I guess you can say that I'm surprised that my post has gotten so much attention. I have a lot of comments to respond to, but let me first go over the post in question. Yes, my post questions the validity of the FMS. But I never once bash it or the people that are heavily involved with it. I respect everyone, even if we don't share the same opinion. I think Coach Stevo can attest to that as we have had many discussions without seeing eye to eye. 

 

My post was pointing out how ironic it was that ten NFL guys had been invited into a special training program in the off season, and yet here we are half way through the season and -- realistically -- 7/8 starters have reported some kind of injury. I note my downfalls in bringing this up by admitting that I don't know how long these guys were trained, or if they were ever "proficient" on the FMS. But more importantly, I finish the article off with the bigger picture I was trying to exploit: how can’t we allow for variances between sports and athletes? I stand by this statement. 

 

Using the FMS as a generalized "species" specific tool is fine. I have no problem with that. But athletes are more than "species." They are highly specialized "species" with specific functions they need to carry out. As Balachandran once said, "Why can’t tissues just positively adapt and get stronger just like a normal biological tissue?" Well, they do. And since every athlete has different demands, different tissues positively adapt, which carries certain baggage. This is why I stand behind what I said: how can’t we allow for variances between sports and athletes?

 

My biggest problem with the FMS is that it coins itself as a predictor of injury. Even in the absence of chaotic events such as concussions, there's many factors other than movement patterns and compensations that have to be considered. As Mark Toomey replied to on my blog:

 

"In all fairness, a concussion isn’t screened for, so you have to give them a pass on that..." 

Ok. Chaotic events aren't screened for. I agree. But chaotic events can cause injury. 

"...FMS doesn’t screen for load and the hamstring issues may have been a product of asking too much from a body part not properly conditioned."

Ok. So a muscle not being properly conditioned can cause injury. I agree. This can be broken down into two sub-categories: lack of training, or too much training. 

 

Just within these two "exceptions" to the FMS we have that the FMS can't prevent injuries chaotic in nature, can't prevent injuries from lack of training, and can't prevent injuries from improper programming. So then the only kind of injuries it can prevent are the one's that spawn from faulty motor patterns. But once again, how do we know if an injury is cause from a faulty movement pattern over, say, improper conditioning? Does a pitcher that needs Tommy John surgery have faulty movement patterns, or have they just thrown at such a high level for such a high time -- improper programming? 

Next is that the FMS screens are generalized movement patterns not specific to any sport. Specific to "movement" if you like. But if an athlete comes to you and can't overhead squat with their feet should-width apart, why not work them in a squat variation that -- as Siff pointed out before -- has the innate potential to correct this issue over time? And even if they can't gain the mobility or movement pattern over time, why can't we tailor to that individual athlete and still make the best out of him or her that we can given the circumstances. At the least, do all of this while simultaneously trying to improve FMS scores? There's nothing that says an athlete other than an Olympic Weightlifter has to squat with a stick over their head.

 

This is why I think the FMS is both valuable and invaluable. We can't let it narrow our sights as to coddle athletes, thinking they are incapable of anything until they have requisite scores. 

Realistically, what I'm saying that having acceptable scores on the FMS isn't a bad thing. But putting everything aside solely in favor of passing it is misguided. Likewise, passing the FMS is only one facet of injury. If someone passes the FMS and squats every day with a maximal load, or throws every day at maximal speed, they'll still get injured. This is why I alluded to Siff's quote about programming being the best way to reduce injury risk.

 

Lastly, the FMS is a relatively non-dynamic form of assessment. I can tell a lot by how an athlete walks, runs, jumps, and lands. These are all things that the FMS doesn't look at. There's something to be said about an athlete that has good kinesthetic sense during explosive actions, since that is where most sports live. 

 

And Mr. Toomey, one of those test administrators was Alwyn Cosgrove. So you can blame him for botching the assessments dis-servicing the athletes. I brought this issue up because I firmly believe in treating athletes on an individual basis. That's not to say the FMS is garbage. It's an assessment tool, and certainly has it's merits. But I don't think it can "predict" injury. I share a similar opinion to Landon Evans and Mel Siff.

Landon: "Make sure you formulate good training programs. I am in belief good training fixes a lot of problems. Perhaps there are issues that arise from the assessments themselves and will naturally be worked out with good training. I find this happening more often then not. They are GOOD guides. Just don't be a slave to your guides. They are better than doing nothing as well!"

 

Siff: "For example, if a novice lifter cannot do the squat or overhead squat with feet shoulder width apart without the butt raising a little, then I allow him/her to take a wider foot stance and to use that butt raise less and less as time goes along. Before long, without any special exercises, stretches or postural alignment toys, that lifter becomes able to move the feet closer and lift with a more erect spine and less butt raising."

 

Truthfully I have nothing but RESPECT for EVERYONE in the field. Cook, Weingroff, etc., those guys are smarter than I am, and I never said otherwise. I just finished reading Easy Strength by Dan John and Pavel -- two proponents of the FMS that I have unbelievable respect for. That doesn't mean that I can't throw my opinion on my website. I wanted it to start a small discussion -- or questioning -- and it did the job. Yes I use assessment with my athletes. Yes I use some aspects of the FMS. But I sure as hell wouldn't place stock in it's prediction to prevent injury.