Differences in wrist mechanics during the golf swing based on golf handicap

The effects of different iron shaft weights on golf swing performance

This study examined the effects of three 7-iron shaft weights on golf swing performance among golfers of varying skill levels. The study included 10 low-handicap (LH; 4.3 ± 2.4) and 10 high-handicap (HH; 29.1 ± 5.4) right-handed golfers as participants. The participants were randomly assigned 7-iron clubs with shaft weights categorized as light (77 g), medium (98 g), or heavy (114 g), and they performed test shots. Kinematic data were captured using a motion analysis system with nine infra-red high speed cameras; a force platform connected to this system was used to record weight transfer patterns. Performance variables were assessed using a FlightScope launch monitor. A two-way mixed-design analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of the performance differences among both participant groups and golf shaft weights. The results indicated that during the backswing, the LH group exhibited significantly greater maximum rightward upper torso rotation, maximum X-factor, and maximum right wrist hinge rotation than did the HH group. During the downswing, the LH group exhibited significantly greater maximum upper torso angular velocity and maximum right wrist angular velocity than did the HH group. Moreover, the LH group produced significantly higher ball speeds, longer shot distances, and lower launch angles than did the HH group. The shaft weight neither greatly altered the golf swing nor displaced the center of gravity of the golfers. The lighter shafts were observed to facilitate faster clubhead speeds and initial ball velocities, thereby resulting in longer shot distances, especially among LH golfers. Although significant differences in swing mechanics and performance exist between HH and LH golfers, lighter shafts can contribute to increased shot distances for all golfers.

What differences exist between the lead and trail wrist in extensor carpi ulnaris activity and golf swing joint kinematics in sub-elite golfers?

This study assessed the lead and trail arm peak and average extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) muscle activity in association with tri-planar angular velocities of the lead and trail wrists during the golf swing. Fifteen sub-elite, male right-handed golfers (Mage = 34.7 years ±13.3, Mhandicap = 1.5 ± 2.2) were recruited to execute five shots each with their pitching wedge, 7-iron and driver clubs in an indoor golf simulator. Surface electromyography (EMG) sensors were placed over the ECU muscle belly and inertial measurement unit sensors were placed bi-laterally on the distal forearm and dorsum of the hand. There was a statistically greater recruitment of the trail ECU muscle during the downswing (p < 0.001) for all clubs. The lead ECU muscle was recruited more during the backswing (p < 0.001) and follow through (p < 0.024) phases. There were statistically different tri-planar movement patterns between the lead and trail wrist throughout all three phases of the golf swing. No significant relationships were found between downswing EMG data and clubhead kinematics at impact. In conclusion, differing wrist kinematics and associated muscle activity may contribute to the asymmetrical injury pattern seen clinically.

Golf Swing Biomechanics: A Systematic Review and Methodological Recommendations for Kinematics

Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate golf swing performance in both preventing injury and injury occurrence. The objective of this review was to describe state-of-the-art golf swing biomechanics, with a specific emphasis on movement kinematics, and when possible, to suggest recommendations for research methodologies. Keywords related to biomechanics and golf swings were used in scientific databases. Only articles that focused on golf-swing kinematics were considered. In this review, 92 articles were considered and categorized into the following domains: X-factor, crunch factor, swing plane and clubhead trajectory, kinematic sequence, and joint angular kinematics. The main subjects of focus were male golfers. Performance parameters were searched for, but the lack of methodological consensus prevented generalization of the results and led to contradictory results. Currently, three-dimensional approaches are commonly used for joint angular kinematic investigations. However, recommendations by the International Society of Biomechanics are rarely considered.

Useful parameters for the motion analysis of facial skin care in Japanese women

Background

Facial skin care (FSC) is an important routine for Japanese women. Hand motions during FSC physically affect psychological state. However, it is very difficult to evaluate hand motions during personal and complex FSC. The objective of this study was to find out objective and quantitative parameters for hand motions during facial skin care (FSC). Women who enjoy and soothe during FSC (Enjoyment group (E group), n = 20) or not (non-enjoyment group (NE group), n = 19) were recruited by an advance questionnaire. The same lotion, emulsion, and cream were provided to all subjects, and they used sequentially in the same way as the women’s daily FSC. The motion of the marker on the back side of the right middle finger during FSC was tracked by a motion capture system. The heart rate variability (HRV) was also measured before and after FSC for evaluating psychological effect.

Results

The averaged acceleration (Avg. ACC), approximate entropy (ApEn), and power law scaling exponent (Rest γ) of the cumulative duration of slow motion from the sequential data of acceleration were evaluated. Compared to the NE group, the E group showed a lower Avg. ACC when using emulsion (p = 0.005) and cream (p = 0.007), a lower ApEn when using emulsion (p = 0.003), and a lower Rest γ (p = 0.024) when using all items, suggesting that compared to the NE group, the E group had more tender and regular motion, and sustainable slow motions, especially in the use of emulsion. In the E group, the low/high-frequency component of HRV decreased significantly after FSC, suggesting suppression of sympathetic activity (p = 0.045). NE group did not. For all subjects, ApEn and Rest γ showed significantly positive correlation with the increase in the low/high-frequency component of HRV after FSC (p < 0.01). ApEn showed significantly negative correlation with the increase in the high-frequency component of HRV after FSC (p < 0.05). Avg. ACC did not show significant correlation with them. These results suggested that the behavior of FSC influences the autonomic nerve system.

Conclusions

ApEn and Rest γ are useful parameters for evaluating quality of hand motions during FSC.

The Relationship Between the Golf-Specific Movement Screen and Golf Performance

CONTEXT

Golf requires effective movement patterns to produce an effective swing and performance.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between the Titleist Performance Institute golf-specific functional movement screening (GSFMS) composite and individual element scores and golf performance by assessing a player's handicap, clubhead speed, side accuracy, ball speed, peak pelvis rotation speed, swing sequence, and common swing faults.

DESIGN

Cohort study, clinical measurement.

SETTING

English golf club.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 11 amateur golfers: 5 males (age: 37.2 [18.7] y, height: 184.4 [9.6] cm, body mass: 89.5 [13.4] kg, and handicap: 9 [6.6]) and 6 females (age: 53.7 [15.0] y, height: 166.8 [5.5] cm, body mass: 67.9 [16.6] kg, and handicap: 13 [6.1]).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

GSFMS composite and individual element scores and golf performance variables.

RESULTS

Significant relationships existed between GSFMS composite scores and handicap (r = -.779, P = .01); clubhead speed (r = .701, P = .02); ball speed (r = .674, P = .02); and peak pelvis rotation speed (r = .687, P = .02). Significant relationships existed between 90°/90° golf position and clubhead speed (r = .716, P = .01); ball speed (r = .777, P = .01); seated trunk rotation and peak pelvis rotation speed (r = .606, P = .048); single-leg balance and handicap (r = -.722, P = .01); torso rotation and handicap (r = -.637,P = .04); and torso rotation and peak pelvis rotation speed (r = .741, P = .01). Single-leg balance, overhead deep squat, and pelvic tilt were the GSFMS tests which participants had most difficulty in performing. The most common swing faults identified included loss of posture, slide, chicken winging, and early hip extension.

CONCLUSIONS

The GSFMS may be used to identify movement limitations that relate to golfing performance. These findings may potentially allow intervention to correct movement patterns and potentially improve golf performance.

The Biomechanics of the Modern Golf Swing: Implications for Lower Back Injuries

The modern golf swing is a complex and asymmetrical movement that places an emphasis on restricting pelvic turn while increasing thorax rotation during the backswing to generate higher clubhead speeds at impact. Increasing thorax rotation relative to pelvic rotation preloads the trunk muscles by accentuating their length and allowing them to use the energy stored in their elastic elements to produce more power. As the thorax and pelvis turn back towards the ball during the downswing, more skilled golfers are known to laterally slide their pelvis toward the target, which further contributes to final clubhead speed. However, despite the apparent performance benefits associated with these sequences, it has been argued that the lumbar spine is incapable of safely accommodating the forces they produce. This notion supports a link between the repeated performance of the golf swing and the development of golf-related low back injuries. Of the complaints reported by golfers, low back injuries continue to be the most prevalent, but the mechanism of these injuries is still poorly understood. This review highlights that there is a paucity of research directly evaluating the apparent link between the modern golf swing and golf-related low back pain. Furthermore, there has been a general lack of consensus within the literature with respect to the methods used to objectively assess the golf swing and the methods used to derived common outcome measures. Future research would benefit from a clear set of guidelines to help reduce the variability between studies.