Self-improvement
Chapter Ten: Getting accurate feedback
The importance of obtaining accurate feedback is one area where psychological research and common sense tell us exactly the same thing. In order to be good at something, we have to see, or hear or otherwise perceive how our performance stacks up against some type of standard. Basketball players trying to put the ball in the hoop need to be able to see how close the ball is to the basket in order to adjust their shots. Musicians need to hear the notes they are playing in order to make corrections in pitch.
Competitive fishermen also need feedback to become expert anglers. However, we rarely have access to immediate feedback in the same way other performers do. With the exception of sight-fishing, we typically have no direct evidence of how close our cast was to a fish, or whether our retrieve interested or repulsed our prey. We could be off by a fraction of an inch, or we could be on the wrong side of the lake altogether. In most cases it’s nearly impossible to tell.
Which is why, in the opinion of many, becoming a successful tournament fisherman is the most difficult and demanding endeavor in all of sport. Imagine for a moment the foolishness of trying to accurately shoot a basketball if you were blind. And while there are a few musicians who can’t see, there aren’t many who can’t hear.
Outcome feedback
For our purposes we are going to divide feedback into two types: outcome feedback and process feedback. Outcome feedback, in its simplest form, answers the question, “Did this cast lead to a strike?” Such feedback, however, is extremely unreliable as we can make dozens, if not hundreds, of casts between bites. Using the basketball analogy, think of how difficult it would be to improve your free-throw accuracy if the basket was invisible until the ball went through the hoop!
To complicate matters, when we do get bit, we can often only guess at which components of our cast mattered and which were irrelevant. Too bad we can’t watch fish turn away from a spinner bait on one cast and then chase after a buzzbait on the next! And while pros are fond of saying, “Let the fish tell you what they want,” the message we most often hear from fish is “Nope, I don’t want that.” Especially with a tough bite, relying on outcome feedback on a cast-by-cast basis can be an exercise in futility.
However, if we have kept good records (remember your Performance Psychology and Tournament Fishing notebook?) over time we can accumulate enough outcome feedback to be useful. Try this exercise: Go back through your tournament notes and list the baits you used this year that gave you numbers of fish and which ones gave you big fish. You might want to break this information down by season, prespawn, postspawn, etc.
You could also look for bite patterns related to time of day, weather conditions or lake levels. This exercise allows you to collapse data, essentially eliminating all your unproductive casts and focusing only on the baits and presentations that led to strikes.
As suggested elsewhere, you could also compare your tournament notes to the catch data of fellow anglers whose skills and opinions you trust. Yes, there are a billion articles, books and videotapes about what Clark and Larry and Kevin use. In the end, however, you need feedback about what works for you.
It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway, that getting accurate feedback from your notes hinges on being honest with yourself. Maybe you occasionally exaggerate the number and size of fish you caught when talking to your buddies at work, but don’t lie to yourself. If you only caught three short fish on a medium-diver firetiger crankbait, so be it. As you reflect on your own feedback, you may decide this was the wrong presentation for a midsummer clearwater tournament. You’ll draw the wrong conclusions, however, if your notes are unclear, incomplete or inaccurate.
Process feedback
Process feedback essentially involves paying attention to and working on the mechanics of fishing. Top performers all talk about “getting back to basics” now and again, and you should too. Specific skill development also allows for immediate feedback. How accurate is your casting, really? How about your precision with flippin’ and pitchin’? Perceptual psychology tells us that accuracy is inversely related to the size of the target. Can you lay your jig on a tin plate five times out of six from 25 feet? How about on a saucer? On a quarter?! Make your target smaller when you practice this winter, and you will be more accurate flippin’ bushes next spring.
Maybe it’s finally time to test some baits in a swimming pool. Outside pools in southern states are too cold to swim in now anyway, so take a few lures poolside and see what they do with different retrieves. Does your favorite crankbait really back up when you stop reeling, just like the ad says it should? If you live where pools are drained and lakes are frozen, check with the custodian of the local community center or high school. Maybe you can offer a fishing trip in exchange for an hour or two of pool time when no one is around.
You might also put your pride on the sidelines long enough to ask a couple of fellow competitors for some honest feedback. You might be surprised at what you hear. Just don’t rely solely on the fish to tell you how you are doing. Finding creative ways to get feedback will allow you to accurately evaluate your performance, a key step on the way to the top.
Jay T. McNamara, Ph.D., L.P., is a psychologist, who is also an avid bass and walleye angler. With more than 25 years of professional experience complemented by participation in competitive fishing at local and national levels, he is uniquely qualified to illustrate how performance psychology principles apply to tournament fishing.