Read on Twitter
Something I've been thinking about a lot: Why does "technique" exist? Success leaves clues, and many coaches like myself have taught backwards from high performers, looking for the similarities between the best and most skillful in the world. Do the threads mean something? 1/7
Conflicting things are true, however: Those who exhibit the highest mastery of these "techniques" are also the most dexterous and creative movers in the world, and regularly break their own rules. 2/7
So if the best in the world all have similar techniques, but regularly break technique to do the things that make them elite, why have the technique in the first place? Is it just a result of an endless cycle of teaching backwards from elite techniques to learn how to break? 3/7
I think the truth is that the techniques and similarities in movement exist because these techs and positions are places that are best to maximize dexterity and the athletes ability to exit the position with a level of creativity necessary to solve high level problems. 4/7
Furthermore, I think in my realm (baseball) the subject of the problems to be solved (the ball) moves with a speed and unpredictability that prevents any athletes perception from being attuned completely correctly all the time. The athlete is going to be wrong sometimes. 5/7
Tech exists also to widen the margin for error when the athlete is inevitably wrong in their perception. They can make contact in a slightly different place in their swing than they expected, field the ball in a slightly different place relative to their body, etc. 6/7
Effectively I do still think I believe technique and fundamentals are necessary, but mostly so the athlete can learn how to get in and out of them quickly, effectively, creatively, and naturally. 7/7
