15/05/2026
Pilates has evolved into many styles: classical, contemporary, clinical, athletic, rehabilitation-focused, fitness-led, mindful movement, reformer-based group classes, matwork, and more.
With that has come strong opinions about what Pilates “should” look like. But the real question is not Which method is right? — it’s Who is standing in front of us, and what do they need?
I feel that a good teacher understands that:
* a menopausal woman experiencing joint stiffness and fatigue,
* a young athlete recovering from injury,
* an older adult wanting balance and confidence,
* and a dancer seeking performance enhancement
may all need completely different approaches — even if they’re technically doing “Pilates.”
Sometimes precision matters deeply.
Sometimes freedom of movement matters more.
Sometimes structure creates safety.
Sometimes adaptation creates accessibility.
The danger comes when methodology becomes ego-driven instead of client-driven and let’s face it there’s a lot of egos out there…
When teachers become more committed to defending a style than serving the person in front of them, movement can lose its purpose.
That doesn’t mean standards or principles don’t matter. Strong teaching foundations are essential:
* understanding biomechanics,
* breath,
* alignment,
* progression,
* control,
* safety,
* and intentional movement.
But principles can remain intact while delivery evolves.
What I feel should be considered is that Pilates does not have to be one thing to be valuable. Its strength may actually lie in its adaptability.
I’m a firm believer in teaching to your ‘audience’
What do you think?
