THE BRAIN LEARNS TO LIFT: THE SCIENCE OF MOTOR SKILL ACQUISITION IN STRONGMAN | Episode 4: Explicit versus Implicit Learning of Sporting Technique

The problem and working definitions

In strongman, a verbal instruction can turn an uncertain attempt into a successful action. An athlete learning the log clean may remember to establish grip, keep the cylinder close, and prepare the rack position. Another athlete may arrive at a comparable result through demonstration, guided adjustments, and experience without being able to describe every movement change. These situations illustrate a difference between deliberately using explicit knowledge and adaptation that does not depend entirely on consciously reportable rules. Yet classifying athletes as exclusively 'explicit' or 'implicit' learners is too simple. During one lift, a person can follow a positioning rule, predict the sensory consequences of force, and automatically correct object slip. The distinction describes properties of learning processes and interventions, not two fixed kinds of brain. Measurement also matters: recalling rules, performance while completing a secondary task, and maintaining technique without a coach are not interchangeable indicators. This episode examines how explicit instruction can help without becoming excessive and how experience-based skill acquisition can be encouraged without claiming that the athlete learns entirely outside awareness. The scientific objective is to compare operationally defined methods rather than assign an attractive label to any successful coaching session [1–3].

Explicit motor learning generally refers to acquiring or using declarative knowledge about how a movement should be performed. An athlete may explain the stone's relation to the body, the transition into the lap, or the intended path of a log into the rack. Such statements can guide future choices and corrections. They do not, by themselves, establish the ability to perform: knowing the sentence 'keep the implement close' does not generate the appropriate forces and timing. Implicit motor learning is used for changes in skill that depend less on verbally formulated rules and may be difficult to articulate consciously. But fewer rules do not equal an absence of thought, and an intervention labeled implicit can still produce declarative knowledge. Sports experiments usually assess relative differences rather than administer a test certifying one form of learning is pure. It is more accurate to speak about instructional methods that place greater or smaller demands on conscious verbal processing than about two isolated channels of motor acquisition. The same athlete can profit from both, depending on which aspect of the task is currently unfamiliar and which movements already require little deliberation [1,2].

Technical explanation has an obvious role when a task is new, dangerous, or governed by competition rules. Before loading an Atlas stone, the athlete must know the target height, permitted grip aids, starting position, and the area in which the object may fall. These facts are not barriers to automaticity; they are safety and task requirements. A coach can explain relevant contacts and demonstrate the sequence of phases. Trouble begins when every repetition becomes a collection of ten separate joint commands without identifying the decisive problem. The learner allocates attention to instructions that may compete with the rhythm of movement, while the coach loses track of which change contributed to success. A useful rule is specific enough to assess and simple enough to remain actionable during motion. That is a context-dependent teaching principle, not a universally validated outcome from trials involving elite strongman competitors. Explicit instruction should be judged by what the athlete can accomplish, not by the number of anatomical terms used. Detailed analysis may still be appropriate before or after a repetition when immediate control is not compromised [2,4].

Motor automaticity experiments sometimes use dual-task procedures: participants perform a movement while simultaneously completing an attention-demanding cognitive activity. Relatively small deterioration in movement may indicate that execution consumes fewer attentional resources. The interpretation nevertheless depends on secondary-task difficulty, skill level, measurement, and testing conditions. A systematic review published in 2018 included 25 controlled trials and 39 comparisons of interventions presented as implicit and explicit. Most comparisons did not show differences in automaticity indicators. Some comparisons favored implicit approaches, but overall risk of bias was unclear. It would therefore be wrong to assert that implicit instruction inevitably produces superior automatic execution. Some interventions may help in particular circumstances, and the evidence needs more reliable testing. Applying these findings to strongman does not require adding demanding memory tasks while an athlete handles extremely heavy equipment. Doing so could introduce unnecessary hazards. Experimental designs need adaptation to physical risk, and the safety of a lift takes priority over recreating the exact demands of a laboratory protocol [1].

An athlete may accurately recite the phases of an event yet lose technique when forced to react to actual implement behavior. Another may perform well but describe the mechanics vaguely. Neither situation proves a pure learning category. Verbal reporting depends on vocabulary, previous coaching, and willingness to analyze movement. Successful execution also depends on strength, fatigue, and implement properties. To assess instruction effects, comparable loading conditions should be used, only the form or amount of guidance changed, and performance assessed again after a delay without repeating the original coaching prompts. This makes it possible to distinguish assisted execution from independent control to some degree. Even a careful practical comparison remains observational without suitable groups and control of confounders. Reviews of sports skill research have raised concerns about small samples, heavy representation of novice participants, and too few genuine transfer tests. Before recommending one learning style for log, yoke, or giant dumbbell, it is essential to identify which claims follow from general experiments and which represent cautious biomechanical extrapolations [2,5].

Working memory, attention, and performance under pressure

Working memory makes temporarily relevant information available for decisions, but its resources are limited and competing demands can interfere. Early in learning, an athlete may need to track movement sequence, implement shape, grip, coaching instructions, and feedback. When every attempt introduces additional directions about ankles, knees, pelvis, elbows, and gaze, information demands rise without necessarily increasing value. There is no universally validated 'three-cue limit' for strongman; wording, familiarity, event speed, and athlete expertise all matter. For a novice learning a log clean, an explanation of phase objectives before the set may be suitable, followed by one cue for the most consequential error. For an experienced athlete, detailed technical discussion between sets may be appropriate, especially when adjusting contact mechanics that cannot be reduced to a slogan. The timing of information is crucial: a complex explanation during rest does not impose the same demand as asking someone to verbalize throughout a fast, heavily loaded movement. Good instruction therefore distributes information intelligently instead of attempting to eliminate thinking. The purpose is to make relevant decisions more accessible at the moment they matter [2–4].

Conscious reinvestment theory proposes that an athlete may return to deliberately monitoring components of a movement that is already well learned, particularly under psychological pressure. Fluent execution may become awkward if the performer attempts to control separately phases that are normally integrated. Research has examined relationships among declarative knowledge, reinvestment tendency, and performance deterioration under pressure, although not every competition failure is explained by this mechanism. Sometimes the problem is straightforwardly mechanical: implement weight is different, the surface is slippery, a time limit changes pacing, or preparation was insufficient. Diagnosing reinvestment merely because a strongman missed a log in competition would be unjustified. A meaningful test must measure pressure, aspects of attentional behavior, and performance conditions, not simply a binary success outcome. A cautious coaching response might use a short pre-attempt routine, one dominant goal, and essential safety criteria, without turning the routine into an elaborate ritual that itself increases anxiety. Reinvestment remains one possible explanation among several. Its value lies in generating a testable hypothesis about conscious movement control rather than providing an all-purpose explanation for difficult attempts [3,6].

Competition stress can alter attention, expectations, physiological responses, risk selection, and perceived effort at the same time. An athlete who unexpectedly fails to load a stone may react to pressure but may also face an unfamiliar diameter or rules restricting grip aids. Comparing training with competition therefore requires recording actual task differences. Motor-learning experiments have investigated whether reducing reliance on declarative rules protects performance under pressure, yet outcomes depend on task and participants. A 2024 study examined training with mild anxiety and mechanisms that might protect later performance under greater pressure. Such findings do not establish that strength athletes should be exposed to extreme stress or that this would be safe around massive implements. Competition-like conditions can instead be represented through controlled timing, trial order, and observation while loads remain manageable. The objective is familiarity with decision demands, not deliberately increasing physical danger. Stress resilience should be assessed in conditions that separate the effects of psychological pressure from large changes in equipment, fatigue, and loading whenever feasible [3,7].

Internal and external attentional focus are often confused with the explicit–implicit distinction. Internal focus concerns body segments or actions, whereas external focus concerns effects in the environment, such as a stone trajectory or stability of the implement. These categories are not identical to declarative and nondeclarative learning. An external instruction can be explicitly verbalized and remembered, and an athlete may use a body-related cue without mentally listing technical rules. Several earlier syntheses reported advantages for external focus in some tasks. However, a 2024 robust Bayesian reanalysis that modeled publication bias estimated negligible or very small average effects and substantial heterogeneity. This does not imply that attentional focus never matters. It means its universally superior form has not been established. A cue about log trajectory may help one athlete, while a body-position cue may be justified when another has a consequential setup problem. Coaches should examine actual responses and delayed retention rather than treating a favored terminology as an immutable law [4,8].

Declarative knowledge may increase independence rather than merely promote overcontrol. An athlete who understands how starting distance affects log handling or how platform height changes an Atlas stone task can make decisions when a coach is absent. Knowing the rules and anticipating the consequences of insecure grip can also be valuable in competition. This understanding should not be confused with obsessively monitoring every joint during the attempt. One practical teaching structure separates phases: before an attempt, establish the goal and one essential rule; during execution, allow attention to follow the actual task; afterward, compare felt experience with the result and select one testable adjustment. This is not an intervention shown superior through randomized strongman trials. It is a plausible organizational framework reflecting attentional limits, feedback needs, and the potential cost of excessive cognitive demands. Detailed explanation remains available when it is useful, without requiring an athlete to recite anatomy throughout every second of a lift. The quality of instruction rests on the choices it enables rather than the volume of information it contains [1–4].

Analogy, error reduction, and the limits of implicit methods

Analogy learning seeks to compress several technical relationships into an image that is easy to remember. Instead of listing each joint action, a coach may use a comparison relevant to the intended effect on an object. An analogy is not effective simply because it sounds memorable. It must represent a functional action, avoid suggesting hazardous trajectories, and make sense to the athlete. An excessively distant metaphor can convey the wrong movement, and what helps one person may confuse another. A meta-analysis published online in 2024 and appearing in a 2025 journal volume included 16 randomized trials and found average advantages for analogy instruction over explicit or control conditions. Its authors nevertheless reported substantial heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and limits to generalization. The results are promising but do not prove that every analogy improves a log clean or replaces essential safety information. In strongman, a cue highlighting an observable effect, such as keeping an Atlas stone's trajectory close to the body, can be compared with a segment-focused explanation. Success should then be evaluated across comparable attempts and again after a delay rather than assumed from a single memorable phrase [9].

Error-reduced or errorless learning organizes practice so that early attempts are manageable and relatively few errors occur, followed by increased difficulty. Experimental studies have used this strategy to limit elaborate explicit hypothesis-testing and examine automaticity. An applied strongman parallel would involve practicing a stone transition under conditions that allow secure contact and completion without dangerous improvisation. 'Errorless' does not mean that every repetition must succeed or that mistakes contain no useful information. Manageable difficulty is sometimes necessary to identify strategic limits, while practice that is too easy can create a fragile skill. Findings from laboratory tasks or golf putting do not supply precise loading percentages for a 150-kilogram stone. Difficulty should be defined partly through control, not just absolute mass. Target height or transition complexity can sometimes be reduced temporarily while retaining relevant features of the final event. None of these concepts supports deliberately repeating hazardous failures. The method's value depends on task fit and later retention, not on whether a session meets a cosmetically perfect success rate [1,10].

Guided discovery can invite an athlete to explore what happens when starting distance or grip preparation changes modestly. It may develop understanding of the relationship between action and outcome, but it is not automatically implicit. When the athlete consciously formulates a rule such as 'holding my hands lower changes stone rotation,' declarative knowledge is being developed even without initial verbal instruction from the coach. Scientific labeling should reflect the mechanism being tested rather than the instructor's preferred philosophy. Exploration under high loads must remain within safe, controllable boundaries. There is no demonstrated advantage to withholding critical information about rules, course direction, or falling objects merely to promote supposedly unconscious learning. A coach can instead ask a testable question after an attempt: what single change was made and what observable consequence followed? Discovery then becomes systematic rather than unstructured improvisation. It may coexist with explicit safety rules and timely verbal feedback, because real-world interventions are rarely purely implicit or purely explicit. The practical question is whether the combination produces stable, independent skill, not whether it satisfies a theoretical label [1,2].

Dual-task training has sometimes been used to occupy working memory and potentially reduce conscious movement monitoring. In a simple laboratory task, participants may count stimuli while completing a movement. Strongman training should not transfer this method mechanically. Asking an athlete to solve arithmetic problems while carrying a very heavy yoke could impair detection of balance loss, route direction, or frame contact with the ground. A lower-risk alternative during easy technical practice might involve noticing relevant visual markers without interrupting walking. Even then, the purpose must be identified: learning the movement, tolerating distraction, or becoming familiar with competition demands are different questions. Existing automaticity evidence does not justify prescribing secondary tasks universally. The absence of a group difference on a dual-task test does not establish that learning methods are biologically identical. It measures performance under a defined attentional challenge rather than a pure, directly observable 'amount' of implicit learning. Physical risk should constrain experimental ambition when adapting laboratory ideas to extreme-load events [1].

Instructions also differ in what they seek to change. Some address strategic choice, such as selecting an axle grip. Others concern a mechanical outcome, such as keeping a stone close to the torso. Still others define safety, such as maintaining a clear area for lowering the implement. A coach can reduce excessive technical commentary without abandoning safety rules or the athlete's independence. An analogy may help time a familiar action but become ambiguous when the goal of the event is still unclear. Detailed explanation may be essential during first exposure to equipment yet unhelpful when repeated unchanged before every attempt months later. A rational process asks the athlete what was understood, tests it through a controlled attempt, and changes the instruction only if the result identifies a problem. Word count is not the sole criterion: a short instruction may be incomprehensible while a longer explanation can clarify a difficult contact phenomenon. What matters is the relationship between provided information and the decision the athlete must make. Method names matter less than whether instruction solves the actual task [2,4,9].

Atlas stone training illustrates how approaches can be combined. Before an attempt, the athlete receives explicit information about rules, starting location, and critical phases. A demonstration follows, together with manageable practice. If the stone moves away from the body, the coach may test an analogy or an object-focused cue and compare its consequences with the previous approach. When insecure grip is the problem, direct explanation and contact practice may be more appropriate. Afterward, the athlete briefly describes the experience and tries reproducing the solution without continuous prompting. This combination is not a validated universal protocol and should not be mistaken for unstructured improvisation. Each component serves a defensible role: explanation supplies essential criteria, practice provides experience, and comparison between attempts tests the intervention's effect. A later retention test is still necessary to determine whether a stable skill was acquired rather than a transient response to a perfectly timed command. In a sport with diverse implements, pedagogical flexibility is often more defensible than allegiance to one theoretical school [1,2,5].

Strongman applications: between explanation and experience

In the log clean, explicit explanation is especially useful for event rules and changes in contact. The athlete needs to understand permitted hand positions, the route into the rack, and what constitutes a valid repetition. Understanding alone does not execute the lift, but it prevents aimless attempts. After this foundation, coaching can focus on the dominant problem: cylinder rotation, distance from the torso, or stability before the press. Experienced athletes sometimes find that detailed joint-by-joint commentary slows them during execution; in other cases a precise anatomical explanation corrects a persistent problem. The result cannot be predicted simply from the label 'implicit instruction.' A practical comparison would use the same log and manageable mass while testing clearly defined forms of instruction, with sufficient attempts and a later assessment. If implement trajectory remains comparable while the clean becomes faster, a useful adaptation may have occurred. Without additional measures we cannot know whether attention, strategy, or familiarization caused the change. The sporting outcome must be evaluated rather than assumed from the instructor's preferred explanation [2,4].

Atlas stone lifting presents different instructional needs across mechanical phases. During the first pull, positioning and contact may require explicit explanation. During the lap transition, repeated manageable experience may help the athlete find reliable support. During final extension, a cue about the destination of the stone may be easier to use than a list of joint angles. This is a possible organization, not an experimentally proven rule. A problem arises if insecure grip persists while a coach refuses direct explanation simply to protect an 'implicit' philosophy. A precise grip instruction can be essential. Conversely, if an athlete understands the task but loses rhythm while monitoring each phase, simplifying the immediate goal may help. Video can locate the onset of slipping but cannot demonstrate lower prefrontal activation in a successful attempt. The effect of a verbal intervention should be assessed through reasonably comparable performances and delayed tests after recovery. The desired outcome is not movement without thought; it is independent, reproducible object control [1,2].

During yoke walking, the athlete must follow a route while managing frame oscillation under load. Long verbal explanations delivered midcourse may compete with crucial environmental information. This is a practical reason to concentrate most instruction before and after the attempt, not proof that yoke skills must be taught exclusively through implicit methods. A coach can first explain markings, valid completion, and control requirements, then test one cue addressing initial acceleration. Comparing the first five meters with later intervals can show whether the intervention affected the start or the entire walk. A later assessment without cues tells more about learning than a change that appears only when the coach shouts at precisely the right moment. Adding an artificial cognitive task while an athlete carries a very heavy frame is not justified by ordinary dual-task research. The possibility of missing an obstacle or a step matters more than reproducing the exact laboratory method. Safer assessments should preserve the core demands of the competitive task [1,4].

Farmer's walk combines grip control, locomotion, and route management. A beginner may need demonstration and explicit rules about pickup, turning, and placing the implements down. Once the sequence is understood, practice can be guided through observable goals such as uninterrupted acceleration, a controlled turn, or a sustainable pace. If the coach lists finger positions and individual steps throughout the walk, information may become least useful precisely when the athlete needs to respond to moving implements. By contrast, a direct instruction about grip may be appropriate during rest when slipping occurs repeatedly. Novices and experts need not receive identical amounts of guidance, because their control problems differ. A suitable study would examine segment times, repositioning, and retention, not just overall completion time. Improvement while carrying two identical objects might reflect technique, strength, or familiarization. Only careful design can begin to distinguish these contributions. 'Explicit' and 'implicit' remain descriptors of teaching and learning processes, not diagnoses of people [2,5].

The giant dumbbell's asymmetry can make initial explanation essential: the path toward the shoulder, organization of support, and event rules all matter. An analogy may simplify a familiar motion, but it must not obscure essential contact information. A short cue about implement orientation might help coordinate the whole body; it may be irrelevant when the limitation is insufficient force or mobility. Instruction cannot produce immediate anatomical adaptation. Testing should use loads that permit controlled execution and a safe area for lowering the implement. Asking the athlete to count backward by sevens while executing a large unilateral lift would needlessly combine a dual task with a hazardous event. If attention is to be investigated, lower-risk activities are more appropriate. The purpose of a scientific approach is not to turn neuropsychology into spectacular tricks but to separate credible teaching methods from unvalidated extrapolations and to preserve safety as a real constraint [1,5].

A common problem arises when an athlete receives contradictory instructions from several people. One coach requests faster extension, another insists on maintaining a fixed trunk posture, and the athlete tries to satisfy both commands without understanding what limitation either addresses. This overload can occur even when one instruction is expressed through analogy. An organizational solution is to designate one person responsible for immediate technical cues and reserve detailed discussion for rest periods. The athlete receives a clear priority and a criterion for determining whether the intervention worked. This does not require authoritarian coaching or suppress athlete questions. Explanation before a lift can actively support independence. Autonomy does not mean having to process a flood of messages in every second of execution. With extreme implements, reducing confusion is relevant to safety as well as pedagogy. The effectiveness of this structure must be judged through performance over time rather than an impression that a single repetition looked more 'natural' after a cue [2–4].

Assessment, individualization, and conclusions

To evaluate instruction, a better question than 'did the personal record improve?' is whether the athlete retained a solution under comparable conditions and without the original assistance. A pretest establishes a baseline; immediate evaluation measures performance after instruction; delayed retention examines persistence. A transfer task may use a related implement or a manageable variation in the goal. For a log clean, transition regularity and time into the rack at a constant load might be recorded. If an analogy cue works only in the session in which it was introduced, durable benefit has not yet been established. If detailed instruction produces an improvement retained a week later, its explicit label does not invalidate that success. A fair comparison must track fatigue, load, athlete experience, and differences in equipment. This discipline matters because many sport skill-acquisition studies use retention tests very close to training and relatively few true transfer assessments. A difference observed during one session is not enough to recommend a teaching method for every strongman event [1,5].

Simple questions can improve interpretation. How many declarative rules can the athlete report before and after instruction? What aspect of the movement did they deliberately monitor? Can they perform without repeating the feedback? Does performance change under a safe, minor distraction? None identifies implicit mechanisms perfectly, but together they offer a stronger picture than a coach's claim to have applied a 'brain-based' method. Reports need context: a highly articulate athlete may describe many rules without depending heavily on them, while a quiet athlete may say little without necessarily learning implicitly. Scientific studies can use standardized assessments of declarative knowledge, but the construct remains difficult to isolate. Responsible practice first records observable outcomes and only then proposes cautious theoretical interpretations. With few direct strongman trials available, this sequence prevents psychological terminology from becoming artificial certainty [1–3].

A prescription such as 'no explanations, just imitate' may help one learner and fail another. With a completely unfamiliar implement, safety rules and a demonstration of contact phases may be necessary. For a minor variation of an established skill, several repetitions with a simple outcome cue may suffice. The appropriate approach can also change over time: early learning may require explanation, later performance may rely more on perceptual experience, and a new technical limitation may demand renewed conscious analysis. This flexibility does not prove that learning follows identical compulsory stages. Tasks, errors, and knowledge all change. A coach should not mistake fluent execution without verbalization for a permanent prohibition against analysis. A strongman may perform smoothly in one set and still need a detailed discussion before using an unfamiliar implement. Expertise involves choosing suitable forms of control, not rejecting thought [2,4].

Under pressure, it is important to distinguish errors that could arise from excessive conscious monitoring from those caused by distraction. In the first situation, attention may become trapped in movement components; in the second, the athlete may lose task goals or environmental cues. Possible interventions differ. Simplifying a routine may help with overmonitoring, while clarifying a target or reducing distraction may better address the second. These remain hypotheses, not diagnoses based on one missed lift. An athlete stopping under a yoke may face a balance problem, force limitation, traction issue, or attentional lapse. Evaluation begins with actual event mechanics and competition conditions. Psychological interpretations become stronger only when alternatives have been considered. Directly extrapolating golf-putting experiments to maximal giant dumbbell attempts would ignore basic differences in physical demands and risk. Scientific theory should complement rather than replace safety judgment [3,7].

A small educational assessment could use a few learning sessions followed by delayed testing. Choose an isolatable technical task, such as orienting a manageable log into the rack, and establish an observable outcome, perhaps the number of repositionings before pressing. In one condition, provide structured explicit instruction; in another, use one clear effect cue or carefully selected analogy. Avoid changing load and rest periods simultaneously. Monitor execution without encouraging failure and repeat the test later without prompts. This is an illustration of evaluation, not a randomized experiment or a proven progression formula. Causal claims require suitable randomization, sample size, reliable measures, and control of treatment order. The practitioner's goal is narrower: determine whether the athlete develops independent performance while unnecessary commands are reduced and safety preserved. A meaningful technical gain should survive the absence of the cue that initially triggered it [1,5].

Scientific evidence does not deliver a universal victory to either explicit or implicit learning. Explicit guidance matters for rules, strategic understanding, and safety. Methods that reduce verbal processing may assist selected aspects of execution and may be useful when the goal is fluid action. Direct evidence for consistently greater automaticity after implicit interventions remains limited and heterogeneous, however, and claims about attentional focus have been critically reassessed. Well-designed analogies are promising under some conditions but not guaranteed solutions for every strongman athlete. A defensible conclusion is that methods should be chosen in response to the technical problem, skill level, and actual task demands, then evaluated through retention and transfer. Learning an event does not mean becoming unable to explain it. It means selecting and executing an effective solution without unnecessary dependence on instructions at the moment of effort. This prepares the next episode's question: how do repetition schedules and variation in practice conditions influence what is retained after training? [1,2,5,9].

Instruction also has a social dimension: the same phrase may be understood differently depending on trust, experience, and the language shared by athlete and coach. 'Brace' may suggest useful trunk stiffness to one person and the inappropriate locking of a joint to another. Before interpreting poor execution as a deficit of implicit learning, the coach can verify that the intended meaning was understood. Reformulating the instruction around an observable outcome may clarify it without necessarily changing the underlying learning mechanism. Experienced athletes may possess a private technical vocabulary in which a short cue carries considerable meaning, while novices may need concrete demonstration. Coaching should respect these differences rather than assume all verbal prompts have identical cognitive effects. Instructions should ultimately be assessed according to how they change action, not how impressive they sound as motivational slogans. Even a successful analogy can lose relevance when the implement or movement goal changes substantially [2,9].

Rules describing a goal should be distinguished from rules prescribing one exact movement solution. 'The stone must clear the platform' states a success criterion. 'Every athlete must use exactly the same knee angle' is a technical prescription requiring different and much stronger biomechanical evidence. Explicit knowledge can include both, but their teaching value is not equivalent. Goal rules leave room for individual solutions; specific mechanical rules must be evaluated against anatomy, load, and safety. In a sport where different bodies can solve the same task through different configurations, verbal precision does not guarantee movement effectiveness. At the same time, technical freedom does not justify ignoring safety requirements or obvious loss of control. Effective learning includes understanding which demands are compulsory and which details can be adapted. This distinction connects the present discussion with the previous episode's degrees-of-freedom problem without assuming one ideal movement for all athletes [2].

Another important criterion is robustness when feedback is contradictory or absent. During competition, a coach may have little time to explain details, and an athlete may receive incomplete information about the event order or rules. A mature skill includes the ability to recognize whether an implement is positioned appropriately before continuing. This independent correction need not involve a complete verbal explanation, but may benefit from an explicit rule learned earlier. For example, an athlete can briefly confirm that the log is stable before accelerating and decide to reset safely when contact is lost. Accelerating regardless of feedback does not become 'more implicit' simply because it occurs without reflection. Independent control also includes recognizing when an attempt should stop. Appropriate assessment therefore records not only successful lifts but safe decisions under changed conditions [1,4].

Instructional content may need to vary by phase. Before a clean, there is time to explain the goal; during a rapid transition, new information should be limited; after the implement is set down, detailed analysis becomes possible. The same explicit–implicit balance need not be maintained at every moment. Explaining phases before an attempt and providing outcome feedback afterward is not a methodological contradiction. It recognizes different timescales of learning: cognitive preparation, action, interpretation, and the next attempt. As execution becomes fluent, redundant feedback may be reduced without abandoning conscious evaluation altogether. A new technique or unfamiliar implement can make detailed explanation valuable again. Such an adaptive process cannot be described adequately by one permanent learning-style label attached to the athlete's entire career [1,2].

Finally, athlete preferences deserve attention without being mistaken for definitive effectiveness evidence. Some people understand demonstrations better; others appreciate written explanations or biomechanical discussion. This can improve communication, but method selection should still be followed by performance and retention testing. A cue being pleasant does not establish stable skill, and temporary difficulty does not necessarily indicate failed learning. Productive collaboration means the coach proposes a hypothesis, the athlete reports meaningful sensations and effort, and both examine subsequent outcomes. Explicit information and experience-based acquisition need not be rivals. They can be components of a testable instructional process. The final criterion remains safe, efficient, independent performance under the actual constraints of competition [1,5].

References and evidence

[1] Kal E, Prosée R, Winters M, van der Kamp J. Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9):e0203591. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0203591. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30183763/

[2] Krakauer JW, Hadjiosif AM, Xu J, Wong AL, Haith AM. Motor Learning. Comprehensive Physiology. 2019;9:613–663. DOI 10.1002/cphy.c170043. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30873583/

[3] Masters RSW. Knowledge, knerves and know-how: the role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology. 1992;83:343–358. DOI 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02446.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02446.x

[4] McKay B, Corson AE, Seedu J, et al. Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2024;150:1347–1362. DOI 10.1037/bul0000451. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39480294/

[5] Choo L, et al. Skill acquisition interventions for the learning of sports-related skills: a scoping review of randomised controlled trials. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2024;72:102615. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38401870/

[6] Poolton JM, Maxwell JP, Masters RSW. Rules for reinvestment. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2004;99:771–774. DOI 10.2466/pms.99.3.771-774. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15648468/

[7] Cabral DAR, Parma JO, Morris DL, Miller MW. Conquering pressure! The effects of mild-anxiety training on motor performance under pressure during early motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2024;50:178–192. DOI 10.1037/xhp0001188. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38376935/

[8] Chua LK, Jimenez-Diaz J, Lewthwaite R, Kim T, Wulf G. Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin. 2021;147:618–645. DOI 10.1037/bul0000335. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34843301/ (compare with the later reanalysis in [4]).

[9] Carnero-Diaz A, Pecci J, Calvo-Lluch Á, Camacho-Lazarraga P. Use your imagination for better performance: effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2025;76:102766. DOI 10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102766. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39419241/

[10] Maxwell JP, Masters RSW, Kerr E, Weedon E. The implicit benefit of learning without errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. 2001;54:1049–1068. DOI 10.1080/713756014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11765732/