Is swinging hundreds of times to the nondominant side worth the time, effort, and awkwardness for golfers? There are certainly many people in the industry who believe so. Should we take their word for it?
Many say it prevents injury and “balances” the golfer side to side—they’ve “seen it work.” They say the chances of getting hurt swinging in the opposite direction are less than if you don’t do it. How do they know that?
Others say it increases motor unit recruitment and “strengthens” the golfer’s ability to decelerate the golf club. Does it increase their ability to produce force in the true sense of strength? Or is it more of a central nervous system effect?
More say that you can only swing as fast as you can decelerate and that training nondominant-side swings creates faster permanence. Who tested this to figure it out? Where is the data? How do they know that a causational relationship exists between deceleration and top-end swing speed and it is not just a collateral effect? Do they have objective data on it, or is it just a theory that can be made to sound reasonable?
Alternatively, naysayers bring up that you don’t train sprinters to be world champions by having them run backward or counterclockwise on the track to “balance” them out. Some professionals who have worked with the best in the world have even said that asymmetrical muscle imbalances are beneficial to performance—if they were to fix it, the runners would no longer be the fastest in the world.
So why would we want to “fix” asymmetry in golf but not in other sports? Is it really a problem, or is it actually a beneficial performance adaption?
Then there are the baseball and tennis arguments for why we don’t have pitchers throw as hard as they can with their nondominant arm. Do the top tennis players in the world practice serving as hard as they can on their opposite side to prevent injury and maximize their speed? If they do, and their speeds increase, how do they know it was solely because of the opposite side training and not because of other things they did?
The list goes on…
I was part of a very long Twitter thread on this topic recently, and when it came to asking either side of the coin to produce objective information, the proverbial Twitter crickets killed the conversation. Really smart people become entrenched on different sides of debates like this based on theory and opinion…yet few actually have the grit, desire, and/or resources to go research and actually test it themselves to see. Hence, the Twitter crickets and trolls reign supreme.
What was even more apparent, and frustrating, was the clear lack of understanding of the actual point of opposite side training. What physiological systems or benefits are actually being trained? There were more opinions than choices on a Cookout Shake menu.What’s even more apparent and frustrating is the clear lack of understanding of the actual point of opposite side training. What physiological systems or benefits are actually being trained? Click To Tweet
I’ve decided to see if I can answer these questions instead of getting into endless debates and conversations on theory and case data. Hopefully, this article will help move the conversation forward. Nothing frustrates me more in a conversation than a rebuttal of “We don’t have data, but we don’t make this up. We’ve worked with hundreds/thousands of people, so we know it works, and you should just trust us.”
Let’s stop puffing chests and hiding insecurities. Instead, let’s start filling data sheets with actual objectively collected data. I find that to be so much more productive.
So, enjoy the ride as I work through the exercise of presenting each of the opinions/thought processes one by one and dissecting them to see if we can bring some clarity to the discussion, or at least an intelligent starting point…
Theory 1: Opposite Side Swings Reduce Injuries in Golfers
Let’s start with what we know.
We know that lead side extremity and low back injuries are the most common injuries that we see in golf, which is rampant with overuse injuries. This is very clear in the literature. Further, it has been documented in a number of studies that lead side hip internal rotation deficit is highly correlated to low back injury.
What we further know from all the research we have done at Par4Success (with more than 1,300 golfers in our database longitudinally) is that if the four main rotational centers don’t have enough motion (hip internal rotation, shoulder external rotation, thoracic spine rotation, and neck rotation), there is an increased frequency of injury and a decreased swing speed. When these rotary centers improve, pain decreases and speeds increase.
We also have seen a very alarming trend with injuries when general power percentiles for age/sex compared to swing speed percentiles for age/sex are low. If all the rotational centers are cleared, but there exists a greater than 15 percentile point deficit of general power numbers (shot put, vertical peak power, and seated chest pass) relative to the golfer’s swing speed percentile, they are more likely to be injured.
We are also seeing early trends of elite level golfers being injured or having injury issues if they are in the top 10-15% of swing speed for their age groups but don’t meet certain strength requirements, such as deadlift loads or other strength metrics in squat and bench press.
So, there are definitely clear ways identified in research, objectively, to decrease the likelihood of repetitive overuse injuries by getting golfers stronger, getting them more mobile in the rotary centers (unless already hypermobile, then doubling down on strength), and making sure their technical abilities and equipment don’t outpace their general power numbers for club speed.
Other Studies, and a Resulting Question
There have also been a number of studies done to look at asymmetrical muscle mass, rotational power, and rotational endurance abilities in golfers compared to the normal population (non-golfers). In all of these studies there was a significant increase to the dominant side in mass, power, and endurance (generally speaking) among the golfers compared to the non-golfers, which shouldn’t be surprising. There also was no negative ability to produce power or endurance on the nondominant side (aka the side not used “concentrically” during the swing) during the testing compared to the general population.
Interestingly, in none of these studies did any researcher raise a concern over injury due to the imbalance, but instead stated the imbalances may be an adaptation that is advantageous for performance.
This brings up an interesting question.
If golfers swing to their nondominant side as often as non-golfers (aka never), why would we want to swing to the nondominant side in golfers but not in non-golfers? Clinicians certainly aren’t recommending to non-golfers that they swing a club fast as a way to prevent injury, so why do we do it to golfers?Clinicians certainly aren’t recommending to non-golfers that they swing a club fast as a way to prevent injury, so why do we do it to golfers? Click To Tweet
Is perhaps the increased muscle mass and ability to generate power unilaterally protective in nature and obviously advantageous for performance? The natural rebuttal is, of course, “Well, non-golfers don’t swing to the dominant side thousands of times, Chris. That’s why they don’t have imbalance issues and therefore don’t need to balance themselves by swinging to the nondominant side.”
You would be right in that non-golfers don’t have an imbalance from swinging in one direction all the time. But so what? How do we know asymmetrical mass and power production to the dominant side is a problem? How do we know that fixing it (if that is even possible) will stop someone from being injured? I have struggled to find anything that suggests the power, force, and muscle differences side to side are injury-causing if all rotary centers are full, and power and strength metrics are where they should be.
A question to think about: What if we tell a non-golfer to go swing the golf club 1,000 times and then tell a golfer who has the asymmetrical adaptions to do the same? Who would you put your money on getting hurt first? I would bet the house on the non-golfer who is “balanced” being injured way sooner.
Let’s assume that asymmetrical imbalance is a problem for golfers that increases risk of injury because the golfer will have trouble “decelerating.” Let’s further assume that slowing down or “deceleration” is an active eccentric musculoskeletal event. “Strengthening” concentrically with nondominant swings would be a pretty inefficient way to remedy this assumption for a number of reasons, both physiologically and ideologically, but we’ll address those issues later.
Alternatively, perhaps slowing down the swing to the dominant side is more of a stretch-shortening cycle event without a strong contraction back to the nondominant side, sort of like a rubber band just absorbing the force and decelerating the body. Is this more of a central nervous system and/or tendinous event?
If this is the case, should we look at training for tendon pliability and specific plyometrics to better absorb these forces? Opposite side training certainly wouldn’t accomplish this in its current commonly used form, unfortunately. Currently, golfers swing as hard as they can to one side or the other individually, failing to incorporate a plyometric event at the end of the swing, and instead just stopping after each rep.
To make the movement plyometric, a maximal effort nondominant-side swing would have to take place immediately following a completed maximal dominant-side swing. This would require full absorption of the energy eccentrically in the dominant direction, storage of it isometrically, and transfer into the nondominant side concentrically to maximize usage of the stretch-shortening cycle. Basically, a golf-specific swing plyometric exercise.
Video 1. Golf training use to be lost in sport-specific exercise, but now it’s making sure it’s appropriate for the sport and athlete. Focus on a combination of transfer and complimenting overuse patterns with more general loading.
Further thought might lead to training the tendons and tissue plyometrically in the lower half of the body, as well as via exercises like 180-degree rotational jumps or depth drop jumps into a 90-degree box jump, etc. These would all be much better and more efficient avenues for lower body tissue and nervous system loading.
Additionally, it would allow the golfer to practice the kinetic sequencing that occurs during the golf swing in an overloaded environment. Because the amount of force that needs to be absorbed in all of these examples would be greater than that in a nondominant-side swing, the nondominant-side swing seems to lose its appeal quickly as a way to reduce injury.
Theory 2: Opposite Swings Help to Balance the Golfer on Their Off Side
I don’t think I need to spend much time on this theory after the above section. Mass will be built in response to the repetitive overload that you apply to the tissue. A competitive golfer will swing to their dominant side at least 1,000 swings per week, but more likely close in on that per day.
If we think solely about the time it would take to have a golfer swing that many times to the nondominant side to “balance” them out from a volume perspective, it borders on ludicrous. Would you ever tell a golfer that instead of working on their putting or letting their body recover—or in a junior golfer’s case, to go be a kid—that they should spend hours swinging to the opposite side to achieve true balance via an equal number of reps? Common sense would reign supreme here, I hope.
So, the next thought is how we could achieve this result in a more time-efficient way…assuming it is even an important element.I think it is safe to say there are much bigger (and researched) fish to fry when it comes to minimizing injury risk in golfers than swinging to the nondominant side. Click To Tweet
At this point in the discussion, we don’t know if opposite side swings are important for performance. We also technically don’t know at this point if doing nondominant swings decreases injury risk. However, with the research and data that we do have, I think it is safe to say there are much bigger (and researched) fish to fry when it comes to minimizing injury risk in golfers than swinging to the nondominant side.
Theory 3: Being Balanced Actually Reduces Injury Risk
Again, this is a tough nut to crack, and there is not a lot of clarity here. There certainly are a lot of studies in baseball, tennis, volleyball, and other overhead sports that have tried to answer these questions. While asymmetrical shoulder blades or muscle imbalances from dominant to nondominant sides have been tough to tie to injury, there is definitely a strong suggestion that if the eccentric abilities of the shoulder rotators are not able to produce equal or more force than their concentric counterparts, injury could be more likely.
If we take this and make a leap (disclaimer, this is a leap, so feel free to tear it apart), then we could theorize that the golfer’s eccentric force creation ability to their lead side should be equal to or greater than their concentric ability to that same side. Again, this is a leap and discusses force creation, aka strength.
If we accept this as true, then opposite side swings do nothing to help the golfer in this instance. They concentrically train the tissues that need to work eccentrically during the dominant side follow-through—not helpful for sport-specific need—and they would eccentrically train the tissues that need to move concentrically during the dominant-side swing. It’s cool, but not physiologically helpful in this context.
Video 2. This is what a dominant-side swing looks like for a right-handed player. Conversely, this would be a nondominant-side swing for a left-handed player.
What would be more helpful in this context is eccentric overload in rotational patterns with tools such as flywheels, which can provide eccentric overload to the tissues in the dominant direction. When training this specifically in a six-week randomized trial at Par4Success, we saw a 150% swing speed gain compared to the normal average for 12 weeks for an adult golfer. While this doesn’t speak to injury prevention, it certainly points to the value of improving eccentric force creation to the dominant side for performance.
The performance gains, when put together with the leap to needing to make sure eccentric strength rotationally to the dominant side is as strong or stronger than the concentric side, would make a case for potential value on the injury prevention side.
Theory 4: Nondominant-Side Swings Improve the Strength of the Opposite Muscles to Decrease Imbalance
Ok, now it’s later in the article, and we’re going to dive into this theory as mentioned in the injury prevention section. The short answer is that physiologically, this is not one of the stronger thoughts.
When swinging a golf club that weighs around 300 grams at most, you obviously won’t overload the tissues to a point where a strength response will happen. To be more specific, you won’t be able to train an individual’s muscles to put out more force via mechanical overload at the tissue level. The club is way too light, and most of the angular velocity will be created in the first 25% of the movement anyway, with the rest being momentum—there’s not much more to say there.
If you look at it more from a central nervous system perspective, however, then we get into the coordination debate and the idea of neurological carryover. I’m sure you’ve heard the explanation that if you can get better on your off side, the brain doesn’t know left from right, and it will carry over to the opposite side. Sounds good, right? But, so did “If you can do it on a Bosu ball, imagine how much better and powerful you will be when you are back playing your sport on the ground.” Oops…
A lot of this comes from rehabilitation work and neuro rehabilitation. In my time in the acute rehab setting, I used this carryover or overflow theory quite often in stroke patients, with great success. If a client was working on left leg knee extension in sitting (a long arc quad), and they couldn’t move the leg, you would have them go ahead and do 20 or so on the right leg, and magically, the left leg would move. (Disclaimer: Watch how you are sitting if testing this with a patient and do not position the affected leg between your legs. I was kicked out of a few chairs when the affected leg suddenly “sprang to life” and actually extended.)
At Par4Success, we have been testing the opposite side shot put for many years on thousands of golfers and operating under the assumption that increasing nondominant power numbers made sense and translated to performance. The raw correlations were above 0.8, so all is good, right?
Well, as we have gotten more data and started to be able to look more into causation, what variables actually need to change to cause performance change (swing speed), and what variables just happen to change, the opposite side rotational power theory appears to be losing steam. We see it not being a factor that directly changes club speed unless another variable improves as well. There are other factors that, if they solely change, club speed does too. Opposite side rotational power appears to be left behind a bit as we gain more understanding and data.
Without giving away the house, there is a definite need for more study here, and we are working on it.
To wrap up this section, one question is does nondominant side training have to be golf-specific? What about general nondominant work like med balls thrown on the opposite side? Would those work?
A thought… We know, from the research, that jumping three times before you swing will increase your club speed by 2-3 mph immediately. Is swinging a club in the nondominant direction just a general nervous system stimulus that produces increased club speed, much like performing some countermovement jumps on the tee before you swing will do?
While the answers to these questions are certainly left open to opinion and need to be looked into more, one thing has become clear through this line of thinking: Nondominant-side swings will not increase a golfer’s strength in any meaningful fashion or bring muscular balance to their bodies.
Theory 5: You Increase Motor Unit Recruitment by Swinging to the Opposite Side and Make It More Permanent
There are three ways to elicit maximal motor unit recruitment:
- Max Intent Effort – above 60% (relative to your max; the lighter the load, the more you have to make up for it with your speed).
- Fast Movement (plyometrics) – with a focus on decreased amortization phase to maximize power outputs via maximal magnitude, maximal rate, and shortest duration.
When looking at these three, obviously #1 and #2 are out when it comes to nondominant swings. The load is not nearly enough, unless you are my 1-year-old son, and e-stim on your body while swinging is just not practical but would be fun to watch.
That leaves us with #3.
The more specific the movement is to the activity that is going to be completed, the better. Some considerations to think about for specificity are the motion itself, the angular velocities at play, the loads, and the metabolic demands.
When you consider these, the actual max effort swing starts to make some sense, in the dominant direction. But only with an immediate change to the nondominant-side swing as equally explosive to take advantage of the stretch-shortening cycle.
This is an instance where you could also start with a nondominant swing, immediately transitioning into a dominant-side swing, but that is less specific and therefore would fall lower on the priority list. You obviously could argue global training effect here, but again, it is less specific and therefore would be lower on my list if I have to pick for the sake of efficiency and minimal effective dosage.
The other consideration is metabolic. After 15 seconds, your chances of maximal motor unit recruitment are a thing of the past. You will need to let your body recover. Generally speaking, at least a 1:5 work-to-rest ratio…at the VERY least.
Much like with the earlier discussion of trying to balance out a golfer by matching the same number of nondominant swings to dominant ones, we find ourselves at the mercy of time. If you have your athlete do opposite side swings with appropriate rest intervals, how much time are you willing to allocate to this training as opposed to other critically important areas? To do this well, at most, the athlete could get 4-5 swings in a 15-second time period. Assuming you do the minimum 75 seconds of rest, that is 90 seconds per set. Doing 10 sets would take you close to 15 minutes, at a minimum—for optimal exertion, effort, and results, you are more likely closer to double that time…and that is just to one side.
How much will this move the needle compared to other options out there? That is an incredibly important question to answer.
The last part of this theory about permanence has always been interesting to me. So much so that it has been a point of focus to understand as we have trained and collected data on the thousands of golfers here at Par4Success. In terms of what “permanence” means, no one ever really defines it, and honestly, I don’t think any training makes anything permanent. That would imply that if I reach a certain club speed, strength, and power output level, I can stop all I’m doing and maintain that speed, strength, and power.Honestly, I don’t think any training makes anything permanent. Click To Tweet
That would be nice, wouldn’t it?
The facts, however, are these…
- If a golfer stops working out, their club speed drops.
- If a golfer travels a lot or has lots of stress (typically during their season), their club speed drops.
- If a golfer stops working out but continues just doing nondominant-side swings, their speeds drop.
- If a golfer continues to work out during the season, maintaining their power outputs high with low volume, and has a lot of travel and stress, their club speed will drop…but their strength numbers often will still go up (or at least maintain), leading to a quick recovery of speed once the central nervous system recovers, and there is an actual long-term net gain that occurs year over year.
- If a golfer continues to work out during the season and maintain their power outputs high with low volume, continues with nondominant swings, and has a ton of travel and stress, their club speed will drop…but their strength numbers often will still go up (or at least maintain), leading to a quick recovery of speed once the central nervous system recovers, and there is an actual long-term net gain that occurs.
There has been no difference in speed maintenance or gains with or without nondominant swings that we have seen in this light. The biggest predictor of “permanent” gains or speeds that continually go up year after year is continued improvements in strength and power metrics with maintained rotational mobility, not how many nondominant swings they do.
**Theory 6: You Can Only Swing as Fast as You Can Decelerate, and Nondominant Swings Improve How Well You Can Decelerate
This one has always perplexed me and made me think.
Effectively, what we are saying here is that your body has a protective mechanism on it, “a governor,” that will preemptively restrict you from swinging faster than it feels you can control. I think of Golgi tendon organs and not letting my tendons tear when I hear this. It makes sense, and I’m very thankful to Mother Nature for those. As many of you know, the idea is that with training, you can move the “governor” to kick in at higher speeds and/or loads, pushing your “red line” higher.
My first issue with this theory is that I know my athletes can swing faster than they can control (i.e., they can swing faster than they can under control and lose their balance). They definitely have one peak playing speed that they can control, but they can swing at least 5-10 mph faster if they are not trying to hit a ball and put in play.
So physiologically, my next logical question is what is the best way to train so that I can alter my governor’s “fall-over speed” so it becomes higher, thereby increasing my “playing speed”? How also can I close the gap between my “fall-over speed” and my “playing speed”?
If we think about it from a force production standpoint, we can handle more load and tissue stress eccentrically than we can concentrically. If eccentric strength is what we need to improve to decelerate better, then it would be common sense to train eccentric-specific overload.
I think we should define that, however, as it does not mean the athlete using a cable machine or a strap wrapped around them and repping out rotational training. Overload means you have to eccentrically control more weight than you can move concentrically. One way would be by having a coach help the athlete get to the end of the concentric part of the rep (using a load they could not otherwise move), and then the athlete has to control the eccentric portion of the rotation on their own before the coach helps them again (i.e., on a cable machine).
Another option would be a flywheel and having someone help the athlete pull the wheel faster/harder than the athlete could concentrically themselves. This leaves them to have to decelerate and change the direction of the movement back to the starting position. If you are not using flywheel with this intent, it is not truly eccentric overload training, it is just another form of variable resistance training.
So, I now know how to increase my eccentric force outputs. The next question is, how do I improve my nervous system’s ability to not give out?
This is the other argument we hear, that opposite side swings increase motor unit activation. What is the peak way to get motor unit activation? There are three simple answers: load, intent, and speed.
Simply put, if I want to train to swing faster than my current “playing, not fall-over, speed.” Swinging a driver or a slightly lighter club faster in the dominant direction is all I would need to do, while maintaining maximal effort above and beyond what I can generate when playing and paying attention to appropriate recovery intervals. That will be an “overload” for the CNS to have to control.Swinging faster to the dominant side and having to change direction quickly would be best, not concentric contraction to the opposite direction (traditional nondominant-side swings). Click To Tweet
If I want to increase my “fall-over speed” ability to generate force, I have to increase my force output via strength training and/or plyometric-type drills to optimize my stretch-shortening cycle efficiencies with specific plyometric activities. Therefore, swinging faster to the dominant side and having to change direction quickly would be best, not concentric contraction to the opposite direction (traditional nondominant-side swings).
Video 3. This is how traditional nondominant swings looks for a right-handed player. Conversely, this is what a dominant-side swing looks like for a left-handed player.
Theory 7: Nondominant Swings Improve Kinematic Sequencing and, Ultimately, Speed
Now this is one that makes the most sense to me thus far.
When we start talking about kinematic efficiency, which definitely has a positive impact on club speed, opposite side swings can help with coordination, deceleration, and sequencing per some companies in the field.
I have yet to see overly convincing data on this, but at the surface, we can rationalize the potential benefit here based on the couple of case studies that have been presented.
When Par4Success did our studies looking at kinematic sequencing with lighter and heavier sticks than a driver, there were definite increases in hand and upper body speed, as well as altered kinematics with lighter sticks and increased x factor or lower body separation with the heavier sticks. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
These changes in kinematic sequencing based on the implement used pique my curiosity on the potential benefits of nondominant-side swing training when it comes to kinematic efficiency.
It will be interesting to see what actual data is produced.
Theory 8: Opposite Side Swings Improve Ground Force Production
This final one is definitely one we will test here at Par4Success when our GASP dual force plates arrive in a few weeks. The theoretical claims made that people can increase their ground force production with different drills and changes of directions definitely make sense.
Focusing on specific force vectors and improving the timing of the production of those forces obviously can be advantageous to increasing swing speed. It will be interesting to see what nondominant-side swings will show on this frontier, however.
My hypothesis is that, due to lower coordination and overall lower ability to produce force in the opposite direction, the results will kinetically be less than exciting, with other strategies proving to be more beneficial and effective. We know that improved ground forces positively impact club speed, and I am hedging my bets that opposite side swings will not be the most effective way to do that.We know that improved ground forces positively impact club speed, and I am hedging my bets that opposite side swings will not be the most effective way to do that. Click To Tweet
Maybe there will be other benefits to kinetic sequencing and transfer, but we will have to see!
A Repudiation of Benefits
As I have gone through each of the above points, the benefits of nondominant swings from a physiological perspective appear to be minimal and, in some cases, not viable.
The benefits to reduce injury appear to be minimal. Even if there are some benefits, there are far more effective and impactful areas to focus on. Rotary center mobility, power percentile relative to swing speed percentile ratios, and general strength to bodyweight relativity numbers in the squat, deadlift, and bench press are all much higher on the list and proven.
The benefits of “balancing” a golfer out by doing nondominant swings to reduce injury are questionable at best, and ultimately become irrelevant when you consider how much volume they would have to complete to be meaningful.
The plyometric benefits from a stretch-shortening cycle training perspective, if doing immediate maximal opposite direction “rebound” swings, are present with dominant swings specifically, but with nondominant swings only possibly globally.
The benefits of nondominant swings from a coordination standpoint to produce more force and have causational relationships to club speed gains appear to be more limited than initially thought based on early causational change data.
The benefits of nondominant swings to train deceleration to improve eventual top-end speed seem to be overstated, particularly since swinging to the nondominant side would be training the “decelerators” concentrically versus how they are used—eccentrically (which requires more force output than concentrically). Concentric contraction generally leads to a lower motor unit recruitment potential and is a complete training of the wrong specific swing direction.
Simply swinging a driver or a slightly lighter club (6-10%) faster than the golfer can do while hitting the ball would seem to produce enough of the “overload” stimulus needed to train higher level deceleration in the dominant direction, which they will actually use in sport and translates to performance. This would be the most specific form of training with a higher level of demand in deceleration.
The possible benefits of kinematic sequence improvements of a golfer’s swing make sense, and the few cases studies that have been presented look promising. However, they are case studies, so I am waiting for the additional data promised by some of those in the industry before making any calls on this one.
The kinetic benefits of nondominant swings remain to be seen, but I am not optimistic for them as compared to other training implements and strategies that for sure will make big changes in golf performance.I am struggling to find where nondominant swings make sense from an injury prevention or performance perspective other than potential kinematic changes. Click To Tweet
I guess as I read back through this, I am struggling to find where nondominant swings make sense from an injury prevention or performance perspective other than potential kinematic changes. I am intrigued by the idea of plyometric swing-specific training and the possible benefits to improve stretch-shortening cycle efficiency and potentially translate to performance and injury prevention.
I am sure there will be many who disagree with this article and want to have further discussion, and that is what I hope for! You can reach me @par4success on Twitter, or you can connect with us to further the discussion at www.par4success.com.
Let’s continue to move this conversation and our field forward while starting to cut the menu of theories down and replacing it with a database of objective facts that give golfers and coaches a clear path to longevity, speed, and performance.
Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF