Knowing and understanding are mutually reliant on each other. You can have understanding and knowing at the same time. The greater question is can you have knowing without understanding but can you have understanding without knowing? For the “natural athlete“, the knowing and the understanding are innate. The athlete cannot explain why they moved in such an efficient manner. They’re just able to do the specific task when called upon. And when asked how they performed said task could not give you a rational answer or a coherent understanding.  Or does this innate knowing even warrant understanding it? Where do we as coaches/mentors set a limit on how much understanding is really necessary. Or do we completely bypass the understanding and develop the “subconscious understanding” by best adapting an athletes environment, movements, and tasks to better athletic performance.