A comparison of the modern and classic golf swing: a clinician\'s perspective

Injury risk-factor differences between two golf swing styles: a biomechanical analysis of the lumbar spine, hip and knee

The golf swing has been associated with mechanical injury risk factors at many joints. One swing, the Minimalist Golf Swing, was hypothesised to reduce lumbar spine, lead hip, and lead knee ranges of motion and peak net joint moments, while affecting swing performance, compared to golfers' existing swings. Existing and MGS swings of 15 golfers with handicaps ranging from +2 to -20 were compared. During MGS downswing, golfers had 18.3% less lumbar spine transverse plane ROM, 40.7 and 41.8% less lead hip sagittal and frontal plane ROM, and 39.2% less lead knee sagittal plane ROM. MGS reduced lead hip extensor, abductor, and internal rotator moments by 17.8, 19.7 and 43%, while lead knee extensor, abductor, adductor and external rotator moments were reduced by 24.1, 26.6, 37 and 68.8% respectively. With MGS, club approach was 2° shallower, path 4° more in-to-out and speed 2 m/s slower. MGS reduced certain joint ROM and moments that are linked to injury risk factors, while influencing club impact factors with varying effect. Most golf injuries are from overuse, so reduced loads per cycle with MGS may extend the healthy life of joints, and permit golfers to play injury-free for more years.

Performance and Kinematic Differences in Putting between Healthy and Disabled Elite Golfers

Golfers with disability are limited in the execution of the full golf swing, but their performance in putting may be comparable because this stroke does not demand significant strength, balance and range of motion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare putting performance, kinetic and kinematic consistency between golfers with different disabilities and healthy athletes. The participants consisted of three disabled athletes (perinatal cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, below knee lower limb amputee) and three healthy golfers (age 34 ± 4.5 years, body height 178 ± 3.3 cm, body mass 83 ± 6.2 kg). The golfers’ movements were recorded by active 3D markers for kinematic analyses; the subjects performed 10 trials of a 6 m putting task while standing on separate force platforms placed under each lower limb. Putting performance was measured by the distance of the final ball position to the centre of the hole. ANOVA analyses did not show any differences in clubhead speed and total ball distance from the hole. The consistency of those two parameters expressed by the coefficient of variation (CV) was CV = 0.5% or better in both groups for clubhead speed and ranged from CV = 0.40 to 0.61% in healthy and CV = 0.21 to 0.55% in disabled athletes for total error distance. The main effect ANOVA showed differences in weight shift, hip and shoulder kinematics (p < 0.05) between healthy players and all players with disability. All disabled athletes shifted their weight toward the healthy side (towards the healthy lower limb) and alternated the end of the swing. The player with below knee amputation had the lowest range of motion in the shoulder joint during the putting stroke. The players with perinatal cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis had the largest range of motion in the hips. Putting performance of disabled golfers was similar to healthy athletes. During training of disabled players, coaches should pay attention to the specificity of a particular disability when focused on putting performance. However, individual technique should achieve the same consistency as observed in healthy players.

How to quantify the transition phase during golf swing performance: Torsional load affects low back complaints during the transition phase

The transition phase of a golf swing is considered to be a decisive instant required for a powerful swing. However, at the same time, the low back torsional loads during this phase can have a considerable effect on golf-related low back pain (LBP). Previous efforts to quantify the transition phase were hampered by problems with accuracy due to methodological limitations. In this study, vector-coding technique (VCT) method was proposed as a comprehensive methodology to quantify the precise transition phase and examine low back torsional load. Towards this end, transition phases were assessed using three different methods (VCT, lead hand speed and X-factor stretch) and compared; then, low back torsional load during the transition phase was examined. As a result, the importance of accurate transition phase quantification has been documented. The largest torsional loads were observed in healthy professional golfers (10.23 ± 1.69 N · kg^-1), followed by professional golfers with a history of LBP (7.93 ± 1.79 N · kg^-1), healthy amateur golfers (1.79 ± 1.05 N · kg^-1) and amateur golfers with a history of LBP (0.99 ± 0.87 N · kg^-1), which order was equal to that of the transition phase magnitudes of each group. These results indicate the relationship between the transition phase and LBP history and the dependency of the torsional load magnitude on the transition phase.

Multi-segment trunk models used to investigate the crunch factor in golf and their relationship with selected swing and launch parameters

The use of multi-segment trunk models to investigate the crunch factor in golf may be warranted. The first aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between the trunk and lower trunk for crunch factor-related variables (trunk lateral bending and trunk axial rotation velocity). The second aim was to determine the level of association between crunch factor-related variables with swing (clubhead velocity) and launch (launch angle). Thirty-five high-level amateur male golfers (Mean ± SD: age = 23.8 ± 2.1 years, registered golfing handicap = 5 ± 1.9) without low back pain had kinematic data collected from their golf swing using a 10-camera motion analysis system operating at 500 Hz. Clubhead velocity and launch angle were collected using a validated real-time launch monitor. A positive relationship was found between the trunk and lower trunk for axial rotation velocity (r(35) = .47, P < .01). Cross-correlation analysis revealed a strong coupling relationship for the crunch factor (R(2) = 0.98) between the trunk and lower trunk. Using generalised linear model analysis, it was evident that faster clubhead velocities and lower launch angles of the golf ball were related to reduced lateral bending of the lower trunk.

The crunch factor's role in golf-related low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The golf swing exposes the spine to complex torsional, compressive, and shearing loads that increase a player's risk of injury. The crunch factor (CF) has been described as a measure to evaluate the risk of low back injuries in golfers and is based on the notion that lateral flexion and axial trunk rotation jointly contribute to spinal degeneration. However, few studies have evaluated the appropriateness of this measure in golfers with low back pain (LBP).

PURPOSE

To objectively examine the usefulness of the CF as a measure for assessing the risk of low back injury in golfers.

STUDY DESIGN

Field-based research using a cross-sectional design.

METHODS

This research used three-dimensional motion analysis to assess the golf swings of 12 golfers with LBP and 15 asymptomatic controls. Three-dimensional kinematics were derived using Vicon Motus, and the CF was calculated as the instantaneous product of axial trunk rotation velocity and lateral trunk flexion angle.

RESULTS

Maximum CFs and their timings were not significantly different between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. Furthermore, for those golfers who produced higher CFs (irrespective of the group), the increased magnitude could not be attributed to an increased axial angular trunk velocity or lateral flexion angle, but rather to a concomitant increase in both of these variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggested that although the fundamental concepts that underpin the CF seem sensible, this measure does not appear to be sensitive enough to distinguish golfers with LBP from the asymptomatic players.

Rehabilitation of low back pain in golfers: from diagnosis to return to sport

Context:

Low back injuries are the most common injury in golf. Best practice guidelines for rehabilitation and prevention of these injuries are helpful for health care professionals and all golfers.

Objective:

To establish a best practice clinical model for low back pain in golfers from diagnosis through treatment and rehabilitation to return to golf.

Evidence Acquisition:

The PubMed database and Google Scholar were searched from 1993 to 2012 with the following keywords: golf and low back injury, low back injury, golf and low back pain, golf injury prevention, golf modern swing, muscles in golf swing, low back rehabilitation, diaphragm, and core stability. All studies addressed in some manner the rehabilitation, prevention, or return to sport from low back injury, preferably in direct relation to golf, as well as muscle firing patterns used during the golf swing.

Results:

Best practice for rehabilitation and prevention of low back injury in golf appears to be through a multidisciplinary approach.

Conclusion:

Movement patterns, muscle imbalances, and type of swing utilized all have a direct effect on the forces applied to the spine during the golf swing and need to be assessed to prevent or rehabilitate injury. Understanding the golf swing and how the body works during the swing is necessary.