GIRD, like pretty much any major mobility deficit is linked to injuries that can be serious.
Based on that, we have to ask if it's that great pitchers already are more prone to having a larger range of external rotation at the shoulder, if the act of pitching causes increased shoulder ER or if there's some combination of the two. Baseball isn't my sport in any way, but from what I understand pitchers used to be (and possibly still are) encouraged to gain more shoulder ER via stretching/mobility to improve their throwing, not realizing that it increases risk of injury.
All of that said it doesn't terribly seem like the increased range of motion in that example is the cause for injury nearly as much as the asymmetrical strength and range of motion that the pattern encourages.
Looking at another more forum relevant example, lower back flexibility is pretty regularly encouraged and probably beneficial in grappling arts/sports. On the other hand it's well established that spinal flexion/extension under load is pretty much asking for back problems. If you're lacking mobility in the thoracic spine or the hips, stability/strength at the scapulae or knees most people will automatically compensate and will use the the path of least resistance. If the low back is the most flexible of the bunch, that's where movement is going to come from.
Even more common as a general pattern is someone lacking the ability to extend at the hip via the glutes and compensation with tremendous lower back extension. That's typically a combination of tight hip flexors and weak glutes, but can also pretty easily be lack of body awareness.
The tl;dr of all of this is pretty much that if everything's in balance that more flexibility is probably beneficial on the whole, but things must be kept in balance. Even if increased flexibility doesn't directly cause a problem, it certainly can cause problems as a side effect.
Someone's been reading Eric Cressey.
Yes, a ROM deficit paired with hypermobility in selective directions is going to increase your potential for suffering a joint injury during activity. While your point is well taken, one should always be a little skeptical when trying to make the statistical comparison between a specialist (in this case, a high level athlete) and the general population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Jazz
That's a little basic. The spine can handle flexion and extension under load just fine. It's designed to. All joints are. The trick is understanding the movement and the load. The spine can undergo loaded motion from a flexed or extended position, but the load tolerance of the spine is decreased. In a position of flexion, for example, the load tolerance of the spine decreases by as much as 50%. So it won't be able to tolerate as much load, but it can still handle some load. For Chrissakes, your own bodyweight is a "load". If this were the case, you'd never be able to undergo any spinal movement whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsy Jazz
Where this idea comes from is weightlifting and athletic motions such as deadlifts or squats, jumps, etc. It's important to note that these are all movements where the primary joints of action or the knees and hips, not the spine directly. In such a situation, maintaining a neutral spine minimizes wasteful movement and maximizes stability, thereby maximizing the efficiency of movement.
And yes, I am a fan of Eric Cressey, though I haven't been reading his stuff lately even though I probably should.
Once you dropped GIRD and a detailed explanation of shoulder rotation in baseball pitchers, you outed yourself as a Cressey fan. For the record, I'm a fan of Cressey's too. But a bigger fan of his mentor, Mike Boyle.
To the OP get the book "Stretching Scientifically" by Kurz, he describes each method of stretching, when and what order to do them and why; a very good book. Don't do static stretches before the workout, do them afterwards to improve recovery.