Baumeister (1984) initially defined choking under pressure as “performance decrements under pressure circumstances” (p. 610), where pressure was described as “any factor or combination of factors that increases the importance of performing well on a particular occasion” (p. 610). In dissecting the phrase ‘choking under pressure,’ Wallace, Baumeister, and Vohs (2005) explained that choking refers to underachievement and implies a negative performance change under high pressure compared to low pressure. Two major themes are evident (and necessary) for an event to be labeled as choking under pressure: a performance decrease and increased pressure. In fact, choking under pressure is sometimes referred to simply as ‘choking’ when discussing sport situations because the pressure is assumed in competitive sport and verbalizing of ‘under pressure’ is unnecessary. Although Baumeister’s (1984) definition of choking is the most widely cited within research, a generally accepted definition has still not been ascertained. Unsatisfied with current definitions, Mesagno and Hill (2013) initiated a choking definition debate with the magnitude of a performance decrement being the focus (see also Buszard, Farrow, & Masters, 2013; Jackson, 2013). Mesagno and Hill argued that the cognitive processes associated with choking (i.e., a large, possibly nonrecoverable, drop in performance) may likely be different to an ‘underperformance’ (i.e., a small, drop in performance that could be ‘saved’ with increased effort and skill). Mesagno and Hill explained that researchers should investigate whether differences in cognitions occur between athletes who experience choking and those who experience underperformance. In reviewing current definitions, Mesagno and Hill also proposed choking as “an acute and considerable decrease in skill execution and performance when self-expected standards are normally achievable, which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived pressure” (p. 273). Irrespective of the choking definition stance, most researchers would agree that for choking to occur, the performer must exhibit (or experience): (1) efficient abilities with skill variability being minimal under practice conditions, (2) heightened anxiety that is attributed to increased importance of the situation, and (3) a substantial performance decrement as a result of the anxiety increase. Nevertheless, even Mesagno and Hill (2013) agree that a better operational definition of choking is necessary to understand this phenomenon. Although choking definitions are contentious, two predominant choking theories are offered. Self-focus models of choking indicate that heightened anxiety leads to monitoring of (and additional attention to) skill execution under pressure, which is detrimental because skilled performance should not need systematic information processing for success. Distraction models of choking indicate that anxiety initiates attentional shifts from task-relevant information to either external (e.g., crowd noise or player distraction) or internal (e.g., concern for physiological changes experienced) task-irrelevant processing. Although these models are conceptually different, the main similarity is that when anxiety is heightened, attentional changes occur from task-relevant to task (or other) irrelevant information, which decreases optimal concentration.