Many look at the FMS and for one reason or another want to “cleave” off tests. Likewise, many look for trends in groups, which I think can be better than nothing, but I begin to wonder that if trends and skipping tests let us see the whole picture. After all, the FMS, while a great tool, is only a part of a balanced assessment, so shortening it even further seems like a bad idea. There is a lot going on in 7 tests, but it may be difficult for us to identify what leads to what without more detailed “breakouts.” Considering the redundancy built within the FMS, Janda’s work, and a bit of Charlie Weingroff’s “core pendulum” any result or combination of results can be theoretically related but without more fine assessment, it’s hard to know what skews what results one way or another. In hockey, for example, many notice that the ASLR, HS, ILL, and SM, and RS may be less than perfect.
Obviously, the “hip separation” aspect of the ASLR, HS, ILL may be limited by the time spent in skating posture and adaptive shortening of the hip flexors. If Janda’s lower crossed holds true, shoulder mobility may be compromised as a result of the lower crossed leading to an upper crossed posture, pulling the athlete into an increased kyphosis, reducing thoracic extension and compromising the quality of the pattern.
If an athlete has hypertonic hip flexors and poor tissue quality from adaptive changes and heavy use in skating, you may run into a limitation in rotational mobility limiting the brain’s ability to recognize range of motion that it must protect ala core pendulum theory. I believe it was Lewit who identified this specific chain reaction showing that the contralateral psoas, quadratus lumborum, and spinal erectors “bind” and restrict mobility.
While I think we could go a long way improving mobility first, as per FMS recommendations, without breakout screening and a more complete assessment, how do we know where to spend what little bit of training time we have to get the best results?