The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the functional movement screen (FMS) and a battery of stabilization, balance, and athletic performance assessments, including time to stabilization (TTS), Davies test (DT), Y-Balance test (YBT), and maximum vertical jump (VJ). Sixty-one healthy individuals (32 males, 29 females; age: 22.4 ± 2.7 yr; height: 174.4 ± 10.4 cm, body mass: 74.0 ± 18.8 kg), successfully performed the FMS and the accompanying comparison tests. Correlations were generated between the FMS and TTS, DT, YBT, and VJ (including both unilateral and bilateral assessments) using the R Project for Statistical Computing, with statistical significance set at p < .001 to minimize alpha inflation. Weak correlations were generated between participants' total FMS score (summed from the 7 FMS assessments) and the TTS-left side (r = -.43; p < 0.001), TTS-right side (r = -.35; p<0.006), DT (r = .54; p < 0.0001), and VJ (r = .33; p = 0.101). Moderately strong correlations were generated between total FMS scores and the YBT-left side (r = .69; p < 0.0001) and YBT-right side (r = .70; p < 0.0001). Similar weak significant correlations were generated when comparing the scores of each individual FMS screen with the TTS, DT, YBT, and VJ. Of these, the highest correlations were between the in-line lunge-left side and the YBT-left side (r = .72; p ≤ 0. 001); the in-line lunge-left side and YBT-right side (r = .75; p ≤ 0.001); the trunk stability push-up and VJ (r = .60; p < 0.0001); and the active straight leg raise-left side and TTS-left side (r = -.46; p < 0.0001). In summary, mostly weak correlations were found between the FMS (involving total or individual scores) and the comparison assessments employed in this study. More rigorous investigations are now warranted to determine the causality of these relationships and how the FMS might be applied to activity of daily living, athletic performance, and injury prevention.

This review article examines previous weightlifting literature and provides a rationale for the use of weightlifting pulling derivatives that eliminate the catch phase for athletes who are not competitive weightlifters. Practitioners should emphasize the completion of the triple extension movement during the second pull phase that is characteristic of weightlifting movements as this is likely to have the greatest transference to athletic performance that is dependent on hip, knee, and ankle extension. The clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull are weightlifting pulling derivatives that can be used in the teaching progression of the full weightlifting movements and are thus less complex with regard to exercise technique. Previous literature suggests that the clean pull, snatch pull, hang high pull, jump shrug, and mid-thigh pull may provide a training stimulus that is as good as, if not better than, weightlifting movements that include the catch phase. Weightlifting pulling derivatives can be implemented throughout the training year, but an emphasis and de-emphasis should be used in order to meet the goals of particular training phases. When implementing weightlifting pulling derivatives, athletes must make a maximum effort, understand that pulling derivatives can be used for both technique work and building strength–power characteristics, and be coached with proper exercise technique. Future research should consider examining the effect of various loads on kinetic and kinematic characteristics of weightlifting pulling derivatives, training with full weightlifting movements as compared to training with weightlifting pulling derivatives, and how kinetic and kinematic variables vary between derivatives of the snatch.