Skill Differences in a Discrete Motor Task Emerging From the Environmental Perception Phase

Putting performance bias to the front-lower side of the hole on steep slopes: Differences in strategies and movements between professional and amateur golfers

When playing on an sloped golf course, the ball often misses the hole to the front-lower side, which is also referred to as the "amateur side." This can be attributed to the difficulty in perceiving the green slope and choosing the appropriate launch direction and ball speed, especially for amateurs. The study had three main objectives. The first was to examine whether a front-down bias toward the hole could be experimentally observed in golfers' putting. Second, to measure golfers' aims and movements to determine why golfers, especially amateurs, putt poorly on steep slopes. Third, to investigate using a miniature platform how golfers recognized the steepness of the slopes and the relationship between their aim and their slope recognition. Twelve professionals and twelve intermediate amateurs were asked to perform in the 1- and 3-degree conditions (left-to-right line) at a distance of 3 m from the hole. Participants wore shutter goggles to inhibit visual feedback of outcomes. The aim, address, ball launch direction (analyzed as angles), and kinematics of the putter head and ball were measured. The results of this study experimentally confirmed the amateur side and indicated that the aim, address, and launch directions of the amateurs were smaller than those of the professionals. As for reproducing the slope task, we found that the amateurs underestimated the steepness on both conditions when compared to professionals. Additionally, golfers' aim and slope recognition were weakly correlated. These suggest that amateurs, compared to professionals, were unable to choose the optimal speed of the putter head and the launch direction of the ball in relation to the slope. Furthermore, amateurs' recognition was worse than that of professionals, which may affect their aim.

Can golfers choose low-risk routes in steep putting based on visual feedback of ball trajectory?

This study aims to clarify why the aiming method in golf putting in risky situations differs based on skill level. This study set up a difficult challenge (steep slopes and fast ball rolling greens), which required even professional golfers to change their aim. A total of 12 tour professionals and 12 intermediate amateurs were asked to perform a steep-slope task with no visual feedback of outcomes (no FB) followed by a task with visual feedback (with FB). The aim of the task was for the ball to enter the hole in one shot. Additionally, the participants were told that if the ball did not enter the hole, it was to at least stop as close to it as possible. The participant's aim (as an angle) and the kinematics of the putter head and ball were measured. The results indicated that professionals' highest ball trajectory points were significantly higher than that of amateurs, especially with FB. Additionally, professionals had higher ball-launch angles (the direction of the ball when the line connecting the ball and the center of the hole is 0 degrees) and lower peak putter head velocities than amateurs. Furthermore, the aim angle, indicating the golfer's decision-making, was higher for professionals under both conditions. However, even with FB, the amateurs' aim angles were lower and the difference between trials was smaller than that of professionals. Therefore, this study confirmed that the professionals made more drastic changes to their aim to find low-risk routes than the amateurs and that the amateurs' ability to adjust their aim was lower than that of professionals. The results suggest that the reason for the amateurs' inability to find low-risk routes lies in their decision-making. The professionals found better routes; however, there were individual differences in their routes.

A sense of distance and movement characteristics of golfers tested without visual feedback of outcomes: Is a putt that feels subjectively good also physically good?

For motor tasks that require fine-tuning, such as adjusting the applied force according to the distance to the target, as required for driving and putting in golf, it is important to develop a high degree of sensitivity of one's movement-produced feedback. In previous research focusing on mental representation in golf, this ability to control distance has been called “a sense of distance”. In particular, this study focused on three skills: motor control of the putter head, perception of the impact force, and prediction of the ball's travel distance. However, the relationship between the motor control of the putter head and the error of the outcome estimation is yet to be clarified. The purpose of the present study is two-fold: first, to clarify whether kinematic variation of putter head is correlated with error in estimating the outcome and, second, to quantitatively evaluate the performer's sensations of good and poor performance generated by the ball's impact, for a comparison of the kinematics and impact force of the putter head based on their assessment. Twelve professionals and 12 intermediate amateurs played two distance targets (at 2.4 and 4.8 m) without visual feedback of the outcomes. The kinematics of the putter head, impact force, final ball position, outcome estimation, and subjective assessment were measured. Our results show that the variability in the peak velocity was moderately correlated with the error of the outcome estimation in amateurs' 4.8-m putting task. In addition, amateurs estimated undershoots (overshoots) when they provided worse (better) evaluations. However, the amateurs' trials that were rated as better putts were actually overshoots. These results suggest that the subjectively “good putt” of amateurs was not physically good, and the amateurs putted hard to compensate for the risk of undershoots. However, no remarkable feature of the professional's sense of distance was found. This suggests that professional golfers' sensation is not significantly different from the outcomes that can be physically detected.