Today, a great many Olympic Lifting enthusiasts agree that when it comes to:

Lifting heavy weights safely on a regular basis,

Executing near maximal attempts with an element of ease and beauty,

The ability to continue training for a long time (well past their prime),

...

It is all about having a "good technique".

This belief is so deeply rooted in the Weightlifting and CrossFit circles that coaches and club owners go as far as:

Scheduling technique "drills" every now and then in their programs,

Analyzing their (and other) lifters' technique (bar path, power and other "valuable insights") using the latest apps,

Conducting "technique clinics" lead by retired professional athletes who are looking to "give back to the community",

Traveling to other countries, in order to "learn" their technique,

and undertaking other such time sinks.

What is, after all, technique?

Here is the meaning provided by Google...

a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.

A way of performing a task.

Let that sink in, a way of performing a task.

All the coaches around the globe are thus involved in "teaching" this "way".

However, have you paused to consider,

Which "way" is more authentic, robust and has the prospect for maturing with time?

A prescriptive 10-step plan shared within a group, like sharing bumper plates?

Or a genuine way born out of one's own understanding of the task and their body?

Which "technique" will produce a legend the sport has never seen?

Any overused and passed-on list of cues that satisfies the curious until they hop on to the next sport?

Or that which is the outcome of one's raw, visceral desire to excel at this one and only task?

Which of these two "techniques" give more promise for great results?

The obviousness of the response shames me in asking this question, as it should you, to realize that this is the one question to ask yourself and other "coaches" around you.

Not just once, but often.

There are a few truths behind the need for "technique" and the even more redundant need for "teaching" it.

An athlete at heart needs no such teaching.

Because if one is really, really, really into their sport, they will be curious enough to come up with their own way of playing it.

And that way, which will be their own technique, will be far superior to any other coaches' or clinics'.

Of course, some guidance will be beneficial in some cases ....

But these individuals will be way better off without being spoon fed the nitty-gritty.

The guidance will make sure that efficiency and perfection of execution are not to be sacrificed.

But again, an athlete at heart would already know that.

And in those rare cases, even guidance won't be needed.

All that will be needed is making sure that the field is always open for them to play, to express themselves fully.

On the other hand,

If one tends to "forget" their technique as the number of plates increases,

If one constantly needs to be "disciplined" into having a good technique,

If one trains to vent or as an escape,

It would imply that their current sport is not from their own choosing.

And that, to them, it is just a means and not an end.

In that scenario, are they not better off choosing some other sport or an entirely different endeavor in life?

---