Is this how you think ? It is how we approach puzzles. . . .
Said client has a loss of internal hip rotation (pick any joint for that matter). . . . .
-is the loss of rotation present because they cannot get the rotation range because there is weakness of the internal rotators . . .
- or perhaps external rotators more dominant, combined with the weakness of the internal rotators
-or, is the loss there because of neuro-protective shortness/tightness because the brain feels that the said internal rotation is a vulnerable range (pain, instability), a range where it cannot protect the joint ?
-or, is it a combination of the above? (not to dismiss other processes of course, such as pelvis, knee or foot mechanical issues, OA, pain etc).
If one does not examine a client, how are they supposed to know this all important information?
*What shows up on a functional screen is merely what they are capable of doing/ recruiting/ engaging. It does not tell you why, nor narrow down the causal possibilities. Hence, driving more internal rotation range is silly, driving more strength into the internal rotator is likewise silly. And, merely adding global strength just might provide the overall presentation with more armor, a better coping strategy. Hence, strength first is not always a brilliant solution.
IF all you have is a hammer, everything is going to look like a nail, or you'll at least treat everything like a simple nail.