I don't think I am wrong, but I often say at the Boot Camps, that I don't care if I am (this gets commented on in the feedback). BUT, what I do is challenge those who think I might be wrong to come up with an alternative explanation for what is seen. If they do, II will be the first to incorporate those explanations into the Boot Camp content.

For example:

• a number of people have commented on the validity of Kevin Kirby's STJ axis location technique. There may not have been a lot of work done on this, but when you draw the line on the bottom of the foot the way Kevin described, it comes out somewhere different on each person. That has to mean something. Kevin thinks he knows what it means; I think i know what it means. If you disagree, please explain what that variability does mean for function; what does it mean for foot orthotic prescribing?
• The modified functional hallux limitus test we practice at the Boot Camp is another example. I think I know what it could mean for orthotic prescribing. But I may be wrong. If I am wrong, please explain why when you do the test, it is different in each person and what implications that it could have?
• The same goes for the forefoot stability test. Bojsen-Mollors high-gear/low-gear is a theory that explains why each person is different on that test. If its wrong, then please explain what else can explain what you see when doing this test?

On of the objectives of the Boot Camp is: "Better critically evaluate their own clinical practice in the context of the most recent concepts, ideas, theories and research on clinical biomechanics and foot orthoses"

This approach in questioning and analysing the functional aspects and oot orthotic prescription aspects of each clinical test is at the core of the Boot Camp. No more teaching "this is the way it is". I don't care if I am wrong - I thing my track record in the changes that occur in the content of each successive Boot Camp speaks for itself.

Craig Payne