Why Good Coaching Will Always be Artificial Intelligence-Proof
Derek M. Hansen - December 2025
If you are like me and get inundated by Instagram reels and YouTube shorts that rail on about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to eliminate jobs, dumb down humanity and, generally, destroy our future, you cannot help but get a little depressed. Just as the Luddites of the 19th Century were afraid that the use of machines would take their jobs during the industrial revolution, prompting them to destroy textile machines in organized raids throughout England, one can easily be overcome with anxiety by the notion of being replaced by an array of search engines, virtual assistants and predictive algorithms. It seems like only a few decades ago that visions of the future yielded optimistic outlooks of technological innovation making our lives easier, improving our quality of life and disseminating wealth throughout society. While some of those advancements have been realized in our everyday lives, why are the recent discussions around AI creating so much angst, confusion and division?
It's times like this when I try very hard to see the glass as half full, as opposed to half empty, looking for the silver lining in the clouds and determining where the real opportunities lie in this scenario. Yet, I must admit that fear is one of the most compelling motivators and it’s not a bad thing to get a little anxious and feel a little spike of adrenaline on the way to enlightenment. As such, I have compiled a brief list of why I truly feel that good coaches have nothing to fear when it comes to the advancement of artificial intelligence in the world of human performance and athlete wellness. There are specific qualities and characteristics that make someone a great coach, and these elements cannot be copied, mass produced and machine-learned.
1. Individual Variability and Uniqueness of Adaptation
I am always amazed at how certain individuals benefit from a specific training program, while others can flounder and not realize the same levels of success. Having been involved in Track and Field for decades, but also within training circles for other individual sports such as swimming, speed skating and boxing, I have seen some athletes rise to the top of the world within a specific training group or camp, with training partners not experiencing the same improvements or accolades. These athletes had the same coach, followed a similar diet, trained in the same training facilities and followed the exact same schedule. Yet one athlete always had more profoundly successful results. There were a minority of training groups that had a group of athletes that were at the top of the sport, but many of these cases involved situations where good athletes flocked to the training group after one individual was seen to be reaching high levels of performance. In essence, it is performance by attraction.
However, the very best coaches have a knack for understanding the individual differences in top athletes and tailoring their coaching to achieve the best results for those individuals. While it would be nice to offer one singular training program that helps every athlete, this is rarely the case at the elite levels of performance. One training program may only bring the larger group to the 95th percentile of performance, while the remaining five percent can only be achieved through individualizing key components of the program. The best coaches understand how to squeeze out the additional five percent by manipulating specific training variables at key times, yielding adaptations that are unique to each individual athlete.
Artificial intelligence, in its present form, tends to pull information for decision-making based on previously published findings, patterns and results. Training methods that tend to yield the best results for a much larger population – as we see cited in research studies with large sample sizes – will often be favored by AI searches, as opposed to techniques and methods that have been refined and customized for one particular subject, especially higher level individuals. Good coaches understand where the divide in programming exists and how to tailor the training to squeeze out even greater results. AI will tend to gravitate towards the mean, spitting out solutions that may actually lead to detraining in higher level subjects.
Coaches have the ability to put some distance between themselves and AI by exploiting this critical difference in program development. Critical thinking and problem solving in decisive moments, particularly when circumstances change spontaneously, will always make a good coach invaluable. We see this divide currently on social media, with highly accessible, generic training information being posted daily and no appreciable improvements in performance or injury prevention being realized. Intelligent consumers will ultimately seek out the best practitioners who are able to connect with their clients and athletes, squeezing out every last ounce of potential. Individualization and customization of coaching recommendations provided in a bespoke, service-oriented manner will distinguish the best practitioners from the generic digital junkpile.
2. The Value of Observation, Nuance and Intuition
Two of the most common tendencies that an average coach demonstrates on a regular basis are predictability and repetitious behavior. It is not uncommon for the run-of-the-mill coach to recycle practice plans and training programs every year, stamping a new date at the top, telling the same tired stories and jokes over and over again at training sessions, all the while expecting different results and sustained improvement. We see this all the time in the coaching profession with these individuals professing that, “This is how we have always done it around here!” When progress is halted and performance stagnates, these mediocre coaches often blame the athletes or others for the downturn. The real problem is the coach’s inability and refusal to individualize training programs and adapt to changing circumstances. When a coach’s most valuable tool is a photocopier, mediocrity will prevail.
Conventional wisdom on the growth of artificial Intelligence and its impact on employment numbers identifies the initial wave of job losses in the area of repetitive cognitive jobs and repetitive manual tasks. As corporations look for new ways to cut costs and increase productivity, many of these jobs could be eliminated, including data entry staff, accounting personnel, editors, research assistants and customer service representatives. Certainly, some levels of the coaching profession will be vulnerable under this type of automated environment. Generic coaching can easily be substituted with mobile apps that can spit out weekly programs with exercise video tutorials, while also recording daily training loads when combined with wearable devices.
Where good coaches can outperform artificial intelligence is with the skill and precision of making real-time adjustments to training recommendations that are situationally appropriate and athlete-specific. Fatigue from a previous workout session can show up in an athlete’s biomechanics, through verbal exchanges or even facial expressions that a perceptive coach can detect immediately. Spontaneous changes by the coach can be the difference between creating a positive outcome or avoiding a potentially damaging experience. These instances are also bolstered by supportive dialogue and valuable exchanges between coach and athlete that strengthen the relationship.
The nebulous grey area of training navigated by a perceptive and decisive coach using both logical reasoning and gut instinct can be easily flipped into the win column for an athlete. We always hear experts talk about the power of the “Art of Coaching,” but only see offerings in “Coaching Science” from numerous university programs designed to graduate a new generation of performance experts. Will artificial intelligence widen the gap between coaching art and science, leaving athletes with binary choices for their training and preparation. Circumstances change so quickly in sport and life, and plans are meant to be altered and adapted. While future iterations of agentic AI may have the ability to make precise decisions and modifications in the moment, nothing beats a trained professional flying by the seat of his or her pants hitting the sweet spot with cues, recommendations and emotional support.
3. Drawing from Personal Experience and Mentorship
Some of the most profound coaching decisions that I have made in my career have been based on anecdotes provided by a key mentor or supported by my own experiences – good and bad – both of which have been burned into my memory banks. In many cases, my decisions have been heavily influenced by those who came before me, often when a coaching mentor pulled me aside to describe their personal experiences with a particular athlete or group of athletes that they believed would help me in my career.
In the case of learning from sprint coach, Charlie Francis, I can remember him saying that on many occasions he was focused on precisely managing muscle tone in an athlete at any given time to fit the circumstances. With one particular NFL athlete he was rehabbing, he managed to turn around a chronic injury in one week after a muscle strain had sidelined the athlete for the better part of a year. When I asked him what he did to achieve this result, he nonchalantly replied, “I just loosened him up!”
The athlete in question had tightened up so much in response to the initially mismanaged injury that his entire body was compensating and essentially keeping the athlete in a dysfunctional holding pattern. Once Charlie had addressed the high muscle tone issues and restored range of motion and function, the athlete thrived in his rehabilitation workouts, was able to sprint normally and, within a week, returned to the field in top form. This very uncomplicated approach to both performance and injury management is something that I carry with me in my own day-to-day observations and assessments of athletes. Can they move freely? Are there any potential restrictions that could lead to movement inefficiency or the overloading of a particular muscle or tendon? This is experiential wisdom passed on verbally and not contained within a database or a search engine result.
Similarly, I have learned some great lessons and concepts from legendary strength coach, Al Vermeil. When we discussed his approach to preparing professional basketball players, particularly during the in-season period, he focused on elements that were not present in practices and games. An emphasis on maximal strength development addressed foundational needs without creating over-use problems that hindered the athletes. While many coaches would believe that professional basketball athletes would be performing large volumes of plyometrics and agility work, Coach Vermeil succinctly pointed out that, “They are jumping and changing direction all the time. They don’t need more volume of those types of activities. It’s covered in practice and games. Doing more would only create excessive wear-and-tear.” As such, I have always taken Coach Vermeil’s approach of ‘gap-analysis’ to determine where I could add value, without detracting from the final product and possibly making the problem worse.
While these two anecdotal experiences could be summarized in a social media post, they would not carry the same weight and sentiment that was shared to me in person by these experienced coaches. The concepts are etched into my memory and help to shape my decision making when approaching new cases and challenges with different athletes and sports. Would artificial intelligence have the ability to come to these same conclusions that many would deem to be counter-intuitive? I would not be willing to take the chance of blindly following the recommendations of AI when there is so much at stake in terms of an athlete’s individual health and well-being.
4. Personal Connection and Trust
Coaches play an integral role in putting a familiar face to a recommendation, cue or instruction. When you are in a public gym working out and a complete stranger walks up to give you advice on lifting technique, I would assume your first response would be, “Who the heck is this clown?” Familiarity helps to create a level of trust and confidence when information is being delivered by a known source. Knowing the background, history, personality and track record of a coach helps to provide context and credibility when they provide you with an instruction or recommendation. Making an assumption around expertise and competence when receiving information from a stranger or unproven source is not reassuring.
How are we going to feel when artificial intelligence provides detailed recommendations that may have implications for our health and well-being? Where is the AI platform sourcing its information? A tremendous leap of faith is required when using search engines and artificial intelligence. Are you able to do the extensive background checks on the information that is being sourced? In any event, I would highly recommend that second and third opinions be solicited.
As an example, my brother, who has worked in the technology startup field for decades, uses as many as five to six AI platforms and asks them all the same question. He then sifts through the responses to find the common ground. In some cases, they could all be wrong. In other cases, one particular AI engine may have the most accurate recommendation or solution. Thus, even if you decide to use AI for your decision making, it must be accompanied by due diligence and effort to ensure that you are getting the best information possible. People are fallible. AI can be fallible. In both cases, doing your homework and trusting your instincts must be part of the equation to ensure the best possible outcomes. AI should not be viewed as a shortcut, but simply another tool or step in the decision making process.
5. Ownership
When the excrement hits the air conditioning, who is accountable? Good coaches carry with them an exceptionally high level of accountability. When something goes wrong, you should see the coach stepping up to the microphone and accepting responsibility, followed by an extensive plan on how they are going to rectify the problem and ensure it will never happen again. Losers point fingers and blame others. And, trust me, there will never be a shortage of losers in the coaching game.
Placing your trust and faith in artificial intelligence is a huge commitment. I still have significant issues trusting my GPS when driving to a new destination or trying to avoid traffic jams. I am sure that all of us have been directed to an incorrect destination or been funneled down a dark, unpaved side-road through a red-light district or by the town abattoir. Maybe it was just me. Regardless, we know that technology can make mistakes, particularly if it is working with false assumptions or poor data.
When things go wrong, who is left holding the bag? If you choose to follow the recommendations of AI, you now own the outcome. No one else is left to blame but yourself. Good coaches will surround themselves with a diverse set of inputs before making a critical decision. It is easy to surround yourself with AI tools and “YES” men, but you will still be the one facing consequences when the rubber hits the road. Ownership requires a big set of rocks, taking on all the good and bad consequences. Good coaches understand that “Ownership” has its privileges. But, it also has its baggage.
Final Remarks on AI and Coaching
For those of us that were brought up in the 20th Century, modern times and the digital information age has been both exciting and troubling. Over 25 years ago, being able to walk the local Blockbuster video store and rent the latest VHS tape or DVD of a recently released movie was a bit of an adventure that brought both anticipation and a level of excitement. Now, I sit in front of a 60+ inch widescreen TV with my delivered Uber Eats and stare at the thousands of streaming offerings often ending in the same conclusion, “There’s nothing good to watch!” Are we regressing on some level?
Technology has a way of making our lives both better and worse at the same time. I am already seeing these manifestations with artificial intelligence. My college-aged kids are showing me all of the AI tools that are helping them transcribe and summarize their lecture notes and assigned readings, generating flash cards and podcasts for studying purposes. While this is efficient and fascinating, I often wonder what the downstream cost of this might be. Will my kids suffer from a deficit of attention or ultimately lack the work ethic to see problems through to a positive outcome? Will they know how to do their own proper research, generate innovative ideas and make good decisions in their lives?
In many ways, AI is antithetical to the concept of education. I have always thought of education as a means of growing my knowledge, wisdom and experience so that I am personally better equipped to handle the challenges thrown at me. However, with AI, you are making yourself more reliant on a digital engine to assist you with your observations, research and decision making, essentially detraining your brain.
I often think of parallels in terms of how we manage gravity. When people talk about the benefits of colonizing the planet Mars, you will hear references to Mars having only 38% of the gravity of earth, making it much easier for colonizers to move around and handle their day-to-day tasks. I have a completely different reaction – with concerns about our skeletons and muscles withering away from a lack of stress and load, weakening us structurally and from a cardiovascular perspective, making it virtually impossible to return to earth without being crushed into the ground. I view AI in similar terms, with our brains and cognitive abilities eroding away the more we rely on these technologies to do the thinking for us.
Don’t get me wrong – there are always benefits that come with advances in technology. Artificial intelligence may have the ability to efficiently tackle laborious, repetitive tasks, freeing our minds and conserving energy for more worthwhile pursuits. This is not a debate as to whether or not AI will be a valuable tool. It is, however, an argument for high quality human involvement in advanced, skill-intensive and decision-oriented professions and a need to exercise the human brain.
Good coaches will never be replaced by AI. However, mediocre and underperforming professionals in any field should most definitely be looking over their shoulders. AI must be viewed as competition, motivating individuals to be better and set their sights higher, instilling a sense of fear regarding our potential obsolescence. AI can help to refine thoughts, sift through research, summarize datasets, generate visualizations and help you focus your efforts. However, the final decisions will always be up to you and only you. What separates mastery from mediocrity is how you ultimately use AI to increase your productivity and amplify your message, not replace your brain.
