Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers

Abstract

Background:
Various training schemes have sought to improve golf-related athletic ability. In the golf swing motion, the muscle strengths of the core and arms play important roles, where a difference typically exists in the power of arm muscles between the dominant and non-dominant sides. The purposes of this study were to determine the effects of exercises strengthening the core and non-dominant arm muscles of elite golf players (handicap < 3) on the increase in drive distance, and to present a corresponding training scheme aimed at improving golf performance ability.

Methods:
Sixty elite golfers were randomized into the control group (CG, n = 20), core exercise group (CEG, n = 20), and group receiving a combination of muscle strengthening exercises of the non-dominant arm and the core (NCEG, n = 20). The 3 groups conducted the corresponding exercises for 8 weeks, after which the changes in drive distances and isokinetic strength were measured.

Results:
Significant differences in the overall improvement of drive distance were observed among the groups (p < 0.001). Enhancement of the drive distance of NCEG was greater than both CG (p < 0.001) and CEG (p = 0.001). Except for trunk flexion, all variables of the measurements of isokinetic strength for NCEG also showed the highest values compared to the other groups. Examination of the correlation between drive distance and isokinetic strength revealed significant correlations of all variables except trunk flexion, wrist extension, and elbow extension.

Conclusion:
The combination of core and non-dominant arm strength exercises can provide a more effective specialized training program than core alone training for golfers to increase their drive distances.

Full text

Original article
Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in
elite golfers
Q5
Q4 Dong Jun Sung
a
, Seung Jun Park
a
, Sojung Kim
b
, Moon Seok Kwon
a
, Young-Tae Lim
a,
*
a
Sport Science, Konkuk University, Chungju, Chungbuk 380-701, Republic of Korea
b
Physical Education, Kyung Hee University, Suwon, Gyeonggi 446-701, Republic of Korea
Received 29 May 2014; revised 25 August 2014; accepted 15 December 2014
Available online ---
Abstract
Background: Various training schemes have sought to improve golf-related athletic ability. In the golf swing motion, the muscle strengths of the
core and arms play important roles, where a difference typically exists in the power of arm muscles between the dominant and non-dominant
sides. The purposes of this study were to determine the effects of exercises strengthening the core and non-dominant arm muscles of elite golf
players (handicap <3) on the increase in drive distance, and to present a corresponding training scheme aimed at improving golf performance
ability.
Methods: Sixty elite golfers were randomized into the control group (CG, n¼20), core exercise group (CEG, n¼20), and group receiving a
combination of muscle strengthening exercises of the non-dominant arm and the core (NCEG, n¼20). The three groups conducted the cor-
responding exercises for 8 weeks, after which the changes in drive distances and isokinetic strength were measured.
Results: Significant differences in the overall improvement of drive distance were observed among the groups ( p<0.001). Enhancement of the
drive distance of NCEG was greater than both CG ( p<0.001) and CEG ( p¼0.001). Except for trunk flexion, all variables of the measurements
of isokinetic strength for NCEG also showed the highest values compared to the other groups. Examination of the correlation between drive
distance and isokinetic strength revealed significant correlations of all variables except trunk flexion, wrist extension, and elbow extension.
Conclusion: The combination of core and non-dominant arm strength exercises can provide a more effective specialized training program than
core alone training for golfers to increase their drive distances.
Copyright Ó2015, Shanghai University of Sport. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Core exercise; Drive distance; Elite golfer; Isokinetic strength; Non-dominant arm strength exercise
1. Introduction
Over 35 million people enjoy playing golf, and this game
has been gaining popularity globally.
1
Scientific approaches to
improving the golf ability have recently focused on physical
strength, in contrast to the past where consistent accuracy and
putting techniques were regarded as having more signifi-
cance.
2
This shifting of the focus has been occurring in recent
years due to lengthening of the course yardage. For this
reason, golfers require more physical strength to endure the
extended time of a typical round, and to provide explosive
swing power to cover longer distances, which can be intensi-
fied by a widened range of motion (ROM).
3
Specialized training programs such as plyometrics
training,
4
golf specific muscle power training,
5,6
or core
training
7,8
have been applied to golfers with positive out-
comes. The trunk of a golfer is the most vulnerable part to
injury,
9
typically attributable to bad posture and improper
swing mechanism, or weakened trunk muscle strength due to
exercise deficiency. Strengthening of the core muscles could
protect against injury while also improving golfing ability.
Core muscles are defined as the essential peripheral mus-
cles of the spine and abdomen required for stabilizing the
backbone, and for maintaining the balance of the pelvis.
10
In a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ytlim@kku.ac.kr (Y.-T. Lim)
Peer review under responsibility of Shanghai University of Sport.
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Journal of Sport and Health Science xx (2015) 1e7
www.jshs.org.cn
+MODEL
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■1/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
2095-2546/$ - see front matter Copyright Ó2015, Shanghai University of Sport. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006

study applying core muscle training to golfers for 12 weeks,
the flexibility, core muscle strength, and performance of drives
were improved.
7
The club head speed was also found to in-
crease after the application of training for 11 weeks.
11
The
reason for the benefits can be understood by examining the
mobilization of core muscles in the swing span of the club.
The rectus abdominus muscle in the stance position, the
external oblique muscle for the back swing, and the external
oblique and rectus abdominus muscles for creating power for
the down swing all play important roles for each segment of
the swing.
12
Another important contributor to the swing motion is the
non-dominant arm. The non-dominant arm controls the club,
from the back swing to the down swing.
13
In the back- and
down swing aspects, including gripping the club, the roles of
the extensor carpi ulnaris, flexor carpi ulnaris, and posterior
deltoid in the non-dominant arm are as important as the
muscles in the dominant arm.
12
In addition, the non-dominant
arm complex is also influential in generating power in the
swing,
14
as the forearm could lead the flexor burst in the ac-
celeration section of the swing.
15
Despite these important roles of the non-dominant arm,
specialized strength training for this arm is uncommon. The
muscle force of the dominant arm is reportedly about 10%
greater than the non-dominant arm.
16,17
However, studies have
lacked findings on the influence of strengthening muscles of
the non-dominant arm (typically the left one in a right handed
golfer) on swing performance. Golfers who utilize the dextral
arm muscles are typically unskilled in the use of sinistral arm
muscles; strengthening of the non-dominant upper limb to
balance the power between both arms is required.
18
The combination of accuracy and drive distance is impor-
tant in modern golf ability.
13,19
Golf relies on a successful
drive,
20
and the drive distance is highly correlated with the
scores of elite golfers.
21
Numerous studies have reported the
effects of various training methods on drive distance,
4e7
but
the effects of strengthening training of the non-dominant arm
on golf ability remain unclear. Therefore, this study examined
the influence of such strength training on drive distance and
assessed the correlation between strength and drive distance.
We hypothesized that a combination of core and non-dominant
training would increase drive distance, and that there would be
a positive a correlation between isokinetic strength of the non-
dominant arm and drive distance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants
The sample size was determined to have a set effect size,
error, and power value of 0.42,
22,23
0.05, and 0.8, respec-
tively, to use the F-value through power analysis (G-power
program 3.1.3, Kiel, Germany).
24
Sixty golfers participated
in this study, all of whom were right handed male Korean
elite golfers with careers of over 5 years and handicaps of
less than three, who also periodically participated in tour-
naments. They were free from any musculoskeletal system
disorders and had never participated in resistance training to
improve their golfing abilities, apart from regular training.
This study was approved by the Konkuk University research
ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained
from each participant.
The 60 participants were randomly assigned to a control
group (CG, n¼20), a core muscle exercise group (CEG,
n¼20), and a group with combined strengthening exercises of
the non-dominant arm (in this study, the left arm) and core
muscles (NCEG, n¼20). All participants visited the biome-
chanics laboratory at Konkuk University for measurement of
body composition (InBody 4.0; Biospace, Seoul, Korea).
2.2. Exercise program
The 60 participants completed the entire 8 weeks of the
study program, and all participants in the CEG and NCEG
attended an 8-week training program without withdrawal.
The CG did not receive any specific intervention other than
conventional golf swing training. The CEG only performed
core exercise, which was carried out for 60 min per day, three
times a week, for 8 weeks. An initial core muscle exercise
program aimed to achieve basic balance and muscle force
during the first 4 weeks, after which it was configured to
secure dynamic balance by active improvement in muscle
strength, aiming for the combination of dynamic balance and
strength for the remaining 4 weeks (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The
NCEG performed non-dominant arm exercise in addition to
the core exercise. The non-dominant arm strength exercise
program for NCEG consisted of six exercises which were
highly relevant to the golf swing motion to improve the
function of the forearm, biceps, and shoulder. The NCEG
carried out exercise 60 min per session, 6 times a week, for 8
weeks. Core- and non-dominant arm strength exercises were
applied alternately each day.
A 10-min stretching session was included in all exercise
programs as a warm-up and at the close of each exercise
session. Before application of the exercise programs, all par-
ticipants were tested to measure the maximum muscle force
for each weight training exercise, and the corresponding ex-
ercise intensities were assigned to each participant based on
the test results. The one repetition maximum (1RM) was
measured again 3 weeks after starting of the exercise programs
to adjust the exercise loads to accommodate for respective
strength gains, as described previously.
25
2.3. Measurement of drive distance
Drive distance was measured using a radar-based detecting
device, Flight Scope KUDU (EDH, Orlando, Florida, USA),
with data collected from measurements within the range of
15 m (the right and the left deviation) for balls hit with
correct club impacts (Smash factor 1.47). Performance of the
Flight Scope KUDU was comparable to the laser-based ran-
gefinder. Average error and standard deviation of the Flight
Scope KUDU was 0.50 m and 2.02 m, respectively. The drive
distances of participants were measured five times using their
2 D.J. Sung et al.
+MODEL
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■2/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

own clubs, and average values were obtained by excluding
both the minimum and maximum measurements of drive
distances.
2.4. Measurement of isokinetic strength
Isokinetic strength was measured using a commercial sys-
tem (Biodex, Shirley, New York, USA). Before each mea-
surement, participants were given two chances to practice for
becoming familiar with the protocol, and the purpose and
procedure of each measurement were explained to the subjects
to enable maximum effort. The measurement protocol was
designed to measure the isokinetic strength of the wrist, elbow,
trunk, and shoulder of the non-dominant arm, five times at
60/s. For a proper comparison, the collected data of peak
torques were normalized to peak torque/body mass (Nm/kg).
Flexion/extension of the wrist, elbow, and trunk were per-
formed at the transverse axis on the sagittal plane, and
horizontal adduction/abduction of the shoulder was also per-
formed on the vertical axis of the transverse plane in the di-
agonal direction.
2.5. Statistical analysis
All descriptive data for the dependent variables are pre-
sented as mean SE. Group differences in baseline values for
the dependent variables were determined by one-way
ANOVA. The drive distance and isokinetic strengths of the
three groups were corrected to allow comparison by employ-
ing the pre-training values as covariates, and analysis was
carried out by ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) to compare
the measured values obtained from post-examination. In cases
where the “between-subjects factors”appeared to be signifi-
cant, the differences between each group were further identi-
fied through the contrast test with the least significant
difference (LSD). Correlations between distance and iso-
kinetic strength were analyzed through the Pearson’s correla-
tion coefficient test of the post-training data. All statistical
procedures were performed using SPSS for Windows 19.0
version (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The level of signifi-
cance was set to p<0.05.
3. Results
Table 2 shows the means SE for the baseline physical
characteristics, drive distance, and body composition variables
for each group. There were no significant differences between
the groups for the physical characteristics or body composition
variables at baseline ( p>0.05).
3.1. Change of drive distance
The differences in the drive distance according to the
training applied are shown in Table 3.
Fig. 1. Depiction of exercise programs employed in the present study. (A): Core exercise program. From the left, crunch ereverse crunch etrunk twist egood
morning edumbbell side band. (B): Non-dominant arm strength training. From the left, dumbbell curl ewrist curl ereverse wrist curl etriceps extension e
dumbbell press eside lateral raise.
Table 1
Core and non-dominant arm strengthening exercise programs.
Exercise programs Week 1e4
(load/sets repetitions)
Week 5e8
(load/sets repetitions)
Core exercise
Crunch 3 12 3 15
Reverse crunch 3 12 3 15
Trunk twist 3 12 3 15
Good morning 3 12 3 15
Dumbbell side bend 60% 1RM/3 12 60% 1RM/3 15
Non-dominant
arm strengthening
exercise
Dumbbell curl 60% 1RM/3 12 70% 1RM/3 15
Wrist curl 60% 1RM/3 12 70% 1RM/3 15
Reverse wrist curl 60% 1RM/3 12 70% 1RM/3 15
Triceps extension 60% 1RM/3 12 70% 1RM/3 15
Dumbbell press 60% 1RM/3 12 70% 1RM/3 15
Side lateral raise 60% 1RM/3 12 70% 1RM/3 15
Abbreviation: 1RM ¼one repetition maximum.
Driver distance and training in elite golfers 3
+MODEL
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■3/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

The 8-week exercise intervention programs produced sig-
nificant differences in drive distance between the groups
(p<0.001) (see Table 4). The drive distance of NCEG was
significantly longer (239.16 1.84 m) than both CG
(222.16 2.96 m, p<0.001) and CEG (235.23 4.82,
p¼0.001).
3.2. Effects of exercise programs on isokinetic strength
Isokinetic strength of the non-dominant arm and trunk were
measured after application of the training programs (Table 4).
Significant differences in the isokinetic strengths of wrist
extension were observed between the three groups
(p<0.001). The peak torque of wrist extension was signifi-
cantly greater for NCEG than CG ( p<0.001) and CEG
(p<0.001). Similar to the results of wrist extension, the peak
torque of wrist flexion in NCEG had a significantly greater
increase compared with the CG ( p<0.001) and CEG
(p<0.001).
The elbow extension among the three groups was also
significantly different after 8 weeks ( p<0.001). Accordingly,
a contrast test showed that peak torque of elbow extension was
significantly higher for the NCEG than CG ( p<0.001) and
CEG ( p¼0.005). Similarly, elbow flexion of the NCEG also
increased more than both the CG ( p<0.001) and CEG
(p<0.001). In addition, the elbow flexion of CEG was greater
than that of CG ( p¼0.011).
Concerning isokinetic strength of the shoulder after appli-
cation of the training programs, significant differences in
shoulder diagonal abduction were evident among the three
groups ( p<0.001), The contrast test indicated that the iso-
kinetic of shoulder diagonal abduction in the NCEG was
significantly greater than in both the CG ( p<0.001) and CEG
(p<0.001). Similarly, shoulder diagonal adduction was also
significantly different among the three groups ( p<0.001),
with the NCEG expressing higher increase in the peak torque
than both the CG ( p<0.001) and CEG ( p<0.001).
Table 2
Physical characteristics and drive distance for CG, CEG, and NCEG groups at
the beginning of the study (mean SE).
Measures Group pValue
CG CEG NCEG
Age (year) 24.0 1.0 23.0 0.5 23.2 0.6 0.110
Height (cm) 177.1 1.8 175.6 1.1 174.8 1.9 0.674
Weight (kg) 73.1 4.2 74.7 2.0 72.4 1.8 0.078
BMI (kg/m
2
) 24.4 0.9 24.7 0.6 23.2 0.8 0.165
Drive distance (m) 221.26 4.01 224.53 8.89 215.69 5.51 0.372
Abbreviations: CG ¼control group; CEG ¼core exercise group;
NCEG ¼non-dominant arm þcore exercise group.
No significant differences were observed among groups.
Table 3
Drive distance (mean SE, m) before and after exercise intervention for three
groups.
Group Pre (m) Post (m) pvalue Contrast test ( pvalue)
CG 221.26 4.01 222.16 2.96 <0.001 a: b (<0.001)
CEG 224.53 8.89 235.23 4.82 <0.001 a: c (<0.001)
NCEG 215.69 5.51 239.16 1.84 <0.001 b: c (0.001)
Abbreviations: CG ¼control group; CEG ¼core exercise group;
NCEG ¼non-dominant arm þcore exercise group.
Note: Tested by ANCOVA; adjusted for pre-test value.
Table 4
The results of isokinetic functions strength of non-dominant arm and trunk (peak torque/body mass, Nm/kg). Q3
Site Group Pre Post pvalue Contrast test ( pvalue)
Wrist extension CG 15.77 1.23 16.63 1.25 <0.001 a: c (<0.001)
b: c (<0.001)CEG 13.76 1.65 15.40 1.69
NCEG 11.29 1.03 25.18 1.77
Wrist flexion CG 47.65 3.21 48.58 4.12 <0.001 a: c (<0.001)
b: c (<0.001)CEG 38.50 3.24 44.01 2.11
NCEG 25.20 2.32 66.84 2.63
Elbow extension CG 122.61 5.70 116.12 7.02 <0.001 a: c (<0.001)
b: c (0.005)CEG 122.29 6.17 145.5 5.57
NCEG 124.92 2.81 153.38 4.14
Elbow flexion CG 92.60 3.67 85.13 3.49 <0.001 a: b (0.011)
a: c (<0.001)
b: c (<0.001)
CEG 96.34 3.52 100.43 3.31
NCEG 100.83 4.12 122.05 4.89
Shoulder diagonal abduction CG 147.77 14.19 150.45 12.53 <0.001 a: c (<0.001)
b: c (<0.001)CEG 150.11 6.43 149.37 7.54
NCEG 133.60 7.05 189.86 9.85
Shoulder diagonal adduction CG 172.83 7.34 180.77 8.17 <0.001 a: b (0.034)
a: c (<0.001)
b: c (<0.001)
CEG 230.37 6.82 257.39 10.13
NCEG 231.73 8.02 312.04 14.01
Trunk extension CG 743.47 43.33 719.69 43.70 <0.001 a: c (<0.001)
b: c (0.006)CEG 655.94 5.51 759.78 49.08
NCEG 652.37 29.93 900.14 43.20
Trunk flexion CG 467.35 27.55 421.49 38.73 <0.001 a: b (<0.001)
a: c (<0.001)CEG 453.48 24.53 561.39 19.89
NCEG 454.39 19.37 535.92 22.91
Abbreviations: CG ¼control group; CEG ¼core exercise group; NCEG ¼non-dominant arm þcore exercise group.
Note: Tested by ANCOVA; adjusted for pre-test value.
4 D.J. Sung et al.
+MODEL
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■4/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

Finally, changes in trunk isokinetic strengths were also
observed. Significant differences appeared in both trunk
extension and flexion among all groups ( p<0.001). Contrast
test showed that the trunk extension of the NCEG increased
more than both CG ( p<0.001) and CEG ( p¼0.006), while
trunk flexion was also higher in the NCEG than CG
(p<0.001). While improvement of trunk flexion was higher
in the CEG than CG ( p<0.001), significant differences were
not observed between the CEG and NCEG.
3.3. Correlation between drive distance and
isokinetic strength
Pearson’s correlation test was used to confirm whether
isokinetic strength was related to drive distance. As can be
seen in Table 5, positive correlations between isokinetic
strengths and drive distance were observed, including between
wrist flexion, elbow flexion, and shoulder diagonal abduction
peak torque/body mass. Wrist flexion strength showed the
highest correlation with drive distance (r¼0.645, p<0.01),
while high positive correlations were also found with shoulder
diagonal adduction (r¼0.539, p<0.01) and trunk extension
(r¼0.617, p<0.01). In addition, we analyzed the changes in
strength and drive distance (data not shown). As shown in
Table 5, we found that there were no differences between the
raw data and the gain of strength or drive distance. As a result,
we assume that there is a positive correlation between the
isokinetic strength and drive distance.
4. Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to find a
relationship between drive distance, the isokinetic strength of
the non-dominant arm, and core muscle strengthening. We
also provided a specialized training program for golfers to
improve their golfing ability by identifying the correlation
between drive distance and isokinetic strength.
In the present study, the exercise programs employed were
effective for improving the drive distance, with the group
which undertook combined strengthening exercises for core
and non-dominant arm (NCEG) showing the highest impact by
an improvement of w9.8% over that observed in the pre-
training conditions (CG, w0.4%; CEG, w5%). Such an
improvement in drive distance was attributable to the marked
enhancement in isokinetic strength of the participants in the
NCEG, wherein wrist flexion, elbow flexion, shoulder
abduction/adduction, and trunk extension were all signifi-
cantly correlated with drive distance.
Many golfers may believe that resistance training has a
negative influence on flexibility, which would cause deteri-
oration of their swing ability.
4
However, ROM can be
improved by applying a flexibility program integrated with a
resistance program.
19
Golfing ability should be partly deter-
mined by the capability of power creation generated from a
wideROMofthegolfers.
13,26,27
For this reason, many studies
have applied such exercise programs to golfers for improving
their physical strength. Muscle strengths of the legs, upper
torso, and arm are all related to golf ability,
3,27
and have been
correlated with swing speed. It is important to note that an
improvement in muscle strength would have a positive in-
fluence on both drive distance and overall swing perfor-
mance. Single resistance exercise programs or general
composite exercise programs that includes endurance, flexi-
bility, and/or balance training have been commonly applied
to golfers.
4,6,20,26
Despite differences in the methods of
application, the approaches appear to be beneficial concern-
ing enhanced muscle strength and playing ability.
21
There-
fore, enhancement of muscle strength by various training
methods lead to improvement of golfing ability.
A study involving golfers with a handicap of less than 14
suggested that the muscle strength-related items, such as right
wrist palmar flexion and left shoulder horizontal extension
strength, are correlated with drive distance.
26
Another study
reported correlations between the function of physical ele-
ments and the drive distances of male and female golfers with
average handicap values of 10.
3
A significant correlation be-
tween vertical jump and drive distance in female golfers, and
correlations of vertical jump, pull-up, and push-up perfor-
mances with the drive distance of male golfers have also been
identified. Thus, the relationship between physical strength
and performance of the golf swing, including drive distance, is
apparent. Similar to previous studies, this study demonstrated
that a positive correlation exists between muscle strength and
drive distance. This result suggests that strength training for
improvement of the drive distance is essential.
In an interventional study, a strength training program was
applied to 42 subjects for 8 weeks. Subsequent increases of the
drive distance without reduced accuracy were reported.
28
It
was also reported that the application of an exercise program
of elastic resistance tubing for 10 weeks, which intended to
improve the muscle strength of the right torso, induced sig-
nificant increases in club head speed by 5.5%, carry distance
by 7.7%, ball speed by 5%, and total distance by 6.8%.
6
Thus,
the enhancement of muscle strength or muscle-associated
components seems to have a positive influence on the
improvement of drive distance. Fletcher and Hartwell
4
re-
ported that club head speed and drive distance were improved
after the application of an 8-week composite exercise pro-
gram. The program consisted of right torso exercise, plyo-
metrics, and stretching for elite male golfers (average
handicap 5.5), and concluded that the improvements observed
were attributable to enhanced muscle force.
4
Core and
Table 5
Correlation between drive distance and isokinetic strength.
Parameter WFPQ EFPQ SDPQ TFPQ WEPQ EEPQ SBPQ TEPQ
r0.645** 0.423** 0.539** 0.196 0.105 0.239 0.284* 0.617**
pvalue 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.171 0.860 0.111 0.010 0.005
*p<0.05, **p<0.01. Abbreviations: WFPQ ¼wrist flexion peak torque;
EFPQ ¼elbow flexion peak torque; SDPQ ¼shoulder diagonal adduction
peak torque; TFPQ ¼trunk flexion peak torque; WEPQ ¼wrist extension
peak torque; EEPQ ¼elbow extension peak torque; SBPQ ¼shoulder
abduction peak torque; TEPQ ¼trunk extension peak torque.
Note: All isokinetic factors were using peak torque/body mass.
Driver distance and training in elite golfers 5
+MODEL
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■5/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

rotational stability training for 9 weeks produced increase of
the club head speed by 3.8% compared to general resistance
training, which produced increases of 1.2%.
11
The increase of
club head speed was also reported for female subjects who
participated in an 11-week program of right torso muscle
exercise, flexibility, and medicine ball use.
27
In our study,
strengthening of the core muscles improved drive distance,
indicating that the core muscles play an important role in
enhancement of drive distance.
In the present study, the NCEG demonstrated the most
apparent improvement in drive distance. Moreover, the iso-
kinetic strength such as wrist flexion, elbow flexion, shoulder
diagonal abduction/adduction, and trunk extension all had a
positive correlation with drive distance. These results implied
that the composite enhancement of muscle force in the non-
dominant arm and core muscles could improve the drive dis-
tances of golfers. In contrast, another study did not find a
correlation between drive distance and enhanced isometric
strength following a 7-week exercise program for average
golfers (17 handicap) aged 32e84 years.
29
This could indicate
that the measurement of isometric strength might not be
compatible with appraisal of the complex motion of the golf
swing. Combined exercise may be a more successful approach
to improve drive distance.
Training and strengthening of the core muscles is impera-
tive in the majority of sports to obtain optimal performance
and prevent injuries.
8
This also applies to the game of golf,
wherein the core muscles have been known to control the
movement of the body during the swing, to impact and adjust
the cooperation of physical stabilization.
30
The abdomen and
lower back are typically recognized as the power zone, and are
the essential region for creating power. Additionally, muscles
around the lumbar region play a role in neuromuscular control
to maintain stabilization of physical function.
31
In this manner,
the core muscles play an important role in the creation of
power and for stabilizing the body while performing exercise.
In golf, the mobilization of core muscles is apparent when
examining the results of electromyographic analysis per-
formed during each segment of the swing.
32
The results also
suggest that training of the core muscles would influence
enhancement of the overall swing performance.
Similar to results of this study, a study on the application of
core exercises for 12 weeks revealed improvements in drive
performance, core muscle strength, and flexibility of female
golf players,
7
demonstrating the effectiveness of core exercise
programs for increasing drive distance.
Although there is a body of evidence pointing to the ben-
efits of muscle strengthening, no previous studies have yet
addressed the strength of the non-dominant arm relative to golf
performance. A non-dominant arm strengthening exercise
program was employed herein based on the results of a study
which revealed the muscle force of the dominant arm to be
10% stronger than the non-dominant one.
16,17
Those who
participated in the non-dominant arm strengthening exercise
program showed dramatic increase in drive distance. Based on
these results, we suggest that the combined employment of a
non-dominant arm strength exercise program would be more
effective for improving the drive distance of golfers. In addi-
tion, while one-side exercise might be unfavorable, improving
deficient muscle strength between the two arms could also be
an effective training method. Our results may help in the
design of a specialized exercise program applicable to golfers,
especially those desiring to increase their drive distance.
Herein, wrist flexion, elbow flexion, shoulder abduction/
adduction, and trunk extension showed positive correlations
with drive distance. Improvement in the isokinetic strengths of
such joints may have contributed to power accumulation in the
segment from the backswing to the impact, which could in-
crease drive distance.
Overall, core muscle and non-dominant arm strength ex-
ercise programs for elite golfers identified apparent improve-
ment of the drive distance and isokinetic strength in the
NCEG. It can be concluded that strengthening exercises of
both the core muscles and the non-dominant arm would pro-
vide an effective specialized training program for elite or
professional golfers. Golfers with high-handicaps, or those
enjoying golf as their hobby on weekends, could also employ
such a training program if they wish to improve their
performance.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. A major
limitation of the present study is that an indirect technique was
used to measure the drive distance, with employment of a
radar-based device. In addition, an unequal training volume
was applied between the CEG (3 times/week) and NCEG (6
times/week). Besides, the participants in this study were elite
golfers, so further study is needed to investigate the effects of
such exercise on the drive distance for amateur golfers.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by Konkuk University. Q1
References
1. Farrally MR, Cochran AJ, Crew DJ. Golf science research at the begin-
ning of the twenty-first century. J Sports Sci 2003;21:753e65.
2. Keogh JW, Marnewick MC, Maulder PS, Nortje JP, Hume PA,
Bradshaw EJ. Are anthropometric, flexibility, muscular strength and
endurance variables related the club head velocity in low- and high-
handicap golfers? J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:1841e50.
3. Wells GD, Elmi M, Thomas S. Physiological correlates of golf perfor-
mance. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:741e50.
4. Fletcher IM, Hartwell M. Effect of an 8-week combined weights and
plyometrics training program on golf drive performance. J Strength Cond
Res 2004;18:59e62.
5. Alvarez M, Sedano S, Cuadrado G, Redondo JC. Effects of an 18-week
strength training program on low-handicap golfers’ performance. J
Strength Cond Res 2012;26:1110e21.
6. Lephart SM, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, Sell TC, Tsai YS. An eight-week
golf specific exercise program improves physical characteristics, swing
mechanics, and golf performance in recreational golfers. J Strength Cond
Res 2007;21:860e9.
7. Kim KJ. Effects of core muscle strengthening training on flexibility,
muscular strength and driver shot performance in female professional
golfers. Int J Appl Sport Sci 2010;22:117e27.
8. McGill S. Core training: evidence translation to better performance and
injury prevention. Strength Cond J 2010;32:33e46.
6 D.J. Sung et al.
+MODEL
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■6/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

9. McHardy A, Pollard H, Luo K. One-year follow-up study on golf injuries
in Australian amateur golfers. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1354e60.
10. Akothota V, Ferreiro A, Moore T, Fredericson M. Core stability exercise
principles. Curr Sports Med Rep 2008;7:39e44.
11. Seiler S, Skaanes P, Kirkesola G, Katch F. Effects of sling exercise
training on maximal club head velocity in junior golfers. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2006;38:S286.
Q2
12. Maddalozzo GF. An anatomical and biomechanical analysis of the full
golf swing. NSCA J 1987;9:74e9.
13. Hume P, Keogh J, Reid D. The role of biomechanics in maximizing
distance and accuracy of golf shot. Sports Med 2005;35:429e49.
14. Pink M, Jobe FW, Perry J. Electromyographic analysis of the shoulder
during the golf swing. Am J Sports Med 1990;18:137e40.
15. Glazebrook MA, Curwing S, Islam MN, Kozey J, Stanish WD. Medical
epicondylitis. An electromyographic analysis and an investigation of
intervention strategies. Am J Sports Med 1994;22:674e9.
16. Betchol CO. Grip test: the use of a dynamometer with adjustable handle
spacing. J Bone Jt Surg AM 1954;36:820e4.
17. Gedela RK, Kirby A, Huhtala H. Does the dominant hand possess 10%
greater grip strength that the non dominant hand? Indian J Physiother
2008;45:116e21.
18. Horn J. Golf is a woman’s game. St. Avon: Adams Media; 1977. p. 126.
19. Hetu FE, Christie CA, Faigenbaum AD. Effects of conditioning on
physical fitness and club head speed in mature golfers. Percept Mot Skills
1998;86:811e5.
20. Thompson CJ, Cobb KM, Blackwell J. Functional training improves club
head speed and functional fitness in older golfers. J Strength Cond Res
2007;21:131e7.
21. Torres-Ronda L, Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Muscle
strength and golf performance: a critical review. J Sports Sci Med
2011;10:9e18.
22. Griffiths KM, Farrer L, Christensen H. The efficacy of internet in-
terventions for depression and anxiety disorders: a review of randomized
controlled trials. Med J Aust 2010;192:S4e11.
23. Pe
´rez-Turpin JA, Zmijewski P, Jimenez-Olmedo JM, Jove
´-Tossi MA,
Martı
´nez-Carbonell A, Sua
´rez-Llorca C, et al. Effects of whole body vi-
bration on strength and jumping performance in volleyball and beach
volleyball players. Biol Sport 2014;31:239e45.
24. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. 2nd ed.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. p. 386e406.
25. Kraemer WJ, Fry AC. Strength testing: development and evaluation of
methodology. In: Maud P, Foster C, editors. Physiological assessment of
humane fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1995. p. 250.
26. Wallace ES, Otto SR, Nevill A. Ball launch conditions for skilled golfers
using drivers of different lengths in an indoor testing facility. J Sport Sci
2007;25:731e7.
27. Doan BK, Newton RU, Kwon YH, Kraemer WJ. Effects of physical
conditioning on intercollegiate golfer performance. J Strength Cond Res
2006;20:62e72.
28. Landford EE. The effect of strength training on distance and accuracy in
golf. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University; 1976 [Dissertation].
29. Reyes M. Maximal static contraction strengthening exercises and
driving distance. Science and golf IV. In: Thain E, editor. Proceedings of
2002 World scientific congress of golf. London: Routledge; 2002.
p. 45e53.
30. Omkar SN, Vishwas S, Tech B. Yoga techniques as a means of core
stability training. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2009;13:98e103.
31. Akuthota V, Nadler SF. Core strengthening. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
2004;85:86e92.
32. McHardy A, Pollard H. Muscle activity during the golf swing. Br J Sports
Med 2005;39:799e804.
Driver distance and training in elite golfers 7
+MODEL
Please cite this article in press as: Sung DJ, et al., Effects of core and non-dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers, Journal of Sport and
Health Science (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.12.006
JSHS181_proof ■25 April 2015 ■7/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62