Nowadays there seems to be an emphasis on being good at the basics. You'll hear quotes along the lines of this theme. For example, 'an inch wide, a mile deep' was one I heard from my friend Sal at UCLA. What he meant by this was that in the weight-room they spend a lot of time getting really good at a few movements such as the squat and deadlift rather being just average on a number of exercises. And it makes sense. Too often we see athletes, led by poor coaches, trying to do too much. Maybe it's too much load. Maybe it's too many exercises. Many it's too many different tools to learn to become proficient. Maybe it's just too much volume. It could be a combination of a number of these. So why does this happen? Well I guess part of it comes down to a coach not having confidence in their philosophy. It's a coach not believing in their own program. 'If we only do a few basic things really well surely we will be missing out on something?' So they throw everything and the kitchen sink at the athlete. And with these comes lots of tools and gear. And we defend this type of training by calling it 'functional'. And with this topic Occam's Razor comes to mind. This means that the simplest solution is usually the best. For example, if I want to get my legs really strong, squats are going to be a really good choice. The version and stance doesn't matter as much as the selection of the exercise in this case. They would be better than lunges or step ups. Squats give me the best chance to overload the legs with resistance and stimulate a strength gain. So squats would be an example...