What is the strength vs technique debate? In characterizing any debate, I try to take every position at its word without reducing it to something more assailable. The problem with this debate is that no one’s position is particularly clear even though it seems everyone has heard of the debate and seems to weigh in somewhere on the spectrum.
If you define the argument as “is strength more important than technique?” and vice-versa, then the terms are so loose as to be meaningless. Obviously, both are important. If you define the argument as “beginners should worry about strength (or technique) first,” maybe we can begin to lay out some arguments, but we return to the same basic conclusion. You need good technique to express and develop strength safely, and some requisite level of strength in the right areas to learn good technique. Can we rephrase the question to investigate deeper, and let it lead us to a more insightful conclusion?
The most defined version of the argument I’ve heard is “most missed lifts are due to a lack of strength, and not technique” or vice-versa. I hope I am not misquoting, but I have heard this nearly verbatim. The problem with this argument is that there is a clear answer once again if you introduce the variable of training age and its interaction with specific areas of development.
A beginner lifter with some strength background is likely missing 100% of their failed lifts due to poor technique.
An intermediate lifter with good technique and a good squat and yet who has never bothered to train their lats may miss 70% of their failed lifts due to a lack of strength in a specific area.
And if one has come of age as a weightlifter in the YouTube era in which videos of elite lifters are ubiquitous, you may reasonably believe that most of their lifts are failed due to not having additional strength. Extrapolating from them to your own situation is not reasonable, however.
Our priors are biased toward what we have seen and our own stage of development. If we cut through these biases, we can see that every lifter will have their own needs and sets of weaknesses.
“And speaking of our priors, it is my impression that most amateur lifters are content with chaining themselves to the squat rack. They are not often comfortable with improving or possibly do not know how to improve their technique themselves.”
It’s quite uncommon for me to see the mythical lifter (or even anyone close) who can clean and jerk their front squat. Even when I have had the chance to start working with these lifters, their chances on any given rested day of making a clean and jerk near their front squat is usually less than 20%--suggesting to me that their weakness, even with highly efficient lifters, can still be technique. After some time together, I have seen them improve these chances to around 60%.
This does not mean I have them neglect their strength work in the meanwhile. This is a common assumption made by many lifters choosing a side: that things are zero-sum, and you must choose one over the other. I’ll put it this way: strength phases are some of the best opportunities to make technical improvements because intensity on the classic movements is typically reduced. As a result, even with a reputation for being exceedingly technical, I have my athletes spend a plurality of the year in strength phases.
However, if you assume things are zero-sum, you are more likely to slack off in these phases, or worse, use your newfound strength to bully the weights around in an aggressive but non-technical fashion.
Let’s further strengthen the case for technique development. Not only is it 1) something lacking in most amateur athletes and 2) not exclusive from strength gain, it simply takes less time to develop good technique than good strength provided you and your coach are serious.
Strength and hypertrophy are adaptations that take years even on the best possible program. On the other hand, it is possible to get many beginners moving more precisely than some national-level lifters in a matter of weeks.
Given that you can make improvements in both areas concurrently, we can evaluate the validity of both extremes of the spectrum. Someone who believes that strength can only come after technique, provided they are actually learning good and not bad technique, only loses a few months. Someone who believes that technique comes after strength will be lifting poorly for years. Now, these are theoretical extremes and most people don’t belong to either stance. Just note that one hypothetical extreme is less dangerous than the other. What about in practice: how often is it that you meet a lifter whose technique improves greatly year after year and yet their classic lifts and strength movements do not improve? This is uncommon in my experience. On the flipside, how often is it that you meet a lifter who does not significantly improve technically even as they get stronger?
If it is possible to do both, why do we tend to see the second category of athlete so much more often? Unfortunately, coaching quality has to be called into question here. The state of coaching in the US is such that many of the most technical athletes we have ever met were self-coached.
So at the heart of the question of “strength or technique?” lay a deeper question: how do you recognize a good coach? Stay tuned.
This post was written by my coaching partner, Coach Zhang. I don't offer any online coaching right now, but he has a small number of spots available. Email him at eddie@coachpapayats.com Ask him some questions even if you're not interested in online coaching.