In part I, part II, and part III, we covered the differences between the SFMA, PRI, and FRC. Much like the class at Maverick and Goose’s inbrief at the Fighter Weapons School in Miramar, California, you’re probably wondering who’s the best.
I use components of the SFMA, PRI, and FRC with every patient I encounter. There are surely professionals who achieve superior outcomes than me who practice in a completely different fashion. Certain aspects of these courses just happened to resonate with me and shape how I approach clinical problems. While the SFMA, PRI, and FRC instructors were forthcoming about the limitations of their particular models, beware of devout course attendees who publicly criticize that which they don’t do for emotional reasons. This kind of blind allegiance to the tribe can occur with any commercial or academic affiliation, not just the ones mentioned here. Foundational science, current evidence, and logic devoid of personal biases should be the filter through which we evaluate clinical tools. Nobody achieves successful outcomes with every patient or athlete. While this concept may seem obvious, social media has created a culture whereby anybody can pass him/herself off as an authority. Just be very skeptical of dogmatic people who speak in absolutes.
Determining best practice in medicine or physical preparation isn’t as quantifiable as the Top Gun trophy. The real clinical and performance world is too humbling and unpredictable to yield many certainties. We can rig the rules of the game on social media to portray ourselves as infallible. Nobody sees our failures. Fear of failure is arguably the greatest impediment to growth. Certainty and intransigence shield us from vulnerability. The quest for knowledge can be lonely. To be open-minded can often mean separating oneself from the tribe. However, very often lack of affiliation is the best practice around. And remember, always look eye!