Article

Kinematic analysis of swing in pro and amateur golfers.

Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Univeristy of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
International Journal of Sports Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.27). 07/2008; 29(6):487-93. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-989229
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As golf grows in popularity, golf related injuries have increased. The purpose of this study was to calculate and compare upper body kinematics of healthy male golfers from different skill levels. Kinematic data were obtained from 18 professional, 18 low handicap, 18 mid handicap and 18 high handicap golfers with an optoelectronic system at 240 frames per second. Ten displacement parameters were calculated at address, peak of back swing and ball contact. Angular velocity parameters and respective temporal data were calculated during the downswing phase. Most parameters were significantly different between the higher skilled golfers (professional, low handicap) and the least skilled golfers (high handicap). At the peak of the swing, professionals produced the largest magnitudes for left shoulder horizontal adduction (125 +/- 6 degrees ), right shoulder external rotation (66 +/- 11 degrees ), and trunk rotation (60 +/- 7 degrees ). During the downswing, the professionals produced the largest angular velocities for the club shaft (2413 +/- 442 degrees /s), right elbow extension (854 +/- 150 degrees /s), right wrist (1183 +/- 299 degrees /s) and left wrist (1085 +/- 338 degrees /s). The results of this study show that improper mechanics of golf swing existed in middle and high handicap groups. These improper mechanics may contribute to golf related injuries.

1 Bookmark
 · 
194 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract A common biomechanical feature of a golf swing, described in various ways in the literature, is the interaction between the thorax and pelvis, often termed the X-Factor. There is no consistent method used within golf biomechanics literature however to calculate these segment interactions. The purpose of this study was to examine X-factor data calculated using three reported methods in order to determine the similarity or otherwise of the data calculated using each method. A twelve-camera three-dimensional motion capture system was used to capture the driver swings of 19 participants and a subject specific three-dimensional biomechanical model was created with the position and orientation of each model estimated using a global optimisation algorithm. Comparison of the X-Factor methods showed significant differences for events during the swing (P < 0.05). Data for each kinematic measure were derived as a times series for all three methods and regression analysis of these data showed that whilst one method could be successfully mapped to another, the mappings between methods are subject dependent (P <0.05). Findings suggest that a consistent methodology considering the X-Factor from a joint angle approach is most insightful in describing a golf swing.
    Journal of Sports Sciences 03/2013; · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A new methodological approach employing mechanical work (MW) determination and relative portion of its elemental analysis was applied to investigate the biomechanical causes of golf-related lumbar spine injuries. Kinematic and kinetic parameters at the lumbar and lower limb joints were measured during downswing in 18 golfers. The MW at the lumbar joint (LJ) was smaller than at the right hip but larger than the MWs at other joints. The contribution of joint angular velocity (JAV) to MW was much greater than that of net muscle moment (NMM) at the LJ, whereas the contribution of NMM to MW was greater rather than or similar to that of JAV at other joints. Thus, the contribution of JAV to MW is likely more critical in terms of the probability of golf-related injury than that of NMM. The MW-based golf-related injury index (MWGII), proposed as the ratio of the contribution of JAV to MW to that of NMM, at the LJ (1.55) was significantly greater than those at other joints ( < 1.05). This generally corresponds to the most frequent occurrence of golf-related injuries around the lumbar spine. Therefore, both MW and MWGII should be considered when investigating the biomechanical causes of lumbar spine injuries.
    Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 03/2013; · 1.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To quantify the effect of an 8-week isolated core training programme on selected ball and club parameters during the golf swing and also the variability of these measures. METHODS: 36 club-level golfers were randomly assigned to an exercise (n = 18) or control (n = 18) group. The exercise group participated in an 8-week core training programme which included 8 basic exercises. Both groups continued with their normal activity levels including golf. Baseline and post-intervention measurements included club-head speed, backspin, sidespin, and timed core endurance. RESULTS: Baseline measures for club-head speed, backspin, sidespin and the core endurance test were 79.9 ± 8.4 mph, 3930 ± 780 rpm, 1410 ± 610 rpm and 91 ± 56 s, and 77.6 ± 8.8 mph, 3740 ± 910 rpm, 1290 ± 730 rpm and 69 ± 55 s, for the intervention and control group, respectively. The effect of our core training, when compared to control, was a likely small improvement in club-head speed (3.6%; 90% confidence limits ± 2.7%) and a very likely small improvement in muscular endurance (61%; ± 33%). The effect on backspin (5%; ± 10%) and sidespin (- 6%; ± 20%) was unclear. Baseline variability for club-head speed, backspin and sidespin (based on 10 swings per golfer) was 5.7 ± 5.3%, 43 ± 19%, 140 ± 180%, and 6.5 ± 5.3%, 53 ± 53%, 170 ± 130% for the intervention and control group, respectively. The effect of the intervention on within-subject variability was a moderate decrease for club-head speed, a small decrease for backspin and a small increase for sidespin, when compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits achieved from our isolated core training programme are comparable with those from other studies.
    Medicine and science in sports and exercise 05/2013; · 4.48 Impact Factor