Much has been researched and written on the concept of intelligence in the last century and while much of it has been applied in educational settings and commercial organisations, little has been investigated and applied within a sports context. Early research in the 1970s identified sport intelligence as comprising primarily of reaction time and recall and it was only in 2002, some 30 years later, that it again appeared in the literature with sport intelligence being considered a psychological characteristic of Olympic champions. The research of Gould, Diffenbach and Moffet (2002) into sport intelligence hypothesised that sport intelligence included having “the ability to analyse, being innovative, being a student of the sport, making good decisions, understanding the nature of elite sport, and being a quick learner” (p. 5). Later research by Blue (2009) proposed a comprehensive model of sport intelligence as it applied to golf wherein he posited that sport intelligence – albeit in a golfing context – comprised a ‘competition’ and ‘developmental’ intelligence. Other than the thematic assessment of Gould et al. (2002) and the golf-specific study of Blue (2009) no literature, data or research was available internationally, on the African continent nor in South Africa. The researcher responded to the call for further research and decided to complete a qualitative, exploratory study in South Africa. The research commenced by covering what was available on sport intelligence literature and to build on it by reviewing and considering general intelligence theories. Both orthodox and unorthodox approaches were considered and the review suggested that sport intelligence would conceptually and theoretically consist of a number of dimensions and constructs including a series of cognitive processes like memory, reasoning, problem solving, decision making and other rational processes. The third source of literature was a review of sport psychology and it emphasised the importance and significance of emotional, motivational and other psychological factors in addition to the influences of personality. The literature review led to the researcher identifying 14 hypotheses which were explored with 15 credible sport participants, whereafter a thorough content analysis of the 14 hypotheses was performed. 13 of the 14 initial hypotheses were accepted with one included as a theme within another. The thematic assessment resulted in the identification and development of a systems model of sport intelligence comprising six components as follows:  A neurophysiological component;  A cognitive/rational component;  An emotional/affective component;  A team/group component;  A societal/ecological component; and  A metaphysical component. The investigation and analyses furthermore indicated that the components do not exist in isolation of one another and each dimension seems of equal significance. The data suggested a parallel process and dynamic interplay between these components and this led to a systemic perspective being adopted when synthesising the model into a logical and coherent framework. Each of the components were critically evaluated from a cognitive and systemic perspective. The systemic perspective proposed challenges the view that performance is not only an individual endeavour but also a systemic endeavour. / Psychology / D. Litt. et Phil. (Consulting Psychology)

Much has been researched and written on the concept of intelligence in the last century and while much of it has been applied in educational settings and commercial organisations, little has been investigated and applied within a sports context. Early research in the 1970s identified sport intelligence as comprising primarily of reaction time and recall and it was only in 2002, some 30 years later, that it again appeared in the literature with sport intelligence being considered a psychological characteristic of Olympic champions. The research of Gould, Diffenbach and Moffet (2002) into sport intelligence hypothesised that sport intelligence included having “the ability to analyse, being innovative, being a student of the sport, making good decisions, understanding the nature of elite sport, and being a quick learner” (p. 5). Later research by Blue (2009) proposed a comprehensive model of sport intelligence as it applied to golf wherein he posited that sport intelligence – albeit in a golfing context – comprised a ‘competition’ and ‘developmental’ intelligence. Other than the thematic assessment of Gould et al. (2002) and the golf-specific study of Blue (2009) no literature, data or research was available internationally, on the African continent nor in South Africa. The researcher responded to the call for further research and decided to complete a qualitative, exploratory study in South Africa. The research commenced by covering what was available on sport intelligence literature and to build on it by reviewing and considering general intelligence theories. Both orthodox and unorthodox approaches were considered and the review suggested that sport intelligence would conceptually and theoretically consist of a number of dimensions and constructs including a series of cognitive processes like memory, reasoning, problem solving, decision making and other rational processes. The third source of literature was a review of sport psychology and it emphasised the importance and significance of emotional, motivational and other psychological factors in addition to the influences of personality. The literature review led to the researcher identifying 14 hypotheses which were explored with 15 credible sport participants, whereafter a thorough content analysis of the 14 hypotheses was performed. 13 of the 14 initial hypotheses were accepted with one included as a theme within another. The thematic assessment resulted in the identification and development of a systems model of sport intelligence comprising six components as follows:  A neurophysiological component;  A cognitive/rational component;  An emotional/affective component;  A team/group component;  A societal/ecological component; and  A metaphysical component. The investigation and analyses furthermore indicated that the components do not exist in isolation of one another and each dimension seems of equal significance. The data suggested a parallel process and dynamic interplay between these components and this led to a systemic perspective being adopted when synthesising the model into a logical and coherent framework. Each of the components were critically evaluated from a cognitive and systemic perspective. The systemic perspective proposed challenges the view that performance is not only an individual endeavour but also a systemic endeavour. / Psychology / D. Litt. et Phil. (Consulting Psychology)