Content uploaded by Graeme Gavin Sorbie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Graeme Gavin Sorbie on Sep 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gspm20
Download by: [University of Abertay Dundee] Date: 06 September 2017, At: 03:21
Research in Sports Medicine
An International Journal
ISSN: 1543-8627 (Print) 1543-8635 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gspm20
Commercial golf glove effects on golf performance
and forearm muscle activity
Graeme G. Sorbie, Paul Darroch, Fergal M. Grace , Yaodong Gu, Julien S.
Baker & Ukadike C. Ugbolue
To cite this article: Graeme G. Sorbie, Paul Darroch, Fergal M. Grace , Yaodong Gu, Julien
S. Baker & Ukadike C. Ugbolue (2017): Commercial golf glove effects on golf performance and
forearm muscle activity, Research in Sports Medicine, DOI: 10.1080/15438627.2017.1365291
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2017.1365291
Published online: 18 Aug 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 30
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Commercial golf glove effects on golf performance and
forearm muscle activity
Graeme G. Sorbie
a,b
, Paul Darroch
a
, Fergal M. Grace
a,c
, Yaodong Gu
d
,
Julien S. Baker
a
and Ukadike C. Ugbolue
a,e
a
School of Science and Sport, Institute for Clinical Exercise & Health Science, University of the West of
Scotland, Hamilton, UK;
b
Division of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee, UK;
c
Faculty
of Health, Human Movement and Sport Sciences, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria,
Australia;
d
Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China;
e
Department of Biomedical
Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to determine whether or not commercial golf
gloves influence performance variables and forearm muscle activity
during golf play. Fifteen golfers participated in the laboratory based
study, each performing 8 golf swings with a Driver and 7-iron whilst
wearing a glove and 8 without wearing the glove. Club head speed,
ball speed and absolute carry distance performance variables were
calculated. Surface electromyography was recorded from the flexor
digitorum superficialis and extensor carpi radialis brevis on both
forearm muscles. Club head speed, ball speed and absolute carry
distance was significantly higher when using the Driver with the
glove in comparison to the Driver without the glove (p< 0.05). No
significant differences were evident when using the 7-iron and no
significant differences were displayed in muscle activity in either
of the conditions. Findings from this study suggest that driving
performance is improved when wearing a glove.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 August 2016
Accepted 5 April 2017
KEYWORDS
Club head speed; ball speed;
EMG; ECRB; FDS
Introduction
Golf has become an increasingly popular sport for players of differing ages and skill
levels (Farrally et al., 2003). A golfer’s prime objective is to finish a golf round using
minimum shots. Several key factors for improving golf performance have been pre-
viously identified, including improving physical characteristics through golf training
programmes (Lephart, Smoliga, Myers, Sell, & Tsai, 2007) and coaching to improve
swing mechanics (Hume, Keogh, & Reid, 2005). In addition, golfers will also change
equipment in an attempt to improve performance, which is also common amongst
other sports (Stefanyshyn & Wannop, 2015).
Commercial golf gloves are not a required piece of equipment when playing golf
but are often used by golfers to assist perceived level of performance. Leading
manufacturers claim that the golf glove helps to create friction between the hand
and golf grip when holding the club, thus potentially increasing the performance of
CONTACT Ukadike C. Ugbolue u.ugbolue@uws.ac.uk Biomechanics Laboratory, School of Science and Sport,
Institute for Clinical Exercise & Health Science, University of the West of Scotland, Hamilton ML3 0JB, UK
RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2017.1365291
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
the golfer. However, to our knowledge, there is no published research to support
these performance enhancement claims. The friction created between the fingers/
palm of the hand and different types of sports equipment can often influence how
well the athletes are able to perform (Lewis, Carré, & Tomlinson, 2014). The friction
generated not only controls how well different objects can be gripped, but also how
the equipment feels to the athlete and what the perceived level of performance is
(Lewis et al., 2014). For example, during wheelchair rugby, the use of gloves is
promoted to increase the friction between the hand and wheelchair. Lutgendorf
et al. (2009) showed that the use of an US National Football League glove signifi-
cantly increased acceleration and agility compared to various other gloves and there-
fore increased performance of the athlete. It was found that acceleration and agility
were also reduced when athletes did not wear a glove (bare hand).
A key component in improving golf performance is being able to increase the
distance and accuracy of the golf shot within the long game. Fundamentals to this are
club head speed (CHS), ball speed (BS) and club face angle at impact (Fradkin, Sherman,
& Finch, 2004). Egret, Vincent, Weber, Dujardin, and Chollet (2003) reported a CHS of
161 km/h whilst using a Driver and Sorbie et al. (2016) reported CHS of 126 km/h when
using a 7-iron, thus clearly showing distinct differences between longer and shorter golf
clubs. Due to these high levels of CHS, a significant force from the forearm is required in
order to allow the golfer to maintain grip throughout the golf swing (Komi, Roberts, &
Rothberg, 2008).
Previous research has reported high levels of forearm muscle activity from the flexor
and extensor muscles during the golf swing using the electromyography (EMG) techni-
que. Farber, Smith, Kvitne, Mohr, and Shin (2009) reported levels of up to 74% of
maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) during the forward swing phase, and up to
128% of MVC during the acceleration phase when examining the extensor carpi radialis
brevis (ECRB) muscle whilst using the golf Driver. Sorbie et al. (2016) reported somewhat
lower levels of muscle activity from the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) (89.3%) and
ECRB (87.8%) muscles of the forearm during the golf swing; however, these swings were
performed using the 7-iron.
Several industrial studies have used EMG to assess forearm muscle activity when
using gloves (Kovacs, Splittstoesser, Maronitis, & Marras, 2002; Larivière et al., 2004).
Although these studies are not directly comparable to the golf swing, Larivière et al.
(2004) reported changes in ECRB and FDS forearm muscle activation levels when
performing handgrip tests with a glove compared to the bare hand (15% increase on
average). Kovacs et al. (2002) also reported an increase in EMG forearm muscle activation
levels when comparing the bare hand grip to several different glove materials. A
biomechanical assessment using EMG could provide important information on the
loading of the forearm muscles during the golf swing when using the golf glove
compared to using the bare hand. Specifically, a reduction on the load placed on the
forearm muscles may help prevent injuries to the elbow area (Dickerson, Martin, &
Chaffin, 2007). Lateral and medial epicondylitis are two of the main elbow symptoms
associated with golfers, especially golfers within the amateur category (Farber et al.,
2009; Glazebrook, Curwin, Mohammad, Kozey, & William, 1994).
When considering the previously reported performance and muscle activity changes
when using gloves in industrial work and specific sporting events, it was reasonable to
2G. G. SORBIE ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
hypothesize that performance variables and muscle activity may change during the golf
swing when wearing a glove compared to the bare hand. Furthermore, with the
significant changes in CHS between the Driver and iron clubs, an assessment between
these clubs is also required when using the commercial golf glove. Thus, the purpose of
the present study was to determine how a commercial golf glove influences perfor-
mance CHS, BS and absolute carry distance (ACD) and forearm muscle activity during a
golf swing whilst using the Driver and the 7-iron.
Methods
Participants
After obtaining ethical approval from the university ethics committee, 15 right-handed
male golfers participated in this laboratory-based study (height: 183.7 ± 7.3 cm, weight:
77.6 ± 9.8 kg, age: 24.3 ± 4.0 years, handicap: 18.0 ± 5.6, effect size <0.5; αerr prob = 0.05,
power = 80%). All participants were free from injury. Participants were also required to
have no elbow or wrist injuries in the past year and no surgery in the identified areas in
the past five years. The researchers explained the procedures and purpose of the study
to all participants. All participants completed a physical readiness questionnaire and
consent form prior to participation in the study.
Apparatus
The experimental set-up included an artificial golf mat placed in the centre of the laboratory;
an enclosed golf net (Golfnets.online, Journal House, Bristol, UK) located 2 m from the golf mat
(Longridge, UK); an 8-camera Vicon Bonita (Oxford Metrics Ltd, UK) Motion Analysis System
operating at 250 Hz positioned at strategic positions around the golfer; a set of 8 EMG
Transmitters operating at 1000 Hz and filtered at 10–500 Hz (Myon 320, Schwarzenberg,
Switzerland) in conjunction with Surface Electrodes (AMBU, Cambridgeshire, UK) used to
measure muscle activity. A Digital Handheld Dynamometer (Medical research, Leeds, UK)
was used to measure MVCs. The EMG system was synchronized in conjunction with the Vicon
Bonita Motion Analysis System to facilitate simultaneous data collection. The Voice Caddie
Swing Launch Monitor SC 100 GPS (La Mirada, CA, USA) was used to calculate CHS, BS and ACD
of each golf shot. The Launch Monitor was previously validated in-house against the Vicon
Bonita Motion Analysis System, Trackman
TM
III Golf Swing and Ball Flight Analysis System
(Brighton, MI, USA).
For the golf shots, a Taylormade (Basingstoke, UK) Speed Blade StiffShaft 7-iron, with a
shaft length of 37 in. and a Taylormade SLDR StiffShaft Driver, with a shaft length of 45.5 in.
were used. Titleist Pro-V1 (Titleist, Cambridgeshire, UK) golf balls were also used for all golf
shots. Each of the clubs had four retro-reflective markers attached to them; this enabled the
determination of the five phases of the golf swing using the Nexus 2 Vicon Data Capture
Software. These markers were placed on the base of the grip, halfway down the club, the hosel
of the club and the club head (Higdon, Finch, Leib, & Dugan, 2012). To enable the analysis of
the golf swing, researchers often divide the golf swing into the five phases that are detailed in
Figure 1 (Farber et al., 2009;Lim,Chow,&Chae,2012;Marta,Silva,Vaz,Bruno,&Pezarat-
Correia, 2013;Marta,Silva,Vaz,Castro,&Pezarat-Correia,2015;Sorbieetal.,2016). Taylormade
RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE 3
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
ST (Taylormade, Basingstoke, UK) synthetic gloves were used as part of the experiment. Small,
medium, medium/large, large and extra-large groves were available to participants. The glove
was required to fit comfortably across the palm and finger regions of the hand.
EMG procedure
In order to reduce the impedance of the interface between the skin and electrode, the
skin was prepared by removing hair from the forearm, alcohol cleaned and abraded for
electrical connectivity. The electrodes were then placed on the ECRB and FDS forearm
muscles on the left and right arms (Figure 2). To standardize the placement of the
electrodes of the ECRB muscle, a line was marked between the lateral epicondyle and
the radial styloid process. The ECRB is located in the proximal half of the forearm, just
lateral to the line (Basmajian, 1989). The electrode for the FDS muscle was placed
towards the middle of the forearm, halfway from the ventral midline to the medial
border of the forearm (Blackwell, Kornatz, & Heath, 1999).
Following the EMG electrodes being secured and the signals verified, participants
performed two 3-s maximum isometric handgrip contractions in maximum flexion for
Figure 1. Silhouette description of the phases of the golf swing (Farber et al., 2009).
Figure 2. Electrodes placed on the FDS and ECRB forearm muscles with transmitters secured to the
forearm using plastic wrap cling film (UK) (image from participant 6).
4G. G. SORBIE ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
the FDS reference. Participants then performed two 3-s maximum isometric handgrip
contractions in maximum extension for the ECRB reference. Specifically, participants
were instructed to slowly increase the force and be at maximum effort after 3–5s,
and hold the maximum force for a further 3 s. Participants were given 5-min recovery
time between each contraction. During the contractions, the forearm was secured in a
previously validated rig in order to minimize elbow and shoulder movement. The rig
held the elbow at approximately 120° during the handgrip recordings. The mean of
500 ms at the highest signal portion of the MVC was examined in order to normalize the
golf swing (Konrad, 2006). The activity patterns of the golf swing were assessed every
20 ms and expressed as a percentage of MVC (Farber et al., 2009).
Experimental design
Prior to collecting golf swing data, participants were asked to perform a dynamic warm-
up routine targeting the full body. After the warm-up routine was complete the
participants performed several golf shots. The testing process comprised:
(1) eight shots with the Driver using the glove (G),
(2) eight shots with the Driver without using the glove (NG),
(3) eight shots with the 7-iron using the glove (G) and
(4) eight shots with the 7-iron without using the glove (NG).
All golf shots in the session were hit at a rate of one shot every 30 s. During a pilot study,
golfers stated that this was a comfortable pace to perform the golf shots. Between each
of the conditions participants rested for 2 min to avoid muscular fatigue of the forearm.
The participants were asked to aim towards a red target pole which was situated behind
the golf net and advised to take into consideration the accuracy and distance of their
normal Driver and 7-iron shots. The order of this process was randomized using a
processing generator (TextFixer: www.testfixer.com). This minimized any systematic
error in testing. During each of the golf shots that were performed, video, EMG and
performance data were recorded.
Data analysis
For the performance variables and EMG data, mean values were calculated for eight golf
shots performed by each participant during each of the four conditions. Following this,
mean values were calculated across participants. Normal distribution for all variables was
assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test (McCormick et al., 2014). A null hypothesis for the
tests was accepted due to all pvalues being higher than 0.05. Upon this being
determined a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to identify
differences in EMG data sets when using the golf glove compared to not using the golf
glove (bare hand), during the five phases of the golf swing (Farber et al., 2009; Lim et al.,
2012; Marta et al., 2013,2015; Sorbie et al., 2016). Muscle activity was expressed as a
percentage of the MVC. All performance variables were analysed for statistical signifi-
cance using a paired t-test. Additionally, all calculations were performed on SPSS
(version 22) and Microsoft Excel (version 2010), and p< 0.05 was considered significant.
RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE 5
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
Results
Performance
Driver
Participants displayed significantly higher CHS with the Driver G (150.76 km/h ± 7.63) in
comparison to the Driver NG (146.93 km/h ± 9.56) (p= 0.025) (Figure 3). Participants
displayed significantly higher BS with the Driver G (218.57 km/h ± 15.39) in comparison
to the Driver NG (212.49 km/h ± 16.21) (p= 0.030) (Figure 4). The ACD was also
significantly increased when comparing the Driver G (204.41 M ± 28.83) to the Driver
NG (193.50 M ± 27.28) (p= 0.012).
7-Iron
Participants displayed no significant differences in CHS whilst using the 7-iron G
(130.83 km/h ± 9.74) in comparison to the 7-iron NG (128.25 km/h ± 9.31) (p= 0.151)
(Figure 3). No significant differences were displayed in BS when comparing the 7-iron G
(167.07 km/h ± 17.14) to the 7-iron NG (162.58 km/h ± 18.44) (p= 0.068) (Figure 4). No
significant differences were displayed between the ACD when comparing the 7-iron G
(127.90 m ± 18.88) to the 7-iron NG (122.83 m ± 18.30) (p= 0.059).
Muscle activity
Comparison between conditions (glove vs. no glove)
All participants displayed a similar trend in forearm muscle activity pattern when
comparing the use of the glove and the bare hand whilst using the Driver and 7-iron.
The muscle activity for the FDS and ECRB in the lead (left hand for right handed golfers)
and trail (right hand for right handed golfers) arm for the five phases of the golf swing
are displayed on Table 1. No significant differences were displayed in the FDS and ECRB
muscle activity in the lead or trail arms during the five phases of the golf swing when
comparing the use of the commercial golf glove and the bare hand (all p> 0.05).
Figure 3. Driver G, Driver NG and 7-iron G, 7-iron NG –club head speed. *Significance between
Driver G and Driver NG.
6G. G. SORBIE ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
Comparison between phases
The FDS and ECRB forearm muscles on the lead and trail sides displayed peak activation
values during the forward swing, acceleration and early follow-through phases (Table 1).
All muscles showed significant statistical differences between the peak activation (for-
ward swing, acceleration and early follow-through) phases compared to the lower
activation phases (backswing and late follow-through) (all p< 0.05).
Discussion
The aim of the present study was, firstly, to determine how a commercial golf glove
influences CHS, BS and ACD when performing golf shots with the Driver and 7-iron.
Secondly, the study aimed to investigate the muscle activation levels from the forearm
muscles when using the golf glove compared to the bare hand whilst using the Driver
and the 7-iron at the five phases of the golf swing.
The present study is in agreement with previously published research where perfor-
mance in sports has been shown to improve with the use of a glove (Lewis et al., 2014;
Lutgendorf et al., 2009). With similar results to the present study, where the researchers
displayed a significant increase in CHS and BS, Lutgendorf et al. (2009) showed that the
use of a glove in wheelchair rugby significantly increased acceleration compared to the
bare hand. In addition to this, during ultimate Frisbee, Lewis et al. (2014) reported that
using a glove when catching the Frisbee increased friction and, therefore, increased
performance during the execution of the skill. The results of the present study also
support the claim made by leading golf manufacturers that the commercial golf glove
increases friction between the hand and the golf grip and, therefore, could have a
positive impact on golf swing performance (Golf Galaxy, 2017). However, the result of
the present study only displays this change to be significant when using the Driver and
not the 7-iron. It could be suggested that the contrasting results between the Driver and
7-iron could be due to the Driver generating a significantly higher CHS when compared
Figure 4. Driver G, Driver NG and 7-iron G, 7-iron NG –ball speed. *Significance between Driver G
and Driver NG.
RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE 7
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
Table 1. Mean and SD values for each muscle tested with and without the golf glove, in percentages of MVC.
Method FDS lead arm ECRB lead arm FDS trail arm ECRB trail arm FDS lead arm ECRB lead arm FDS trail arm ECRB trail arm
Glove (Driver G) (7-iron G)
Backswing 46.45 ± 18.89 36.78 ± 14.08 24.19 ± 8.20 46.54 ± 17.20 41.77 ± 17.41 35.83 ± 11.76 24.27 ± 7.98 47.83 ± 19.64
Forward swing 63.22 ± 24.80 44.54 ± 20.47 65.27 ± 19.49 59.42 ± 20.73 51.35 ± 19.54 44.79 ± 14.49 68.52 ± 24.46 54.04 ± 19.83
Acceleration 56.76 ± 20.41 69.61 ± 20.15 108.99 ± 30.36 55.35 ± 19.77 55.32 ± 17.42 76.49 ± 21.22 95.92 ± 17.68 55.64 ± 14.16
Early follow-through 46.46 ± 17.32 60.90 ± 23.31 80.06 ± 20.31 53.73 ± 22.68 45.55 ± 15.41 66.86 ± 20.68 67.26 ± 20.74 50.69 ± 18.50
Late follow-through 38.21 ± 17.74 35.40 ± 14.57 44.35 ± 21.35 35.55 ± 14.00 37.71 ± 19.15 32.49 ± 17.02 39.90 ± 17.53 33.08 ± 11.58
No glove (Driver NG) (7-iron NG)
Backswing 49.37 ± 19.49 37.33 ± 13.67 26.83 ± 9.93 45.13 ± 16.37 42.00 ± 16.67 38.38 ± 14.29 26.01 ± 7.64 48.22 ± 19.32
Forward swing 55.95 ± 20.32 48.49 ± 20.81 67.29 ± 18.08 56.68 ± 17.86 55.09 ± 23.24 46.63 ± 14.78 72.39 ± 20.40 56.24 ± 19.83
Acceleration 62.28 ± 20.25 66.69 ± 27.15 110.24 ± 21.74 62.94 ± 22.48 59.01 ± 19.92 78.62 ± 20.34 94.61 ± 18.80 57.36 ± 20.16
Early follow-through 47.10 ± 16.52 63.90 ± 23.41 85.63 ± 21.60 55.53 ± 21.51 46.84 ± 13.92 68.03 ± 20.68 68.67 ± 17.93 49.54 ± 13.73
Late follow-through 35.69 ± 15.23 35.45 ± 15.72 45.30 ± 23.87 40.46 ± 14.76 39.55 ± 18.60 32.77 ± 17.01 41.46 ± 15.62 34.70 ± 12.14
ECRB: Extensor carpi radialis brevis; FDS: flexor digitorum superficialis; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction.
8G. G. SORBIE ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
to the 7-iron (p< 0.05). These changes may also be a result of the forearm muscles
generating marginally higher activation levels when using the Driver compared to the 7-
iron, which supports previously published literature (Farber et al., 2009; Glazebrook et al.,
1994; Sorbie et al., 2016). The contrasting results could also be due to the Driver having
a longer shaft length compared to the 7-iron and the two clubs being used for different
shots in the golf game. The Driver is used to hit the ball as far as possible (Nagao &
Sawada, 1973), whereas the 7-iron club is mainly used for shots between 100 and 150 m
where high accuracy and precision is essential (Egret et al., 2003).
With regard to forearm muscle activity, the present study is somewhat contrasting to
other published research. Larivière et al. (2004) and Kovacs et al. (2002) reported an
increase in forearm muscle activation levels during a handgrip test when wearing a
glove compared to the bare hand. In contrast, the present study shows that there is no
significant change in forearm muscle activity when wearing the golf glove compared to
not wearing the golf glove whilst using the Driver or 7-iron. These contrasting findings
may be a result of the high variability of the muscle activation levels or due to the static
components of the handgrip test and the dynamic movement of the golf swing. With no
increased load placed on the forearm muscles when comparing the commercial golf
glove to the bare hand during the golf swing, it could be suggested that using the golf
glove does not reduce the risk of injury to the elbow (Dickerson et al., 2007). Previous
studies have shown that increased forearm muscle activity may increase the risk of
medial and lateral epicondylitis when performing the golf swing (Farber et al., 2009;
Glazebrook et al., 1994).
With reference to the five phases of the golf swing, the present study displays
distinct differences in forearm muscle activation between the five phases. The results
from the present study show that in most cases the lead and trail forearm muscles
aremoreactiveduringtheforwardswing,acceleration and early follow-through
phases compared to the backswing and late follow-through phases. These finding
are in agreement with Farber et al. (2009)andSorbieetal.(2016) where these
researchers displayed a similar trend when examining forearm muscle activity when
using the Driver and 7-iron clubs, respectively. Specifically, Farber et al. (2009)
showed that the ECRB muscle on the lead arm increased progressively between the
backswing (21.3% EMG), forward swing (74.2% MVC) and acceleration (94.2% EMG)
phases when examining amateur golfers. Additionally, muscle activity then progres-
sively reduced between the acceleration (94.2% EMG), early follow-through (32.1%
EMG) and late follow-through (31.1% EMG) phases of the golf swing. With regard to
the muscle activation values of the ECRB muscle, Farber et al. (2009) displayed higher
values during the forward swing, acceleration and late follow-through phases com-
pared to the current study. These changes may be a result of the higher mean
handicap (18.0 mean handicap) in the current study compared the study by Farber
et al. (2009) (15.1 mean handicap). However, these changes may also be a result of
different methodologies used between the two studies. Farber et al. (2009)usedfine-
wire EMG to collect muscle activity from the forearm muscles whereas the present
study used surface EMG.
The researchers acknowledge that there are some limitations to the present study.
Firstly, it must be considered that EMG signal crosstalk from surrounding extensor and
flexor muscles is a limitation to the current study. The following steps were taken to
RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE 9
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
reduce EMG signal crosstalk between muscles. The surface electrodes were positioned
within the middle of the muscle belly of the FDS and ECRB forearm muscles and applied
in parallel arrangement to the muscle fibres, with a centre-to-centre inter-electrode
distance of 2 cm. Secondly, this study only investigated one commercial golf glove
material. Future studies in this area could investigate the difference between using the
leather and the hybrid gloves. Thirdly, all participants in the present study used an
interlock gripping style, further research should be performed to investigate if different
gripping styles have the same significant effect between wearing a golf glove and not
wearing a golf glove when using the Driver. Finally, testing was limited to an indoor
laboratory facility, therefore ACD was calculated from the CHS, BS and launch angle.
Further investigation is also required to identify the point between the Driver and 7-iron
where the three performance variables tested are not significantly increased.
Conclusion
To summarize, the results of this study showed a significant increase in CHS, BS and ACD
whilst using a Driver with the glove compared to using a Driver without the glove; however,
no significant differences were evident when using the 7-iron. Muscle activity in the forearm
did not change whilst using the Driver or 7-iron in either of the variables that were tested;
therefore, it is unlikely that the commercial golf glove has any effect on elbow injuries within
amateur golfers. The data from this study suggest that golfers could increase their long
game performance by wearing a glove if they choose to use it whilst using the Driver.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Fergal M. Grace http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3144-5999
References
Basmajian, J. (1989). Biofeedback; principles and practice for clinicians. Baltimore: Wiliams & Wilkins.
Blackwell, J. R., Kornatz, K. W., & Heath, E. M. (1999). Effect of grip span on maximal grip force and
fatigue of flexor digitorum superficialis. Applied Ergonomics,30(5), 401–405. doi:10.1016/S0003-
6870(98)00055-6
Dickerson, C. R., Martin, B. J., & Chaffin, D. B. (2007). Predictors of perceived effort in the shoulder
during load transfer tasks. Ergonomics,50(7), 1004–1016. doi:10.1080/00140130701295947
Egret, C. I., Vincent, O., Weber, J., Dujardin, F. H., & Chollet, D. (2003). Analysis of 3D kinematics
concerning three different clubs in golf swing. International Journal of Sports Medicine,24(6),
465–470. doi:10.1055/s-2003-41175
Farber, A. J., Smith, J. S., Kvitne, R. S., Mohr, K. J., & Shin, S. S. (2009). Electromyographic analysis of
forearm muscles in professional and amateur golfers. The American Journal of Sports Medicine,
37(2), 396–401. doi:10.1177/0363546508325154
Farrally, M. R., Cochran, A. J., Crews, D. J., Hurdzan, M. J., Price, R. J., Snow, J. T., & Thomas, P. R.
(2003). Golf science research at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Journal of Sports
Sciences,21, 753–765. doi:10.1080/0264041031000102123
10 G. G. SORBIE ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
Fradkin,A.,Sherman,C.,&Finch,C.(2004). How well does club head speed correlate with golf handicaps?
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,7(4), 465–472. doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(04)80265-2
Golf Galaxy. (2017). Golf Glove: http://www.golfgalaxy.com/
Glazebrook, M. A., Curwin, S., Mohammad, N., Kozey, J., & William, D. (1994). Medial epicondylitis.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine,22(5), 674–679.
Higdon, N. R., Finch, W. H., Leib, D., & Dugan, E. L. (2012). Effects of fatigue on golf performance.
Sports Biomechanics,11(2), 190–196. doi:10.1080/14763141.2011.638386
Hume, P. A., Keogh, J., & Reid, D. (2005). The role of biomechanics in maximising distance and
accuracy of golf shots. Sports Medicine,35(5), 429–449.
Komi, E. R., Roberts, R. J., & Rothberg, S. J. (2008). Measurement and analysis of grip force during a
golf shot. Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology,221(1), 23–35.
Konrad, P. (2006). A practical introduction to kinesiological electromyography (pp. 1–61). Scottsdale,
AZ: N. INC, The ABC of EMG.
Kovacs, K., Splittstoesser, R., Maronitis, A., & Marras, W. S. (2002). Grip force and muscle activity
differences due to glove type. AIHA Journal,63(3), 269–274. doi:10.1080/15428110208984713
Larivière, C., Plamondon, A., Lara, J., Tellier, C., Boutin, J., & Dagenais, A. (2004). Biomechanical
assessment of gloves. A study of the sensitivity and reliability of electromyographic parameters
used to measure the activation and fatigue of different forearm muscles. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics,34(2), 101–116. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.02.002
Lephart, S., Smoliga, J., Myers, J., Sell, T., & Tsai, Y. (2007). An eight-week golf-stretching exercise
program improves physical characteristics, swing mechanics, and golf performance in recreational
golfers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,21(3), 860–869. doi:10.1519/R-20606.1
Lewis, R., Carré, M. J., & Tomlinson, S. E. (2014). Skin friction at the interface between hands and
sports equipment. Procedia Engineering,72(0), 611–617. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.064
Lim, Y.-T., Chow, J. W., & Chae, W.-S. (2012). Lumbar spinal loads and muscle activity during a golf
swing. Sports Biomechanics,11(2), 197–211. doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.670662
Lutgendorf, M., Mason, B., Woude, L., Van Der Louise, V., Tolfrey, G., Lutgendorf, M., . . . Louise, V.
(2009). Effect of glove type on wheelchair rugby sports performance. Sports Technology,2(3),
121–128. doi:10.1080/19346182.2009.9648509
Marta, S., Silva, L., Vaz, J., Bruno, P., & Pezarat-Correia, P. (2013). Electromyographic analysis of trunk
muscles during the golf swing performed with two different clubs. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching,8(4), 779–787.
Marta, S., Silva, L., Vaz, J. R., Castro, M. A., & Pezarat-Correia, P. (2015). Electromyographic analysis of
lower limb muscles during the golf swing performed with three different clubs. Journal of Sports
Sciences,38(8), 713–720. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1069376
McCormick, M.C., Watson, H., Simpson, A, Kilgore, L, & Baker, J.S. (2014). Surface electromyographic
activities of upper body muscles during high-intensity cycle ergometry. Res Sport Med.,22, 124–
135. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2014.881817
Nagao, N., & Sawada, Y. (1973). A kinematic analysis in golf swing concerning driver shot and No. 9
iron shot. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,13,4–16.
Sorbie, G. G., Hunter, H. S., Fergal, F. M., Gu, Y., Baker, J. S., & Ugbolue, U. C. (2016). An electro-
myographic study of the effect of hand grip sizes on forearm muscle activity and golf perfor-
mance. Research in Sports Medicine,24(3), 207–218.
Stefanyshyn, D. J., & Wannop, J. W. (2015). Biomechanics research and sport equipment develop-
ment. Sports Engineering,18(4), 191–202. doi:10.1007/s12283-015-0183-5
RESEARCH IN SPORTS MEDICINE 11
Downloaded by [University of Abertay Dundee] at 03:21 06 September 2017
