why young athletes shouldn’t try to copy the world’s best

For decades, sport coaching has been built on the idea that there is one correct way to perform a skill.

This has often been referred to as a gold standard technique that every athlete should replicate.

Whether it is basketball players trying to shoot like Steph Curry^[1] or Caitlin Clark^[2] or a runner attempting to sprint like Noah Lyles^[3], aspiring athletes have generally been encouraged to copy the techniques of their heroes.

But research in biomechanics and motor learning^[4] suggests this approach may be misguided.

Is there an ‘optimal’ technique?

Traditional coaching has lent on the work of sports biomechanists^[5] to discover the “optimal” technique for skills in various sport disciplines.

These techniques, usually developed based on “averages” of what elite level athletes do^[6], are used by sport coaches as the template against which all other athletes are measured.

That is, if we can replicate the technique of a higher-performing athlete, success will follow.

However, this approach ignores a crucial reality: no two athletes are built the same.

Every athlete has unique physical characteristics. Whether it is hand size, limb length, physical strength, running gait or neuromuscular coordination, they all contribute to how an athlete expresses their individual “movement signature^[7]”.

Forcing athletes to copy the technical features of the best athlete in the world may be unachievable.

The quick release, high arc shooting style of Curry has turned him into the leading three-point shooter in NBA history^[8]. But it is his unique expression of movement and his individual technique that allows him to knock them down from the logo (near half-way).

Yet, other long-range sharpshooters such as Luka Dončić (LA Lakers) and Kevin Durant (Phoenix Suns) have their own variation of shooting technique, which achieves the same thing: putting the ball in the basket.

If we forced them both to shoot like Curry, this variation would likely detract from their techniques and their shooting performance would almost certainly decline.

Variability is important

It is the “variability^[9]” in technique at the elite level of sport where the myth of a single optimal technique begins to unravel.

Many coaches have traditionally viewed deviations from what is considered optimal technique as an error, but researchers^[10] suggest movement variability – a concept that explains the natural changes in technique – is a normal part of skilled performance.

So, if elite athletes display a natural variation performing the same skill, even after years of training, why do we encourage our aspiring athletes to eliminate it?

And this variability is not exclusive to basketball.

For example, in sprinting, the top speed technique of Lyles, the Olympic 100m champion, is built on a powerful piston action of the legs and aggressive arm drive, which differs to that of rising Australian sprint star Gout Gout^[11], whose technique relies on a more fluid stride pattern where he almost appears to be bouncing down the track.

The variation in Gout’s technique compared to that of Lyles’ is not a flaw, but a unique solution to the same movement challenge: maximising speed.

Read more: 'Pressure makes diamonds': how Australian sprint sensation Gout Gout can get even faster^[12]

Interestingly, a recent systematic review^[13] suggests movement variability is essential for athletes who need to adapt their existing technique to different environments or physiological conditions such as fatigue.

Consider a recent “buzzer-beater” by Curry^[14], where he wrapped the ball behind his back before swishing a fade-away basket.

This is not a technique which has been engineered by focusing on what’s deemed optimal. It is exploiting the variability which lies within the athlete’s possible solutions.

If there is only one optimal technique in this situation, the highlight reel never emerges.

Lessons for coaches and athletes

So, what is the way forward for sport coaches?

Encourage athletes to explore a variety of techniques and discover what works best for them, based on their unique characteristics.

But it also relies on the coach placing the athlete in situations where they can be creative and expand their movement bandwidth^[15].

This is not to say coaches should let athletes perform a series of random movements and expect good technique to just happen.

There remain key performance indicators for all skills which adhere to biomechanical principles of efficient and effective movement.

But these indicators sit on a continuum – they are not fixed.

Elite sport simply offers insight into the techniques of top performers, not a defining set of movement criteria essential to specific sport skills.

For sport coaches, the goal is not to develop athletes based on a rigid technical model of one size fits all, but rather for athletes to develop a technique that aligns with their own strengths and physical characteristics.

So the next time someone says “just shoot it like Steph or Catilin”, reconsider it and find a way to shoot it how it feels best.

This is where true mastery begins.

References

1. ^{^} Steph Curry (www.theguardian.com)
2. ^{^} Caitlin Clark (www.nytimes.com)
3. ^{^} Noah Lyles (www.nytimes.com)
4. ^{^} biomechanics and motor learning (www.sciencedirect.com)
5. ^{^} sports biomechanists (www.youtube.com)
6. ^{^} “averages” of what elite level athletes do (www.researchgate.net)
7. ^{^} movement signature (www.sportsmith.co)
8. ^{^} three-point shooter in NBA history (www.youtube.com)
9. ^{^} variability (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
10. ^{^} researchers (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
11. ^{^} Gout Gout (x.com)
12. ^{^} 'Pressure makes diamonds': how Australian sprint sensation Gout Gout can get even faster (theconversation.com)
13. ^{^} recent systematic review (sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com)
14. ^{^} recent “buzzer-beater” by Curry (x.com)
15. ^{^} expand their movement bandwidth (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)