Effects of an 18-Week Strength Training Program on Low-Handicap Golfers' Performance

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an 18-week strength training program on variables related to low-handicap golfers' performance. Ten right-handed male golfers, reporting a handicap of 5 or less, were randomly divided into two groups: the control group (CG) (N = 5, age: 23.9 ± 6.7 years) and the treatment group (TG) (N = 5, age: 24.2 ± 5.4 years). CG players followed the standard physical conditioning program for golf, which was partially modified for the TG. The TG participated in an 18-week strength training program divided into three parts: maximal strength training including weightlifting exercises (2 days a week for 6 weeks), explosive strength training with combined weights and plyometric exercises (2 days a week for 6 weeks), and golf-specific strength training, including swings with a weighted club and accelerated swings with an acceleration tubing system (3 days a week for 6 weeks). Body mass, body fat, muscle mass, jumping ability, isometric grip strength, maximal strength (RM), ball speed, and golf club mean acceleration were measured on five separate occasions. The TG demonstrated significant increases (p < 0.05) in maximal and explosive strength after 6 weeks of training and in driving performance after 12 weeks. These improvements remained unaltered during the 6-week golf-specific training period and even during a 5-week detraining period. It may be concluded that an 18-week strength training program can improve maximal and explosive strength and these increases can be transferred to driving performance; however, golfers need time to transfer the gains.

Full text

EFFECTS OF AN 18-WEEK STRENGTH TRAINING
PROGRAM ON LOW-HANDICAP GOLFERS’
PERFORMANCE
MARI
´AA
´LVAREZ,
1
SILVIA SEDANO,
2
GONZALO CUADRADO,
1
AND JUAN CARLOS REDONDO
1
1
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Leo
´n, Leo
´n, Spain; and the
2
Faculty of
Sports Sciences, European University ‘‘Miguel de Cervantes,’’ Valladolid, Spain
ABSTRACT
A
´lvarez, M, Sedano, S, Cuadrado, G, and Redondo, JC. Effects
of an 18- week strength training program on low-handicap
golfers’ performance. J Strength Cond Res 26(4): 1110–1121,
2012—The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of an 18-week strength training program on variables related
to low-handicap golfers’ performance. Ten right-handed male
golfers, reporting a handicap of 5 or less, were randomly
divided into two groups: the control group (CG) (N = 5, age:
23.9 66.7 years) and the treatment group (TG) (N = 5, age:
24.2 65.4 years). CG players followed the standard physical
conditioning program for golf, which was partially modified for
the TG. The TG participated in an 18-week strength training
program divided into three parts: maximal strength training
including weightlifting exercises (2 days a week for 6 weeks),
explosive strength training with combined weights and
plyometric exercises (2 days a week for 6 weeks), and golf-
specific strength training, including swings with a weighted
club and accelerated swings with an acceleration tubing
system (3 days a week for 6 weeks). Body mass, body fat,
muscle mass, jumping ability, isometric grip strength, maximal
strength (RM), ball speed, and golf club mean acceleration
were measured on five separate occasions. The TG demon-
strated significant increases (p,0.05) in maximal and
explosive strength after 6 weeks of training and in driving
performance after 12 weeks. These improvements remained
unaltered during the 6-week golf-specific training period
and even during a 5-week detraining period. It may be
concluded that an 18-week strength training program can
improve maximal and explosive strength and these increases
can be transferred to driving performance; however, golfers
need time to transfer the gains.
KEY WORDS ball speed, club mean acceleration, weightlifting,
plyometrics, weighted club, acceleration tubing system
The popularity of golf has risen considerably in
recent years with more than 35 million players
around the world of all ages and skill levels (2). Golf
has traditionally been viewed as a skill-based sport,
in which the continual refinement of ball striking and putting
skills has been given more emphasis than the development of
physical fitness (4,10,11). However, physical training is now
an integral component of an elite player’s regimen, because
golf is a demanding physical game, also in terms of creating
explosive power through a wide range of motions (22).
The full golf swing is the technical skill most often used and
it is the primary foundation on which all other golf swings are
based (22). The primary goal of using the driver is to transfer
power to a golf ball, which constitutes an explosive burst of
muscular activity of the whole body that puts various joints
of the body under stress (4,8,12,19,21,22). The displacement
of a golf shot is a direct function of club-head velocity (8,21)
and is a vital aspect of success in golf. Club-head velocity and
ball speed are determined by the technical ability of golfers
to swing the club and also by their capacity to powerfully
contract the muscles involved in the movement (8,11,21).
Typical club-head velocities can exceed 160 km/h and it
takes only 0.2 seconds to accelerate the club to this speed,
which is done 30 to 40 times per round (22). Therefore,
golfers need major specific strength, especially in tasks such
as full swing, in which the ability of the golfer to use muscle
strength effectively plays an important part in performance.
Consequently, one of the main aims of training programs
should be to improve golf-specific strength to optimize swing
mechanics and golf performance. In fact, several researchers
have stated that golf performance can be improved by weight
training, plyometric programming, and combined flexibility
and strength training (1,4,6,9,11,19,20,23). However, the
effects of strength training on golf performance have been
This work was conducted at the Laboratory of Sport Performance,
University of Leo
´n, Leo
´n, Spain.
Address correspondence to Dr. Silvia Sedano, ssedano@uemc.es.
26(4)/1110–1121
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1110
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

mainly reported in young or senior recreational male golfers
(1,6,9,11,19,20,23). The only recent study reporting these
effects in a low-handicap cohort was carried out by Fletcher
and Hartwell (4), who developed an 8-week combined
weights and plyometrics training program with six male
golfers. They registered significant gains in driving distance
(between 5.1 and 17.3 m) and club-head speed (between 0.7
and 2.7 km/h) in comparison with players in the control
group, who continued with their regular physical condition-
ing program and showed no improvements in these variables.
Besides, in several of these studies reporting significant
improvements in golf performance after strength training
programs, no control groups were used (1,6,11,23). It is
therefore difficult to confirm that variations were the result of
any specific training program.
Because of the lack of related studies, more research into
the effect of different strength training programs on the
performance of low-handicap golfers was necessary. Conse-
quently, the purpose of the present study was to determine the
effects of an 18-week three-part (maximal, explosive, and golf-
specific) strength training program on body mass, body fat,
muscle mass, isometric grip strength, jumping ability, ball
speed, club mean acceleration, and maximal strength in low-
handicap male players. We hypothesized that with the strength
training program implemented during the competitive season,
which partially replaced the regular golf conditioning program,
the experimental group of low-handicap golfers would dem-
onstrate greater increases in maximal and explosive strength,
which could be transferred to driving performance in terms
of club mean acceleration and ball speed.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To study the effects of a three-part strength training program
on low- handicap golfers’ performance, the adaptations of this
type of training were compared with a regular standard
physical conditioning program for golf. Participants were
matched regarding their golf handicap to ensure similar levels
of technical execution of the swing. Subjects participated in
a prescribed number of monitored training sessions over the
course of 18 weeks. They were evaluated on five occasions:
1 week before the start of the training program; after 6, 12, and
18 weeks of training; and 5 weeks after the end of the program
(detraining period). The independent variables were type of
physical conditioning program and time of dependent
variable assessment. Dependent variables were body mass,
fat mass, muscle mass, squat jump (SJ) height, counter
movement jump (CMJ) height, ball speed, club mean
acceleration, isometric grip strength, and maximal strength.
Subjects were restricted from participating in any other
exercise programs during the training period. Two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was
conducted to assess the effects.
Subjects
Ten right-handed male golfers agreed to participate in the
study and were randomly divided into two groups: the control
group (CG) and the treatment group (TG). Their demo-
graphic and anthropometric data are shown in Table 1.
The groups were balanced so that no significant intergroup
differences were observed for age, height, or body mass
(p= 0.095–0.336).
All players reported a handicap of 5 or less. This limit was
set to minimize the variability in the mechanics of the swing.
There were no group differences with regard to golf-related
experience (CG 10.2 64.5 years; TG 9.7 66.1 years). Players
averaged 18.5 66.2 hours of training per week and completed
at least one full round (18 holes) of golf per week.
All players involved in the study attended all the sessions.
Before the start of the intervention they were fully informed
of the aims of the study. They provided written informed
consent and completed a set of questionnaires on their health
history and golf-playing history. All procedures described
in this study were approved by the Ethical Committee of
the University of Leo
´n (Spain).
Procedures
Training Protocols. The specific training program was
implemented during the competitive season (i.e., March,
April, May, June, and July). Before the start of the intervention,
both groups carried out the same regular standard physical
conditioning program for 2 months.
During the intervention, all players participated in the
regular golf training program, which included six training
sessions a week, including at least one full round (18 holes).
The physical conditioning program was different for the two
groups. CG players followed the regular standard physical
conditioning program for golf, which was partially altered in
the TG to improve strength in the upper and lower limbs.
TABLE 1. Demographic and anthropometric data of the players (mean 6SD).
Group Age (years) Handicap Height (cm) Mass (kg) Arm length (cm)
Control group (n = 5) 23.9 66.7 1.6 61.1 172.1 64 70.76 67.1 177.22 63
Treatment group (n = 5) 24.2 65.4 2.1 62.3 171.9 67 68.09 68.3 171.62 66
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1111
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Both training programs are detailed later. After the 18 weeks,
TG and CG participants continued with the same regular
standard physical conditioning program together. During the
study, golfers were not allowed to perform any other training
that might influence the results and they were previously
informed about hydration, rest, and nutrition patterns. All
training sessions were supervised by the lead researcher with
careful attention to proper exercise technique. Subjects were
given visual and tactile feedback to perform the exercises
correctly. Whenever they had a competition, it replaced the
training session. The training regimen of the golfers during the
study is shown in Table 2.
Control Group Training. During the 18-week intervention, the
CG players followed the training regimen set out sub-
sequently: 1) Monday and Friday: Golfers practiced drives
for 60 minutes followed by a half-round (nine holes);
2) Tuesday: Golfers practiced drives for 60 minutes and then
underwent core stability training for 60 minute s with a general
order made up of exercises for the lower body first, then
for the upper body, and finally abdominal and lower back
exercises; 3) Wednesday: Golfers practiced different iron
and wood shots for 30 minutes, then performed a half-round
(nine holes), and finally carried out stretching exercises
focused on the muscles related to the full swing (i.e. deltoids,
rectus abdominus, biceps, triceps, latissimus dorsi, external
oblique, quadriceps, gluteus maximus, hamstrings, gastroc-
nemius, soleus and forearm muscles) for 30 minutes; and
4) Thursday: Golfers practiced different iron and wood shots
for 60 minutes followed by 60 minutes of general strength
training exercises focused on the same muscle groups pre-
viously mentioned (e.g., external resistance was provided by
using portable rubber bands, ropes, or with the assistance of
the trainer). A list of some of the exercises used is shown:
1) front deltoid raises, military press, abdominal crunches,
one- and two-arm biceps curls, standing kickbacks, triceps
extensions, overhead triceps extensions, standing back rows,
lunges, squats, glute kickbacks, bent-over rows, hamstring
curls, and different forearm exercises; and 2) Saturday or
Sunday: Golfers played a full round (18 holes).
Treatment Group Training. The TG participated in an 18-week
supervised strength training program divided into three parts.
All players had previous experience of this type of training.
Details are given in Table 3.
Maximal Strength Training (6 weeks). TG golfers followed the
same training regimen as CG golfers except that on
Wednesdays and Fridays, they had a maximal strength training
session instead of the session described previously. It included
four upper extremity exercises (i.e., horizontal bench press,
triceps cable push-down, seated barbell military press, and
seated row machine) and two lower extremity exercises (i.e.,
barbell squat and seated calf extension). Exercises were
performed using three sets of five repetitions with 85% of
the maximal load with a 4-minute rest between sets. The
general order of the maximal strength training routine was
horizontal bench press, seated row machine, barbell squat,
seated barbell military press, seated calf extension, and triceps
cable push-down.
Explosive Strength Training. On Wednesdays and Fridays TG
participants had explosive strength training sessions in place
of the sessions described previously, completing a combined
weights and plyometrics program. Sessions included the
exercises detailed previously in the same order as a result of
their specific nature (i.e., horizontal bench press, seated row
machine, barbell squat, seated barbell military press, seated
calf extension, and triceps cable push-down). They were
performed with three sets of six repetitions with 70% of the
maximal load. These characteristics aimed at performing
the movements in an explosive manner. Each resistance
exercise was combined with a plyometric exercise to mimic
the stretch–shortening movement performed by the muscles
involved in the golf swing action. The rests between sets were
4 minutes to guarantee the explosive manner in the execution.
Golf-specific Strength Training. During this 6-week period, on
Wednesdays and Fridays, TG golfers partially replaced the
training session with golf-specific strength exercises, carrying
out swings with a weighted club (300 g) and performing
accelerated swings with an acceleration tubing club system
(Figure 1). Each exercise involved three sets of 10 repetitions
with 4-minute rests between sets.
Testing Protocols
Before the initial testing session, each golfer was familiarized
with the testing protocol.
All participants were required to attend two trial sessions.
In the first, we assessed anthropometric profile, explosive
strength of the lower limbs, ball speed, and club mean
acceleration. Two days later, in the second session, maximal
strength and isometric grip strength were measured. To
standardize testing procedures, the same trained test leaders
carried out the entire test procedure using an identical order
and protocol. All players were tested on five separate
occasions: T1, 1 week before the start of the training
program; T2, T3, and T4, after 6, 12, and 18 weeks of the
training program, respectively; and T5, 5 weeks after the end
of the program (detraining period).
Anthropometric Data. Anthropometric testing followed the
protocols of the International Society for the Advancement of
Kinanthropometry (ISAK) (16) and was performed by an
ISAK level II anthropometrist. Testing was carried out in
a standardized order after a proper calibration of the
measuring instruments. Height and body mass were
measured using a Holtain Ltd. Stadiometer (95–190 cm,
accurate to 0.1 cm) and a SECA Atrax 770 electronic scale
(0–150 kg, accurate to 0.1 kg). To estimate body composition,
six skinfold (triceps, subscapular, suprailial, abdomen, front
thigh, and medial calf) and two diameter (wrist and femur)
1112
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Maximal, Explosive, and Gold-Specific Strength Training in Elite Male Golfers
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 2. General training regimen of the golfers during the study.
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Control Group
60 minutes Golf drives 60 minutes Golf
drives
30 minutes Golf shots
(iron and wood shots)
60 minutes Iron
and wood shots
60 minutes Golf
drives
Full round
or rest*
Full round
or rest*
Half-round (nine holes) 60 minutes Core
stability training
Half round (nine holes) 60 minutes General
strength training
Half-round (nine
holes)
30 minutes Stretching
exercises
TG: Maximal Strength Training (6 weeks)
60 minutes Golf drives 60 minutes Golf
drives
80 minutes Maximal
strength program
60 minutes Iron
and wood shots
80 minutes Maximal
strength program
Full round
or rest*
Full round
or rest*
Half-round (nine holes) 60 minutes Core
stability training
60 minutes General
strength training
TG: Explosive Strength Training (6 weeks)
60 minutes Golf drives 60 minutes Golf
drives
90 minutes Combined
weights and plyometrics
program
60 minutes Iron
and wood shots
90 minutes Combined
weights and
plyometrics
program
Full round
or rest*
Full round
or rest*
Half-round (nine holes) 60 minutes Core
stability training
60 minutes General
strength training
TG: Golf-Specific Strength Training (6 weeks)
40 minutes Golf drives 60 minutes Golf
drives
40 minutes Golf-specific
strength exercises
60 minutes Iron
and wood shots
80 minutes Golf-
specific strength
exercises
Full round
or rest*
Full round
or rest*
Half-round (nine holes) 60 minutes Core
stability training
Half round (nine holes) 60 minutes General
strength training
*Golfers performed at least one full round on Saturday or Sunday.
TG = treatment group.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1113
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

measurements were taken using a Holtain (British Indicators
Ltd) limiting caliper (0–40 mm, accurate to 0.2 mm) and
a Lafayette caliper (0–30 cm, accurate to 0.1 cm). Each
skinfold and diameter was measured three times with the
median result used in data analyses. Subsequently, fat mass,
residual mass, bone mass, and muscle mass and their
respective percentages were calculated to evaluate body
composition using the formulas of Faulkner (3), Rocha (17),
Wu¨rch (24), and Matiegka (15), respectively. All anthropo-
metric measures were highly reliable with intraclass
correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.89 to 0.95 for skinfolds
and 0.91 to 0.98 for diameters.
Explosive Strength of Lower Limbs. Before the start of the test
session, golfers went through a standardized 20-minute
warm-up period. Players’ jumping ability was assessed with
a jumping mat (SportJUMP System; DSD), which showed
positive significant correlations (R
XY
= 0.998, p,0.001) with
the Ergojump Bosco System and with a Dinascan 600M force
plate (R
XY
= 0.994, p,.L001) (5). Golfers performed two
different jumps: a SJ and a CMJ, both with hands on hips,
each one three times. The best result was used for the
statistical analysis. The rest between trials was 60 seconds.
Driving Performance: Golf Ball Speed and Club Mean
Acceleration Assessment. Ball speed and club mean acceleration
were always assessed simultaneously, on the same movement,
using regulation golf balls, always new, and tees of various
heights to suit the preference of each participant. The
performance area was set up at the first teeing ground of the
course. After a short recovery of 4 minutes, the golfers
practiced playing strokes for 5 minutes. This warm-up was
designed to familiarize the participant with the performance
area and to reduce any pretest anxiety.
The speed, expressed in km/h, was measured with
a Stalker’s type hyperfrequency radar (Stalker Professional
Radar, Radar Sales, Plymouth, MA, USA) set up 3 m behind
the tee, 4 cm above the ground and pointed directly at the ball.
The reliability of the results offered by the radar gun with the
current measuring protocol had previously been validated
with a high-speed camera and a Kinescan/IBV 2001 2D
photogrammetric system (IBV, Valencia, Spain). This pilot
TABLE 3. Strength training details.
Maximal Strength Training (sessions on Wednesday and Fridays)
Resistance Exercise Sets/Repetitions/Load/Rest Period Between Sets
Horizontal bench press 3 sets 35 repetitions 385% / 4 minutes
Seated row machine 3 sets 35 repetitions 385% / 4 minutes
Barbell squat 3 sets 35 repetitions 385% / 4 minutes
Seated barbell military press 3 sets 35 repetitions 385% / 4 minutes
Seated calf extension 3 sets 35 repetitions 385% / 4 minutes
Triceps cable push-down 3 sets 35 repetitions 385% / 4 minutes
Explosive Strength Training (sessions on Wednesdays and Fridays)
Combined exercise Sets/Repetitions/Load/Repetitions/Rest Between Sets
Horizontal bench press + plyometric push-ups 3 sets (6 repetitions 370 % + 10 repetitions) / 4 minutes
Seated row machine + explosive pull-downs 3 sets (6 repetitions 370 % + 10 repetitions) / 4 minutes
Barbell squat + vertical jumps over
hurdles (45 cm)
3 sets (6 repetitions 370 % + 10 repetitions) / 4 minutes
Seated barbell military press + plyometric
push-ups
3 sets (6 repetitions 370 % + 10 repetitions) / 4 minutes
Seated calf extension + vertical jumps over
hurdles (45 cm)
3 sets (6 repetitions 370 % + 10 repetitions) / 4 minutes
Triceps cable push-down + plyometric
push-ups
3 sets (6 repetitions 370 % + 3 x 10 repetitions) / 4 minutes
Golf-Specific Strength Training (sessions on Wednesdays and Fridays)
Exercises Sets/Repetitions/Rest Between Sets
Golf drives with weighted clubs 3 sets 310 repetitions /4 minutes
Accelerated drives with an acceleration tubing
club system
3 sets 310 repetitions /4 minutes
1114
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Maximal, Explosive, and Gold-Specific Strength Training in Elite Male Golfers
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

study revealed a positive significant correlation (R
XY
= 0.9947,
p,0.05) between the results registered by the radar gun and
those recorded by the video system. The radar gun was
calibrated immediately before all test sessions according to
the user’s manual.
Each participant performed five drives using his own club
(stiff shaft) from the tee using the same driver each time
and performing his individual preshot routine before each
shot. Participants were instructed to swing maximally during
each trial. The rest period between trials was of 1-minute
duration and the highest speed was used in data analysis.
Club mean acceleration, expressed in m/s
2
, was measured
with a 50-g piezoelectric transducer device (Signal Frame-An,
Sportsmetrics, S.L., Valencia, Spain) with a fastening system
selectively positioned on the shaft of the golf club, 94 cm
from the head and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
shaft. It was communicated with a processor to monitor
measurement data by means of a wire running down the
player’s right arm, inside the sleeve of his sweater, to ensure
comfort during the swing. The highest value recorded was
used in data analysis.
All driving performance measurements were highly reli-
able, with (ICCs of 0.90 to 0.96 for ball speed and 0.97 to
0.98 for club mean acceleration.
Maximal Strength and Isometric Grip Strength. Before the start
of the second test session, participants went through a
standardized 20-minute warm-up. A handgrip dynamometer
(GripTrack; Jtech Medical Industries, Salt Lake City, UT,
USA) was used to measure isometric grip strength with the
participant in a standing position and maintaining a straight
arm. The maximum reading (kg) for each hand from three
attempts was used for statistical analysis. The rest period
between trials was of 1 -minute duration. The measurements
were highly reliable with an ICC for the right hand of 0.954 to
0.977 and 0.944 to 0.969 for the left.
A one-repetition-maximum (1-RM) test following the pro-
tocol established by the National Strength and Conditioning
Association was performed to measure maximal strength.
First, golfers were instructed to warm up with a light
resistance that easily allowed five to 10 repetitions. After
a 1-minute rest period, we estimated a warm-up load that
would allow them to complete three to five repetitions by
TABLE 4. Comparative analysis between CG (n = 5)
and TG (n = 5) in all the variables at baseline.
Fp
Body mass (kg) 0.055 0.821
Percent fat 0.052 0.826
Percent muscle 0.049 0.830
Isometric grip strength, left
hand (kg)
1.398 0.271
Isometric grip strength, right
hand (kg)
0.670 0.437
SJ (cm) 5.528 0.047
CMJ (cm) 3.486 0.099
Ball speed (km/h) 1.950 0.200
Club mean acceleration (m/s
2
) 1.228 0.300
1-RM Horizontal bench press (kg) 2.682 0.111
1-RM Barbell squat (kg) 2.264 0.171
1-RM Seated row machine (kg) 0.775 0.404
1-RM Triceps cable
push-down (kg)
2.414 0.136
1-RM Seated calf extension (kg) 1.047 0.336
1-RM Seated barbell military
press (kg)
2.747 0.136
CG = control group; TG = treatment group; SJ = squat
jump; CMJ = counter movement jump.
Student’s t-test (unpaired samples); Fratios and
pvalues. Significant differences at p,0.05.
Figure 1. Acceleration tubing club system used during the 6-week golf-specific strength training.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1115
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 5. Descriptive data for anthropometric features, isometric grip strength, explosive strength, ball speed, mean club acceleration, and maximal strength for the
control group (CG) and the treatment group (TG) for each test occasion (mean 6SD).
Variable Group
Time Group Time
Group 3
Time
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 FF F
Body mass (kg) CG 68.90 64.45 69.28 63.7 69.76 64.20 71.84 63.70 73.06 63.40 0.656 0.976 3.883
TG 70.76 64.65 70.24 64.04 70.42 64.45 69.94 63.99 70.00 63.94
Body fat (%) CG 17.42 62.70 17.25 62.53 17.06 62.24 17.56 62.20 17.93 61.95 2.768 2.554 4.567*
TG 17.73 61.32
a
16.52 61.41
b
15.59 61.56
c
15.25 61.27
c
15.5 61.31
c
Muscle mass (%) CG 45.66 62.94 45.54 62.86 45.70 62.38 45.53 62.45 45.29 62.53 2.112 1.968 5.846*
TG 46.00 61.77
a
46.81 61.55
a
47.51 61.18
b
47.75 61.07
b
47.52 61.05
b
Isometric grip
strength—left hand (kg)
CG 38.78 68.57 41.64 66.20 42.84 67.23 44.76 67.11 44.20 67.57 0.756 1.554 1.536
TG 45.36 69.01 47.14 68.31 48.54 67.63 48.40 67.52 48.14 67.58
Isometric grip
strength—right hand (kg)
CG 42.12 65.49 43.28 64.66 44.20 66.24 46.30 65.42 43.98 66.14 2.975 4.882 5.435
TG 45.92 68.8 48.26 66.6 48.50 66.33 48.52 66.32 48.44 66.31
SJ (cm) CG 30.02 62.86 30.56 62.70 31.11 62.09 33.12 62.58 32.66 62.60 4.756 4.354* 8.435*
TG 33.40 61.47
a
35.56 60.90
b
37.08 60.95
b
37.58 60.87
b
36.28 60.88
b
CMJ (cm) CG 31.70 64.29 32.60 63.95 32.94 62.62 33.06 63.56 32.88 63.55 3.997 4.768* 7.663*
TG 35.55 61.66
a
37.71 61.29
b
38.86 61.56
b
39.94 62.05
b
38.08 62.14
b
Ball speed (km/h) CG 211.00 620.70 212.00 620.65 210.00 622.67 212.00 621.08 211.00 620.66 1.332 7.443* 10.232*
TG 226.00 612.18
a
236.00 69.05
a
242.60 68.32
b
249.60 66.91
b
244.60 68.61
b
Club mean
acceleration (m/s
2
)
CG 144.79 617.33 145.08 616.86 144.97 616.28 146.81 617.88 145.81 616.72 2.121 6.468* 9.221*
TG 149.94 617.79
a
156.04 612.68
a
160.27 617.88
b
167.18 620.88
b
152.63 619.34
b
1-RM Horizontal
bench press (kg)
CG 47.48 612.92 47.44 613.09 48.06 613.24 47.58 612.40 48.04 612.53 1.908 2.003 4.567*
TG 55.24 610.48
a
58.90 618.62
b
63.26 611.35
b
61.40 619.99
b
60.30 619.27
b
1-RM Barbell squat (kg) CG 100.26 68.37 100.82 68.53 101.76 68.81 102.48 69.11 102.16 628.49 2.001 1.002 5.476*
TG 131.30 630.31
a
146.58 630.80
b
172.66 630.40
b
177.12 628.59
b
166.18 623.94
b
1-RM Seated row
machine (kg)
CG 54.76 624.19 55.70 624.24 56.56 624.60 56.42 624.30 57.62 624.55 2.331 0.998 6.789*
TG 60.66 622.35
a
70.70 623.82
b
80.10 621.94
b
77.04 618.89
b
75.34 621.56
b
1-RM Triceps cable
push-down (kg)
CG 20.86 62.65 21.20 62.64 21.30 62.60 21.38 62.86 21.52 62.71 3.241 2.998 5.987*
TG 23.64 62.55
a
26.26 63.17
b
30.16 63.37
b
28.76 62.58
b
28.38 62.70
b
1-RM Seated calf
extension (kg)
CG 105.80 625.98 106.94 626.15 107.80 626.14 108.32 625.64 107.30 625.28 2.115 3.013 6.788*
TG 127.54 621.00
a
148.02 620.92
b
167.88 627.22
b
168.94 624.51
b
161.72 629.95
b
1-RM Seated barbell
military press (kg)
CG 39.82 615.31 39.85 615.35 40.20 615.81 40.04 615.19 40.04 615.37 0.958 1.995 4.918*
TG 40.98 616.94
a
46.74615.40
b
50.56 616.96
b
49.72 616.93
b
47.72 616.28
b
*p ,0.05. Means in the same row for the same variable having the same subscript are not significantly different at p,0.05.
1116
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Maximal, Explosive, and Gold-Specific Strength Training in Elite Male Golfers
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 2. Graphic display of the data shown in Table 5. Evolution in variableswere analysis of variance showed significant time 3group interaction effects(p,0.05):
body fat, muscle mass, squat jump (SJ), counter movement jump (CMJ), ball speed, club mean acceleration, and variables related to maximal strength (RM).
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1117
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

adding 5% to 10% for upper-body exercises and 10% to 20%
for lower-body exercises. After a 2-minute rest period, we
estimated a near-maximum load that would allow for two
to three repetitions by adding 5% to 10% for upper-body
exercises and 10% to 20% for lower-body ones. Then, we
introduced a 3-minute rest before consecutive load increases
of 5% to 10 % for upper-body exercises and 10% to 20%
for lower-body ones until the player could complete only
one repetition with a proper exercise technique. The
one-repetition-maximum test was calculated for the same
exercises used in the training program, which were always
carried out in the same order: horizontal bench press, seated
row machine, barbell squat, seated barbell military press,
seated calf extension, and triceps cable push-down. A
5-minute rest was taken between exercises. The measure-
ments were highly reliable with the ICC ranging from 0.966
to 0.992, indicating excellent trial-to-trial reliability.
Statistical Analyses
The SPSS statistical software package (version 18.0; Chicago,
IL, USA) was used to analyze all data. Normality of
distribution was tested by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test. Standard statistical methods were used for the
calculations of the means and SD. Student’s t-tests were
carried out to determine differences in the initial values
among the members of the two groups in all variables
analyzed. Training-related effects were assessed using two-
way ANOVA with repeated measures (group 3time). When
a significant F-value was achieved by means of Wilks’
lambda, Scheffe post hoc procedures were performed to
locate the pairwise differences. The Bonferroni correction for
multiple comparisons was applied. Magnitude of treatment
effects within groups were estimated with Cohen
´s effect size
(ES). The within-group ES is defined as the difference
between posttest mean and pretest mean divided by pretest
SD. Cohen classified ESs in ‘‘small’’ (0.2–0.3), ‘‘medium’’ (0.4–
0.7), and ‘‘large’’ (greater than 0.8). In addition, the reliability
of measurements was calculated using ICCs.
Statistical significance was considered to be p#0.05. The
precisions of our estimates of outcome statistics are shown as
95% confidence limits (95% confidence interval).
RESULTS
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test suggested that all variables
were distributed normally (p.0.05). Results of Student
´s
t-test between CG and TG at baseline revealed that there
were no statistically significant differences before the start of
the training program (Table 4). Table 5 shows the data for all
the variables on every test occasion (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5).
A graphic display of these data is shown in Figure 2.
Anthropometric Data
ANOVA revealed no significant time 3group interaction
effects for body mass, although there were significant
interaction effects both for muscle mass (p= 0.01) and body
fat (p= 0.01).
For the TG, the Scheffe post hoc tests found the differences
in body fat between T1 and T2 (p=0.001,ES0,9),T3
(p= 0.001, ES 1, 6 ), T4 (p= 0.002, ES 1, 8), and T5 (p=0.001,
ES 1, 7). Moreover, there were also significant differences
between T2 and T3 (p=0.001,ES0,6),T4(p= 0.001, ES 0, 9),
and T5 (p= 0.001, ES 0, 7) for this variable. For muscle
mass, the differences were found between T1 and each of
T3 (p=0.001,ES0,8),T4(p= 0.002, ES 1), and T5 (p=0.001,
ES 0, 8).
Explosive Strength of Lower Limbs. For explosive strength,
ANOVA showed that there were significant interaction
effects both for SJ (p= 0.001) and CMJ (p= 0.01).
For TG, Scheffe’s post hoc tests found the differences
between T1 and T2 (p= 0.002, ES 1, 4/p= 0.01, ES 1, 3),
T3 (p= 0.001, ES 2, 5/p= 0.01, ES 0, 7), T4 (p= 0.001,
ES 2, 8/p= 0.001, ES 2, 6), and T5 (p= 0.001, ES 1, 9/
p= 0.002 ES 1, 5) for both SJ and CMJ.
Driving Performance. ANOVA reflected significant time 3
group interaction effects both for ball speed (p= 0.005) and
club mean acceleration (p= 0.004)
For TG, Scheffe’s post hoc tests gave the differences
between T1 and T3 (p= 0.001, ES 1, 4/p= 0.002, ES 0, 6),
T4 (p= 0.003, ES 1, 9 /p= 0.001, ES 1), and T5 (p= 0.001,
ES 1, 5/p= 0.002, ES 0, 15) for both ball speed and club mean
acceleration.
Maximal Strength and Isometric Grip Strength. ANOVA
reflected no significant time 3group interaction effects for
isometric grip strength. However, it revealed significant
interaction effects for all the variables related to maximal
strength (horizontal bench press 1 RM [p= 0.001], barbell
squat 1 RM [p= 0.002], seated row machine 1 RM [p=
0.001], triceps cable push-down 1 RM [p= 0.003], seated calf
extension 1 RM [p= 0.001], and seated barbell military press
RM [p= 0.002]).
For all the exercises related to maximal strength, Scheffe’s
post hoc tests located the differences between T1 and T2 (p=
0.001, ES 0, 34/ p= 0.001, ES 0, 5/ p= 0.002, ES 0, 4/ p=
0.001, E S 1 /p= 0.002, ES 1/ p= 0.002, ES 0, 3), T3 (p= 0.01,
ES 0, 76/ p= 0.01, ES 1, 4/ p= 0.001, ES 0, 4/p=0.002,ES2,5/
p=0.002,ES1,9/p=0.001,ES0,6),T4(p=0.001,ES0,6/
p= 0.01, ES 1, 5/ p= 0.001, ES 0, 7/p= 0.002, ES 2/ p=
0.001, ES 2/ p=0.001, ES 0, 5), and T5 (p= 0.001, ES 0, 5/
p= 0.01, ES 1, 1/p= 0.001, ES 0, 7/p= 0.01, ES 1, 9/p=
0.001, ES 1, 6/p= 0.001, ES 0, 4).
DISCUSSION
As mentioned previously, golf is a very demanding physical
game in which performance is partially determined by the
capacity of the players to create power through a wide range
of motions (8,11,21,22). Consequently, one of the most
important aims of training programs for low-handicap
players should be to increase golf-specific strength. As
a result of the lack of studies on highly trained players, our
1118
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Maximal, Explosive, and Gold-Specific Strength Training in Elite Male Golfers
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

aim in the present study was to determine the effects of an
18-week strength training program on different variables
related to golf performance in a skilled cohort. As we
expected, the main findings indicated that the program, in
addition to the regular golf training exercises, increased
maximal strength in both upper and lower limbs, explosive
strength of lower limbs, and driving performance, in terms of
ball speed and club mean acceleration. However, there were
no significant variations in isometric grip strength.
Many researchers have reported significant improvements
in muscular strength after an 8-week conditioning program
in recreational players (6,20,23). Nevertheless, estimated
gains in recreational athletes may not apply to the low-
handicap players, because measurable performance adapta-
tions require more intense training in highly skilled athletes
(7). Our findings indicate that a twice-weekly maximal
strength training program, using the protocol outlined, was
associated with significant improvements in maximal and
explosive strength. These improvements were already
evident after 6 weeks.
Several authors have suggested that leg, upper body, and
arm strength are all correlated with performance measures,
especially with the acceleration and speed reached in the
swing (1,22). Although there is only one research report on
the positive influence of strength training on driving
performance in highly trained players (4), this influence
seems to be clear in recreational amateurs (1,6, 11,19,20,23).
Golfers will therefore benefit from strength training pro-
grams provided that there is a positive transfer of the effects
of these programs to driving performance. This is borne out
by the results of the present study, because it was shown that
the strength training program followed caused significant
increases in driving performance, both in ball speed and in
club mean acceleration. However, data revealed that
although 6 weeks of maximal strength training was enough
time to produce significant improvements in maximal and
explosive strength, golfers needed 12 weeks, including
explosive strength training, to convert these gains to the
specific movement. The golf swing is a complex coordinated
action that puts the whole body under stress to transfer
power to a golf ball (4,8,12,19,22). The improvements in
driving performance could be related to changes in kinematic
variables that alter swing mechanics (e.g., an increased
transfer of energy from proximal to distal segments) (1). In
fact, small, consistent differences in technique may have
existed (1), and golfers needed time to adapt to these
variations. Further studies such as a high-speed three-
dimensional motion analysis would provide a quantitative
analysis of alterations in swing mechanics attributable to
increases in strength (1).
In other sports in which the technical movement depends
on the precisely coordinated action of different muscles, some
authors have emphasized the importance of combining
strength training with technical training in order to transfer
the gains (14,18). On the other hand, several researchers have
suggested that the addition of ballistic movements to
a resistance-training program is also important to mimic
the stretch–shortening movement performed by the muscles
involved in the golf swing (1,4). Therefore, the specific nature
of the exercises and the fact that golfers combined strength
and technical training could be considered as key factors in
the successful transfer of the strength gains to the actual
movement (4,14,18).
Doan et al. (1) indicated that several previous studies had
noted increases in club-head speed or distance of 4% to 7%
after resistance training in recreational players. They also
stated that more highly skilled golfers would respond
differently to strength training. In our study, ball speed
increased by 7% after 12 weeks of training. These improve-
ments in driving performance have both statistical and
practical importance because they have been positively
correlated with scores in average golfers (r= 0.64) (7). In
fact, a 5.3-km/h improvement in driver swing speed is
associated, if all other impact variables were held constant,
with increases of approximately 10 to 15 meters of carry
distance off the tee (19). Therefore, it allows shorter, more
accurate, iron shots onto the greens (1,20), which also entails
less fatigue and enables golfers to perform more effectively,
especially during the latter part of a round (20). Nevertheless,
it might have been interesting to evaluate the impact of the
changes registered in strength on consistency or putting
distance control (1).
With regard to the mechanisms responsible for the motor
performance adaptations, hypertrophy may have a role in
the adaptations because there was a significant gain in
muscle mass accompanied by a significant decrease in body
fat. On the other hand, all the exercises used in the strength
program were chosen on the basis that major agonists
were highly active in golf-specific movements. Consequently,
neural adaptations such as a greater activation and synchro-
nization of the recruitment of higher-threshold motor units
and an enhanced inhibition of antagonist muscle activity
may have an important impact on the gains (1). In fact,
the improvement of muscular coordination after the
maximal and explosive strength training periods could be
partly related to the specific nature of the movements used
and with the regular technical training (4). These authors
concluded that although hypertrophy may have a role
in resistance training, neural adaptations have a greater
impact. However, further studies that focus on neuromus-
cular factors are needed to determine the role of each factor
in the improvements.
Westcott et al. (23) stated that a more specific strength
training program might have an even greater impact on
golfers’ driving performance. Although our results revealed
that changes achieved during the first 12 weeks of training
remained unaltered or even increased slightly during the
6-week golf-specific strength program, there were no sig-
nificant increments during that phase. This is probably the
result of a ceiling effect that might be encountered in TG,
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1119
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

in which golfers already have very high relative swing speeds
(20). However, it is important to highlight the positive effect
of this type of training to maintain the gains previously
achieved. This could be related to the fact that the detraining
period did not affect the changes recorded during the
18-week strength training program in anthropometric
features, maximal strength, explosive strength, and driving
performance. These results are in agreement with those of
other authors, who found that a detraining period, in which
the regular training of a specific sport is maintained, made it
possible to maintain the gains previously achieved, also a key
factor in planning the season (13,18).
Finally, it must be noted that forearm strength is correlated
with measures of driving performance in golfers, because
a good grip is the basis of a good swing (22). However, in our
study, strength training did not seem to have any influence on
isometric grip strength because there were gains in this
variable not only in the CG, but also in the TG and they were
not significant. Therefore, these variations were apparently
caused by the regular golf training exercises. It would be
interesting to include specific strength exercises aimed at
improving the grip.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Although skilled golfers still refrain from strength training
for fear that it will reduce their range of motion, this article
contains information about the beneficial effects of a three-
part strength training program on low-handicap golfers’
performance.
On the basis of our results, it may be concluded that
a 6-week maximal strength training program can improve
maximal and explosive strength and form a basis for more
specific strength exercises (4). These gains can be transferred
to driving performance, which has practical importance
because factors such as ball or club speed are significant
determinants of golf performance. However players need
12 weeks of strength training, including explosive exercises
to transfer the gains. Golf swing is a complex dynamic
movement that depends on the precisely coordinated action
of different muscles. On this point, golf coaches must take
into account that strength exercises should be combined with
technical training to transfer the gains in strength to the
kinematic parameters of the swing. On the other hand, the
specific nature of the exercises used is also important in
the transfer (4). Upper and lower exercises should be focused
on muscles directly involved in the golf movements.
On the other hand, the fact that a player’s maximal
and explosive strength and driving performance can sub-
sequently be maintained at a high level by means of golf-
specific strength exercises is also important for practitioners.
Moreover, golf coaches must take into account that regular
golf training can maintain the gains for several weeks after the
18-week program.
Finally, it may be concluded that physical training,
especially strength training, should be an integral component
of low-handicap players’ practice regimen because of its
potential to improve the performance of already proficient
golfers. However, it must be taken into consideration that our
sample is not as wide as to claim that results previously
mentioned could easily be extrapolated. Therefore, further
studies with a greater sample must be developed.
REFERENCES
1. Doan, BK, Newton, RU, Kwon, YH, and Kraemer, WJ. Effects of
physical conditioning on intercollegiate golfer performance.
J Strength Cond Res 20(1): 62–72, 2006.
2. Farrally, MR, Cochran, AJ, and Crews, DJ. Golf science research
at the beginning of the twenty-first century. J Sports Sci 21:
753–765, 2003.
3. Faulkner, JA. Physiology of swimming and diving. In: Human Exercise
Physiology. Baltimore, MD: Academia Press, 1968. pp. 87–95.
4. Fletcher, IM and Hartwell, M. Effect of an 8-week combined weights
and plyometrics training program on golf drive performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18(1): 59–62, 2004.
5. Garcı
´a-Lo
´pez, J, Peleteiro, J, Rodrı
´guez-Marroyo, JA, Morante, JC,
Herrero, JA, and Villa, JG. The validation of a new method that
measures contact and flight times during vertical jump. Int J Sports
Med 26: 294–302, 2005.
6. Hetu, FE, Christie, CA, and Faigenbaum, AD. Effects of condi-
tioning on physical fitness and club head speed in mature golfers.
Percept Motor Skills 86: 811–815, 1998.
7. Hopkins, WG, Hawley, JA, and Burke, LM. Design and analysis of
research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc
31: 472–485, 1999.
8. Hume, PA, Keogh, J, and Reid, D. The role of biomechanics in
maximising distance and accuracy of golf shots. Sports Med 35 (5):
429–449, 2005.
9. Jones, D. The effects of propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
flexibility training on the clubhead speed of recreational golfers.
In: Science and Golf III: Proceedings of the 1998 World Scientific
Congress of Golf. M.R. Farrally and A.J., eds. Champaign, IL, Human
Kinetics, 1999. pp. 46–50.
10. Keogh, WL, Marnewick, MC, Maulder, PS, Nortje, JP, Hume, PA,
and Bradshaw, EJ. Are anthropometric, flexibility, muscular
strength and endurance variables related to clubhead velocity in
low- and high- handicap golfers? J Strength Cond Res 23(6):
1841–1850, 2009.
11. Lephart, SM, Smoliga, JM, Myers, JB, Sell, TC, and Tsai, YS. An
eight-week golf-specific exercise program improves physical
characteristics, swing mechanics and golf performance in recrea-
tional golfers. J Strength Cond Res 21(3): 860–869, 2007.
12. Lindsay, DM, Horton, JF, and Vandervoort, AA. A review of injury
characteristics, aging factors and prevention programmes for the
older golfer. Sports Med 30(2): 89–103, 2000.
13. Maffiuletti, NA, Dugnani, S, Folz, M, Di Pierno, E, and Mauro, F.
Effect of combined electrostimulation and plyometric training on
vertical jump height. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1638–1644, 2002.
14. Manolopoulos, E, Papadopoulos, C, Salonikidis, K, Katartzi, E, and
Poluha, S. Strength training effects on physical conditioning and
instep kick kinematics in young amateur soccer players during
preseason. Percept Motor Skills 99: 701–710, 2004.
15. Matiegka, J. The testing of physical efficiency. Am J Phys Anthropol 4:
223–230, 1921.
16. Norton, K, Olds, T, Olive, S, and Craig, N. Anthropometrica.
Marrackville: UNSW Press, 1996.
17. Rocha, MS. Peso o
´sseo do brasileiro de ambos sexos de 17 a 25 an
˜os.
Arq Anat Antropol 1: 445–451, 1975.
1120
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Maximal, Explosive, and Gold-Specific Strength Training in Elite Male Golfers
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

18. Sedano, S, Vaeyens, R, Philippaerts, R, Redondo, JC, De Benito, AM,
and Cuadrado, G. Effects of lower-limb plyometric training on body
composition, explosive strength and kicking speed in female soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 23(6): 1714–1722, 2009.
19. Thompson, CJ, Cobb, KM, and Blackwell, J. Functional training
improves club head speed and functional fitness in older golfers.
J Strength Cond Res 21(1): 131–137, 2007.
20. Thompson, CJ and Osness, WH. Effects of an 8-week multimodal
exercise program on strength, flexibility and golf performance in
55- to 79-year-old men. J Aging Phys Act 11: 144–156, 2004.
21. Wallace, ES, Otto, SR, and Nevill, A. Ball launch conditions for
skilled golfers using drivers of different lengths in an indoor testing
facility. J Sport Sci 25(7): 731–737, 2007.
22. Wells, GD, Elmi, M, and Thomas, S. Physiological correlates of golf
performance. J Strength Cond Res 23(3): 741–750, 2009.
23. Westcott, WL, Dolan, F, and Cavicchi, T. Golf and strength training
are compatible activities. Strength and Conditioning Journal 18(4):
54–56, 1996.
24. Westcott, WL and Parziale, JR. Golf power. Fitness Manage 13:
39–41, 1997.
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2012 | 1121
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.