The pictures are from old corrective exercise books and manuals from nearly a 100 years ago, and it’s interesting to see what people were doing. Not much has changed. Some stuff was better, some obviously outdated. I do believe corrective exercise is important but how much is necessary in a good program? What issues can a coach help with and what stuff should be left for the sports medicine staff? Books published decade after decade, share that various programs and philosophies were a lot simpler and effective. In ten years the brain will be all the rage and less talk about the chains and trains will come up in conferences, but does that information really change the way we train people? I think we know more than we can truly use sometimes, but often I think we should look at sequence and composition more. Being weak and poorly conditioned is dysfunction, and adding strength or mobility can help many that are assessed with low scores. I was very excited to see a rugby athlete increase upperback posture from a medicine ball and ring warm-up for core and conditioning and have that change cemented with moderate loaded clean pulls. Perhaps the best way to look at corrective exercise is just choices of training for improvement in the body instead of trying to fix things.