Resolution of low-velocity control in golf putting differentiates professionals from amateurs

Kinematic Alterations with Changes in Putting Distance and Slope Incline in Recreational Golfers

Golfers must modify their motor patterns when the demands of a putting task change. The objective was to compare joint angles and putter kinematics during putting at two distances and inclines. Recreational golfers (n = 14) completed putts over four conditions: 3-foot putts on flat and incline surfaces, and 7-foot putts on flat and incline surfaces. A Vicon motion capture system measured kinematic data. Joint angles, putter angles, and spatiotemporal variables were calculated. Analysis of variance compared spatiotemporal variables, and statistical parametric mapping compared angles between putts. There were faster putter head and ball velocities during longer and incline putts. The amplitude and time of backswing increased with longer putts. Longer putts resulted in increased trunk axial rotation during backswing, downswing, and follow-through, while incline putts only resulted in greater rotation during follow-through. There were minimal differences in shoulder angle. There was greater head rotation toward the hole during all putting phases for longer putts and during follow-through for incline putts. The trunk is the primary mechanism to increase putter head amplitude, and thereby velocity, when putting from longer distances. A similar strategy could be used when putting uphill. Additional work should confirm these results in highly skilled golfers.

Putting performance bias to the front-lower side of the hole on steep slopes: Differences in strategies and movements between professional and amateur golfers

When playing on an sloped golf course, the ball often misses the hole to the front-lower side, which is also referred to as the "amateur side." This can be attributed to the difficulty in perceiving the green slope and choosing the appropriate launch direction and ball speed, especially for amateurs. The study had three main objectives. The first was to examine whether a front-down bias toward the hole could be experimentally observed in golfers' putting. Second, to measure golfers' aims and movements to determine why golfers, especially amateurs, putt poorly on steep slopes. Third, to investigate using a miniature platform how golfers recognized the steepness of the slopes and the relationship between their aim and their slope recognition. Twelve professionals and twelve intermediate amateurs were asked to perform in the 1- and 3-degree conditions (left-to-right line) at a distance of 3 m from the hole. Participants wore shutter goggles to inhibit visual feedback of outcomes. The aim, address, ball launch direction (analyzed as angles), and kinematics of the putter head and ball were measured. The results of this study experimentally confirmed the amateur side and indicated that the aim, address, and launch directions of the amateurs were smaller than those of the professionals. As for reproducing the slope task, we found that the amateurs underestimated the steepness on both conditions when compared to professionals. Additionally, golfers' aim and slope recognition were weakly correlated. These suggest that amateurs, compared to professionals, were unable to choose the optimal speed of the putter head and the launch direction of the ball in relation to the slope. Furthermore, amateurs' recognition was worse than that of professionals, which may affect their aim.

Off the shelf: Investigating transfer of learning using commercially available virtual reality equipment

The evolution of virtual reality (VR) has created the opportunity for a relatively low-cost and accessible method to practice motor skills. Previous studies have demonstrated how motor skill practice in non-immersive virtual environments transfers to physical environments. Though minimal research has investigated motor learning and transfer within immersive VR, multiple experiments provide empirical evidence of positive transfer effects. Most studies have used software engines and modified hardware to enhance the similarities between virtual and physical environments. However, many learners and practitioners currently use commercially available VR intending to enhance real-world performance, though there is very little evidence to support the notion of positive transfer for these systems. Therefore, this experiment aimed to investigate how motor skill practice using a commercially available VR system improved real-world performance and how that compared to physical practice. Participants (n = 68) were randomly selected into one of two groups: virtual reality (VR) practice (n = 33) or real-world (RW) practice (n = 35). The experiment occurred over two consecutive days, with a pretest, posttest, and practice phase occurring each day. The pre- and post-testing phases were identical for both groups and consisted of putting a golf ball 10 times on a carpeted surface towards the center of a target. The practice phases consisted of 60 total putts per day in the respective environment (VR or RW). Participants continuously alternated golf putting holes from three different distances until they accrued 60 total putts. Participants in the RW group performed golf putts to three targets. Participants in the VR group also performed golf putts on three different miniature golf putting holes, using the commercially available Oculus Rift and the Cloudlands VR Minigolf game. The VR putting targets were designed to replicate the putting holes in the physical environment. Separate 2 (group) x 4 (test) repeated measures ANOVAs were used to assess accuracy and club head kinematics. The results revealed a significant main effect for test, but not for group. Post hoc analyses revealed that both groups significantly improved their putting accuracy and club head kinematics at similar rates. The results from this study indicate that the transfer of learning that occurred as a result of practicing in a commercially available VR environment was similarly effective when compared to RW practice.

Can golfers choose low-risk routes in steep putting based on visual feedback of ball trajectory?

This study aims to clarify why the aiming method in golf putting in risky situations differs based on skill level. This study set up a difficult challenge (steep slopes and fast ball rolling greens), which required even professional golfers to change their aim. A total of 12 tour professionals and 12 intermediate amateurs were asked to perform a steep-slope task with no visual feedback of outcomes (no FB) followed by a task with visual feedback (with FB). The aim of the task was for the ball to enter the hole in one shot. Additionally, the participants were told that if the ball did not enter the hole, it was to at least stop as close to it as possible. The participant's aim (as an angle) and the kinematics of the putter head and ball were measured. The results indicated that professionals' highest ball trajectory points were significantly higher than that of amateurs, especially with FB. Additionally, professionals had higher ball-launch angles (the direction of the ball when the line connecting the ball and the center of the hole is 0 degrees) and lower peak putter head velocities than amateurs. Furthermore, the aim angle, indicating the golfer's decision-making, was higher for professionals under both conditions. However, even with FB, the amateurs' aim angles were lower and the difference between trials was smaller than that of professionals. Therefore, this study confirmed that the professionals made more drastic changes to their aim to find low-risk routes than the amateurs and that the amateurs' ability to adjust their aim was lower than that of professionals. The results suggest that the reason for the amateurs' inability to find low-risk routes lies in their decision-making. The professionals found better routes; however, there were individual differences in their routes.

A sense of distance and movement characteristics of golfers tested without visual feedback of outcomes: Is a putt that feels subjectively good also physically good?

For motor tasks that require fine-tuning, such as adjusting the applied force according to the distance to the target, as required for driving and putting in golf, it is important to develop a high degree of sensitivity of one's movement-produced feedback. In previous research focusing on mental representation in golf, this ability to control distance has been called “a sense of distance”. In particular, this study focused on three skills: motor control of the putter head, perception of the impact force, and prediction of the ball's travel distance. However, the relationship between the motor control of the putter head and the error of the outcome estimation is yet to be clarified. The purpose of the present study is two-fold: first, to clarify whether kinematic variation of putter head is correlated with error in estimating the outcome and, second, to quantitatively evaluate the performer's sensations of good and poor performance generated by the ball's impact, for a comparison of the kinematics and impact force of the putter head based on their assessment. Twelve professionals and 12 intermediate amateurs played two distance targets (at 2.4 and 4.8 m) without visual feedback of the outcomes. The kinematics of the putter head, impact force, final ball position, outcome estimation, and subjective assessment were measured. Our results show that the variability in the peak velocity was moderately correlated with the error of the outcome estimation in amateurs' 4.8-m putting task. In addition, amateurs estimated undershoots (overshoots) when they provided worse (better) evaluations. However, the amateurs' trials that were rated as better putts were actually overshoots. These results suggest that the subjectively “good putt” of amateurs was not physically good, and the amateurs putted hard to compensate for the risk of undershoots. However, no remarkable feature of the professional's sense of distance was found. This suggests that professional golfers' sensation is not significantly different from the outcomes that can be physically detected.

Skill Differences in a Discrete Motor Task Emerging From the Environmental Perception Phase

Because of the challenges associated with measuring human perception and strategy, the process of human performance from perception to motion to results is not fully understood. Therefore, this study clarifies the phase at which errors occur and how differences in skill level manifest in a motor task requiring an accurate environmental perception and fine movement control. We assigned a golf putting task and comprehensively examined various errors committed in five phases of execution. Twelve tour professionals and twelve intermediate amateur golfers performed the putting task on two surface conditions: flat and a 0.4-degree incline. The participants were instructed to describe the topographical characteristics of the green before starting the trials on each surface (environmental perception phase). Before each attempt, the participants used the reflective markers to indicate their aim point from which the ball would be launched (decision-making phase). We measured the clubface angle and impact velocity to highlight the pre-motion and motion errors (pre-motion and motion phase). In addition, mistakes in the final ball position were analyzed as result errors (post-performance phase). Our results showed that more than half of the amateurs committed visual–somatosensory errors in the perception phase. Moreover, their aiming angles in the decision-making phase differed significantly from the professionals, with no significant differences between slope conditions. In addition, alignment errors, as reported in previous studies, occurred in the pre-motion phase regardless of skill level (i.e., increased in the 0.4-degree condition). In the motion phase, the intermediate-level amateurs could not adjust their clubhead velocity control to the appropriate level, and the clubhead velocity and clubface angle control were less reproducible than those of the professionals. To understand the amateur result errors in those who misperceived the slopes, we checked the individual results focusing on the final ball position. We found that most of these participants had poor performance, especially in the 0.4-degree condition. Our results suggest that the amateurs’ pre-motion and strategy errors depended on their visual–somatosensory errors.

Practice Motions Performed During Preperformance Preparation Drive the Actual Motion of Golf Putting

Of the various types of preperformance preparatory behavior that are acquired during motor learning, the effect of a practice motion performed just prior to execution of an actual motion is not yet fully understood. Thus, the present study employed a golf putting task to investigate how a practice motion in the preparation phase would affect the accuracy of motor control in the execution phase and how proficiency would influence this relationship. To examine the impacts on kinematics and final ball position, the velocities of practice strokes made by tour professional and amateur golfers were experimentally manipulated in the following three conditions: the equal condition, which presented a target that was at the same distance during the practice strokes and the actual stroke; the confusing condition, which had two different distances during the practice and actual strokes; and the no condition, which did not include a practice stroke. The results, based on final ball position, indicated that practice strokes in the equal condition were linked with the highest accuracy levels during the actual stroke in both professionals and amateurs. In the confusing condition, regardless of skill level, the velocity of the actual stroke was influenced by a faster or slower stroke during the pre-shot phase. These relationships between the practice and actual strokes imply that the golfers effectively utilized kinesthetic information obtained during the practice strokes as a reference for the actual stroke. Furthermore, the differences in proficiency level indicated that the club head velocity of amateurs in the no condition was significantly faster than in the equal condition. Therefore, the present results imply that the role of a practice stroke may differ between professionals and amateurs.

Motor control of practice and actual strokes by professional and amateur golfers differ but feature a distance-dependent control strategy

We explored how practice and actual putting strokes differed between professionals and high-level golf amateurs, and how practice strokes reflected subtle differences in putting distances. We analysed swing amplitude, impact velocity, and acceleration profile of the club-head. The acceleration profiles showed that the motor control pattern of the practice stroke differed from that of the actual stroke. To clarify the effects of different putting distances on the practice stroke and to analyse how much the actual stroke could be explained by the practice stroke, we conducted individual regression analyses. The practice strokes of all participants could be divided into three strategies and five types by the coefficient of determination and the slope. This implies that the purpose of the practice stroke varied among golfers. Most golfers used the individual velocity criteria in their practice strokes, which resulted in different putting distances based on their criteria. Unexpectedly, we found no significant difference in skill level between professionals and high-level amateurs. The results of this study imply that the practice stroke does not duplicate the actual stroke, even for professional golfers with excellent skills. However, most high-level golfers adopted distance-dependent control strategies for slightly different putting distances.

Visual dependency and postural control on swing performance in golf players

Individuals have to reweight the respective contribution of the different sources of sensorial information for regulating posture and balance, especially during fine task execution. Given the evidences indicating strategy during swing performance as associated with prioritization of task-relevant visuospatial information for skill execution, the aim of the present work is to assess differences in visual dependency (VD) and postural control in a population of expert (EXP) and non-expert (NEXP) golfers when compared with healthy subjects (HC) and to discover possible relationships between these outcomes and swing performance. Thus, 15 golfers (EXP = 7; NEXP = 8) and 32 matched HC underwent otoneurological testing including video Head Impulse Test, posturography and Rod and Disk Test (RDT). Golf players also underwent a swing session procedure, which performance was measured by means of the Flightscope X2 Doppler-radar launch monitor system. EXP subjects demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) lower values in i) counter-clockwise (CCW) and clockwise (CW) dynamic conditions when compared with both NEXP and HC subjects RDT outcome measures and ii) surface and length posturography values as compared with HC subjects. When treating golf players outcomes as 'a continuum', CCW and CW scores were found to positively correlate with both lateral distance and horizontal launch angle and to negatively correlate with spin rpm. In conclusion, the present study suggests that the high-level of visual-independency demonstrated by EXP subjects may be functionally related in expert golfers to an effective motor strategy preferentially not referring to an inappropriate reliance on visual input.