Effects of pelvis-shoulders torsional separation style on kinematic sequence in golf driving

Associations Between Physical Characteristics and Golf Clubhead Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Historically, golf does not have a strong tradition of fitness testing and physical training. However, in recent years, both players and practitioners have started to recognise the value of a fitter and healthier body, owing to its potential positive impacts on performance, namely clubhead speed (CHS).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the associations between CHS (as measured using a driver) and a variety of physical characteristics.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with meta-analysis was conducted using Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and PubMed databases. Inclusion criteria required studies to have (1) determined the association between physical characteristics assessed in at least one physical test and CHS, (2) included golfers of any skill level but they had to be free from injury and (3) been peer-reviewed and published in the English language. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black Quality Index tool and heterogeneity assessed via the Q statistic and I2. To provide summary effects for each of the physical characteristics and their associations with CHS, a random effects model was used where z-transformed r values (i.e. zr) were computed to enable effect size pooling within the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 3039 studies initially identified, 20 were included in the final analysis. CHS was significantly associated with lower body strength (zr = 0.47 [95% confidence intervals {CI} 0.24-0.69]), upper body strength (zr = 0.48 [95% CI 0.28-0.68]), jump displacement (zr = 0.53 [95% CI 0.28-0.78]), jump impulse (zr = 0.82 [95% CI 0.63-1.02]), jumping peak power (zr = 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.79]), upper body explosive strength (zr = 0.67 [95% CI 0.53-0.80]), anthropometry (zr = 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.58]) and muscle capacity (zr = 0.17 [95% CI 0.04-0.31]), but not flexibility (zr = - 0.04 [95% CI - 0.33 to 0.26]) or balance (zr =  - 0.06 [95% CI - 0.46 to 0.34]).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this meta-analysis highlight a range of physical characteristics are associated with CHS. Whilst significant associations ranged from trivial to large, noteworthy information is that jump impulse produced the strongest association, upper body explosive strength showed noticeably larger associations than upper body strength, and flexibility was not significant. These findings can be used to ensure practitioners prioritise appropriate fitness testing protocols for golfers.

Effects of two-step golf swing drills on rhythm and clubhead speed in competitive juniors

Vertical and horizontal rhythms are crucial aspects of a dynamic golf swing, and the two-step swing drills (TSSD) were specifically designed to promote rhythmic unloading and loading of the legs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a TSSD training session on the swing rhythm and clubhead speed (CHS) among competitive junior golfers (3.1 ± 4.4 hcp). The driver swings (7 swings each) of 10 competitive junior golfers (aged 15-18) were captured before and after a TSSD session consisting of four stages (lasting less than 45 minutes). Post-TSSD training, there were significant increases in CHS (p < .001), maximum unweighting (p = .006), the trail-side push (p = .009), the horizontal motion ranges of the body and pelvis (p = .005-.031), the upward/downward motion range of the body in the backswing (p = .042/.024), and the backswing/downswing angular velocity peaks of the axle-chain system (p < .033). The stepping-like leg actions primarily facilitated horizontal motion rhythm over vertical motion and unweighting over push in terms of ground interaction. These findings suggest that TSSD can serve as an effective method for developing a rhythmic and dynamic motion pattern while increasing CHS.

Kinematic, Kinetic, and Temporal Metrics Associated With Golf Proficiency

ABSTRACT

McHugh, MP, O'Mahoney, CA, Orishimo, KF, Kremenic, IJ, and Nicholas, SJ. Kinematic, kinetic, and temporal metrics associated with golf proficiency. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 599-606, 2024-The biomechanics of the golf swing have been studied extensively, but the literature is unclear on which metrics are indicative of proficiency. The purpose of this study was to determine which metrics identified golf proficiency. It was hypothesized that discrete kinematic, kinetic, and temporal metrics would vary depending on proficiency and that combinations of metrics from each category would explain specific proficiency metrics. Kinematic, kinetic, and temporal metrics and their sequencing were collected for shots performed with a driver in 33 male golfers categorized as proficient, average, or unskilled (based on a combination of handicap, ball velocity, and driving distance). Kinematic data were collected with high-speed motion analysis, and ground reaction forces (GRF) were collected from dual force plates. Proficient golfers had greater x-factor at ball impact and greater trunk deceleration before ball impact compared with average ( p < 0.05) and unskilled ( p < 0.01) golfers. Unskilled golfers had lower x-factor at the top of the back swing and lower peak x-factor, and they took longer to reach peak trunk velocity and peak lead foot GRF compared with average ( p < 0.05) and proficient ( p < 0.05) golfers. A combination of 2 kinematic metrics (x-factor at ball impact and peak pelvis velocity), 1 kinetic metric (peak lead foot GRF), and 2 timing metrics (the timing of peak trunk and arm velocity) explained 85% of the variability in ball velocity. The finding that x-factor at ball impact and trunk deceleration identified golf proficiency points to the potential for axial trunk rotation training to improve performance.

Validation of Inertial Measurement Units for Analyzing Golf Swing Rotational Biomechanics

Training devices to enhance golf swing technique are increasingly in demand. Golf swing biomechanics are typically assessed in a laboratory setting and not readily accessible. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer improved access as they are wearable, cost-effective, and user-friendly. This study investigates the accuracy of IMU-based golf swing kinematics of upper torso and pelvic rotation compared to lab-based 3D motion capture. Thirty-six male and female professional and amateur golfers participated in the study, nine in each sub-group. Golf swing rotational kinematics, including upper torso and pelvic rotation, pelvic rotational velocity, S-factor (shoulder obliquity), O-factor (pelvic obliquity), and X-factor were compared. Strong positive correlations between IMU and 3D motion capture were found for all parameters; Intraclass Correlations ranged from 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89, 0.93) for O-factor to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.00) for upper torso rotation; Pearson coefficients ranged from 0.92 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.93) for O-factor to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.00) for upper torso rotation (p < 0.001 for all). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement between the two methods; absolute mean differences ranged from 0.61 to 1.67 degrees. Results suggest that IMUs provide a practical and viable alternative for golf swing analysis, offering golfers accessible and wearable biomechanical feedback to enhance performance. Furthermore, integrating IMUs into golf coaching can advance swing analysis and personalized training protocols. In conclusion, IMUs show significant promise as cost-effective and practical devices for golf swing analysis, benefiting golfers across all skill levels and providing benchmarks for training.

Effect of slope change on kinematics of amateur golfers' full swing

BACKGROUND

Golf courses are designed with uneven terrain. These factors are especially important when facing (slope), players need to straighten the posture of each part of the body in order to complete the swing on an inclined surface such as flat ground. Amateur players may be more likely to change the movement patterns of their shots due to uneven terrain. Therefore, it may be necessary to clarify the shot characteristics of amateur players and provide reference materials for technical improvement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of slope on amateur golfers' swing kinematics by analyzing the variation of time variables, body center of gravity (COG), and shot parameters of amateur golfers' swing at different ground slopes.

METHODS

Six male amateur golfers participated in the experiment. The 7-iron was used for 5 swings each at three slopes: flat ground (FG, 0∘), ball below foot (BBF, +10∘), and foot below ball (FBB, -10∘). The OptiTrack-Motion capture system was used to collect kinematic data, and the three-dimensional motion data will be transmitted to Visual3D software for subsequent data analysis such as golf swing division and body COG changes. Shot parameters (carry, swing speed, ball speed, and smash factor) were recorded for each swing using the Caddie SC300 radar monitoring device.

RESULTS

The results showed that there was no difference in the overall swing time and the time required for each interval at different slopes (p> 0.05) there is no significant difference in the change of the COG of the body in the forward and backward directions (p> 0.05). The three slopes of swing speed, ball speed, carry and smash factor were not significantly different (p> 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The rhythm of the amateur golfer's swing was not affected by the slope, but the slope restricts the movement of the body's COG, which may affect the weight movement, and ultimately cause the performance parameters to not reach the level of the FG.

The swing performance Index: Developing a single-score index of golf swing rotational biomechanics quantified with 3D kinematics

Introduction

Golf swing generates power through coordinated rotations of the pelvis and upper torso, which are highly consistent among professionals. Currently, golf performance is graded on handicap, length-of-shot, and clubhead-speed-at-impact. No performance indices are grading the technique of pelvic and torso rotations. As an initial step toward developing a performance index, we collected kinematic metrics of swing rotational biomechanics and hypothesized that a set of these metrics could differentiate between amateur and pro players. The aim of this study was to develop a single-score index of rotational biomechanics based on metrics that are consistent among pros and could be derived in the future using inertial measurement units (IMU).

Methods

Golf swing rotational biomechanics was analyzed using 3D kinematics on eleven professional (age 31.0 ± 5.9 years) and five amateur (age 28.4 ± 6.9 years) golfers. Nine kinematic metrics known to be consistent among professionals and could be obtained using IMUs were selected as candidate variables. Oversampling was used to account for dataset imbalances. All combinations, up to three metrics, were tested for suitability for factor analysis using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin tests. Principal component analysis was performed, and the logarithm of Euclidean distance of principal components between golf swings and the average pro vector was used to classify pro vs. amateur golf swings employing logistic regression and leave-one-out cross-validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the optimal set of kinematic metrics.

Results

A single-score index calculated using peak pelvic rotational velocity pre-impact, pelvic rotational velocity at impact, and peak upper torso rotational velocity post-impact demonstrated strong predictive performance to differentiate pro (mean ± SD:100 ± 10) vs. amateur (mean ± SD:82 ± 4) golfers with an AUC of 0.97 and a standardized mean difference of 2.12.

Discussion

In this initial analysis, an index derived from peak pelvic rotational velocity pre-impact, pelvic rotational velocity at impact, and peak upper torso rotational velocity post-impact demonstrated strong predictive performance to differentiate pro from amateur golfers. Swing Performance Index was developed using a limited sample size; future research is needed to confirm results. The Swing Performance Index aims to provide quantified feedback on swing technique to improve performance, expedite training, and prevent injuries.

Is Golf a Contact Sport? Protection of the Spine and Return to Play After Lumbar Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVE

To address the gap in the literature on specific return to play protocols and rehabilitation regimens for golfers undergoing lumbar spine surgery with a high impact swing.

METHODS

This review did not involve patient care or any clinical prospective or retrospective review of patient information and thus did not warrant institutional review board approval. The available literature of PubMed, Medline, and OVID was utilized to review the existing literature.

RESULTS

Studies have shown that the forces through the lumbar spine in the modern-era golf swing are like other contact sports. Methods of protecting the lumbar spine include proper swing mechanics, abdominal and paraspinal musculature strengthening and flexibility as well as physical fitness. There are a variety of treatment options available to treat lumbar spine pathology each with a different return to play recommendations from doctors in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

With the introduction of a high impact, modern-era swing to the game of golf, the pathology is seen in the lumbar spine of both young, old, professional, and amateur golfers with low back pain are similar to other athletes in contact sports. Surgery is effective in returning athletes to a similar level of play even though no protocols exist for an effective and safe return. There have been many studies conducted to determine appropriate treatment and return to play for these injuries, but there is a gap in the literature on specific return to play protocols and rehabilitation regimens for golfers undergoing lumbar spine surgery with a high impact swing. As return to competitive play is important, especially with professional golfers, studies combining the use of swing mechanics changes, rehabilitation regimens and the type of surgery performed would be able to provide some insight into this topic now that golf may begin to be considered a contact sport.

Injury risk-factor differences between two golf swing styles: a biomechanical analysis of the lumbar spine, hip and knee

The golf swing has been associated with mechanical injury risk factors at many joints. One swing, the Minimalist Golf Swing, was hypothesised to reduce lumbar spine, lead hip, and lead knee ranges of motion and peak net joint moments, while affecting swing performance, compared to golfers' existing swings. Existing and MGS swings of 15 golfers with handicaps ranging from +2 to -20 were compared. During MGS downswing, golfers had 18.3% less lumbar spine transverse plane ROM, 40.7 and 41.8% less lead hip sagittal and frontal plane ROM, and 39.2% less lead knee sagittal plane ROM. MGS reduced lead hip extensor, abductor, and internal rotator moments by 17.8, 19.7 and 43%, while lead knee extensor, abductor, adductor and external rotator moments were reduced by 24.1, 26.6, 37 and 68.8% respectively. With MGS, club approach was 2° shallower, path 4° more in-to-out and speed 2 m/s slower. MGS reduced certain joint ROM and moments that are linked to injury risk factors, while influencing club impact factors with varying effect. Most golf injuries are from overuse, so reduced loads per cycle with MGS may extend the healthy life of joints, and permit golfers to play injury-free for more years.

Small changes in ball position at address cause a chain effect in golf swing

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the ball position along the mediolateral (M-L) direction of a golfer causes a chain effect in the ground reaction force, body segment and joint angles, and whole-body centre of mass during the golf swing. Twenty professional golfers were asked to complete five straight shots for each 5 different ball positions along M-L: 4.27 cm (ball diameter), 2.14 cm (ball radius), 0 cm (reference position at preferred ball position), - 2.14 cm, and - 4.27 cm, while their ground reaction force and body segment motions were captured. The dependant variables were calculated at 14 swing events from address to impact, and the differences between the ball positions were evaluated using Statistical Parametric Mapping. The left-sided ball positions at address showed a greater weight distribution on the left foot with a more open shoulder angle compared to the reference ball position, whereas the trend was reversed for the right-sided ball positions. These trends disappeared during the backswing and reappeared during the downswing. The whole-body centre of mass was also located towards the target for the left-sided ball positions throughout the golf swing compared to the reference ball position, whereas the trend was reversed for the right-sided ball positions. We have concluded that initial ball position at address can cause a series of chain effects throughout the golf swing.