A qualitative investigation into the role of the caddie in elite-level golf

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the nature of the caddie's role in the decision-making, psychological conditioning and tournament preparation of elite-level golfers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 elite-level golfers (17–24 years; 15 males and 2 females) and 6 caddies (29–42 years; 6 males). Data were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis techniques. Analysis produced four main findings: (1) the caddie's role in decision-making was to provide information, assist in shot selection, and provide feedback of the golfer’s club selection; (2) the caddie’s role in psychological conditioning was to maintain the golfer’s high performance state using a variety of cognitive and attentional strategies; (3) caddies assist in tournament preparation by ‘mapping' to plan strategy and record the important characteristics of the course prior to a competitive event; and (4) although the benefits of the caddie were recognised, golfers were dissatisfied with the quality of caddies available. The findings of this study provide guidelines for the best practice of caddies. Additionally, the development of a prerequisite document or ‘caddie contract’ was proposed as an appropriate solution to the issue of golfer discontent in caddie quality. The application of this knowledge has implications for National Sporting Organisations, performance enhancement in the sport, and the development of more effective working relationships between elite golfers and their caddies.

Keywords

Decision making performance preparation psychological skills

Introduction

Recreational and competitive golf is an extremely popular sport with over 32,000 courses and millions of participants worldwide.^1,2 Golf is unique when compared with other individual skill-based sports as golfers at the highest level usually compete with an assistant, known as the caddie, who plays a support role alongside the golfer.³ Thus, at the highest levels of golf, the golfer and caddie operate as one complete ‘unit'. Traditional duties, commonly performed by the caddie to reduce the golfer’s workload, such as carrying the golfer's bag, cleaning clubs, and maintaining the course for play are well documented.^3–6 Furthermore, recent research has investigated the qualities that underpin an effective golfer–caddie relationship,^7,8 the caddie’s impact on the golfer’s scoring outcomes,⁹ and basic structure of the caddie role.^4,5,8 However, there remains a dearth of empirical evidence concerning the broader roles that caddies may play in adjusting psychological states, assisting in decision-making, and in preparation for a competitive event.

In competitive sport, the ability of athletes to achieve and maintain a psychological state appropriate for the execution of a well-learned skill is an important determinant of success. The specific psychological qualities associated with optimal performance in golf have been well identified.^10–14 Unlike open-skilled sports, in which split second decisions are common, golf is relatively closed-skilled in nature and is played over a long duration (i.e. 4–5 h), interspersed with regular periods of downtime between movements.^15,16 Therefore, to achieve the desired scoring outcomes, golfers must be able to ‘adjust’ their psychological activation throughout the course of play.^8,15,17 Caddies may assist in facilitating this optimal state by: (a) optimising golfer’s self-confidence prior to shot execution and (b) maintaining the golfer’s psychological state in the period between shots.^5,8 However, the specific techniques used to perform these duties are yet to be empirically demonstrated.

Elite golfers use a variety of coping techniques or strategies, often in combination, to minimise poor execution, manage competitive stressors, and maintain their optimal performance state.^13–15,18 These include: cognitive (e.g. imagery, self-talk), behavioural (e.g. following a specific routine) and emotional (e.g. physical relaxation, seeking on-course social support) strategies.¹⁸ Several of these strategies are used internally by the golfer and offer limited capacity for direct caddie intervention. However, the position the caddie occupies, being: (a) proximal to the golfer; (b) trusted by the golfer; and (c) aware of the golfer’s psychological state, provides a significant opportunity for the caddie to promote or encourage specific techniques. For example, there is potential for the caddie to assist in the delivery of ‘triggers’, which may include statements or phrases, delivered once or several times in succession. These triggers are designed to promote a direct response from the golfer, or alternatively encourage the golfer to employ other psychological strategies (e.g. imagery) thus having an indirect effect on the golfer’s psychological state.^8,19,20

Decision-making in golf involves the gathering of information relevant to the golfer’s current position (e.g. wind, lie, and yardage) and the consideration of how this information applies to the shot required.²¹ Research has shown that the caddie’s role in decision-making is to assemble information (e.g. yardage, wind direction), assist in club and shot selection, and to provide positive reinforcement of the golfer’s decision in order to increase confidence and commitment prior to execution.^4,5,8 However, previous studies have been exploratory in nature and thus were unable to provide a concise description of optimal caddie function. In order to design performance interventions targeting the efficiency of the decision-making period, more detailed investigations are required. Further, there is relatively little information available concerning how and when caddies obtain the information required to inform shot selection. It has been observed that caddies may assist golfers by ‘mapping’ the course prior to competitive play;⁴ however, it is presently unknown whether or not this process is considered effective and what factors may influence the quality of this information.

Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the nature of the caddie's role in the decision-making, psychological conditioning and tournament preparation of elite-level golfers from a golfer and caddie perspective.

Method

Participants

Purposeful sampling was used to recruit 17 golfers (15 males, 2 females; playing level = 2 rookie professionals, 15 high-level amateurs; age range = 17–24 years; mean age = 20 years; mean years of playing = 10 years; handicap index range = 0 to +4) and 6 caddies (6 males; age range = 29–42 years; mean age = 37 years; mean years of caddying = 15 years; mean number of golfers worked with = 19). Inclusion criteria for golfers required that participants were either (a) a current member of the Australian Amateur National Squad; or (b) a current member of the Australian Rookie Squad; and (c) 17 years of age or older. All of the golfers recruited were participating in tournaments on either the Australasian PGA Tour or another internationally recognised professional golf tour. Both the rookie professional group and the high level amateur group were considered ‘elite’ based on definition by previous research² and these groups’ relative position on the Golf Australia athlete pathway. Inclusion criteria for caddies stipulated that they were currently or had previously worked with (a) a current member of the Australian Amateur National Squad; or (b) a current member of the Australian Rookie Squad; and (c) greater than 18 years of age. The caddies recruited were all full-time employed in golf (one tournament coaching consultant, one national coach, three PGA teaching professionals and one PGA professional trainee). These individuals volunteered to caddie for elite-level golfers as part of their capacity within these roles and were not paid for their services. The participants were recruited either by being approached directly (phone, electronic mail) or via liaison with the second author’s industry contacts. Ethical clearance to conduct the study was provided by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group.

Materials

Interview guide

Separate semi-structured guides (adapted from similar work by Lavallee et al.⁵) were used to elicit information from participant caddies and golfers. Each guide included a brief introductory script, topic questions and follow-up probes. Topic questions were designed to assess the participant’s experience in several areas relevant to the caddie role, including: background, playing/caddying experience, function of the caddie, the caddie’s role in maintaining a golfer's mental state, communication and decision-making. Sample questions included: “When did you first play with a caddie?”, “Most people are aware of the basic duties of the caddie, for example: carrying bags or course maintenance, from your experience could you tell me more about what caddies do during a round?”, and “Who has the final responsibility for decisions that are made on the course?” Each content topic and related questions were introduced in such a way that encouraged the interview to develop in a natural, conversational manner.^22,23 Probes were used to further explore aspects of the participant's experience that arose during the interviews. Thus, whilst each interview followed the topic guide, the interviewer had the flexibility to pursue responses beyond the scope of the specific questions.²² Each interview guide was reviewed by the research team as well as an independent expert in interview methods. The guides were piloted with two non-elite golfers (n = 2) to assess the appropriateness of each of the topic areas. Feedback from participants was positive and no problems were indicated with the content topics, questions, instructions and interview sequence.

Instruments

Interviews were conducted locally (Melbourne, Australia) and internationally (Texas, USA). A combination of four audio devices was used to record the interviews: (a) Zoom Q3HD video/audio recorder; (b) Olympus Note Corder DP-211; (c) Livescribe 2GB Echo Smartpen; and (d) Samsung Galaxy S5 internal recorder. The Q3HD and the Echo Smartpen were used as the primary and secondary recorders for all Melbourne-based interviews and the DP-211 and the S5 were employed as the primary and secondary audio recorders for interviews conducted in Texas. The NVivo 10® analysis software (Qualitative Research Solutions International, 2012) was used for the management and analysis of textual data. This software enabled the data to be assigned meaning by associating codes or labels with congruent sections of text.²⁴

Procedure

Each player and caddie was interviewed once. Seventeen face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with golfers onsite at the Woodlands Country Club in Houston, TX, during the Golf Australia National Squad camp (July 2014) by the second author. Three face-to-face interviews and three phone interviews were conducted with caddies by the first author (August 2014). For the face-to-face interviews, locations included a quiet office space at the University campus and a similar facility at participants’ places of employment. The average duration of the face-to-face and phone interviews was ∼20 min; a small number of golfer interviews (n = 4) were less than 15 min, this was due to the time constraints associated with the development camp. With permission, the interviews were audio taped and field notes taken as a means of recording the interviewer’s observations and preliminary coding ideas.

Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim by the first author and a trained research assistant. The first two golfer interviews were cross transcribed (research assistant and first author) to ensure accuracy and transferability between transcribers.²⁵ During transcription, all identifying information was removed and participants were assigned a pseudonym to preserve anonymity.²⁶ Golfers and caddies were indicated by the code ‘G’ and ‘C’, respectively, followed by their gender and identification number.²⁶ Following transcription, golfer and caddie transcripts were checked for accuracy (e.g. analysed alongside interview audio) by the author and the research assistant.²⁵

Data analysis

A six-step thematic analysis was used to analyse the content of the interview transcripts: (1) perform ‘repeated reading’ of the data; (2) organise meaningful elements of data into groups or ‘codes’; (3) collate similar coded extracts into candidate themes; (4) review the validity of each theme in relation to the coded extracts and the entire data set; (5) use the themes identified to construct a ‘thematic map’ of the data; and (6) generate an accompanying narrative describing the specifics of each theme in relation to the research question.²⁷ A sample of interview transcripts (n = 5) was submitted to multiple coding by the research assistant and assessed against those of the primary coder. Crosschecking of coding strategies concluded that codings were consistent in 87% of cases, which is acceptable according to methods defined by LeCompte and Goetz.²⁸ The use of multiple investigators (coders) was positioned to facilitate triangulation of the data, in order to reduce the impact of individual bias. To ensure trustworthiness, data analysis and interpretation were conducted in reference to the consolidated criteria for the reporting of qualitative research.²⁹

Results

Thematic analysis of the data highlighted four central themes and additional subthemes to describe the role of the caddie. These central themes included: decision-making, psychological conditioning, tournament preparation, and perceptions of caddie quality, and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of central themes and subthemes reported by golfers and caddies.

Central themes	Subthemes
Decision-making	Stages of decision-making Moderating factors
Psychological conditioning	High performance state Caddie input
Tournament preparation	Practice round Course-mapping
Perceptions of caddie quality

Each of the themes and subthemes is analysed in further detail.

Decision-making

This theme represents the behaviours undertaken by golfers and caddies from when they first approach the ball to when the golfer executes the shot. Two subthemes emerged, ‘stages of decision-making’ and ‘moderating factors’.

Stages of decision-making

Stages of decision-making referred to the predefined sequence of events that golfers and caddies progress through prior to shot execution, these stages included: (a) zone of focus, (b) shot selection, (c) club selection, (d) preparation stage of the pre-shot routine, (e) shot execution and (f) post-shot reflection period. The specific order and content of these stages varied between participants; however, this subtheme represented what participants considered to be optimal. The sequence of these stages is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Model depicting the optimal sequence of events in the decision-making of golfers and caddies.

Zone of focus

This first stage was defined as the golfer and caddie narrowing their focus or psychological activation; in essence ‘switching on' in preparation for analysis and shot execution. The exact threshold or distance at which the golfer initiated this process varied between participants, but typically this was 5–10 m from the ball.

Shot selection

Golfers and caddies agreed that the caddie’s role during shot selection was to provide the golfer with relevant information pertaining to a shot. The exact content of this information varied considerably, but those reported to be most fundamental to the caddie's role included: hazard placement, pin position, wind (angle, intensity) and yardage (to the front, side and back of the green; yardage to hazards; yardage to the pin). This information was collected upon reaching the ball or pre-recorded in the caddies ‘yardage book'. Following the provision of information, each variable was considered in relation to the desired shot outcome and used to discuss the intended landing zone, line of approach, shot shape (draw, fade, high, low) and to calculate the exact yardage or ‘true distance', as one golfer described:

You just work out, if it's 150m, I hit my 8 iron 150m, but it's uphill and into the wind. It's probably playing 5m (more) for uphill, 10m (more) for the wind, so you just do a bit of adding and subtracting for the yardages. (GM014)

Club selection

After all information has been collated and calculations completed, it was the golfer's responsibility to select the club based on the distance required to execute the desired shot. This decision should be mathematical and not based on visual estimates:

Never tell them what club to hit. Run the numbers, go through your list, check off your list as these things that I want from this shot, the club will choose itself, you'll come up with a number … (CM002)

Based on the golfer’s decision, the caddie had two options, they could choose to either agree with the initial club selection or they may be unsure and could choose to disagree. If the caddie chose to agree their duty was to provide positive reinforcement to the golfer’s decision, this task was essential to the caddie’s role and helped to ensure the golfer is confident and committed to their shot execution. The content of this reinforcement was described as a short phrase to convey agreement. Conversely, if the caddie disagreed with the golfer's club selection, this was done in a diplomatic way. To avoid potential conflict, the caddie's role was not to inform the golfer their decision was wrong, but rather to suggest that they re-do the initial calculations to confirm the distance.

Preparation stage of the pre-shot routine

Once the golfer and caddie were content with the club selection, the golfer approached the ball and began the pre-shot routine. During this time, both golfers and caddies stated that the caddie's role was to simultaneously provide the golfer with positive prompts or trigger words. The use of trigger words was highlighted as a means to positively influence the golfer’s focus:

And then while I'm doing my routine he would just say 'commit, commit to your golf shot' and then I'd walk in and hit it. That's about it really. (GM008)

Shot execution

Following the pre-shot routine, the caddie adopted a passive role as the golfer executed the shot.

Post-shot reflection period

Post execution the golfer and caddie allowed a short period of time to reflect on the shot outcome and the execution of the decision-making process. Several caddies reported that this period was important in reducing a golfer’s build-up of negative energy. Generally, if the golfer wanted to release some anger or frustration the caddie would encourage the golfer to do so during this stage.

Variability

The input and feedback requested by golfers from their caddies during decision-making varied considerably depending on individual preference and several moderating factors. This variability ranged from complete involvement in almost every aspect, to relatively no involvement at all.

Moderating factors

Responses indicated that the caddie's level of involvement during the decision-making period was moderated by two factors: (a) the caddie's knowledge of the golfer's specific requirements and (b) the golfer’s trust in the caddie.

Knowledge of golfer requirements

The responses of caddies identified the ‘knowledge of golfer requirements’ to be a key factor in their ability to deliver effective input and advice during decision-making. Currently, it appears that the golfers were not using a systematic approach to effectively communicate their exact preferences during this period. Several caddies believed that the responsibility should fall on the golfer to inform the caddie of their needs and requirements prior to competition; allowing the caddie to deliver specific input that is most beneficial to the golfer's decision-making process.

Trust

Participants discussed trust more than any other factor when describing the determinants that may influence the nature of the caddie's role in decision-making. The consensus was that a distrusting golfer–caddie partnership results in ineffective decision-making, particularly by reducing the level of input that golfers feel comfortable requesting from caddies during shot selection. The caddie's level of experience and the degree of familiarity between the golfer and caddie were both found to increase the trust that golfers had in their caddie’s abilities, with many golfers stating that they would not trust the input of an unfamiliar caddie.

Psychological conditioning

This theme contained any reference made by participants concerning a golfer's psychological state or condition. In particular, the variables used to define a golfer’s peak psychological state were highlighted and any techniques or strategies used by caddies to maintain or regain this state were explored. The theme contained two subthemes; these were ‘high performance state,' and ‘caddie input'.

High performance state

Participants described a golfer's ‘high performance state' as their psychological state or ‘headspace' when they are performing at their peak. Seven main characteristics were identified to define this state: effortless performance, able to isolate each shot, high self-confidence, focused, relaxed, staying in the present, feeling unstoppable, and able to switch off between shots. It was revealed that the caddie's role was to keep the golfer performing within their high performance state, for as long as possible.

Caddie input

To maintain the golfer's high performance state, players indicated that caddies employed two primary methods: ‘cognitive strategies' and ‘attentional control'.

Cognitive strategies

Participants indicated that several cognitive strategies were used by caddies to influence the psychological state of golfers. As noted previously, caddies used three cognitive strategies during the decision-making period: (a) positive reinforcement; (b) trigger words; and (c) the post-shot reflection period. Providing reinforcement of the golfer's club selection allowed caddies to embed confidence prior to execution, reducing self-doubt and improving the likelihood of a successful outcome. The caddie's provision of trigger words was noted to have two purposes; first, to narrow the golfer’s focus of attention, and second to improve their ability to concentrate. The third cognitive strategy, post-shot reflection, enabled the caddie to facilitate the release of negative energy by the golfer through discussion of the golfer’s feelings concerning the previous decision-making period. This period of reflection represented a form of coping, helping the golfer to release stress and frustration before moving onto the next shot.

Attentional control

Participants’ responses indicated that the ability to modify attention to meet situational requirements was an important determinant of a golfer's psychological state. It was identified that the caddie's main influence in regulating golfer attention occurs in the period of downtime in-between shots. Following the post-shot reflection period, caddies used frequent periods of conversation with the golfer, focusing on non-golf related topics to re-direct the golfer’s attention, in effect keeping their mind off golf. Re-directing the golfer’s attentional focus helped the golfer avoid external distractions, stay focused in the present and maintain a low level of psychological activation, thereby facilitating maintenance of the golfer’s high performance state and allowing them to concentrate more effectively when they reach the ball:

If you can get their mind off (golf) the player is able to concentrate a lot more when they get to (the ball), usually if they are thinking about golf the whole time they burn out after 9 or 10 holes. (CM005)

Tournament preparation

Participants defined tournament preparation as a series of tasks undertaken by golfers and caddies prior to a competitive event in order to optimise performance. This theme describes the caddie's role in this process. Two subthemes emerged: the ‘practice round' and ‘course mapping'.

Practice round

It was reported that during the practice round, the caddie completes a series of duties similar to that of a normal round, to support the golfer's performance. However, several respondents indicated that there was also a trust element to the caddie’s involvement, and that golfers may use the practice round as a means to gauge caddie competency. This was particularly the case when the golfer did not have a pre-existing relationship with the caddie. Furthermore, depending on how the golfer perceived the caddie’s abilities, this was found to either increase or decrease the golfer’s trust in the caddie and had significant implications for the dynamic of the relationship:

In the practice round I might ask the caddie for a lot more input because then I can use that for evidence as to whether he's getting it right or not. (GM013)

Course mapping

Participants considered course mapping to involve measuring out the course, identifying hazards, approach paths, planning strategy and recording this information in the yardage book. Although not specifically mentioned, it was explicit that the caddie's involvement in course mapping may influence their ability to provide input during the decision-making process. Caddies who are technically skilled in mapping and routinely involved in this process had more detailed, high quality information to contribute during the decision-making period than those whose yardage books were poorly designed and sourced.

Perceptions of caddie quality

While a critical analysis of caddie quality was not the purpose of this investigation, this theme emerged throughout the analysis and was considered an important element when reflecting on the golfer–caddie dynamic in elite golf. Golfers spoke quite candidly concerning the quality and usefulness of caddies with whom they had previously worked, with the majority of golfers reporting a feeling of dissatisfaction:

I've never had a good caddie … (GM011)

These feelings of inadequacy were directed particularly toward parent or family member caddies. It was reported that younger golfers working alongside a family member tended to place added pressure on themselves either to perform or meet expectations, resulting in an ineffective golfer–caddie relationship. Of the golfers interviewed, many still regularly employed the services of family members or friends as caddies. Despite golfers reporting general dissatisfaction with their caddie experiences, most recognised the importance of the caddie’s role and reported a desire to work with high-quality caddies in the future.

Discussion

The present study aimed to determine the nature of the caddie's role in the decision-making, psychological conditioning and tournament preparation of elite-level golfers. The caddie's most fundamental role in decision-making was to provide the golfer with information concerning the situation of play or the physical characteristics of a shot. Caddies also assisted the golfer in shot selection and provided feedback concerning the golfer's club selection. It is important to understand that the findings presented herein are representative of what golfers and caddies considered to be optimal. The actual input provided by caddies was found to vary considerably depending on the golfer's individual preferences, the caddie's knowledge of the golfer’s requirements and the golfer's level of trust in the caddie. In particular, low levels of trust were associated with the caddie being less involved in the decision-making process.

Interestingly, when discussing the input provided by caddies, a greater quantity of information was not necessarily considered beneficial to golfers. For example, several golfers recalled situations in which previous caddies had identified a hazard and explicitly stated to ‘avoid the area', which disrupted the golfer's thought processes and resulted in a negative shot outcome. This finding is consistent with Wegner's³⁰ theory of ‘ironic mental processes', which proposed that attempts to suppress thoughts from one's conscious awareness increase the probability that the suppressed thought will influence subsequent thoughts and actions.^31,32 Such statements delivered by the caddie may also influence the content of a golfer’s internal dialogue or self-talk. In sport psychology, numerous studies have focused on the relationship between the social environment (i.e. significant others, coaches) and the valence of an athlete’s self-talk.^33–35 These investigations have reported positive associations between negative and distracting coaching statements or behaviours and athletes’ thoughts of failure or negative self-talk. Within golf, caddies are often considered an influential ‘significant other’, and therefore it is important to consider any potential negative influence their communication may have on golfers’ intra-psychological condition. Information obtained from qualitative interviews with professional tour caddies reinforces the need for caddies to carefully monitor their overt verbalisations and to avoid negative communication with the golfer.⁸

Overall, the findings reported were consistent with previous models of golfer–caddie decision-making (e.g. Bruce⁴ and Lavallee et al.⁵). Specifically, similarities were noted concerning the caddie's role in providing information, in evaluating the golfer's club selection and the variables that moderate the level of input requested by golfers. However, the findings of the present study described the caddie choosing to disagree with the golfer’s selection as a diplomatic re-negotiation of the initial calculation. This is in contrast to previous models that describe the caddie disagreeing with the golfer as ‘precarious’ and suggest that if a caddie is to attempt to change a golfer’s decision, he/she needs to provide supporting information and an alternate option to consider.^4,5 Another important distinguishing factor between this study and previous investigations was the sample utilised. The present sample included mostly elite amateur golfers with a small number of rookie professionals, while previous studies (Bruce⁴ and Lavallee et al.⁵) used professional golfers, playing on the Australasian PGA Tour. It is possible that this may account for these differences, as more experienced golfers may be less open to discussing alternatives to their decision. This could be due to the level of mutual trust in the golfer–caddie relationship, which is discussed in further detail in later sections.

As with decision-making, caddies were reported to fulfil a variety of roles in order to influence the psychological condition of the golfer. The most central role was to maintain the golfer's ‘high performance state'. It was indicated that any deviation from this state increased the likelihood the golfer would experience a decrement in his/her performance. This statement was consistent with previous theories of optimal mental climate.³⁶ To preserve the golfer's high performance state, caddies used a variety of cognitive strategies (positive reinforcement, trigger words and post shot reflection) and attentional control. The first cognitive strategy, positive reinforcement, involved the caddie providing reassurance of the golfer’s club selection by using a short statement to convey agreement. Golfers reported that reinforcement from the caddie was an effective strategy to increase self-confidence and reduce doubt prior to shot execution. Previous research has also highlighted positive reinforcement as an essential component of the caddie’s role.^4, ⁵ Additionally, the importance of self-confidence in creating an assurance of certainty, encouraging effortless performance and allowing the golfer to play with maximum commitment has been well documented.^20,37

Caddies delivered the second strategy, trigger words, while the golfers completed their pre-shot routine. The use of trigger words was described as an attentional tool, used by the caddies to narrow the golfers focus and ensure they are able to adopt an optimal internal state prior to skill execution. The use of trigger words has been reported amongst elite-level golfers as a form of structured self-talk, designed to manipulate the golfers’ focus and concentration.^15,20 While previous research has not considered the role of the caddie in the delivery of such techniques, the underlying mechanisms may function on the same basis. That is, the caddie provides an overt, positive, instructional statement to the golfer that is similar in content to what the golfer would focus on covertly while practicing self-talk.²⁰ The third strategy, post-shot reflection, was employed by the caddie to facilitate the release of negative frustration by the golfer. Golfers seeking social support and venting have been recognised as forms of emotional-focused coping.³⁸ It is conceivable that the post-shot reflection period used by caddies represents a combination of these methods.

Attentional control was a further strategy used by caddies as a means to preserve the golfers’ high performance state. Caddies used frequent conversation with the golfer, focusing on non-golf related topics, to redirect the golfers’ attention away from the external environment and towards the novel stimulus (conversation); thereby mitigating the effect of external distractions, keeping the golfer focused in the present and maintaining a low level of psychological activation. This enabled the caddie to facilitate maintenance of the golfer's high performance state and preserve attentional resources by introducing a stimulus positioned to redirect the golfer's attention from potential stressors (e.g. future performance anxiety) that may induce a negative psychophysiological response. While the caddie's role in such methods has been recognised^8,39 and the relationship between ‘concentration disruption' and tournament performance documented,⁴⁰ the mechanism underlying attentional control is yet to be determined empirically.

In elite golfers, a more ‘task-orientated', rather than ‘outcome-orientated' concentration style has been associated with peak performance.⁴ When golfers fixate on future or past performance, they tend to become more outcome orientated, creating a self-imposed pressure to perform in an attempt to re-capture missed opportunities. According to Baumeister's⁴¹ self-focus model, increased performance pressure generally results in heightened levels of self-directed attention. An internal focus shifts the golfer’s attention to the step-by-step processes of skill execution and results in the golfer taking conscious control of what is usually an unconscious process, often resulting in a decrease in performance.⁴²

The caddie's role in pre-tournament preparation was comprised of the practice round and course mapping. As in a competition round, the caddie's role during the practice round was to support the performance of the golfer, which has been previously highlighted.^4,10 Interestingly, participants reported that the practice round was also used as a means to assess the caddies’ abilities. If the caddie was perceived as competent, the golfer's trust in the caddie would subsequently be increased. This finding has significant implications for the golfer–caddie dynamic. Specifically, by demonstrating efficacy in the practice round, caddies may be able to circumvent the absence of a pre-existing relationship and increase the golfer’s trust, because as previously noted, trust was dependent on two variables: familiarity and caddie skill. As a result of an increased level of trust, the caddie may be invited to provide a greater degree of input into the golfer's decision-making. This is in contrast to Aitken and Weigand⁸ who found that the professional caddies they interviewed reported taking between two to three weeks of tournament golf before they were confident their golfer trusted the input they provided during decision-making. This difference could be attributed to the variance in playing level of golfers in each sample; high-level amateurs/rookie professional in the present study and tour professionals in the Aitken and Weigand text.⁸ Presumably, more experienced golfers require a longer period of time to establish a foundation of mutual trust with their caddies.

The caddie’s second role in tournament preparation was to assist golfers in ‘mapping' by measuring out the course, identifying hazards, approach paths, planning strategy and recording this information in their yardage book. Understandably, caddies whose yardage books were detailed and of a high quality had more information to contribute during decision-making. These findings are novel, as to our knowledge, the ability of the caddie to build trust using the practice round and increase the quality of the information they can provide to golfers has not been determined in the peer-reviewed literature.

Despite recognising the benefits of caddies, golfers were generally dissatisfied with the current quality of caddies available. When interpreting this finding, it is important to understand that the sample of caddies recruited for this study were all employed full-time in golf (e.g. golf coach and tournament consultant), and caddied infrequently for golfers as part of their capacity within these roles. These caddies were not necessarily reflective of the quality of caddies typically available to elite-level golfers. Caddies explained that most National Squad golfers do not have the financial resources required to employ a regular, high quality (professional) caddie. Therefore, golfers often employed the services of family members, teammates or one-off caddies (individuals provided by the golf course at which a tournament or playing event is held). It is likely that these caddies did not fulfil the specific roles reported in this study, which may account for golfer’s current discontent.

In the case of caddies with multiple roles (e.g. caddie and family member), this discontent could be due to the allocation of power in the relationship. To enable the golfer and caddie to function as an effective unit, the power in the relationship should belong to the golfer.⁸ However, if the golfer and caddie have a prior relationship in which the balance of power is reversed, it is possible this dynamic will be reflected in the qualities of the golfer–caddie relationship. This inappropriate allocation of power may inhibit effective decision-making and reduce unit cohesion. To attenuate the influence of power balance, it is recommended that golfers and caddies openly discuss their roles and suspend any previous dynamic before establishing a working relationship.⁸ Despite the clear need for skilled caddies at the high-level amateur/rookie professional level, due to the lack of employment incentives, it seems likely that full time caddying at this level is still not a viable career option. Thus, at present the use of family members, teammates or one-off caddies may be necessary for this level of golfer.

From an applied perspective, these findings have a number of implications worth highlighting. First, an intervention to increase the effectiveness of caddies regularly available to elite-level golfers may be beneficial. As mentioned, the caddies employed by these golfers vary considerably, from a close family member (while playing in their local region) to an individual provided by the golf course (while playing out of state or internationally). Therefore, a skill development programme may be an ineffective solution, as the cohort from which caddies are sourced is inconsistent and it would be difficult to apply such an approach to individuals (e.g. family members) who are not employed in golf. Rather, a more appropriate method to address this situation may be the development of a prerequisite document or ‘caddie contract'. This caddie contract would contain many of the components of an average employment contract; in particular, it would outline the prerequisites of the caddie’s role and describe what the golfer expects of them as an ‘employee'. As reported by this study, golfers’ specific preferences vary considerably; therefore it is important that the circulation of a generic contract be avoided. Contracts should be individualised to meet golfers’ unique requirements and developed based on the coach’s recommendations. Future research and evaluation is needed to assist in the development of such methods to ensure the validity and reliability of the instrument, and to determine its effectiveness before it can be applied to the wider golf population.

The findings of this study highlight the specific roles fulfilled by caddies in the decision-making, psychological conditioning and tournament preparation of elite-level golfers. Specifically, caddies provide information and feedback during decision-making, use a variety of strategies to maintain the golfer's high performance state and assist in preparation by ‘mapping' the course. Although the benefits of caddies were recognised, elite-level golfers were dissatisfied with current caddie quality. To increase the quality of the service provided by caddies, it was recommended that a list of prerequisites or ‘contract' be developed and delivered to caddies prior to competition. The results of this study have significant practical relevance for the elite-level golfer, their caddies, golf researchers and National Sporting Organisations (NSOs). Golfers and caddies may apply this knowledge to optimise performance of the golfer–caddie unit, while researchers and NSOs can use this information in the development of performance interventions, such as a caddie contract. Future research may be useful to assess the validity of the proposed golfer–caddie decision-making model using quantifiable measures and with golfers at different levels of participation. Specifically, as this study used ‘elite’ golfers (National Amateur and Rookie Squad representatives), further inquiry may seek to investigate whether these findings are generalisable to a ‘Mastery’ level of golf participation (i.e. Professional golfers who have achieved sustained elite success).⁴³

Conclusion

The application of these findings has clear implications for performance enhancement, the development of best practice guidelines and more effective working relationships between elite golfers and their caddies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Farrally MR, Cochran AJ, Crews DJ, et al. Golf science research at the beginning of the twenty-first century. J Sports Sci 2003; 21: 753–65.

Robertson

Burnett

Newton

. Development of the nine-ball skills test to discriminate elite and high-level amateur golfers. J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 431–437.

Carrick

Duno

. Caddie sense: revelations of a PGA tour caddie on playing golf, New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2002.

Bruce D. Turn up, keep up & shut up: the role of a caddie in male professional golf in Australia. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Queensland, 1999.

Lavallee

Bruce

Gorely

. The golfer–caddie partnership: an exploratory investigation into the role of the caddie. Athletic Insight: Online J Sport Psychol 2004; 6: 20–35.

Mackenzie

. A wee nip at the 19th hole: a history of the St. Andrews caddie, Ann Arbor, MI: Sleeping Bear Press, 1997.

Jowett S and Zhong X. Understanding the quality and functions of the golfer–caddie relationship. Unpublished manuscript, Loughborough University, 2014.

Aitken

Weigand

. Caddy-talk: psychology of being a great golf caddy, Milton Keynes: Dawvija Publishing, 2007.

Coate

Toomey

. Do professional golf tour caddies improve player scoring? J Sports Econom 2014; 15: 303–312.

10.

Beauchamp

Peak putting performance: psychological skills and strategies utilized by PGA tour golfers. In: Farally

Cochran

(eds). Science and Golf: III. Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999, pp. 181–189.

11.

Cohn

. An exploratory study on peak performance in golf. Sport Psychol 1991; 5: 1–14.

12.

Douglas

Fox

Practice for competition in women professional golfers. In: Thain

(ed). Science and Golf: IV. Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf, New York, NY: Routledge, 2002, pp. 257–267.

13.

Hellström

. Psychological hallmarks of skilled golfers. Sports Med 2009; 39: 845–855.

14.

McCaffrey

Orlick

. Mental factors related to excellence among top professional golfers. Int J Sport Psychol 1989; 20: 256–278.

15.

Finn

. An introduction to using mental skills to enhance performance in golf: beyond the bounds of positive and negative thinking. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2008; 3: 255–269.

16.

Spittle

. Motor learning and skill acquisition: applications for physical education and sport, South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia, 2013.

17.

Bois

Sarrazin

Southon

. Psychological characteristics and their relation to performance in professional golfers. Sport Psychol 2009; 23: 252–270.

18.

Nicholls

Holt

Polman

. A phenomenological analysis of coping effectiveness in golf. Sport Psychol 2005; 19: 111–130.

19.

Cotterill ST. Effect of shot type, task difficulty and research environment on consistency of pre-performance routines in golf: psycho-physiological bases and implications. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Gloucestershire, 2007.

20.

Cotterill

Sanders

Collins

. Developing effective pre-performance routines in golf: why don't we ask the golfer? J Appl Sport Psychol 2010; 22: 51–64.

21.

Furst AJ. Dispositional optimism, sport confidence, and golf performance. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Griffith University, 2010.

22.

Barriball

While

. Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 328–335.

23.

Whiting

. Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nurs Standard 2008; 22: 35–40.

24.

Bringer

Johnston

Brackenridge

. Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis: the complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVivo within a grounded theory study. Qual Res 2004; 4: 247–265.

25.

Davidson

. Transcription: imperatives for qualitative research. Int J Qual Meth 2009; 8: 1–52.

26.

Dearnley

. A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. J Nurs Res 2005; 13: 19–28.

27.

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

28.

LeCompte

Goetz

. Problems of reliability and validity in educational research. Rev Educ Res 1982; 52: 31–60.

29.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349–357.

30.

Wegner

. Ironic processes of mental control. Psychol Rev 1994; 101: 34–52.

31.

Beilock

Afremow

Rabe

. “Don't miss!” The delibiltating effects of suppressive imagery on golf putting performance. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2001; 23: 200–221.

32.

Macrae

Bodenhausen

Milne

. Out of mind but back in sight: stereotypes on the rebound. J Personality Social Psychol 1994; 67: 808–817.

33.

Zourbanos

. Coaches' behaviour, social support, and athletes' self-talk. Hellenic J Psychol 2006; 3: 117–133.

34.

Zourbanos

Hatzigeorgiadis

Theodorakis

. A preliminary investigation of the relationship between athletes' self-talk and coaches' behaviour and statements. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2007; 2: 57–66.

35.

Zourbanos

Hatzigeorgiadis

Tsiakaras

. A multimethod examination of the relationship between coaching behavior and athletes' inherent self-talk. J Sport Exercise Psychol 2010; 32: 764–785.

36.

Williams

Krane

Psychologial characteristics of peak performance. In: Williams

(ed). Applied sport psychology: personal growth to peak performance, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1993.

37.

Ferraro

. The zone and golf. Athletic Insight: Online J Sport Psychol 1999; 1: 8–12.

38.

Giacobbi

Foore

Weinberg

. Broken clubs and expletives: the sources of stress and coping responses of skilled and moderately skilled golfers. J Appl Sport Psychol 2004; 16: 166–182.

39.

Simpson

Bell

Flippin

. Caddying is timing: an interview with Joe Skovron, PGA Tour Caddy. J Excell 2011; 14: 93–100.

40.

Hayslip

Petrie

MacIntire

. The influence of skill level, anxiety, and psychological skills use on amateur golfers' performance. J Appl Sport Psychol 2010; 22: 123–133.

41.

Baumeister

. Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. J Personal Social Psychol 1984; 46: 610–620.

42.

Land

Tenenbaum

. An outcome and process orientated examination of a golf-specific secondary task strategy to prevent choking under pressure. J Appl Sport Psychol 2012; 24: 303–322.

43.

Gulbin

Croser

Morley

. An integrated framework for the optimisation of sport and athlete development: a practitioner approach. J Sports Sci 2013; 31: 1319–1331.