When I was younger, when people talked about an intelligent basketball player, I assumed the player was smart in an academic sense as well. People also speak this way now–for example, “He came from the Ivy League, so you know he’s an intelligent player.” But does being smart in the classroom mean someone will be smart on the field of play? I have my doubts about this, and I tend to think intelligence expresses itself in a specific way within the sports context.
Off the top of my head, here some aspects of the nature of intelligence within a sports context:
- Perceiving the activity–the ability to see as much of the action as possible, all the players on the field and their actions. I think this is mostly a physical trait, and it would include good peripheral vision and seeing all the players on the field of play. I also think intelligent players recognize patterns, tendencies and little details that can be significant, in teams and individual opponents.
- Processing the activity–the speed at which one interprets what she is seeing. Really intelligent players process information quickly, and this could be within a second or two.
- Understanding the activity–making sense of what one is seeing in order to decide a course of action. This aspect requires previous knowledge and understanding of the game, including different offenses, defenses, etc., as well as the offense and defense of the specific opponent, as well tendencies of the individual players. This includes understanding of the fundamental principles behind a given offense or defense, leading to an understanding of why things are done in certain ways. Intelligent players have to have the cognitive capacity for this type of understanding, but they usually have to be willing to study individual teams and players to gain this knowledge as well. Overall, smart players interpret the situation accurately and choose sound course of action based on this.
Basically, intelligence involves taking in a lot of complex and even chaotic information and processing it quickly to arrive at a sound course of action. Keen perceptive powers, quick information processing and deep understanding of the game–these are the ways intelligence manifests itself, and it allows the smart player to anticipate what’s going to happen next. Am I missing anything?
I feel like “does being smart in the classroom mean someone will be smart on the field of play? I have my doubts about this” is an obvious thing. I don’t think anyone anymore believes intelligence in the classroom means intelligence in other realms. That’s where the whole street-smart-vs-book-smart thing came from, right?
And then of course, there’s the question of whether intelligence on the field even equates to excellence on the field. There’s the old cliche about how you want QBs to be smart but linebackers to be reactive. Which I think we all agree is bogus because reaction is a kind of on-field intelligence anyway. Then there’s the Brady vs. Manning thing. I think Manning’s the smartest QB I’ve ever seen, but Brady is unquestionably more successful, and possibly the better QB, right?
Anyway, I don’t spot any bad thinking in your list.
Right, but don’t you still hear comments like, “He went to the Ivy League, so you know he’s Intelligent player?” Also, I don’t think commentators would use “street smarts” to describe on-field intelligence, nor do they think of on-field intelligence in that way. That’s my sense, anyway.
If by “reactive” you mean “instinctive,” I think evaluators want this, but I’m almost certain most coaches or pundits don’t believe this. When people talk about the great players now, a part of this will involve the large amount of time they put into film study, regardless of the position (well, maybe not kickers, punters, or long-snappers).
Recently, when a reporter asked Klint Kubiak the attributes of a great RB, the first thing he mentioned was intelligence. Intelligence? I was really skeptical about this answer, and I thought he was trying to send a message to Kenneth Walker (namely, making the proper reads, which requires intelligence, in zone blocking scheme is vital). On the other hand, the answer might not be so far-fetched if he’s thinking of intelligence in the way I defined it.
Let’s assume Brady is the better QB, and Manning is the smartest QB ever. Maybe Brady is only a little less intelligent. Additionally, we could make a case that Brady performs better in high-stakes situations (e.g., the playoffs). I tend to think performing well in these situations is generally the things that separates very good from great players, especially QBs. Joe Montana is a good example of this.
By the way, with regard to Brady’s intelligence, I’m starting to wonder if he, not Belichick, is more responsible for the overall operation of the offense–specifically the play calling. I heard Belichick recently mentioned that Brady was great at avoiding negative plays, and Belichick mentioned audibling out of bad plays. Him saying this made me wonder how many plays did Brady call or change? When watching the Patriots, the play calls seemed perfectly timed in that it would lead to big gains or easy completions. At the time, I held this against Brady a little. A lot of QBs could have success if they were playing in that offense. But what if Brady was often responsible for a lot of these play calls. Even if you say he was responsible for 50% of the good calls, that’s pretty remarkable. If Brady was really responsible for a lot of successful play calls, he’s basically on a similar level as Manning, in terms of being an “OC on the field.”
Maybe? I don’t remember. I do hear comments like, “He went to the Ivy League so you know he’s intelligent,” and maybe the implication is “intelligent player” but who knows?
The White House is occupied by an Ivy League grad, so people should really stop connecting an Ivy League diploma with any kind of intelligence.
No, of course not. I was using that as an example. Another would be the dubious claims in The Blind Side that there’s some kind of intelligence related to “protective instincts.” Whether there is or isn’t, it’s not on the IQ tests, but my point is that I think people generally accept that there are different kinds of intelligence, and strength in one doesn’t translate to strength in another.
Your points about Brady are legit. I wonder too.
Yeah, and I think that’s the implication. For the most part, I bet the context of that quote would strongly suggest this.
Or maybe make note that the character of those individuals may be lacking.
My knee-jerk reaction was to chuckle at this. Is that what they said? I know the female protagonist tries to use this as a way to motivate the football player, but did she, or the film, imply this was a type of intelligence?
I know what you mean about different types of intelligence, but my sense is that, with sports commentary–or even the way players and coaches speak–they don’t make this type of distinction. It is odd in a way, because it seems very appropriate to do so. My guess is that this more precise definition and language is not really worth the effort. And they could actually be correct in concluding this.