Conference Paper

THE EFFECT OF BODY MARKERS ON GOLF DRIVING PERFORMANCE

Conference: 2010 International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Conference

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: No study to date has reported if and how the use of body markers used in three dimensional optical tracking methods to study swing kinematics in golf affect movement performance. Egret et al. (2004) studied the use of electromyographic equipment during the golf swing and concluded that the equipment significantly influenced the kinematic pattern of the golf swing. Researchers have previously concentrated their methodological analyses on such factors as the type of marker used, either wand or skin marker (Kirtley, 2002) or skin movement artefact during movement (Holden et al., 2007). The golf swing is a movement that is closed-chain, non-impact and does not cause excessive unwanted movement of skin and wand markers. It is therefore concluded that the golf swing lends itself well to kinematic analysis using body markers. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of body markers on golf driving performance for tests carried out in a laboratory setting. METHOD: Seven category 1 (<5 handicap) golfers (22.1 ± 2.3 yrs, 77.4 ± 9.7 kg, 1.80 ± 0.09 m and 0.2 ± 2.4 handicap) took part. All golfers were male and right-handed. Performance for each shot was determined through analysis of club head and ball impact characteristics measured using a commercially available launch monitor (GolfTek TM Pro V). Subjects were positioned on an artificial grass surface wearing golf spikes as they normally would on a golf course and selected their own tee height. Thirty four body markers were attached to the subject: acromion, lateral epicondyle of the elbow, wrist centre, C4, anterior superior iliac spine, sacrum, greater trochanter, lateral epicondyle of the knee, anterior epicondyle of the knee, medial malleolus, lateral malleolus, 2 nd metatarsal head, heel, and the geometric centre of mass (COM) of the upper and lower arms, and upper and lower legs. Humeral and radial markers were positioned on 63.5 mm (2½″) wands and femoral and tibial markers were positioned on 101.6 mm (4″) wands. Additional club markers were placed on the golf club shaft 254 mm (10″) from the club butt and on the toe of the club head. A 240 Hz 5-camera Motion Analysis Corporation™ Falcon Analogue system tracked all body and club markers during the subjects' swings when body markers were attached, and only the club markers for shots performed without body markers. Subjects warmed up as they normally would before playing golf. Using their own driver subjects were instructed to hit the golf ball eight shots for each randomly assigned set-up along a target line marked on the floor into netting 4.5m away.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ian C. Kenny, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
61 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study suggests a wearable sensor technology to estimate center of mass (CoM) trajectory during a golf swing. Groups of 3, 4, and 18 participants were recruited, respectively, for the purpose of three validation studies. Study 1 examined the accuracy of the system to estimate a 3D body segment angle compared to a camera-based motion analyzer (Vicon®). Study 2 assessed the accuracy of three simplified CoM trajectory models. Finally, Study 3 assessed the accuracy of the proposed CoM model during multiple golf swings. A relatively high agreement was observed between wearable sensors and the reference (Vicon®) for angle measurement (r > 0.99, random error <1.2° (1.5%) for anterior-posterior; <0.9° (2%) for medial-lateral; and <3.6° (2.5%) for internal-external direction). The two-link model yielded a better agreement with the reference system compared to one-link model (r > 0.93 v. r = 0.52, respectively). On the same note, the proposed two-link model estimated CoM trajectory during golf swing with relatively good accuracy (r > 0.9, A-P random error <1cm (7.7%) and <2cm (10.4%) for M-L). The proposed system appears to accurately quantify the kinematics of CoM trajectory as a surrogate of dynamic postural control during an athlete's movement and its portability, makes it feasible to fit the competitive environment without restricting surface type. Key pointsThis study demonstrates that wearable technology based on inertial sensors are accurate to estimate center of mass trajectory in complex athletic task (e.g., golf swing)This study suggests that two-link model of human body provides optimum tradeoff between accuracy and minimum number of sensor module for estimation of center of mass trajectory in particular during fast movements.Wearable technologies based on inertial sensors are viable option for assessing dynamic postural control in complex task outside of gait laboratory and constraints of cameras, surface, and base of support.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 06/2015; 14(2):354-63. · 0.90 Impact Factor