dr. Ravizza, with occasional questions from me interjected into the narrative, describes his work:

In 1982 1 was contacted by the U.S. Field Hockey Association. They wanted someone to come in and work with the Olympic field hockey team in terms of sports psychology, mental training aspects. The coach, Vonnie Gross, was very progressive. She was very supportive and open to mental training. Now, she had two sports psychologists come in before, and it didn't go over too good with the team; the main reason, I think, (was because) the time they were brought in was not the most appropriate.

When I was asked to do this, I flew to Philadelphia that summer. I met with the coach, spent a day just talking to the coaching staff—I didn't even talk to a player. I went to a practice session and observed, talked some more to the coaching staff, and got a feeling for what was happening. Then, they had a big tournament in the Fall in Boston, and they flew me back. I went and observed. At the same time I spent a lot of time reading field hockey books. I just ate anything I could get on field hockey. At that point the only field hockey team in Southern California was Cal State Long Beach. I went over there and talked with their coach quite a bit about field hockey, trying to get a feeling for what the sport was about. Because this is one of the key things when you're doing mental training with athletes. You have got to learn their movement form; you have got to take the principles and theories of sports psychology and put them into practical application to that sport. If you don't do that, you're not going to be communicating with the players, and you're just another psychologist.

So, after going to this big international tournament in Boston, I then went to a 3-day think tank in New Haven, Connecticut at Yale University, with all of the elite level field hockey coaches involved in the national program present; you also had the biomechanics person, the exercise physiologist, and myself in the role of sports psychologist. We spent three days together, and I just sat there and listened and listened, took notes, and just really learned that much more about it.

The following summer (1983) I hooked up with the (national) team in Philadelphia, because their training camp was at Temple University. They had 30 people in training camp, and I went in and talked to them. I laid out a basic program, and started to get things rolling.

Then, three weeks later I met them at Colorado Springs where the Sports Festival was being held. This was where they were making the final selection for the Olympic team. The coaching staff decided they were going to select their team one year ahead of time, so that they could train as a team for a year, which I think should be done in team sports. Once that team was selected, the players no longer had to worry about making the team, and they really started opening up with each other and getting into mental training. Beforehand there was very little discussion. The player thought, "Why am I going to say anything if the person next to me sees that as my weakness? They could tap into that." But, once we got it down to the 16 members, we got into it (mental training).

The head coach, Vonnie Gross, was a very knowledgeable woman in terms of field hockey; she knew the game inside and out. At the same time, she valued the importance of the mental aspects of the game and having the players open up to her. So, that was part of what my role was— to be there and assist in that way. It helped the athletes deal with the pressures they were going to be facing, which I think was very astute on her part—that she can't get across to everyone, and that she wanted to make sure the players' needs were taken care of.

Then, in the Fall (1983) the team came out here to play in a tournament in Long Beach, and I spent three days with them there. When I spent time with them, what I would do is: part of the day would be spent working with them as a group—almost an educational program—talking about stress, how it affects performance, talking about concentration, things you can do in field hockey to get concentration, things you can do when you're having difficulties regrouping. A lot of it at that point was on how to get up for practice—quality practice time. We spent a lot of time on that because some of the players had been training for the Olympics for four years, some of them for

six years; trying to get up for today's practice wasn't always easy.

I laid out the program this way: we started with group discussion. And then after that we practiced relaxation. After the players got the relaxation down, we moved to imagery and visualization. We also did a lot with centering techniques, ways to maintain your concentration in gamelike situations. I then worked with them on an individual basis for those that wanted it; this was voluntary, optional. If they wanted it, they could take advantage of it.

Stevenson: I presume some of the players did not want to work with you on the mental training on an individual basis.

Ravizza: Some did not. Well, they all went through the group sessions. We really did not have anyone who said, "I don't want it." We did have some who did not want individual sessions. I would talk with them about it, and we would come to an agreement. My thing with athletes is: "Hey look, I'm here to help you. Now I will ask you a lot of questions, but I want you to feel free to say 'Ken, you're bugging me—not now.'" And I don't have any problems with that; it's an arrangement that has worked really well. So, some of them didn't get into working with me on an individual basis.

Stevenson: Did you give the players any material on mental training that they could refer to whenever the need arose?

Ravizza: What we did was we had handouts that they could get to. Notes—the players took notes during these talks—they could refer to them. Then I made tapes—for the offensive players, they had a tape; the defensive players, they had a tape. And these tapes were made with the coaching staff. I was dovetailing what the coaches were saying. You had an integration between myself as an outside consultant coming in and doing the sports psychology and what the coach was saying in practice. The tapes contained the same vocabulary, the same things were emphasized; so, everything was being reinforced. And this is a big advantage over all those generalized sports psychology tapes of the "You're a champion, you're a winner" variety. I think these kinds of tapes are good on a general level, but I personally feel that they are a quick fix.