Strength and
Conditioning
Considerations for Golf
Paul J. Read, MSc, CSCS1 and Rhodri S. Lloyd, PhD, CSCS*D2
1
Faculty of Sport, Health and Applied Sciences, St. Mary’s University College, Twickenham, England, United Kingdom;
and 2Cardiff School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales, United Kingdom
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 08/30/2021
ABSTRACT
PHYSICAL CONDITIONING FOR
GOLF IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPO-
NENT OF PERFORMANCE
ENHANCEMENT AND INJURY
REDUCTION WITH RECENT SCIEN-
TIFIC INVESTIGATIONS PROVIDING
EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING IM-
PROVEMENTS IN PERFORMANCE
MEASURES SUCH AS CLUB HEAD
SPEED, FOLLOWING STRENGTH
AND POWER TRAINING INTERVEN-
TIONS. HOWEVER, INFORMATION
REGARDING THE PRACTICAL APPLI-
CATION OF APPROPRIATE
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING
PROGRAMMING IS LIMITED. THE AIM
OF THIS IS ARTICLE IS TO PROVIDE
AN EVIDENCE-BASED NEEDS ANAL-
YSIS OF THE SPORT, AND TO
REVIEW THE LITERATURE PERTAIN-
ING TO THE PHYSICAL DEVELOP-
MENT OF GOLFERS. THIS WILL AID IN
THE PRESCRIPTION OF EFFECTIVE
TRAINING PROGRAMS TO ENHANCE
PERFORMANCE WITHOUT THE FEAR
OF EXPERIENCING COMMONLY
PERCEIVED SIDE EFFECTS (E.G.,
LOSS OF MOBILITY), WHICH MAY
DISCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS FROM
PARTAKING IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.
INTRODUCTION
raditionally, performance en-
T hancement within the sport of
golf has been primarily focused
on improving technology (86). More
24 VOLUME 36 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2014
recently however, especially in more elite
settings, a greater emphasis has been
placed on developing strength, flexibility,
and balance to enhance swing mechan-
ics, optimize performance, and reduce in-
juries (22). Recent scientific investigations
have provided empirical evidence, dem-
onstrating positive improvements in per-
formance measures, such as club head
speed (CHS), after strength and power
training interventions (17,60,76). How-
ever, information regarding the practical
application of appropriate strength and
conditioning programming is limited.
The purpose of this review is to provide
an evidence-based description of the
biomechanical requirements, physiologi-
cal demands, and reported injury epide-
miology associated with the sport of golf.
Following this, considerations and guide-
lines for the implementation of appropri-
ate strength and conditioning programs
will be provided.
BIOMECHANICAL,
PHYSIOLOGICAL, AND INJURY
NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR GOLF
BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF
THE GOLF SWING
Maximal displacement during a golf
shot is primarily a function of angular
club head velocity and the character-
istics of the arm-club lever at the point
of impact with the ball (37). It should
be considered that the latter is largely
determined by the anthropometrics of
each individual, whereas angular veloc-
ity of the club head is further affected
by factors such as ground reaction
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
forces and transfer of body weight, the
sequential summation of forces, and uti-
lization of eccentric-concentric coupling
(37). The role of the strength and condi-
tioning coach will focus predominantly
on increasing the production of angular
club head velocity through the develop-
ment of a player’s ability to generate
larger ground reaction forces and speed
of movement, in addition to the promo-
tion of safe and efficient deceleration of
force through increases in strength.
The golf swing can be divided into the
following sections: (a) set up, involving
largely isometric actions (6), (b) the
backswing, used to allow the correct
positioning of the club head to instigate
an accurate and powerful downswing
where agonist muscles and joint struc-
tures responsible for generating power
in the downswing are preloaded, or put
on stretch (37), (c) the downswing,
where the purpose is to return the club
head to the ball at the correct angle
with maximum angular velocity, and
finally, (d) the follow through, which
is characterized largely by eccentric
muscle actions (39).
In the golf drive, a range of involved
musculature has been identified as sig-
nificant contributors to the production
of the requisite torque, including the
hip and knee extensors, hip abductors
KEY WORDS:
golf; physical performance; club head
speed; power
and adductors (8), spinal extensors and
abdominals (58), and shoulder internal
rotators (39). Specifically, the down-
swing action involves a kinetic chain
sequence, where the larger, more prox-
imal body segments initiate the move-
ment (right hip extensors and abductors,
and the left adductor magnus in right
handed golfers), followed by the trunk,
shoulders, and finally the hands and
wrists (55). This suggests a sequential
order (proximal to distal) of torque gen-
eration, which results in the achieve-
ment of maximal CHS (68).
Although it is beyond the scope of this
article to discuss in great depth the
complexity of the golf swing, it is rea-
sonable to suggest that based on the
available literature, appropriate train-
ing programs should include whole-
body dynamic movements to develop
strength and power. In addition, plac-
ing an emphasis on ground up force
generation sequencing will have
a greater transfer of training effect than
isolated uniarticular approaches. For
the reader interested in a more exten-
sive analysis of the biomechanics of
the golf swing, previously published lit-
erature (33,37,51) is recommended.
INJURY ANALYSIS
Despite golf appearing less physically
demanding than other sports, it should
be considered that the golf swing is
a complex series of integrated motions,
involving a range of muscles and joints,
where significant forces of up to 8
times bodyweight can be experienced
(36). Additionally, in excess of 2,000
swing repetitions are often performed
by the tournament professional during
practice and competition each week
(58,74). Subsequently, injury risk is an
inherent part of the sport, and thus,
strength and conditioning coaches
should be cognizant of the anatomical
sites most affected, and the frequency
with which they occur.
Based on epidemiological data, profes-
sional golfers seem to incur more
injuries than amateurs (31), most com-
monly in the back, followed by the
wrist and shoulders (31,47). Con-
versely, amateur players are more likely
to experience an injury to the elbow,
followed by the back and shoulder
(7,31); however, these findings are
not consistent across all investigations
(24,48). Specifically, lower-back inju-
ries have been reported to account
for 23.7–34.5% (24,47,48), and up to
52% (29) of all injuries sustained by
amateur and professional golfers. This
is likely because of the high magnitude
of forces and ranges of motion experi-
enced in this region due to the
mechanics of the swing. For example,
axial twisting alone has been deter-
mined as an injury risk factor (45), in
addition to other swing characteristics,
such as downward compression, side
to side bending, sliding, and back to
front shearing (36).
Adequate levels of symmetry and pos-
tural endurance of the trunk muscula-
ture are also key aspects in the
prevention of spinal injuries (49). Con-
founding this, correlations between
incidences of back pain and a range
of strength, flexibility, and endurance
tests were measured in a group of elite
youth golfers, reporting that asymme-
try on a side bridge endurance test
provided the strongest relationship
(r 5 0.59) (21). Given the asymmetrical
nature of the golf swing, the side bridge
endurance test, which challenges the
quadratus lumborum and muscles of
the anterolateral trunk wall, may be
considered appropriate to detect exag-
gerated unilateral differences in trunk
muscle endurance (49). This has
important implications for the identifi-
cation and prevention of injury, as in
instances where a left side bridge
endurance test was greater than the
right by 12.5 seconds, there was an
increased chance of low back injury
(21). However, the reader should also
be cognizant of the fact that because of
the repetitive asymmetrical nature of
the golf swing, side to side differences
are to be expected; the achievement of
symmetry may not be possible, and
approaches to manage such factors
are likely more achievable.
Therefore, because of the inherent risk
of lower-back injuries in golfers of all
levels, regular screening of muscle
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
imbalances and postural endurance is
recommended. In addition, with the
primary injury mechanism reported
as overuse because of high volume
practice and competitions (47,51),
adequate mobility, muscular stability,
and strength should be deemed essen-
tial to withstand repetitive loading,
through both concentric and eccentric
muscle actions. As such, the imple-
mentation of individualized strength
and conditioning programs should
be considered essential for the preven-
tion of injury.
PHYSIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Despite the common misconception
that there is a high requirement for
aerobic fitness in golf, average oxygen
uptake (V̇ O2) has been reported at
22.4 mL$min21$kg21 (64), with
V̇ O2max levels ranging from 35 to
46 mL$kg21$min21 (16,53). These val-
ues correspond to normative data
previously reported (nonathletes age,
20–29: men 5 43–52, and women 5
33–42 mL$kg21$min21) (88). Addi-
tionally, lactate responses of 0.8–1.1
(mmol/L) have been recorded after
the completion of 18 holes, which
are indicative of typical resting levels
(80). Furthermore, Murase et al. (53)
concluded that during a round of
golf, players functioned at a mean
exercise intensity of just 35–41%
V̇ O2max, demonstrating minimal aerobic
requirements. With golf imposing a rela-
tively low cardiorespiratory demand, it is
of no surprise that reported V̇ O2max val-
ues for golfers are lower than other
more demanding endurance-based
sports (88). Compounding the previ-
ously held misconception that golf re-
lies heavily on aerobic capacity,
research has proven that continuous
aerobic training leads to reductions in
strength, power, and rate of force devel-
opment (RFD) in anaerobic sports per-
formers (10,20). Therefore, it is suggested
that aerobic conditioning should not be
viewed as the primary training focus for
golf, but instead training prescription
should be directed toward the develop-
ment of explosive, anaerobic physical
qualities to enhance a player’s ability to
generate high levels of ground reaction
25
Golf Strength and Conditioning
force and angular velocity of the club
head. In addition, it is essential to pro-
mote and develop adequate levels of flex-
ibility, muscle balance, strength, and
tissue tolerance to ensure players are able
to attenuate force effectively because of
the high volume, repetitive nature of
practice and competition.
Although repeated exposure to prac-
tice and competition may bring about
adaptive changes in elite players com-
pared with nonelite individuals, for
example, greater rotational velocities
because of superior swing mechanics
(54), levels of grip strength (14), and
muscle mass in the dominant arm
(15), the physical characteristics of
proficient golfers are still relatively
unknown. In a profile of a range of
golfers, Sell et al. (63) reported that
lower handicap players (HCP 0) had
significantly greater static balance,
hip, torso, and shoulder strength and
flexibility than golfers with higher
handicaps (HCP 10–20). Further to
this, Read et al. (59) identified moder-
ate relationships between field-based
measures of strength and power and
golf CHS in physically untrained single
figure handicap (5.8 6 2.2) golfers. Sig-
nificant correlations were reported
between a seated and standing medi-
cine ball throw (r 5 0.67 and r 5 0.63,
respectively), countermovement jump
(CMJ) peak power (r 5 0.54) and
height (r 5 0.44) and squat jump peak
power (r 5 0.53) and height (r 5 0.50),
suggesting that rotational power,
upper-body strength, and lower-body
strength and power are significant con-
tributors to the development of CHS.
Therefore, based on the profiling as-
sessments above, it could be suggested
that elite golfers possess unique physi-
cal characteristics that can be further
enhanced by undertaking golf-specific
training programs including strength,
flexibility, and power training (17,43).
Accordingly, because of the fact that
recent research has focussed on the
development of anaerobic qualities,
the following subsections highlight the
available literature in relation to physical
performance and golf-related measures,
to determine key considerations for
26 VOLUME 36 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2014
those responsible for the strength and
conditioning provision of golfers.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONING
AND GOLF
EFFECTIVENESS OF STRENGTH
AND CONDITIONING
INTERVENTIONS ON
GOLF PERFORMANCE
A meta-analysis conducted by Smith
et al. (66) reviewed a range of golf-
specific intervention studies where
strength, flexibility, and core stability
conditioning (3–4 times-per-week for
8 weeks) were implemented with sub-
jects ranging from 16 to 70 years old.
The findings noted an average increase
in club head velocity (4.2%) and
enhanced driving distances (5.6%)
across all studies. Of note, the examined
literature generally focused on specific
areas such as whole-body stability, flex-
ibility, and strength development as well
as targeted approaches for the shoulder,
torso, and hip. In addition, the work of
Smith et al. (66) reported considerable
variation in training and assessment
methods, including strength assess-
ments (i.e., isometric, isokinetic, isoiner-
tial), muscular endurance measures, and
power tests. Consequently, this may
raise issues surrounding interpretation
of the results (77), with suggestions
that isometric and isokinetic testing
methodologies to assess performance
are inappropriate because of the poor
relationship with dynamic athletic activ-
ities (3,90). This highlights a clear need
for a standardized testing battery specific
to golf as suggested by Read et al. (60).
It has also been reported recently that
acute enhancements in CHS are pos-
sible through the use of a postactiva-
tion potentiation intervention (60).
The mean CHS of 3 swings was
recorded with (experimental) and
without (control) 3 preceding CMJs.
An increase in CHS of 2.25 mph
(effect size, 0.16; p , 0.05) 1 minute
after the CMJ intervention was
recorded. Speculatively, this may form
part of a preshot routine on holes
requiring maximal driving distances.
However, caution should be applied
as changes in driving accuracy were
not measured, and also not all the
participants displayed improvements
after the intervention. It was further
highlighted that the management of
fatigue and recognizing between-
subject variability may be critical so that
potentiation effects are not masked.
In addition to increases in CHS after
targeted physical conditioning, Lennon
(42) reported significant improvements
in a range of performance measures,
particularly grip and leg strength, and
increased effectiveness in a 5 iron skill
test, following a 4 times-per-week,
8-week strength and flexibility interven-
tion. The researchers summarized that
as a result of greater physical perfor-
mance, players were able to optimize
rotational abilities and club head con-
trol. For a further review of the effec-
tiveness of strength and conditioning
interventions on measures of golf per-
formance, see the Table.
STRENGTH AND POWER
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INCREASED
CLUB HEAD SPEED
Power, a key component of the golf
swing, is largely dependent on the
ability to exert high levels of force,
indicating the importance of strength
development (62,70). It has been re-
ported that without reasonable levels
of overall body strength, golfers are
unable to generate sufficient muscular
torques (68). With optimal force gen-
eration sequencing in the golf swing
initiated from the legs (27), the ability
to generate large ground reaction
forces is essential in developing CHS,
as evidenced by significant correlations
(r 5 0.59–0.82) between leg power and
driving distances (84). Furthermore,
Hellstrom (32) reported moderate sig-
nificant correlations between a range of
performance measures and CHS, with
1 repetition maximum back squat (r 5
0.54) and vertical jump peak power
(r 5 0.61) displaying the most signifi-
cant relationships. These results sug-
gest that physical factors such as
whole-body dynamic strength and
power are important for the generation
of CHS and should be considered by
golfers and strength and conditioning
coaches as key qualities to train in
 Table
The effectiveness of strength and conditioning interventions on measures of golf performance

Study Subject characteristics Handicap and training Intervention type and Results
status duration

Hetu et al. (34) 12 men and 5 women; Recreational golfers, Strength, flexibility, and 6.2% increase in club
age, 52.4 6 6.7 y handicap and plyometrics for 8 wk, 23 head velocity
physical training per wk
status not reported
Thompson et al. (76) 18 male golfers; age, Handicap and physical Functional training 4.9% increase in club
70.7 6 9.1 y training status not program including head speed
reported flexibility, core stability,
and balance exercises
for 8 wk, min of 3 3
90 min sessions per wk
Doan et al. (17) 10 men and 6 women NCAA Division 1 golfers Strength, power, and 1.6% increase in club
men handicap 5 0, flexibility for 11 wk, head speed, equating
women range 5–10 33 per wk to approximately
a 4.9-m increase in
driving distance
Fletcher and Hartwell 11 men; age, Untrained, handicap 5 Strength and power for 1.5% increase in club
(25) 29.6 6 7.4 y 5.5 6 6.37, physical 8 wk, 23 per wk head speed equating
training status not to a 4.3% increase in
reported driving distances
Fradkin et al. (26) 20 male golfers; (age Handicap 5 12–27 Golf-specific warm-up 7–10 m/s (24%) increase
range, 23–64 y; mean (mean 19.8). Physical 53 per wk for 5 wk in club head speed
39.8 y) training status not
reported
Lephart et al. (43) 47.2 6 11.4 y Handicap 5 12.1 6 6.4. Golf-specific conditioning 6.8% increase in total
physical training program consisting of distance and 5.2%
status not reported stretching, balance increase in club
training, and golf- head speed
specific exercises
Read et al. (60) 16 male golfers (age, Handicap 5 5.8 6 2.26 Acute power intervention Increase in club head
20.1 6 3.24 y) implementing post speed of 2.25 mph
activation potentiation, (effect size, 0.16;
countermovement p , 0.05)
jumps 60 s before a golf
drive
Alvarez et al. (5) 10 male golfers Handicap Control, core stability, and Experimental, 11.5%
(5 experimental experimental 5 general strength increase in club
subjects of age 2.1 6 2.3 control 5 training using bands. acceleration versus
24.2 6 5.4 y and 1.6 6 1.1. Physically Experimental group as control 1.4% increase
5 control of age trained subjects, above in addition to
23.9 6 6.7 y) y not specified 23 strength training
sessions per wk at 85%
1 repetition maximum
in replace of the band
training completed by
the control group

(continued)

Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 27

Golf Strength and Conditioning

Table
(continued )
Lennon et al. (42) 7 men (16 y) Not reported Strength and flexibility for Performance
8 wk, 43 per wk improvements in a
5 iron skill test and
increases in grip and
leg strength
Thompson and 19 men (age, 65.1 6 Handicap and physical Strength and flexibility for 2.7% increase in club
Osness (75) 6.2 y) training status not 8 wk, 33 per wk head velocity
reported
Westcott et al. (85) 17 (13 men, 4 women); Handicap and physical Strength and flexibility 6% increase in club
mean age, 57 y training status not training for 8 wk, 33 per head speed
reported wk
Reyes (61) 10 Golfers age range Handicap and physical Maximal isometric Increases in club head
32–84 y training status not strength training for 7 speed (3.2%), ball
reported wk, frequency not speed (1.5%), and
reported carry distance (0.8%)

order to enhance golf drive perfor-
mance. Of note, a possible limitation
of this study was the exclusion of a trunk
rotational exercise within the test bat-
tery, which is a movement pattern
inherent to the golf swing (56). The
importance of trunk rotary strength
and power has been determined previ-
ously with significant correlations (r 5
0.54) reported between rotational
power and CHS (30). However, caution
should be applied when interpreting
these findings, as isolated measures of
trunk rotational strength have been
unable to distinguish between elite and
recreational players (44), highlighting
the importance of the sequential torque
production in the golf swing, initiated
from the legs as stated previously (27).
As such, a medicine ball rotational hip
toss has been suggested as an appropri-
ate power test and exercise for golfers,
which sequentially involves the leg,
trunk, and arm musculature, correlating
significantly (r 5 0.63) with CHS (59).
PROGRAMMING
CONSIDERATIONS
TRAINING GOLFERS FOR
STRENGTH AND POWER
DEVELOPMENT
To enhance power in the golf swing,
strength and power development
should target whole-body, multijoint ex-
ercises that promote force transfer along
the kinetic chain. However, there is
often a consensus for training the “core”
in isolation to generate high levels of
force in rotational sports. This may
not be the optimal approach, as exer-
cises that elicit repeated simultaneous
flexion and rotations in the lower-back
(lumbar spine) increase the chance of
spinal injury (12). It has been reported
that the core is never a power generator,
as power is generated in the hips and
transmitted through a stable core (50).
This is evident in a range of other sports
involving high levels of trunk rotation
such as boxing and baseball in which
a definite synchronization between leg,
trunk, and arm actions plays a major role
in increasing the force of a strike (23,65).
Thus, training for the enhancement of
CHS should emphasize anti-motion
control to reduce spinal torques (50),
with strength and power development
targeting the extremities. Consequently,
traditional movements such as deadlift-
ing, squatting, and lunging, which pro-
vide a strong training foundation from
which to develop sequential kinetic
chain linking should be included as part
of fundamental exercise prescription.
Although foundational movements
(squatting, deadlifting, and lunging)
should form the basis of training pre-
scription, it should be considered
that these exercises are performed
predominantly in the sagittal plane.
Thus, it will be important to consider
the addition of transverse plane exer-
cises to provide optimal transfer,
enhancing sport specificity (67). One
such approach is to incorporate projec-
tiles into the training plan (e.g., medicine
balls), which have been shown to pro-
vide an effective means for developing
rotational power (73), further enhancing
kinematic sequencing (69) and move-
ment velocity (18). Such exercises are
optimally performed through a closed
kinetic chain sequence, allowing the ini-
tiation of force through the larger, stron-
ger muscles of the lower body and then
transferred toward the ball, allowing for
maximal velocity in the target direction
(4). Additionally, and of particular
importance, medicine ball training does
not involve a deceleration component,
subsequently enhancing their effective-
ness for the development of power
through the full range of movement.
However, despite their effective applica-
tion, it should be noted that projectile
exercises are viewed as a supplemental
component of the physical development
programs of golfers, as strength and con-
ditioning coaches should avoid simply
overloading mimicked movement pat-
terns, but focus more on developing
appropriate neuromuscular adaptations
that can then be used effectively by
the golf professional or coach.

28 VOLUME 36 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2014

Of further consideration, isolated
upper-body training methods may not
be suitable for optimizing CHS. Sup-
porting this, force generation sequenc-
ing along the kinetic chain has been
examined in the shot put, with high
performance levels involving a shift
from the shoulder to the leg muscles
(83), that is, the development of more
optimal sequencing. Interestingly,
recent findings have identified that
physically untrained golfers may over
use upper-body mechanics (as evi-
denced by significant correlations
between an isolated concentric upper-
body–seated medicine ball throw, r 5
0.67), and weaker relationships with the
legs (r 5 0.54 and r 5 0.53 for counter-
movement and squat jump peak power,
respectively) (59). However, at present,
this concept is speculative and requires
further investigation including direct
measurement during the golf swing.
THE IMPORTANCE OF RATE OF
FORCE DEVELOPMENT
Rate of force development may be
defined as the change in force develop-
ment divided by the change in time
(72), that is, the ability to develop force
within a limited time frame, represented
by an individual’s ability to accelerate
objects (62). It has been suggested that
maximum force takes 0.25–0.4 s to
develop (2,92), but may require up to
0.6–0.8 s (19). Therefore, time available
to develop peak force is not sufficient for
most athletes, with a range of athletic
movements occurring within 0.25 s (71)
to 0.3 s (93). This “critical” window of
force application is evident in the golf
swing, with reports indicating that the
time from downswing to impact is
approximately 290 ms for male profes-
sional players (52). It is hypothesized
that if the time available for force devel-
opment is ,0.3 s, training should focus
on improving RFD (2).
Because of the initial forceful muscular
contraction from the lower limbs and
hips, and the fact that elite players trans-
fer more of their weight at a faster rate
throughout the entire downswing phase
(55), RFD should be considered essen-
tial in enhancing CHS and is developed
through increases in efferent neural
drive, in particular, an increased firing
frequency of motor units (1). Subse-
quently, exercises such as ballistics
(rapid acceleration against a resistance
in the form of the body or an object)
(91) are recommended. In addition, if
a player possesses the appropriate
orthopedic profile and has established
sound movement competency in a range
of fundamental movements, weightlift-
ing derivatives, because of reported high
power outputs (28) and short execution
times (i.e., the second pull in the clean
and snatch has been recorded as 0.2 s)
(35) could be considered for inclusion to
further promote increases in RFD.
APPLICATION OF THE STRETCH
SHORTENING CYCLE AND THE
X-FACTOR STRETCH
Within the available literature, the con-
tribution of the X-factor stretch has pro-
vided ambiguous results (33). Defined as
the relative rotation of the shoulders with
respect to the hips at the top of the back-
swing (13), the maximal increase of
pelvic-upper torso separation during
the transition between the backswing
and downswing has been proposed to
elicit increases in elastic energy as a result
of a stretch reflex (i.e., activation of the
stretch shortening cycle [SSC]), enhanc-
ing rotational velocities in more distal
limb segments (13). However, it has been
suggested that the enhanced striking dis-
tances associated with the X-factor
stretch may be because of increases
in force, attributable to eccentric activa-
tion of the musculature of the lower
body and torso before the downswing
(8,55). In addition, the subsequent per-
formance augmentation derived from
prestretching a muscle greatly reduced
the time frame between the eccentric
and concentric actions, with a point of
diminishing returns, whereby, once the
eccentric loading (stretch phase) reaches
a critical threshold, the subsequent con-
centric contraction exhibits no further
increase (79). This is likely because the
time frame between the eccentric con-
traction and the propulsive concentric
contraction (i.e., the amortization phase)
is too great, with reports that the half-life
of the SSC is 0.85 seconds, and that by 1
second the benefits diminished by 55%
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
(89). With average backswing durations
for elite players recorded at 0.80 seconds
(52), this suggests slower rates of stretch
occur, thus negating neural influences.
However, caution should be applied in
interpreting these findings as further in-
vestigations are required to determine in
more detail the underpinning mecha-
nisms during the rotational stretch
between the pelvis and upper torso.
In a recent review by Read et al. (59),
multiple regression analysis demon-
strated that concentric dominant exer-
cises, namely, the squat jump and seated
medicine ball throw were the greatest
predictors of CHS (R2 5 49%). Based
on these results, the authors suggested
that the golf swing may not reflect fast
stretch SSC activity (,250 ms), which
is dependent on large contributions
from stretch reflex properties and elastic
energy reutilization (11), but rather
slow-SSC activity (.250 ms), which
takes advantage of an increased time
for cross-bridge formation (82). Specu-
latively, it was proposed that the
back swing merely allows increases in
force production through the eccentric
action, providing an increase in
impulse (force 3 time), compared
with a downswing without a prestretch,
as supported by Newton et al. (54).
Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest
that increasing the magnitude of initial
ground reaction forces in the down-
swing, as developed through appropri-
ate resistance training protocols, may be
more pertinent to the production of
higher CHS values. In addition, supple-
mentary medicine ball training should
be included to increase velocity and fur-
ther optimize transfer of force in the
transverse plane.
FLEXIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
In the execution of the golf swing, play-
ers repeatedly achieve movements and
joint angles indicative of high levels of
mobility and stability. Suboptimal move-
ment mechanics may lead to a range of
compensations, increasing injury risk,
reducing exercise economy, and creating
inconsistencies in swing technique. To
promote competent swing mechanics,
29
Golf Strength and Conditioning
avoidance of jerky and unnecessary
movements is considered essential (37).
Flexibility levels of lower handicap
players have been characterized by
increased shoulder abduction (17,76)
and greater range of movement in right
shoulder extension, external rotation,
left shoulder extension, right hip exten-
sion, left hip flexion, and right torso
rotation (63). The reported flexibility
characteristics are likely because of
repeated exposure to the golf swing,
as it has been reported that golfers, like
other athletes, will exhibit adaptive
changes in response to the specific de-
mands of the sport (81). Speculatively,
increasing flexibility will allow a longer
backswing and subsequent impulse, the
net product of (force 3 time) enhanc-
ing swing speed. However, this has not
been confirmed within the literature
and requires further investigation.
Although it should be considered that
flexibility is a critical component in the
optimization of golf performance and
CHS, this notion is not well supported
in the literature. Keogh et al. (40) re-
ported that although golfers exhibited
high levels of flexibility across all
assessed joints, no flexibility measures
were significantly correlated with
CHS. In support of this, Doan et al.
(17) noted no significant relationships
between CHS and rotational trunk flex-
ibility. However, strength and condi-
tioning practitioners should interpret
these findings with caution. In addition,
allowing for optimal joint positioning,
greater mobility, and strength through-
out the range of movement may also
help minimize the potential for injury
(44). Additionally, the methodology in
the range of research for flexibility
assessment should be scrutinized when
interpreting the findings. For example,
assessment of lower-back and ham-
string flexibility has been examined in
golfers from a range of abilities through
a sit and reach test with greater range of
motion displayed in lower handicap
players (41). The sit and reach test, used
primarily to assess hamstring and low-
back flexibility in the sagittal plane, clearly
does not replicate the principal of spec-
ificity (90). Furthermore, questionable
30 VOLUME 36 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2014
validity and reliability of this test is
present, with particular inaccuracies
in the measurement of lower-back
flexibility (38).
It is also important to address the issue
of previously held misconceptions
regarding reductions in flexibility after
resistance training. Although few stud-
ies have examined the effects of resis-
tance training on flexibility, previous
research has demonstrated that reduc-
tions in flexibility do not occur (46,87),
and there is a range of evidence to sug-
gest that, provided weight training is
performed using the full range of
motion, flexibility will not be negatively
affected (9), and may even be increased
(9,57). Furthermore, increases in joint
range of motion have been reported
through the use of resistance training
without the addition of flexibility train-
ing (78). Therefore, previously held
misconceptions that weight training
negatively affects flexibility are largely
unfounded. However, it should be con-
sidered that the above research was not
conducted with golfers; caution should
be applied when interpreting these find-
ings. Furthermore, it is recommended
that resistance training exercises should
avoid the inclusion of protocols de-
signed to elicit significant gains in hyper-
trophy and overutilization of isolated
single joint movements, and instead
focus on exercises that are multijoint
in nature and are performed through full
ranges of motion to minimize the risk of
unwanted losses in flexibility.
SUMMARY
This article has highlighted the key lit-
erature examining the biomechanical,
physiological, injury epidemiology, and
subsequent physical development strate-
gies for the enhancement of golf perfor-
mance. In an attempt to dispel myths
surrounding various training approaches,
the importance of developing strength
and power generated in a ground up
approach using strength and power
training modalities has been suggested
as key components of a holistic training
program. In addition, the importance of
including anti-rotation exercises to
reduce injury risk and aid in spinal
motion control has been discussed. Fur-
thermore, it is suggested that targeted
rotational training emphasizing force
production from the extremities, trans-
ferring through a stable torso is imple-
mented through the use of a variety of
rotational medicine ball throws.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
Paul J. Read is
a senior lecturer
in strength and
conditioning at
St. Marys
University.
Rhodri S. Lloyd
is a senior
lecturer in physi-
ology and health
at Cardiff
Metropolitan
University.
REFERENCES
1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL,
Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P.
Increased rate of force development and
neural drive of human skeletal muscle
following resistance training. J Appl Physiol
(1985) 93: 1318–1326, 2002.
2. Aagaard P. Training-induced changes in
neural function. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 32:
61–67, 2003.
3. Abernethy P, Wilson G, and Logan P.
Strength and power assessment. Issues,
controversies and challenges. Sports Med
19: 401–417, 1995.
4. Akutagawa S and Kojima T. Trunk rotation
torques through the hip joints during the
one- and two-handed backhand tennis
strokes. J Sports Sci 23: 781–793, 2005.
5. Álvarez 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: 1110–1121, 2012.
6. Barrentine SW, Fleisig GS, Johnson H, and
Woolley TW. Ground reaction forces and
 torques of professional and amateur
golfers. In: Science and Golf II.
Proceedings of the 1994 World Scientific
Congress of Golf; 1994 Jul 4-8; St
Andrews. Farrally MR and Cochran AJ, eds.
London: E & FN Spon, 1994. p. 33.
7. Batt ME. A survey of golf injuries in amateur
golfers. Br J Sports Med 26: 63–65, 1992.
8. Bechler JR, Jobe FW, Pink M, Perry J, and
Ruwe PA. Electromyographic analysis of
the hip and knee during the golf swing. Clin
J Sport Med 5: 162–166, 1995.
9. Beedle B, Jessee C, and Stone MH.
Flexibility characteristics among athletes
who weight train. J Appl Sport Sci Res
5: 150–154, 1991.
10. Behm DG and Sale DG. Velocity specificity
of resistance training. Sports Med 15:
374–388, 1993.
11. Bobbert MF, Gerritsein KG, Litjens MC,
and Van Soest AJ. Why is
countermovement jump height greater than
squat jump height? Med Sci Sports Exerc
28: 1402–1412, 1996.
12. Callaghan JP and McGill SM. Intervertebral
disc herniation: Studies on a porcine model
exposed to highly repetitive flexion/extension
motion with compressive force. Clin
Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16: 28–37, 2001.
13. Cheetham PJ, Martin PE, Mottram RE, and
St. Laurent BF. The importance of
stretching the X factor in the golf
downswing: The “X-Factor stretch”. In:
Optimizing Performance in Golf.
Thomas PR, ed. Brisbane, Australia:
Australian Academic Press, 2001.
pp. 192–199.
14. Crews DJ, Shireffs JH, Thomas G,
Krahenbuhl GS, and Helfrich HM.
Psychological and physiological attributes
associated with performance of selected
players of the ladies professional golf
association tour. Percept Mot Skills 63:
235–238, 1986.
15. Dorado C, Sanchis Moysi J, and
Veicente G. Bone mass, bone mineral
density and muscle mass in professional
golfers. In: Thain E, ed. Science and golf IV:
Proceedings of the world scientific golf
congress of golf. New York: Routledge,
2002. pp. 54–63.
16. Dobrosielski DA, Brubaker PH, and
Berry MJ. The metabolic demand of golf in
patients with heart disease and in healthy
adults. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 22: 96–104,
2002.
17. Doan BK, Newton RU, Kwon YH, and
Kraemer WJ. Effects of physical
conditioning on intercollegiate golfer
performance. J Strength Cond Res
20: 62–72, 2006.
18. Ebben W, Blackard D, and Jense R.
Quantification of medicine ball vertical
impact forces: Estimating training loads.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 271–274, 1999.
19. Edman KAP. Contractile performance of
skeletal muscle fibers. In: Strength and
Power in Sport (2nd ed). Komi PV, ed.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science, 2003.
pp. 114–133.
20. Elliott M, Wagner P, and Chiu L. Power
athletes and distance training:
Physiological and biomechanical rationale
for change. Sports Med 37: 47–57, 2007.
21. Evans K, Refshauge K, Adams R, and
Aliprandi L. Predictors of low back pain in
young elite golfers: A Preliminary Study.
Phys Ther Sport 6: 122–130, 2005.
22. 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.
23. Filimonov VI, Koptsev KN, Husyanov ZM,
and Nazarov SS. Means of increasing
strength of the punch. NSCA J 7: 41–43,
1985.
24. Finch C, Sherman C, and James T. The
epidemiology of golf injuries in Victoria,
Australia: evidence from sports medicine
clinics and emergency room department
presentations. In: Science and Golf III:
Proceedings of the World Scientific
Congress of Golf; 1998 Jul 20-24: St
Andrews. Farrally MR and Cochran AJ,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
1998. pp. 73–82.
25. 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:
59–62, 2004.
26. Fradkin AJ, Sherman CA, and Finch CF.
Improving golf performance with a warm up
conditioning programme. Br J Sports Med
38: 762–765, 2004.
27. Fujimoto-Kantani K. Determining the
essential elements of golf swings used by
elite golfers [Masters dissertation]. Corvallis,
OR: Oregon State University, 1995.
28. Garhammer J. A review of power output
studies of Olympic and powerlifting:
Methodology, performance prediction, and
evaluation tests. J Strength Cond Res
7: 76–89, 1993.
29. Gluck GS, Bendo JA, and Spivak JM. The
lumbar spine and low back pain in golf:
A literature review of swing biomechanics
and injury prevention. Spine J 8: 778–788,
2008.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
30. Gordon BS, Moir GL, Davis SE,
Witmer CA, and Cummings DM. An
investigation into the relationship of
flexibility, power, and strength to club head
speed in male golfers. J Strength Cond
Res 23: 1606–1610, 2009.
31. Gosheger G, Liem D, Ludwig K,
Greshake O, and Winklemann W. Injuries
and overuse syndromes in golf. Am J
Sports Med 31: 438–443, 2003.
32. Hellstrom J. The relation between physical
tests, measures and club head speed in
elite golfers. Int J Sports Sci Coaching
3: 85–92, 2008.
33. Hellstrom J. Competitive elite: A review of
the relationships between playing results,
technique and physique in golf. Sports
Med 39: 723–741, 2009.
34. Hetu FE, Christie CA, and Faigenbaum AD.
Effects of conditioning on physical fitness
and club head speed in mature golfers.
Percept Mot Skills 86: 811–815, 1998.
35. Hori N, Newton RU, Nosaka K, and
Stone MH. Weightlifting exercises
enhance athletic performance that requires
high-load speed strength. Strength Cond J
27: 50–55, 2005.
36. Hosea TM, Gatt CJ, Galli NA, Langrana NA,
and Zawadsky JP. Biomehcanical analysis
of the golfers back. In: Science and Golf I.
Proceedings of the World Scientific
Congress of Golf: 1990, July 9-13: St
Andrews. Cochran AJ, ed. E&FN Spon,
1990. pp. 43–8.
37. Hume PA, Keogh J, and Reid D. The role of
biomechanics in maximising distance and
accuracy of golf shots. Sports Med 35:
429–449, 2005.
38. Jackson AW and Baker AA. The
relationship of the sit and reach test to
criterion measures of hamstring and back
flexibility in young females. Res Q Exerc
Sport 57: 183–186, 1986.
39. Jobe FW, Moynes DR, and Antonelli DJ.
Rotator cuff function during a golf swing.
Am J Sports Med 14: 388–392, 1986.
40. Keogh JW, Marnewick MC, Maluder 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: 1841–1850, 2009.
41. Kras JM and Abendrroth-Smith J. The
relationship between selected fitness
variables and golf scores. Int Sport J
Winter 4: 33–37, 2001.
42. Lennon HM. Physiological profiling and
physical conditioning for elite golfers. In:
Science and Golf III, Proceedings of the
31
Golf Strength and Conditioning
1998 World Scientific Congress of Golf.
Jul 20–24: St Andrews. Farrally MR and
Cochran AJ, eds. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1999. pp. 58–64.
43. Lephart SM, Smoglia JM, Myers JB,
Sell TC, and TSA YS. An eight week golf-
specific exercise programme improves
physical characteristics, swing mechanics,
and golf performance in recreational
golfers. J Strength Cond Res 21:
860–869, 2007.
44. Lindsay D and Horton J. Trunk rotation
strength and endurance in healthy normals
and elite male golfers with and without
low back pain. N Am J Sports Phys Ther
1: 80–89, 2006.
45. Marras WS and Granata KP. A
biomechanical assessment and model of axial
twisting in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976) 20: 1440–1451, 1995.
46. McCartney N. Acute responses to
resistance training and safety. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 31: 31–37, 1999.
47. McCarroll JR and Gioe TJ. Professional
golfers and the price they pay. Phys Sports
Med 10: 64–70, 1982.
48. McCarroll JR, Rettig AC, and Shelbourne KD.
Injuries in the amateur golfer. Phys Sports
Med 18: 122–126, 1990.
49. McGill SM, Childs A, and Liebenson C.
Endurance times for low back stabilization
exercises: Clinical targets for testing and
training from a normal database. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil 80: 941–944, 1999.
50. McGill S. Core training: Evidence
translating to better performance and injury
prevention. Strength Conditioning J 32:
33–46, 2010.
51. McHardy A, Pollard H, and Luo K. Golf
injuries: A review of the literature. Sports
Med 36: 171–187, 2006.
52. McTeigue M, Lamb SR, and Mottram R.
Spine and hip motion analysis during the
golf swing. In: Science and Golf II.
Proceedings of the 1994 World Scientific
Congress of Golf: Jul 4–8; St Andrews.
Cochran AJ and Farrally MR, eds. London:
E and F Spon, 1994. pp. 50–96.
53. Murase Y, Kamei S, and Hoshikawa T.
Heart rate and metabolic responses to
participation in golf. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 29: 269–272, 1989.
54. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K,
Humphries BJ, and Murphy AJ. Kinematics,
kinetics and muscle activation during
explosive upper body movements. J Appl
Biomech 12: 31–43, 1996.
55. Okuda I, Armstrong CW, Tsneuzumi H, and
Yoshiike H. Biomechanical analysis of
32 VOLUME 36 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2014
professional golfer’s swing: Hidemichi
Tanak. In: Science and Golf IV:
Proceedings of the World Scientific
Congress of Golf. Thain E, ed. London:
Routledge, 2002. pp. 19–27.
56. Okuda I, Gribble P, and Armstrong C.
Trunk rotation and weight transfer patterns
between skilled and low skilled golfers.
J Sports Sci Med 9: 127–133, 2010.
57. O’Sullivan K, McAuliffe S, and Deburca N.
The effects of eccentric training on lower
limb flexibility: A systematic review. Br J
Sports Med 46: 838–845, 2012.
58. Pink M, Perry J, and Jobe FW.
Electromyographic analysis of the trunk
in golfers. Am J Sports Med 21: 385–
388, 1993.
59. Read PJ, De Ste Croix M, Lloyd RS, and
Oliver JL. Relationships between field-
based measures of strength and power
and golf club head speed. J Strength Cond
Res 27: 2708–2713, 2013.
60. Read P, Miller S, and Turner A. The effects
of Postactivation potentiation on golf club
head speed. J Strength Cond Res 27:
1579–1582, 2013.
61. Reyes M. Maximal static contraction
strengthening exercises and driving
distance. In: Science and Golf IV:
Proceedings of the 2002 World Scientific
Congress of Golf. Thain E, ed. London:
Routledge, 2002. pp. 45–53.
62. Schmidtbleciher D. Training for power
events. In: Strength and Power in Sport.
Komi PV, ed. London: Blackwell Scientific,
1992. pp. 381–395.
63. Sell TC, Tsai YS, Smoliga JM, Myers JB,
and Lephart SM. Strength, flexibility
and balance characteristics of highly
proficient golfers. J Strength Cond Res 21:
1166–1171, 2007.
64. Sell TC, Abt JP, and Lephart SM.
Physical activity-related benefits of
walking during golf. In: Science and Golf:
V. Proceedings of the World Scientific
Congress of Golf; 2008 Mar 24–28.
Crews D and Lutz R, eds. Phoenix, AZ,
Mesa, AZ: Energy in Motion, 2008. pp.
128–132.
65. Shaffer B, Jobe FW, Pink M, and Perry J.
Baseball batting: An EMG Study. Clin
Orthop Relat Res 292: 285–293, 1993.
66. Smith CJ, Callister R, and Lubans DR.
A systematic review of strength and
conditioning programmes designed to
improve fitness characteristics in golfers.
J Sports Sci 29: 933–943, 2010.
67. Spaniol F. Striking skills: Developing
power to turn. Strength Conditioning J
34: 57–60, 2012.
68. Sprigins EJ and Neal RJ. An Insight into the
importance of wrist torque in driving the
golf ball. A simulation study. J Appl
Biomech 16: 356–366, 2000.
69. Stodden DF, Cambell BM, and Moyer TM.
Comparison of trunk kinematics in trunk
training exercises and throwing. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 112–118, 2008.
70. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L,
Coglianese R, Lehkkuhl M, and Shilling B.
Power and maximum strength relationships
during performance of dynamic and static
weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17:
140–147, 2003.
71. Stone MH, Pierce KC, Sands WA, and
Stone ME. Weightlifting: a brief overview.
Strength Cond J 28: 50–66, 2006.
72. Stone MH, Stone M, and Sands WA.
Principles and Practice of Resistance
Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2007. pp. 241–257.
73. Szymanski DJ, Szymanski JM, Bradford TJ,
Schade RL, and Pascoe DD. Effect of
twelve weeks of medicine ball training on
high school baseball players. J Strength
Cond Res 21: 894–901, 2007.
74. Theriault G and Lachance P. Golf injuries.
An overview. Sports Med 26: 43–57,
1998.
75. Thompson CJ and Osness WH. Effects of
an 8-week multimodal exercise program on
strength, flexibility, and golf performance in
55-79-year-old men. J Aging Phys Act 12:
144–156, 2004.
76. Thompson CJ, Cobb KM, and Blackwell J.
Functional training improves club head
speed and functional fitness in older golfers.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 131–137, 2007.
77. Torres-Ronda L, Sanchez-Medina L, and
Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Muscle strength and
golf performance: A critical review. J Sports
Sci Med 10: 9–18, 2011.
78. Trash K. Flexibility and strength training.
J Appl Sport Sci Res 4: 74–75, 1987.
79. Turner AN and Jeffreys I. The stretch-
shortening cycle: proposed mechanisms
and methods for enhancement. Strength
Conditioning J 32: 87–99, 2011.
80. Unverdorben M, Kolb M, Bauer I, Brune M,
Benes K, Nowacki PE, and Vallbracht C.
Cardiovascular load of competitive golf in
cardiac patients and normal controls. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1674–1678, 2000.
81. Vad VB, Bhat AL, Basrai D, Gebeh A,
Aspergren DD, and Andrews JR. Low
back pain in professional golfers: the
role of associated hip and low back range-
of-motion deficits. Am J Sports Med 32:
494–497, 2004.
82. Van Ingen Schenau GJ, Bobbert MF, and de
Haan A. Does elastic energy enhance work or
efficiency in the stretch shorten cycle? J Appl
Biomech 13: 389–415, 1997.
83. Verkhoshansky YV. Fundamentals of
special strength training in sport 1977. In:
Supertraining. Siff MC, ed. Denver, CO:
Supertraining Institute, 2003. pp. 113.
84. Wells GD, Elmi M, and Thomas S.
Physiological correlates of golf
performance. J Strength Cond Res 23:
741–750, 2009.
85. Wescott WL, Dolan F, and Cavicchi T. Golf
and strength training are compatible activities.
Strength Conditioning J 18: 54–56, 1996.
86. Whittaker AR. A study of the dynamics of the
golf club. Sports Eng 1: 115–124, 1998.
87. Wilmore JH, Parr RB, Girandola RN,
Ward P, Vodak PA, Barstow TJ,
Pipes TV, Romero GT, and Leslie P.
Physiological alterations consequent to
circuit weight training. Med Sci Sports
10: 79–84, 1978.
88. Wilmore J and Costill D. Physiology of
Sport and Exercise (3rd ed). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 2004. pp. 241.
89. Wilson G, Murphy A, and Pryor J.
Musculotendinous stiffness: Its relationship
to eccentric, isometric and concentric
performance. J Appl Physiol (1985) 76:
2714–2719, 1994.
90. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, and Walshe A.
The specificity of strength training:
The effect of posture. Eur J Appl
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Physiol Occup Physiol 73: 346–352,
1996.
91. Winchester JB, McBride JM, Maher MA,
Mikat RP, Allen BK, Kline DE, and
McGuigan MR. Eight weeks of ballistic
exercise improves power independently of
changes in strength and muscle fiber type
expression. J Strength Cond Res 22:
1728–1734, 2008.
92. Zatsiorsky VM and Kraemer WJ. Science
and Practice of Strength Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2006. pp.
155–160.
93. Zatsiorsky VM. Biomechanics of strength
and strength training. In: Strength and
Power in Sport (2nd ed). Komi PV, ed.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell
Science, 2003. pp. 114–133.
33