Swing kinematics in skilled male golfers following putting practice

The efficacy of injury screening for lower back pain in elite golfers

Background

Injury prevention is a growing focus for golfers in general and for elite golfers in particular. Movement screening has been proposed as a possible cost-effective means of identifying underlying risk factors and is widely utilised by therapists, trainers and coaches.

Objectives

Our study aimed to establish whether results from movement screening were associated with subsequent lower back injury in elite golfers.

Methods

Our prospective longitudinal cohort study with one baseline time point included 41 injury-free young elite male golfers who underwent movement screening. After this, the golfers were monitored for 6 months for lower back pain.

Results

Seventeen golfers developed lower back pain (41%). Screening tests that were able to differentiate golfers who developed and those who did not develop lower back pain, included: rotational stability test on the non-dominant side (p = 0.01, effect size = 0.27), rotational stability test on the dominant side (p = 0.03; effect size = 0.29) and plank score (p = 0.03; effect size = 0.24). There were no differences observed in any other screening tests.

Conclusion

Out of 30 screening tests, only three tests were able to identify golfers not at risk of developing lower back pain. All three of these tests had weak effect sizes.

Clinical implications

Movement screening was not effective in identifying elite golfers at risk of lower back pain in our study.

Effects of Sleep Restriction on Self-Reported Putting Performance in Golf

In the present study, we aimed to explore the effects of sleep restriction (SR) on self-reported golf putting skills. Eleven collegiate golfers participated in a self-reported, counterbalanced experimental study under two conditions: (a) a SR condition in which sleep on the night prior to putting was restricted to 4-5 hours, and (b) a habitual normal sleep (NS) condition on the night before the putting test. Following each sleep condition, participants engaged in ten consecutive putting tests at 7 am, 11 am, and 3 pm. Participants reported their subjective sleepiness before each time frame, and their chronotype, defined as their individual circadian preference, was scored based on a morningness-eveningness questionnaire (MEQ). Participants restricted sleep to an average period of 267.6 minutes/night (SD = 51.2) in the SR condition and 426.2 (SD =38.0) minutes/night in the NS condition. A two-way analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect of the sleep condition on the lateral displacement of putts from the target (lateral misalignment) (p = 0.002). In addition, there was a significant main effect of time on distance from the target (distance misalignment) (p = 0.017), indicating less accuracy of putting in the SR condition. In the SR condition, the MEQ score was positively correlated with distance misalignment at 3 pm (ρ = 0.650, p = 0.030), suggesting that morningness types are susceptible to the effects of SR on putting performance. Our findings suggest that golfers should obtain sufficient sleep to optimize putting performance.

Golf Swing Rotational Velocity: The Essential Follow-Through

Objective

To evaluate if shoulder and pelvic angular velocities differ at impact or peak magnitude between professional and amateur golfers. Golf swing rotational biomechanics are a key determinant of power generation, driving distance, and injury prevention. We hypothesize that shoulder and pelvic angular velocities would be highly consistent in professionals.

Methods

Rotational velocities of the upper-torso and pelvis throughout the golf swing and in relation to phases of the golf swing were examined in 11 professionals and compared to 5 amateurs using three-dimensional motion analysis.

Results

Peak rotational velocities of professionals were highly consistent, demonstrating low variability (coefficient of variation [COV]), particularly upper-torso rotational velocity (COV=0.086) and pelvic rotational velocity (COV=0.079) during down swing. Peak upper-torso rotational velocity and peak X-prime, the relative rotational velocity of uppertorso versus pelvis, occurred after impact in follow-through, were reduced in amateurs compared to professionals (p=0.005 and p=0.005, respectively) and differentiated professionals from most (4/5) amateurs. In contrast, peak pelvic rotational velocity occurred in down swing. Pelvic velocity at impact was reduced in amateurs compared to professionals (p=0.019) and differentiated professionals from most (4/5) amateurs.

Conclusion

Golf swing rotational velocity of professionals was consistent in pattern and magnitude, offering benchmarks for amateurs. Understanding golf swing rotational biomechanics can guide swing modifications to help optimize performance and prevent injury.

Improving performance in golf: current research and implications from a clinical perspective

Golf, a global sport enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities, involves relatively long periods of low intensity exercise interspersed with short bursts of high intensity activity. To meet the physical demands of full swing shots and the mental and physical demands of putting and walking the course, it is frequently recommended that golfers undertake golf-specific exercise programs. Biomechanics, motor learning, and motor control research has increased the understanding of the physical requirements of the game, and using this knowledge, exercise programs aimed at improving golf performance have been developed. However, while it is generally accepted that an exercise program can improve a golfer's physical measurements and some golf performance variables, translating the findings from research into clinical practice to optimise an individual golfer's performance remains challenging. This paper discusses how biomechanical and motor control research has informed current practice and discusses how emerging sophisticated tools and research designs may better assist golfers improve their performance.

Swing kinematics of male and female skilled golfers following prolonged putting practice

Given that males and females respond differently to endurance-based tasks, prolonged putting practice may provide an avenue to examine gender-related differences in golf swing kinematics. The aim of this project was to determine if 40 min of putting affects thorax and pelvis kinematics during the full swing of males and females. Three-dimensional trunk kinematics were collected during the swings of 19 male (age: 26 ± 7 years, handicap: 0.6 ± 1.1) and 17 female (age: 24 ± 7 years, handicap: 1.4 ± 1.7) golfers before and after 40 min of putting. Angular displacement at address, top of backswing and ball contact for the pelvis, thorax, and pelvis-thorax interaction were calculated, in addition to the magnitude of peak angular velocity and repeatability of continuous segment angular velocities. Female golfers had less pelvis and thorax anterior-posterior tilt at address, less thorax and thorax-pelvis axial rotation at top of backswing, and less pelvis and thorax axial rotation and pelvis lateral tilt at ball contact pre- to post-putting. Analysis of peak angular velocities revealed that females had significantly lower thorax-pelvis lateral tilt velocity pre- to post-putting. In conclusion, an endurance-based putting intervention affects females' thorax and pelvis orientation angles and velocities to a greater extent than males.

Motor control strategies and the effects of fatigue on golf putting performance

This study investigated the strategies used by elite golfers to scale their putting actions to achieve putts of different distances. There were three aims; to determine if putting actions are scaled by manipulating swing amplitude as predicted by Craig etal. (2000), to establish the test-retest reliability of the Craig et al. model, and to evaluate whether elite golfers changed their putting scaling strategies when fatigued. Putting actions were recorded at baseline (time 1) and 6 months later (time 2) and after walking at 70% of maximum heart rate for 1 h (time 3). Participants performed a total of 80 putts which varied in distance (1 m, 2 m, 3 m, and 4 m) at time 1 and time 2, and 100 putts to the same distances when they were fatigued (time 3). Multiple regression was used to examine how the golfers systematically changed the movement control variables in the Craig etal. (2000) model to achieve golf putts of different distances. Although swing amplitude was a strong predictor of putterhead velocity at ball impact for all of the participants at baseline (time 1), each golfer systematically changed aspects of the timing of their action. A comparison of the regression models between time 1 and time 2 showed no significant changes in the scaling strategies used, indicating that the Craig etal. (2000) model had good test-retest reliability. Fatigue was associated with a decrease in the number of putts that were successfully holed and significant changes in the scaling strategies used by three of the golfers, along with a trend for increasing the putterhead velocity at ball impact. These motor control changes in performance when fatigued were evident in successful putts indicating that even when these elite golfers were able to achieve the goal of holing the putt, moderate levels of fatigue were influencing the consistency of their performance. Theoretical implications for the Craig etal. (2000) model and practical implications for elite golfers are discussed.

Evidence for biomechanics and motor learning research improving golf performance

The aim of this review was to determine how the findings of biomechanics and motor control/learning research may be used to improve golf performance. To be eligible, the biomechanics and motor learning studies had to use direct (ball displacement and shot accuracy) or indirect (clubhead velocity and clubface angle) golf performance outcome measures. Biomechanical studies suggested that reducing the radius path of the hands during the downswing, increasing wrist torque and/or range of motion, delaying wrist motion to late in the downswing, increasing downswing amplitude, improving sequential acceleration of body parts, improving weight transfer, and utilising X-factor stretch and physical conditioning programmes can improve clubhead velocity. Motor learning studies suggested that golf performance improved more when golfers focused on swing outcome or clubhead movement rather than specific body movements. A distributed practice approach involving multiple sessions per week of blocked, errorless practice may be best for improving putting accuracy of novice golfers, although variable practice may be better for skilled golfers. Video, verbal, or a combination of video and verbal feedback can increase mid-short iron distance in novice to mid-handicap (hcp) golfers. Coaches should not only continue to critique swing technique but also consider how the focus, structure, and types of feedback for practice may alter learning for different groups of golfers.

Putting proficiency: contributions of the pelvis and trunk

Putting proficiency is a key determinant of golfing success and yet minimal biomechanical research has been published on this important skill. Little is known about the motion and coordination of the pelvis and trunk during the putting motion. The purpose of this study was to present detailed three-dimensional (3D) kinematic profiles of the pelvis and trunk during the putting motion, and to determine if differences in kinematics exist between proficient and non-proficient golfers. A 3D analysis (100 Hz) was conducted on 10 single figure handicap golfers using a six-camera motion capture system. Participants completed 18 putts (2 m) towards a cup in an indoor facility and were subsequently divided into two groups based on putting proficiency (Proficient: >79%; Non-proficient: <79%). Variables assessed were the linear movements of the centre of mass (COM) and head, and the angular movements of the pelvis and trunk. Effect size statistics showed that the Proficient putters tended to move predominantly in the frontal plane (towards the target), while the non-proficient putters moved more sagittally. In addition, the Non-proficient putters recorded greater movement variability. The implications of this study suggest that putting proficiency is enhanced when the COM moves towards the target.

A comparison of physical characteristics and swing mechanics between golfers with and without a history of low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study using a cross-sectional design.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the kinematics and kinetics of the trunk and the physical characteristics of trunk and hip in golfers with and without a history of low back pain (LBP).

BACKGROUND

Modified swing patterns and general exercises have been suggested for golfers with back pain. Yet we do not know what contributes to LBP in golfers. To create and validate a low back-specific exercise program to help prevent and improve back injuries in golfers, it may be valuable to understand the differences in biomechanical and physical characteristics of golfers with and without a history of LBP.

METHODS

Sixteen male golfers with a history of LBP were matched by age and handicap with 16 male golfers without a history of LBP. All golfers underwent a biomechanical swing analysis, trunk and hip strength and flexibility assessment, spinal proprioception testing, and postural stability testing.

RESULTS

The group with a history of LBP demonstrated significantly less trunk extension strength at 60 degrees/s and left hip adduction strength, as well as limited trunk rotation angle toward the nonlead side. No significant differences were found in postural stability, trunk kinematics, and maximum spinal moments during the golf swing.

CONCLUSION

Deficits observed in this study may affect a golfer's ability to overcome the spinal loads generated during the golf swing over time. Exercises for improving these physical deficits can be considered, although the cause-effect of LBP in golfers still cannot be determined.