Sport “Science”
What is Science?
As Karl Popper famously stated: “science may be described as the art of systemic over-simplification.” Science is not about proof. Science is about the continuous iteration of superior explanation through a process of deduction. Deduction simply means that we start with a problem, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, error eliminate and iterate over time. The key to science, as Popper would explain, is the ability to test the hypotheses in hopes of refutation, or failure. As Popper explains, “every refutation should be regarded as a great success,” as it brings us closer to the “truth.” Testing a hypothesis is like testing a piece of machinery. Attempt to find fault in order to build efficiency. Every failure is a great success in building a robust machine.
Well, what happens if we don’t test our hypotheses? Is that still considered science? I think this depends on who you ask. Very rarely do we get the opportunity to test our hypotheses with research-based control, randomization or blinding. Sure we “test” KPI’s, but we can’t confirm causality by observation alone. Popper would call this the “Demarcation Problem.” He concluded that what distinguishes science from pseudoscience is the (potential) falsifiability of scientific hypotheses. In other words, you have to test your ideas. “If scientific theories are not falsified, they forever remain hypothesis and conjectures.” There are plenty of great conjectures in sports science today. Here are a few:
Long Term Athletic Development
Periodization
Constraints Led Approach
Acute/Chronic Ratio
Are we doing science?
Sports science is the new buzz word today. Two decades ago, it was the title of strength coach. Last decade, performance coach. Today, sports scientist. Well, the question we must ask ourselves is, are we actually doing applied science? Are we applying deductive reasoning? Do we start with a hypothesis? Are we testing our ideas? OR are we simply collecting data, assessing trends, and then adjusting? Popper would call this pseudoscience. Start with the data, look for trends and commonalities, and then hypothesize. The end result is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s not science. Opinions do matter, and some opinions hold more weight than others.
Well, isn’t that coaching you may ask? I believe it is. We trust our gut with years and years of experience to validate our findings. We collect data (clues), think logically and provide conjecture very similar to a crime scene investigator like Sherlock Holmes. Yes, we also look for evidence-based research to strengthen our conjectures, and longitudinal data BUT we mustn’t confuse the art of investigation with the actual scientific method for new ideas/discoveries. They’re different!
Sport Science or Texas Sharpshooting?
I think the majority of what we call the “Sport Scientist” today is really the Texas Sharpshooter (I’m pointing my own thumb here). Catapult, HRV, force plates, Moxy, tendo units, ect, ect, we collect this information, look for trends and outliers, and make informed decisions. We draw the target after the bullets have been shot. We are Texas Sharpshooters. In order to change the title to “Sports Scientist” several things need to occur.
We hypothesize BEFORE collecting the data – Draw the target
Randomize participants
Break into groups (Control – Experimental)
STRINGENT data collection process – Shoot the bullets
Test the hypothesis – Did the bullet(s) hit the target
Is this what is happening today? Do most coaches have the time to conduct this research? Are most coaches trained as scientists? I can’t answer that question, BUT in the private sector, I don’t feel this happens a whole lot. My PhD studies opened my eyes to bullet number four. Data and the process of how it’s collected is massively important, and it may be the difference between measuring signal or noise. Causality is another field altogether. You can’t claim casual inference without randomization, control and experimentation! This almost NEVER happens in the applied setting. So squat program “X” can never be said to have caused speed gain “Y.” There are too many other variables at play. However, great investigators feel strongly about the weight of certain variables at the expense of others though experience and trial and error programming with their athletes.
The Role of Technology – Problem, or Problem Solver
Today’s coach has more bullets than ever before. Metric upon metric. Technology upon technology. More shots taken; more bullseyes drawn post hoc. Before loading up with ammunition, FIRST strive to be a good marksman(women). What does a good bullseye look like? Can you shoot efficiently? How many years of target practice have you had? Do you understand the rules of marksmanship? Technology is NOT the problem. Knowledge, or LACK of knowledge is the problem. The limiting factor is knowledge. People solve problems. Problems SHOULD arise from within the shooting (sport) environment, not from academia or technology companies. Where the problem arises is VERY important! Don’t solve problems, that don’t need to be solved in the first place. Sherlock Holmes would not waste time investigating “crimes” like these. Collecting evidence that holds little value is a waste of time for serous professionals. It’s a business for tech companies.
Sport Specialist vs. Tech Specialist
Teach the sport specialist the technology, NOT the technologist the sport. The “Catapult guy,” the “HRV guy,” the “TRIMP guy” the “Resisted Sprint guy.” Without any prior knowledge of the sport at hand, how do you decipher what’s important? How do you communicate what’s important? Why does it matter? How does it help the player?
You may think this is all just a bunch of non-sense. Does it even matter? Who cares? Call it science, Texas Sharpshooting, or whatever! I care, and the field should care! I would like to call myself a pretty good marksmen with an understanding of what science is AND isn’t! Coaches use a combination of “gut” feel and theory to make informed decisions on a daily basis. They are the Sherlock Holmes of sport. Great investigators use the available evidence and resources. However, most investigators don’t have the gift of time to solve the crime. They don’t live in the abstract world. Science, on the other hand does, and this is a very difficult world to re-create in the applied setting. Don’t confuse the two. They’re different. Sherlock Holmes and Karl Popper understand this difference. We as a field, should as well.
