The myth of the ideal technique

“Technique is essential! Proper technique ensures optimal performance and prevents injuries.”
This statement is accepted almost uncritically by most coaches and athletes. But is it really true?

Many sporting traditions are built on the belief that the main purpose of training is to perfect standardized techniques that every athlete should learn to replicate. As a result, technicist coaches often spend countless hours trying to shape athletes’ movements to conform to this supposed ideal, believing this alone will lead to better results.

Here, I want to challenge that belief directly. The idea of a universally “correct” technique ignores the reality that skilled performance emerges from the interaction between the athlete, the task, and the environment. It overlooks the complexity of human movement and the fact that effective solutions are highly individual—shaped by each athlete’s unique constraints, perceptions, and adaptations.

Is there an ideal single technique?

Research consistently shows that novices and experts do indeed move differently. In many sports, beginners and elite performers display distinctly different coordination patterns.¹ That’s no surprise—technique naturally evolves with skill and experience.

But here’s the important question: Do all experts converge on the same “perfect/ideal/unique” technique?

According to the evidence, the answer is NO. Even among highly skilled athletes, movement is not identical. Experts don’t execute all skills in exactly the same way. Instead, they develop individual solutions that suit their own bodies, strengths, and constraints.

Here are just a few examples:

Experts table tennis players showed different coordination patterns when performing a topspin forehand ²

College level discuss throwers displayed significantly different throwing techniques depending on their sex. Also, while females had high movement variability between individuals, males showed a more similar coordination pattern.³

Elite front crawl swimmers showed distinct individual muscle activation patterns during the stroke cycle. Cluster analysis revealed several coordination subgroups rather than a single “ideal” pattern.⁴

Competitive sprinters demonstrated unique joint coordination strategies, with higher coordination variability in lower limbs at maximal speeds compared to novices, yet they maintained consistent stride lengths.⁵

Professional golfers displayed significant variation in swing techniques, even when they achieve similar performance outcomes. Biomechanical studies reveal distinct differences in joint angles, grip forces, and movement strategies among individuals⁶.

Expert cyclists showed notable inter-individual variability in muscle activation activity, particularly in biarticular muscles like the rectus femoris and gastrocnemius. Despite these differences, they employ similar muscle synergies, using three consistent patterns to generate effective pedaling motion⁷.

Skilled Pole Vaulters exhibited high movement variability among individuals in upper limb muscle activation, particularly in how muscles were grouped during the vault⁸.

Experts and novices handball players demonstrated significant differences in coordination pattern when throwing. While the variability for novices was deemed as bad, for experts it was considered functional⁹.

Now, you might be thinking, “But a lot of movements in sports look pretty similar between athletes.”

And you’re right—the events themselves often are similar. Think about walking: almost everyone steps forward with the left leg while swinging the right arm back. That’s a common pattern most people share.

It’s the same in sports—certain phases of a movement tend to look alike across players.

But it’s a mistake to assume that all the details—joint angles, velocities, timing, and coordination—are identical from one athlete to the next. In reality, even when the general sequence of events is similar, the way each person organizes their body can be quite different.

And sometimes, athletes achieve the same outcome using completely different strategies and movement solutions. That’s the key idea here.

What about DANCE AND RHYTHMIC GYMNASTICS?

In disciplines like dance and rhythmic gymnastics, the objective is to execute movements with high aesthetic and technical precision. These sports demand consistency, elegance, and control—making specific technique mastery an essential part of training. Coaches in these fields rightfully emphasize detail-oriented instruction to refine posture, timing, and movement quality.

However, even within such structured environments, variability should not be ignored. The ability to perform under diverse physical and psychological conditions is a hallmark of true mastery.

To foster this adaptability:

• Introduce contextual challenges—have athletes perform routines while physically fatigued or under cognitive load (e.g., distractions, time constraints).
• Vary the performance environment—adjust lighting, music tempo, or floor surfaces slightly to stimulate perceptual flexibility.
• Simulate competitive stress—involve observers or simulate judgment panels to replicate performance anxiety.

These strategies fortify technique through adaptability, ensuring athletes can deliver consistency and poise—not only in perfect practice but also in high-stakes, unpredictable settings.

Implications

If technique is no longer the unquestioned centerpiece of training, then we must radically rethink how we define success in practice—and how we coach toward it.

Rethinking Technique

Technique is not a fixed ideal to be copied; it is an emergent property of the interaction between the athlete, the task, and the environment. In this light:

• Technique is not something to be imposed, but something to be discovered.
• What looks “unorthodox” may actually be optimal for that individual.
• Uniformity in movement is not the goal—adaptability is.

This shift challenges traditional coaching models that prioritize repetition of idealized forms. Instead, it invites us to embrace variability as a feature of learning, not a flaw.

Redefining the Goal of Practice

If movement self-organizes based on constraints, then the goal of practice is not to drill technique into the athlete, but to:

• Create rich, varied environments that invite exploration
• Present problems that demand creative movement solutions
• Support athletes in becoming perceptive, adaptable decision-makers

In this model, the coach becomes less of a technician and more of a designer—crafting experiences that shape behavior without dictating it.

Embracing Individuality

Every athlete brings a unique set of constraints—body type, experience, motivation, perception. That means:

• There is no one-size-fits-all technique
• Coaches must be attuned to the athlete’s individual needs and tendencies
• Success is measured not by conformity, but by functionality and transfer

Final Thought

When we stop chasing perfect technique and start designing for intelligent movement, we unlock the true potential of practice. The role of the coach is not to sculpt athletes into identical models, but to create the conditions where each athlete can discover what works best for them.

Let the environment teach. Let the athlete explore. Let movement emerge.

1.         Marineau E, Ducas J, Mathieu J, Rodriguez ADP, Descarreaux M, Abboud J. From Novice to Expert: How Expertise Shapes Motor Variability in Sports Biomechanics—a Scoping Review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2024;34(8):e14706. doi:10.1111/sms.14706

2.         Bańkosz Z, Winiarski S. Kinematic Parameters of Topspin Forehand in Table Tennis and Their Inter- and Intra-Individual Variability. J Sports Sci Med. 2020;19(1):138-148.

3.         Dai B, Leigh S, Li H, Mercer VS, Yu B. The relationships between technique variability and performance in discus throwing. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2013;31(2):219-228. doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.729078

4.         Martens J, Daly D, Deschamps K, Staes F, Fernandes RJ. Inter-individual variability and pattern recognition of surface electromyography in front crawl swimming. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2016;31:14-21. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2016.08.016

5.         Wang W, Qu F, Li S, Wang L. Effects of motor skill level and speed on movement variability during running. J Biomech. 2021;127:110680. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110680

6.         Glazier PS, Lamb PF. Inter-and intra-individual movement variability in the golf swing. In: Routledge International Handbook of Golf Science. 1st ed. Routledge; 2017:15. Accessed June 27, 2025. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315641782-6/inter-intra-individual-movement-variability-golf-swing-paul-glazier-peter-lamb

7.         Hug F, Turpin NA, Guével A, Dorel S. Is interindividual variability of EMG patterns in trained cyclists related to different muscle synergies? Journal of Applied Physiology. 2010;108(6):1727-1736. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01305.2009

8.         Frère J, Göpfert B, Hug F, Slawinski J, Tourny-Chollet C. Catapult effect in pole vaulting: Is muscle coordination determinant? Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2012;22(1):145-152. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.10.001

9.         Schorer J, Baker J, Fath F, Jaitner T. Identification of Interindividual and Intraindividual Movement Patterns in Handball Players of Varying Expertise Levels. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2007;39(5):409-421. doi:10.3200/JMBR.39.5.409-422