Brief Review

Effects of Resistance Training Methods on Golf

Clubhead Speed and Hitting Distance: A
Systematic Review
Aaron Uthoff,1 Lesley M. Sommerfield,1 and Andrew W. Pichardo2
1
Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand; and 2Robert E. Lee
High School, Tyler, Texas

Abstract
Uthoff, A, Sommerfield, LM, and Pichardo, AW. Effects of resistance training methods on golf clubhead speed and hitting distance: A
systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 35(9): 2651–2660, 2021—Resistance training is widely regarded within the golfing community
to improve golf performance by increasing clubhead speed (CHS) and drive distance and can be classified into 3 categories:
nonspecific, specific, and combined. However, it is currently unclear which resistance training methods are most effective in improving
predictors of golf performance. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to compare the effectiveness of nonspecific, specific, and
combined strength training methods on CHS and drive distance. A systematic search strategy was performed using the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify eligible articles through PubMed, SPORTDiscus,
MEDLINE (EBSCO), and Google Scholar. The searches identified 4,557 potentially relevant results, with 20 studies that met the
inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. Thirteen studies investigated nonspecific resistance training, one study
investigated specific resistance training, and 7 studies investigated combined resistance training. Collectively, resistance training
positively impacts golf CHS and hitting distance, but adaptations vary depending on the type and intensity of training, as well as
subject’s characteristics. Using a combination of nonspecific and golf-specific training (average increase of 4.1% CHS and 5.2%
hitting distance) seems to enhance golf performance more than nonspecific strength training (average increase of 1.6% CHS and 4.8%
hitting distance). Eight-week programs including golf-specific movements at high velocities for 3 to 4 sets of 5 to 15 repetitions are the
most effective in increasing CHS and hitting distance. Future research investigating how golf-specific training influences CHS and
hitting distance in various subgroups may provide further insight regarding prescription of this training type.
Key Words: driver distance, golf performance, strength training, specificity, golfing

Introduction
Golf is a popular sport throughout the world, with more than 60
million people estimated to participate in the game annually (2).
Each player’s goal is to achieve the lowest possible score within a
given round by hitting the ball from the starting point (tee) into the
hole 150–700 yards away (3) in the fewest shots possible. Drive
distance is strongly correlated to a player’s handicap or current
ability over an entire round of golf, which includes long game, short
game, and putting performance (21). Golf clubhead speed ([CHS],
the velocity at which the golf clubhead impacts the golf ball (20)), is
easily measurable and influences drive distance, which can make
approach shots shorter, particularly on longer holes. Therefore,
improving CHS is often a goal of physical training for golf.
An effective golf swing is determined by proper biomechanics,
kinetics, and neuromuscular factors (20), such as strength and
power. The opportunity to improve CHS through technique im-
provement is limited because of the complex nature of a golf
swing (7,26,66), so coaches and athletes may also focus on force
and rate of force development (RFD) to improve hitting perfor-
mance, which is a predictor of overall score. Several studies have
shown that hitting performance is related to strength and power
(16,27,45), whereas endurance capacity is poorly related to CHS
Address correspondence to Lesley M. Sommerfield, lsommerfield14@gmail.com.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 35(9)/2651–2660
ª 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association
(38). In fact, golfers with greater CHS are stronger than lesser
skilled counterparts (7,23,30,50,59). Chest, back, and lower-
limb maximal strength assessed using nonspecific compound
movements (e.g., upper-body presses, upper-body pulls, and
squat movements) were moderate to strongly correlated with
CHS (23,30) and ball speed (59). Ballistic movements that require
the projection of one’s own body mass, such as jumps, are simi-
larly related to CHS (28). Furthermore, single-leg jumps had
stronger correlations to CHS compared with bilateral counter-
movement jumps and squat jumps (28,47,59), suggesting uni-
lateral power transfers to hitting performance more than bilateral
measures. The assessment of rotational power has been limited to
machine and seated medicine ball protocols and is similarly cor-
related to strength testing (23,47). Furthermore, strength in bio-
mechanically similar movements, such as the golf-specific cable
down swing, has stronger correlations with CHS when compared
with less specific rotational movements (30,47). Given the re-
lationship between strength, power, and hitting performance, it
seems prudent to target these qualities to improve CHS.
Resistance training is widely regarded within the golfing
community as a means to improve golf performance (60) and
CHS by improving kinetic variables such as peak force (PF), im-
pulse, and RFD (8). These improvements allow golfers to increase
drive distance and CHS, which may influence approach shots as
well, with little to no change in swing technique (8). Resistance
training for golf can be classified into 3 categories: nonspecific,

2651

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9
specific, and combined. Nonspecific resistance training com-
monly refers to traditional gymnasium-based exercises such as the
power clean, back squat, and bench press or other functional
body mass movements (65). Specific resistance training refers to
methods that closely resemble the biomechanics of the movement
(e.g., golf swing) (65), for instance, using weighted clubs, swing-
ing medicine balls in a golf swing motion, and performing swings
with wearable resistance. Combined resistance training refers to a
blend of nonspecific and specific methods in which traditional
gymnasium-based resistance exercises are performed with some
form of specific strength exercise, such as a back squat and
weighted golf swing (52).
The principle of training specificity suggests maximal transfer
of training occurs when exercises are biomechanically similar to
the sporting movement (4,33). However, it is currently unclear
which resistance training methods are most effective in improving
hitting performance. Therefore, the primary purpose of this re-
view is to compare the effectiveness of nonspecific, specific, and
combined strength training methods on clubhead speed and drive
distance. Based on the literature synthesized, we also aim to
provide resistance training recommendations for golf and high-
light areas for future research.
Methods
Search Strategies
A systematic review of literature was undertaken for longitudinal
studies assessing the effects of resistance training on golf performance
(CHS and hitting distance) in accordance with the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
(PRISMA) statement guidelines (43). The search for scientific liter-
ature relevant to this review was conducted using 4 electronic da-
tabases: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE (EBSCO), and Google
Scholar from inception to March 2020. Key search terms used were
“golf” AND “strength,” OR “training,” OR “conditioning,” OR
“resistance,” AND “club head speed,” OR “distance,” OR “per-
formance” using Boolean logic for query “resistance training and
golf.” A manual search for related articles was conducted by
screening the reference lists of the retrieved articles (Figure 1).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The articles were deemed appropriate for use through the fol-
lowing inclusion criteria: (a) studies included injury-free subjects
of any age, sex, or activity level; (b) training interventions lasted at
least 4 weeks; (c) was published in English; (d) was published
using a peer-review process; and (e) reference “golf” in relation to
resistance training. Studies were excluded if they (a) used a single-
group study design; (b) were a cross-sectional correlational study;
(c) examined the effects of a warm-up; (d) examined post-
activation potentiation; and (e) did not report pre-post results on
either clubhead speed or hitting distance.
Study Quality
A scale designed specifically for sports science research (42) was used
to assess the quality of the included studies. This scale uses a com-
bination of items from the Cochrane, Delphi, and PEDro scales and
expands on a scale designed by Brughelli et al. (6) to evaluate re-
search in athletic-based training environments. The method-
ological scale assesses 10 domains of the study: inclusion
criteria stated, subject assignment, intervention description,
2652
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
control groups, dependent variables definition, assessment
methods, study duration, statistics, results, and conclusions.
The scale uses a rating system of 20 points where zero repre-
sents clearly no, one is maybe, and 2 is clearly yes. Table 1
provides a detailed overview of the scale.
Statistical Analyses
To evaluate the effects of strength training on CHS and hitting dis-
tance, percentage change ([postintervention group mean 2 pre-
intervention group mean]/preintervention group mean 3 100) and
effect size (postintervention group mean 2 preintervention group
mean/preintervention SD) were calculated using Microsoft Excel.
The effect sizes (d) were classified as small (0.20–0.49), moderate
(0.50–0.79), and large ($0.80) according to Cohen (12).
Results
Search Results
The searches identified 4,557 potentially relevant results. After a
review of titles and abstracts, the total was reduced to 31 training
studies. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were ana-
lyzed. These studies included a total of 412 subjects (297 men, 77
women, and 38 unspecified). The subjects included were char-
acterized as either healthy sedentary, recreational golfers, or elite
golfers (as classified by handicap), as described by the authors of
the reviewed articles.
Characteristics of Included Studies
There were 20 studies that examined the effects of resistance training
on either CHS or hitting distance in 308 golfers (220 men, 69
women, and 19 unspecified) (1,10,16,18,20,27,29,31,32,35,37,
44–46,49,52,54,56,62). One of the 20 studies examined both non-
specific training and combined training, so it was included in 2 tables
(27). The training interventions for the studies ranged from 6 to 18
weeks in duration. Most studies used high repetition (8 to 25 repe-
titions), slow movement speed, or rehabilitation exercises
(9,18,20,22,32,35,37,56,62), with the exception of 3 studies that
used strength and power repetition ranges (5–6 repetitions)
(1,19,45). The following sections provide a summary of the available
literature on the effectiveness of nonspecific, specific, and combined
strength training methods on golf hitting performance.
Study Quality
The average assessment quality score obtained from the McMaster
(42) scale was 15.3 6 2.22 and ranged from 10 to 19 (Table 2). This
demonstrates a moderate to high study quality for the included
studies. Items 2 (subjects assigned appropriately [random/equal
baseline]), 4 (control group inclusion), and 9 (results detailed [mean,
SD, percent change, and effect size]) were the most variable factors
distinguishing between high-quality and low-quality studies.
Nonspecific Training Methods
Thirteen studies used nonspecific resistance training methods vary-
ing in volume and intensity (16,18,27,29,32,37,44,45,49,52,56,62)
(Table 2). For the 9 studies using high-repetition, low-load training,
CHS increased an average of 0.9% (d 5 20.26 to 0.59) and hitting
distance improved an average of 4.1% (d 5 0.24–0.95)
(17,27,32,36,44,49,52,54,62). For the 5 studies including low-
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9
Table 1
Study quality scoring assessment (42).
No. Item
1 Inclusion criteria stated
2 Subjects assigned appropriately (random/equal baseline)
3 Intervention described
4 Control group
5 Dependent variables defined
6 Assessments practical
7 Training duration practical (acute versus long-term)
8 Statistics appropriate (variability, repeated measures)
9 Results detailed (mean, SD, percent change, and effect
size)
10 Conclusion insightful (clear concise, future directions)
Total
repetition, high-load strength training and explosive exercises, CHS
increased an average of 3.3% (n 5 4, d 5 0.11 to 1.53) and hitting
distance improved an average of 3.3% (n 5 2, d 5 0.31–1.22)
(16,19,29,45,49).
Specific Training Methods
Only one study examined the effects of specific resistance training
methods on hitting performance (10) (Table 3). Hitting distance
improved 7.1% and CHS improved by 15.9% after an 8-week
training program. Specific training had a large effect on CHS (d 5
1.60) and moderate effect on hitting distance (d 5 0.82).
Combined Training Methods
Seven studies examined the effectiveness of combined resistance
training methods on either CHS or hitting distance
(1,20,27,31,35,46,54) (Table 3). Clubhead speed improved 4.1%
on average, ranging from 1.5 to 11.1%, whereas hitting distance
improved 5.2% on average, ranging from 1.9 to 8.1%. Combined
training had a moderate effect on CHS (d 5 0.51), ranging from
0.17 to 1.41, and a moderate effect on hitting distance (d 5 0.52),
ranging from 0.13 to 0.89 (Table 4).
Figure 1. Selection process for articles included in this review.
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
Discussion
This review was the first to examine the effectiveness of different
Score nonspecific, specific, and combined training methods on CHS and
0–2 hitting distance. Clubhead speed and hitting distance were found
0–2 to mostly improve regardless of training type. However, prefer-
0–2 ential responses were apparent between training methods.
0–2 There were mixed results regarding the effect of nonspecific
0–2 resistance training on hitting performance. Training programs
0–2 using weightlifting movements or suspension systems showed
0–2
improvements of CHS in collegiate and youth golfers (45,49),
0–2
0–2
whereas similar traditional resistance training methods had neg-
ative effects on CHS in male and female collegiate golfers, despite
0–2 increases in leg and chest strength (32,45). This suggests that
0–20 although there is a positive relationship between strength and
CHS (23,30), gaining strength alone may not necessarily result in
improved hitting performance.
Three of the 13 studies using traditional resistance training
methods observed decreases in CHS (27,32,37), so the lack of
kinematically specific exercises and velocities may have influ-
enced the magnitude of performance gains (45). For example,
Loock et al. (37) observed a small decrease in CHS after 12 weeks
of COREPOWER machine training (2 by 3-minute sessions, 3
times per week), which only allows movement through a sagittal
plane (37). Furthermore, several studies also used single-joint,
open-chain exercises, such as leg curls and leg extensions. On the
other hand, several studies reported greater CHS or hitting dis-
tance after performing multijoint free-weight exercises such as
squat, deadlift, bench press, and weightlifting derivatives
(16,17,19,27,45,61), supporting nonspecific training as a means
to improve sport performance. Given the diversity of exercise
selection and inconsistencies in the program design, it is unclear
which nonspecific method is optimal for enhancing predictors of
golf performance. However, a golf swing is a closed-chain, mul-
tijoint movement, so resistance training should incorporate sim-
ilar exercises for maximum transfer to hitting performance.
Specificity of movement and speed is critical for training
methods to transfer to the desired sporting task. Hitting distance
improved after 8 weeks of training with a 3- and 5-kg medicine
ball, mimicking a golf swing as the ball is released. Specific
training may have the highest transfer to golf-specific
2653
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9

Table 2
Effects of nonspecific resistance training on clubhead speed and hitting distance (n 5 13).*
Study Subjects Duration Exercises Sets Reps Intensity Results QS
Cummings et al. (16) INT n 5 5 8 wk Resistance exercises: 3 4–12 Self-selected loads and INT: 17
Males Front squats, val slide push-up, DB 60–80% 1 RM ↑ 4.5%; d 5 1.53
20.8 6 1.0 y row, val slide reverse lung, dips, DB CHS
CON n 5 5 squat press, partner 4-way stick ↑ 5.2%; d 5 1.22
Males push, speed quarter squats, DB distance
20.7 6 1.0 y bench, stir-the-pot, chin ups, snatch- CON:
Collegiate golfers grip BB RDL, rotary push-up plank, ↑ 1.2%; d 5 0.63
overhead lunge, trap-bar deadlift, CHS
barbell row, TRX body saw, ↓ 2.2%; d 5 0.37
plyometric push-up, DB RDL, distance
landmine rotations with lunge, and
Turkish get-up
Doan et al. (17) n 5 10 11 wk Resistance exercises: 3 7–12 N/A Males: 14
Males Bench press, upright rows, pullover, 2–4 10–15 ↑ 0.6%; d 5 0.21
19.8 6 1.7 y n 5 6 leg curl, back extension, step up, CHS
Females cable row, military press, good Females:
18.5 6 0.8 y mornings, barbell squat, shoulder ↑ 3.4%; d 5 0.59
Intercollegiate golfers circuit, lunges, leg extension, and CHS
No CON group wrist curl
Medicine ball exercises:
Speed rotation, and standing throws
Driggers and Sato (19) n 5 10 10 wk Resistance exercises: 3 2–8 65–90% 1 RM ↑ 1.4%; d 5 0.31 16
Males Sprints, overhead squat, DB bench distance
18–22 y press, DB shoulder press, push
Collegiate golfers press, step-ups, back squat,
No CON group midthigh pull, clean pull from knee,
supine DB pullover, single arm DB
row, lying leg lift, bent-over bar row,
and DB reverse fly
Hegedus et al. (27) n 5 15 10 wk Traditional resistance exercises: 3 10 N/A Driver 14
Females Back extension, wrist curls, side ↑ 2.5%; d 5 0.23
58.2 6 2.1 y plank, bench press, seated lat pull- CHS
Amateur golfers down, shoulder shrugs, bent over ↑ 5.9%; d 5 0.34
No CON group row, hip abduction machine, distance
modified Russian deadlift, and 7-Iron
reverse hyper hip extension ↓ 0.8%; d 5 20.06
CHS
↑ 10.7%; d 5 0.61
distance
Hetu, Christie, and n 5 17 (12 males, 5 8 wk Resistance exercises: 2 6–12 N/A ↑ 6.3%; d 5 0.37 12
Faigenbaum (29) females) Leg extension, leg curl, chest press, CHS
52.4 6 6.7 y lat pull-downs, lateral raise, No results by sex
Recreational golfers abdominal exercises, lower-back reported
No CON group exercises, DB press, internal rotation,
external rotation, wrist flexion, wrist
extension, body mass squat, DB
squat, and DB power clean
Lamberth et al. (32) INT n 5 5 6 wk Resistance exercises: 3 8–25 N/A INT: 14
Males Back hyper, leg press, leg curl, ↓ 3.9%; d 5 20.54
CON n 5 5 reverse lunge, Bulgarian lunge, CHS
Males walking lunge, DB forward lunge, CON:
21.4 6 2.3 y Smith machine squat, bench press, ↓ 1.9%; d 5 20.58
Collegiate golfers DB rows, shoulder complex, DB CHS
incline bench press, lat pull-down,
double curls, DB bench press, DB
upright row to curl to press, double
LAT pull-downs, horizontal pull-ups,
standing cable twist, and cable wood
chop
Loock, Grace, and Semple n59 12 wk COREPOWER machine 2 3 min N/A ↓ 2.6%; d 5 20.26 10
(37) Males CHS
17–76 y
Recreational golfers
No CON group

2654

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9 | www.nsca.com

Table 2
Effects of nonspecific resistance training on clubhead speed and hitting distance (n 5 13).* (Continued)
Study Subjects Duration Exercises Sets Reps Intensity Results QS
Olivier et al. (44) n 5 43 (36 males, 7 7 wk Lunge variations, push up variations, 1–3 5–15 N/A 0%; d 5 0.00 CHS 16
females) prone hold, Russian twist, barbell ↓5.4%; d 5 20.38
24 6 8.9 y wood chop, DB rows, renegade rows, distance
Amateur golfers and resisted band sprints No results by sex
No CON group reported
Oranchuk et al. (45) INT n 5 6 (3 males, 3 7 wk CON exercises: 3–4 6–10 N/A INT: 17
females) Single-leg squat, DB SL-RDL, leg 3–6 2–10 75–100% 1RM ↑ 1.0%; d 5 0.11
21.2 6 0.9 y curl, plate sit up, MB twist, pull-up, CHS
CON n 5 6 (3 males, 3 DB 1-arm bench, band pull-apart, CON:
females) face-pulls, MB golf swing, MB ↓ 3.7%; d 5 20.20
19.5 6 1.5 y walking lunge, cable internal rotation, CHS
Collegiate golfers cable wood chop, MB sit up, and 1-
leg back extension
INT exercises:
Hang clean, push press, front squat,
incline DB bench, seated row,
deadlift, back squat, trap-bar-jump,
DB shoulder press, pull-up, power
clean, BB RDL, DB bench press, and
BB rows
Seiler, Skaanes, and SET n 5 10 9 wk SET exercises: 2 5–10 10% BM SET: 13
Kirkesola (49) 15 6 2 y Hip abduction, pike, lat extension, 3 6–12 ↑ 3.7% CHS†
CON n 5 10 bridge and curl, unstable bilateral CON:
15.8 6 2 y squat, unstable unilateral squat, and ↑ 1.2% CHS†
Junior golfers suspended push-up
No sex reported CON exercises:
Bench press, squats, biceps curl, dip,
back extension, 1-arm row, sit up,
and seated MB rotation
Sung et al. (52) CEG n 5 20 8 wk CEG exercise: 3 12–15 60–70% 1RM CEG: 17
Males Crunch, reverse crunch, trunk twist, ↑ 4.8%; d 5 0.24
23.0 6 0.5 y good morning, and DB side bend distance
NCEG n 5 20 NCEG exercises: NCEG:
Males CEG core exercises, DB curl, wrist ↑ 10.9%; d 5 0.95
23.2 6 0.6 y curl, reverse wrist curl, triceps distance
CON n 5 20 extension, DB press, and side lateral CON:
Males raise ↑ 0.4%; d 5 0.05
24.0 6 1.0 y distance
Elite golfers
Thompson, Cobb, and INT n 5 11 8 wk Functional training 1–3 8–15 BW INT: 18
Blackwell (54) Males Spinal stabilization ↑ 4.9%; d 5 0.33
CON n 5 7 Balance training CHS
Males Resistance training CON:
70.7 6 7.1 y ↓ 0.9% CHS†
Recreational golfers
Weston, Coleman, and INT n 5 18 8 wk Resistance exercises: N/A N/A N/A INT: 15
Spears (62) Males Squat, bent leg curl, superman, ↑ 1.7% CHS†
CON n 5 18 supine bridge, prone bridge,
Males quadruped, lunge, and side bridge
47 6 12 y
Recreational golfers
*QS 5 quality score; INT 5 intervention; CON 5 control; DB 5 dumbbell; BB 5 barbell; RDL 5 Romanian deadlift; d 5 effect size; N/A 5 not available; CHS 5 clubhead speed; BM 5 body mass; RM 5
repetition maximum; SL 5 single leg; MB 5 medicine ball; SET 5 sling exercise training; CEG 5 core exercise group; NCEG 5 nondominant arm and core exercise group.
†Standard deviation not available so effect size could not be calculated.

performance, provided the previous suggestions that training at a
specific velocity improves strength primarily at that velocity (14).
High-velocity, low-load movements, such as golf-specific medi-
cine ball training used by Choi, Kim, and Oh (10), seem to enable
strength gains in biomechanically similar movement patterns to
the golf swing, subsequently enhancing performance.
Unfortunately, this is the only standalone specific resistance
training study available in golf. The INT group in another study
(1) also improved clubhead acceleration after performing golf-
specific resistance training using weight clubs and a band-resisted
drive system for a 6-week phase but was part of an 18-week
progressive training program. The lack of literature on the effects
of specific resistance training methods highlights the need for
future research into other specific methods. Specifically, further
research is needed using wearable resistance because it provides
an easy method to incrementally load certain body segments and
has been shown to improve other complex athletic activities
(39,40).

2655

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9
Table 3
Effects of specific resistance training methods on clubhead speed and hitting distance (n 5 1).*
Study Subjects Duration
Choi, Kim, and Oh (10) INT n 5 9 8 wk Medicine ball exercise:
36.22 6 5.91 y 3-kg and 5-kg golf-specific throws
CON n 5 9
35.83 6 9.01 y
Amateur golfers
No sex reported
*QS 5 quality score; N/A 5 not available; d 5 effect size; CHS 5 clubhead speed.
†Standard deviation not available so effect size could not be calculated.
Subjects in the combined training method studies range from
amateur to professional level and range in age from 22 to 65 years.
Of the 7 combined resistance training studies, 3 have used an air-
resisted device, elastic tubing, or cable pulley system to mimic the golf
swing (27,35,46), 2 used medicine ball throws to replicate swing
movement (20,31), and 2 used weighted clubs (1,54). Combining
traditional exercises such as bench press, lat pull-downs, and Ro-
manian deadlifts with pulley machine–resisted golf swings lead to the
greatest improvements in CHS for recreational golfers older than 47
years (27,35). The study by Alvarez et al. (1), which had the greatest
training effects, included 3 training blocks of 6 weeks, each with a
different focus: maximal strength training and golf-specific strength
training. This study also included a CON group that performed basic
resistance training exercises once a week and core stability training
once a week throughout the 18-week intervention, but the im-
provements in clubhead acceleration were much smaller compared
with the INT group. This suggests a long-term approach using phase
potentiation is most beneficial for improving hitting performance.
Given that high-load and high-velocity resistance training
uniquely affect muscle morphology (57) and different components
of the force-velocity curve (14,15), using a combination of both
slow and fast exercises may enable strength training to transfer to
golfing performance. For example, strength training can be used to
increase maximal force production capabilities through increases
in physiological cross-sectional area of muscles (58), whereas high-
velocity exercises (e.g., medicine ball rotations, elastic swings with
tubing, or cable pulley swings) may enhance the neural determi-
nants, such as intramuscular and intermuscular coordination (64),
subsequently enabling increased swing performance (14). How-
ever, this postulate requires further investigation because no studies
have looked at the effects of combined training using golf-specific
methods on muscle architecture or mechanics.
Training load is the interaction between training volume and
intensity. This metric is used to guide exercise prescription and
plays an integral role on adaptations to strength (41,51). Training
programs aimed at improving golf-specific performance have
used one to 6 sets ranging from 2 to 25 repetitions
(1,10,16,18–20,27,29,31,35,37,44–46,49,52,54,56,62). These
set and rep schemes are tailored for adaptations to power (45),
maximal strength (1,19,20,44,46), hypertrophy
(16,18,27,29,31,45,49), and strength endurance (32,35,52,54).
For nonspecific strength training, using one to 4 sets of less than
12 reps show the best average results for CHS
(16,18,19,27,29,45,49,56,62), whereas programs using 15 reps or
more had the least amount of transfer. Studies examining the effect
of combined training methods on CHS and hitting distance used 3
sets with rep ranges between 5 to 15 (1,20,27,31,35,46,54), with
sets up to 15 repetitions having the greatest average effect on CHS
performance. Given that combined training includes golf-specific
movements, the high repetition range may improve swing
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercises Sets Reps Intensity Results QS
N/A 4-5 per minute N/A INT: 14
↑ 15.9%; d 5 1.6 CHS
↑ 7.1%; d 5 0.82 distance
CON:
↑ 1.4% CHS†
↑ 1.5% distance†
technique, whereas sets with lower repetitions improve the athlete’s
kinetic profile. Two studies, including the only specific training
study, did not report the set and repetition schemes (10,62).
Given the inverse relationship between load and volume, it is also
important to consider whether there is an optimal training intensity
that transfers to predictors of golf performance. Of the 20 available
studies, only 6 reported training intensity. Five studies using non-
specific training methods reported intensities from body mass up to
100% one repetition maximum (1RM) (16,19,45,49,52,54), 3
studies using combined training methods used intensities from 60%
of 10RM to 85% 1RM (1,31,56), and there was no intensity
reported for the only specific training study. There were no distin-
guishable differences regarding intensity between nonspecific and
combined strength training methods. However, using relatively low
repetitions allows for greater intensities to be used and maintained,
which allows for greater gains in strength and power (53).
Intervention length ranged between 6 and 18 weeks. Strength
transfers from the training programs were the least effective for 6-
week and 12-week interventions. The most effective training dura-
tion was 8 weeks, where CHS increases ranged from 2.0 to 16.0%
(10,16,20,27,29,35,52,55,56,62) and hitting distance improved
between 1.9 and 10.9% (10,16,20,27,29,35,52,55,56,62). These
findings suggest that training adaptations to hitting performance are
influenced by intervention duration. A novel training stimulus may
elicit improvements in neuromuscular coordination and strength in
the early periods of training; however, as subjects accumulate
training experience, training intensity must be continually increased
to elicit strength adaptations.
When assessing the influence of intervention duration on hitting
performance, it is important to consider the types of training used for
different intervention lengths. For example, the only 6-week training
intervention used nonspecific training, so readers should consider the
limitations due to limited research in this area (32). Studies between 9
and 18 weeks used either nonspecific or combined training methods,
resulting in improvements in CHS ranging from 0.5% (12 weeks) to
2.4% (9 weeks) and hitting distance from 4.3% (12 weeks) to 6.0%
(10 weeks). Interestingly, 8 weeks of training was still the most ef-
fective for both CHS and hitting distance, regardless of training type.
With only a single study investigating the adaptations associ-
ated with a full training cycle for golf-specific strength and power
(1), it is problematic to extrapolate these findings for general
strength and conditioning purposes. Despite the lack of in-
vestigation into periodized training for golf performance, pre-
vious literature supports the effectiveness of periodized training
programs on general strength and power adaptations, which can
improve CHS and hitting distance (24,25). Based on the available
evidence, programs as short as 8 weeks may cause meaningful
changes in hitting performance. Given the variety of study designs
and training methods, there is still uncertainty regarding optimal
training duration.
2656
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9 | www.nsca.com

Table 4
Effects of combined resistance training methods on clubhead speed and hitting distance (n 5 7).*
Study Subjects Duration Exercises Sets Reps Intensity Results QS
Alvarez et al. (1) INT n 5 5 18 wk Maximal strength training: 3 5 85% 1RM INT (1st phase) 19
Males Bench press, seated row, barbell squat, 3 6–10 70% 1RM ↑ 4.1%; d 5 0.62 clubhead
24.2 6 5.4 y military press, calf extension, and triceps 3 10 acceleration
CON n 5 5 push-down INT (2nd phase)
Males Explosive strength training: ↑ 2.7%; d 5 0.43 clubhead
23.9 6 6.7 y Bench press 1 plyometric push-up, acceleration
Low-handicap golfers seated row machine 1 explosive pull- INT (3rd phase)
downs, barbell squat 1 vertical jumps, ↑ 4.3%; d 5 0.56 clubhead
seated barbell military press, seated calf acceleration
extension, and triceps cable push-down INT (Overall)‡
Golf-specific strength training: ↑ 11.1%; d 5 1.41 clubhead
Weighted clubs and accelerated drives acceleration
with tubing club system CON:
↑ 1.2%; d 5 0.06 clubhead
acceleration
Fletcher and Hartwell INT n 5 6 8 wk Resistance training: 3 6–8 N/A INT: 18
(20) Males Bench press, squat, single-arm row, 3 8 ↑ 1.5%; d 5 0.31 CHS
CON n 5 5 lunge, shoulder press, upright row, ↑ 4.3%; d 5 0.63 distance
Males abdominal crunch, back extension, and CON:
29 6 7.4 y side bends ↑ 0.5%; d 5 0.04 CHS
Club golfers Medicine ball exercises (3 kg): ↓ 0.7%; d 5 20.08 distance
Seated horizontal twists, standing
horizontal twists, standing back extension,
and golf swing
Hegedus et al. (27) n 5 14 10 wk Golf-specific resistance exercises: 3 10 N/A Driver 14
Females Back extension, cable wrist flexion/ ↑ 2.0%; d 5 0.20 CHS
57.6 6 3.7 y pronation, standing cable diagonal chop, ↑ 1.9%; d 5 0.13 distance
Amateur golfers 1-arm/1-leg cable bench press, standing 7-Iron
No CON group lat pull-down, shoulder shrugs, 1-arm/1- ↑ 7.2%; d 5 0.60 CHS
leg cable row, 1-leg Russian deadlift, ↑ 7.6%; d 5 0.50 distance
lateral plyometrics, and standing cable hip
abduction
Kim (31) INT n 5 9 12 wk Part 1 (home exercise): 3 12–14 60–70% INT: 15
Females Tubing deadlift, tubing squat, incline 3 12–14 1RM ↑ 3.5%; d 5 0.63 CHS
22.9 6 3.7 y crunch, gymnasium ball back extension, ↑ 4.3%; d 5 0.89 distance
CON n 5 8 leg raise, tubing hip abduction, total body CON:
Females twist, kneeling rollout, and medicine ball ↓ 1.96%; d 5 20.56 CHS
21.8 6 4.4 y rotations ↑ 0.47%; d 5 0.11 distance
Professional golfers Part 2 (fitness club exercise):
Deadlift, squat, incline crunch, hyper
extension, body turning, hip abduction,
cable crunch, kneeling rollout, and 3-kg
medicine ball swing
Lephart et al. (35) n 5 15 8 wk Resistance exercises: 3 10–15 N/A ↑ 5.2%; d 5 0.61 CHS 15
Males Hip abduction/adduction, scapular 1 30 s ↑ 6.8%; d 5 0.65 distance
47.2 6 11.4 y retraction, resisted backswings, resisted 1 30 s
Trained golfers downswings, resisted through-swings,
No CON group and crunches
Balance exercises:
Static front squat, single-leg stances on
floor, and single-leg stances on foam pad
Stretching exercises:
Supine hip flexion, prone torso flexion,
kneeling lunge, seated hip rotation, seated
torso rotation, seated torso rotation with
club, and standing lateral bending
Parker et al. (46) IK n 5 10 (6 males, 4 9 wk IK exercises: 3 5 N/A IK: 14
females) Isokinetic and isometric exercises N/A N/A ↑ 1.7%; d 5 0.17 CHS
22.0 6 4.0 y performed with free weights and body ↑ 8.1%; d 5 0.59 distance
IT n 5 10 (7 males, 3 mass, isokinetic standing rotation golf IT:
females) swing, and loaded isokinetic squat ↑ 1.9%; d 5 0.18 CHS
22.0 6 4.0 y IT exercises: ↑ 3.6%; d 5 0.28 distance
Intercollegiate golfers
No CON group

2657

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9

Table 4
Effects of combined resistance training methods on clubhead speed and hitting distance (n 5 7).* (Continued)
Study Subjects Duration Exercises Sets Reps Intensity Results QS
Isotonic and isometric exercises
performed with free weights and body
mass and ballistic rotation exercises
Thompson & Osness INT n 5 19 8 wk Resistance exercises: 1 12 80% 10RM INT: 17
(56) Males Chest press, leg press, biceps curl, lat 1 20–30 ↑ 2.5% CHS†
64.3 6 6.2 y pull-down, abdominal crunch, leg 1 s CON:
CON n 5 12 extension, seated row, shoulder press, leg 10 ↓ 0.6% CHS†
Males curl, and back extension
66.2 6 5.9 y Flexibility exercises:
Recreational golfers Lateral trunk side bends, chest muscle
stretch, posterior and inferior shoulder,
back extensor, quadriceps, hamstring,
angry cat, and lateral trunk rotations
Weighted swings:
1.3 kg slow and controlled swing
*QS 5 quality score; INT 5 intervention; CON 5 control; d 5 effect size; CHS 5 clubhead speed; IK 5 isokinetic; IT 5 isotonic, N/A 5 not available.
†Standard deviation not available so effect size could not be calculated.
‡Calculated from the end of training program, before a 5-week washout period.

Different training methods result in improved neuromuscular
capabilities, which transfer to golfing performance. However,
subject’s characteristics may influence the level of adaptations
depending on age, sex, and skill level.
Age is a factor that may influence the effectiveness of strength
training interventions (34). However, the effectiveness of strength
training on hitting performance of golfers of different ages has not
been previously investigated. The available literature examined a
large range of subjects, spanning from 15 to 76 years. Golfers
younger than 30 years had lower improvements than golfers aged
between 30 and 50 years. Furthermore, golfers aged between 50
and 70 years had greater improvements than golfers younger than
30 years but had lesser improvements than those aged 30–50 years.
In the only study that examined athletes older than 70 years,
nonspecific training improved CHS almost 5% (54). One possible
explanation for the greatest transfer of strength to hitting perfor-
mance in 30- to 50-year-old golfers is that resistance exercise can
minimize or negate the onset of connective tissue stiffening in this
age group (5), enabling a more effective transfer from elastic
musculotendinous structures (63). Furthermore, better golfers tend
to be younger, which may affect the amount of improvement from
a training program and account for the relatively small improve-
ments in CHS and hitting distance. Based on these results, 30- to
50-year-old golfers have the greatest improvements in hitting per-
formance after resistance training, and combined training should
be used to optimize strength transfers to golf performance for
golfers younger than 70 years. However, readers should be aware
that no studies have yet investigated specific strength training
methods for golfers younger than 30 years or older than 50 years or
the effects of combined training on golfers older than 70 years.
Previous research has established that both men and women can
increase muscle size and strength from resistance training; how-
ever, it is unclear if there are sex-specific adaptations from the same
training stimulus (48). Specifically, it is unclear how sex differences
influence strength training adaptations and CHS and hitting dis-
tance. Twelve of the 20 studies investigated the effects on male
golfers (1,10,16,18–20,32,35,37,52,54,62), 3 investigated female
golfers (18,27,31), and 5 used a combination without dis-
tinguishing the results between sexes (29,44–46,56). Overall, men
and women responded similarly to the different training programs.
In addition, when the only specific training study was removed
from analysis (10), regardless of sex, combined resistance training
methods resulted in greater relative strength transfers to CHS and
hitting distance compared with nonspecific strength training
methods. However, no study has examined the effects of specific
resistance training on CHS and hitting distance in female athletes
and only one is available in men, so research in this area is sparse.
Another important factor to consider when examining the cur-
rent literature is the skill level of the subjects. Because experienced
and professional golfers exhibit more efficient biomechanics (67), it
is likely that strength from resistance training may transfer more
efficiently to predictors of golf performance (1,52). This is sup-
ported by findings that experienced and professional golfers with
handicaps less than 10 report the largest gains in both CHS and
hitting distance (1,31,35,52) compared with less skilled amateur
and recreational golfers. Furthermore, less skilled golfers respond
more positively to combined resistance training methods than
nonspecific strength training for both CHS and hitting distance.
This may be partially explained by providing more practice to
simulate the sequencing of segments in a golf swing, such as swings
with a medicine ball or cable. Over time, the specific training may
aid in improving swing technique, whereas the nonspecific training
allows for greater force and power production from the muscles.
Finally, although specific training was the most effective method
for experienced or professional golfers, there were no studies that
investigated the effectiveness of nonspecific strength training on
CHS in experienced or professional golfers. This highlights the
need for research examining strength training in higher-level golf-
ers. Furthermore, the available literature suggests that less skilled
golfers should be prescribed combined strength training methods to
enhance performance and skilled golfers should use specific and
combined training to maximize their golfing performance.
A lack of relevant studies examining resistance training for golf
highlights several limitations and areas for future research. First, there
is a glaring lack of research investigating specific training methods on
CHS and hitting distance. The one study in this area featured amateur
golfers 301 years training for 8 weeks using 3- and 5-kg medicine ball
exercises. Although the improvements in CHS and hitting distance
were promising, further research in younger, more skilled golfers and
longer interventions with specific resistance training is needed.
Another limitation in the available literature is the lack in fe-
male subjects. Only 8 of the 20 studies used female subjects and

2658

Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9
often in smaller numbers than the men. Given the differences in
anthropometrics and physiology, further research is warranted to
determine whether and how resistance training for golf should
differ between men and women.
Finally, intervention length varied greatly, with most training
programs lasting 8 weeks of less. Given that golf is a sport typi-
cally played year-round, more long-term interventions are needed
as resistance training can be performed alongside other forms of
training with proper integration. In addition to the lack of liter-
ature, one limitation of the systematic review procedure was the
focus on CHS and hitting distance, specifically. Furthermore,
there was a high level of heterogeneity in the studies regarding the
age, skill level, sex, and type of exercises used. Practitioners
should be cognizant of this when interpreting the effectiveness of
different training methods in this review.
Collectively, resistance training positively affects golf CHS and
hitting distance, but adaptations vary depending on the type of
training (1,9,18,20,22,29,31,35,56,62). The variation in results is
indicative of the training stimulus offered, as greater improvements to
CHS and hitting performance are seen when higher degrees of
movement specificity are integrated into the training program through
ballistic methods (10,27,35,46). Regardless of sex or skill level, using a
combination of nonspecific and golf-specific training seems to en-
hance CHS and hitting performance more than nonspecific strength
training. Although evidence is limited, the one study investigating
exercises kinematically similar to a golf swing resulted in improved
hitting performance; however, more research is needed to substantiate
this type of training. In addition, compound movements (i.e., jump
type movements, upper-body pressing, and pulling) with higher ve-
locities (ballistic, high velocities) and moderate loads (i.e., maximal
power training) should be incorporated to maximize effectiveness.
Program duration and training load prescription are integral
variables to any training program and facilitate specific neuro-
muscular adaptations. Neuromuscular training adaptations may
improve hitting performance in as little as 8 weeks. Furthermore,
using 3–4 sets of 5–15 repetitions are recommended because they
have the largest effect on increasing CHS and hitting distance.
Unfortunately, the lack of reporting from the available literature
leaves little understanding regarding which intensity is most ef-
fective. Nonetheless, strength endurance training does not seem to
transfer to golfing performance. Therefore, it is recommended
that strength and conditioning practitioners use a combination of
either neuronal schemes (e.g., 85–100% 1RM) with one to 6
repetitions per set or hypertrophic schemes (e.g., 60–80% 1RM)
with rep ranges between 8 to 12 per set (13), alongside low-load
ballistic training with medicine balls, pulleys, or elastic tubing.
When designing golf-specific strength and conditioning programs,
strength and conditioning professionals should consider subject’s age
(biological age and training age), skill level, and flexibility. A pro-
gressive, periodized approach should be used, where exercise tech-
nique and base strength are developed before undertaking maximal
power-based movements. Although evidence is limited, rotational
training may provide greater benefit than traditional sagittal or frontal
plane movements. Furthermore, maximal power and ballistic type
movements should be integrated into any golf-specific program.
However, explosive movements such as Olympic lifts require high
levels of joint stabilization and mobility and may not be appropriate
for all age and skill levels unless expert coaching is provided. Of note,
the effectiveness of training could be dependent on the performance
metric of interest. For example, CHS is primarily a product of force
production, whereas ball distance is affected by clubhead angle and
ball trajectory. If clubhead angle and ball trajectory remain unchanged,
greater CHS would result in greater drive distances. Hence, although
2659
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
resistance training may improve force production and CHS, optimiz-
ing swing technique is paramount for overall golf performance.
Practical Applications
Strength and conditioning coaches should aim to follow best
practice and implement resistance training programs based on
subject ability and training goal. When training golfers, ex-
ercises should be multijoint movements, similar to a golf
swing, an intention to move with high velocity, or load the
trunk safely (33). Such protocols may improve muscular ki-
netics such as PF that transfer to golf swing kinematics and
CHS (1,11). Thus, practitioners working with an elite cohort
should use low repetition sets to allow for high movement
velocity of biomechanically similar movements. In addition, a
long-term program with phases that build upon each other,
transitioning from general to specific training over time, may
be most effective to improve CHS and hitting distance. Finally,
given the limited research regarding the utility of specific
strength training for predictors of golf performance, future
investigations should aim to explore the effectiveness of golf-
specific resistance training using novel training protocols,
such as wearable resistance, on CHS and hitting distance.
Further research investing the influence of training load and
intervention length, as well as subject’s age, sex, and skill level
may provide further insights into resistance training pre-
scription to improve CHS and hitting distance.
REFERENCES
1. Alvarez M, Sedano S, Cuadrado G, Redondo JC. Effects of an 18-week
strength training program for low-handicap golfers’ performance.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 1110–1121, 2012.
2. Available at: http://www.golftoday.co.uk/golf_a_z/articles/golfer_stats.
html. Accessed March 12, 2014.
3. Available at: https://www.liveabout.com/par-3-to-5-yardage-guidelines-
1564466. Accessed March 16, 2014
4. Baechle TR, Earle RW, Chapter: Biomechanics of resistance exercise. In:
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning McBride JM, ed.
Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 19–42.
5. Booth F, Gould E. Effects of training and disuse on connective tissue.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 3: 83–112, 1975.
6. Brughelli M, Cronin J, Levin G, Chaouachi A. Understanding change of
direction abilility in sport: A review of resistance training studies. Sports
Med 38: 1045–1063, 2008.
7. Callaway S, Glaw K, Mitchell M, et al. An analysis of peak pelvis rotation
speed, gluteus maximus and medius strength in high versus low handicap
golfers during the golf swing. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7: 288–295, 2012.
8. Campos GER, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adaptations in
response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of
repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002.
9. Chen B, Lam WK, Mok D, Yeung F, Hung J. A three-week conditioning
program for improved golf performance. Athl Ther Today 4: 22–26, 2010.
10. Choi W, Kim T, Oh D. Effect of weight ball throw training on weight
shifting of lower body, head speed of club, and driving distance in amateur
golfers. J Korean Soc Phys Med 12: 111–117, 2017.
11. Chu Y, Sell TC, Lephart SM. The relationship between biomechanical
variables and driving performance during the golf swing. J Sports Sciences
28: 1251–1259, 2010.
12. Cohen J. Chapter: The t test for means. In: Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1988. pp. 20–26.
13. Crewther BT, Cronin J, Keogh J. Possible stimuli for strength and power
adaptation: Acute mechanical responses. Sports Med 35: 967–989, 2005.
14. Cronin J, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Velocity specificity, combination
training and sport specific tasks. J Sci Med Sport 4: 168–178, 2001.
15. Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Is velocity-specific strength training
important in improving functional performance?. J Sport Med Phys Fit 42:
267–273, 2002.
 Resistance training effects on golf shot performance (2021) 35:9
16. Cummings PM, Waldman HS, Krings BM, Smith JEW, McAllister MJ.
Effects of fat grip training on muscular strength and driving performance
in Division I male golfers. J Strength Cond Res 32: 205–210, 2018.
17. Doan BK, Newton RU, Kwon YH, Kraemer WJ. Effects of physical con-
ditioning on intercollegiate golfer performance. J Strength Cond Res 20:
62–72, 2006.
18. Doan BK, Newton RU, Kwon YH, Kraemer WJ. Effects of physical
conditioning on intercollegiate golfer performance. J Strength Cond Res
20: 62–72, 2006.
19. Driggers AR, Sato K. The effects of vertically oriented resistance training on
golf drive performance in collegiate golfers. Sports Sci Coaching 0: 1–9, 2017.
20. Fletcher IM, 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.
21. Fradkin AJ, Sherman CA, Finch CF. How well does club head speed
corrrelate with golf handicaps?. J Sci Med Sport 7: 465–472, 2004.
22. Fradkin AJ, Sherman CA, Finch CF. Improving golf performance with a
warm up conditioning programme. Br J Sports Med 38: 762–765, 2004.
23. Gordon BS, Moir GL, Davis SE, Witmer CA, Cummings DM. An in-
vestigation into the relationship of flexability, power, and strength to
clubhead speed in male golfers. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1606–1610, 2009.
24. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis
of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on
muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1113–1125, 2015.
25. Hartmann H, Wirth K, Keiner M, et al. Short-term periodization models:
Effects on strength and speed-strength performance. Sports Med 45:
1373–1386, 2015.
26. Healy A, Moran KA, Dickson J, et al. Analysis of the 5 iron golf swing
when hitting for maximum distance. J Sports Sci 29: 1079–1088, 2011.
27. Hegedus EJ, Hardesty KW, Sunderland KL, Hegedus RJ, Smoliga JM. A ran-
domized trial of traditional and golf-specific resistance training in amateur female
golfers: Benefits beyond golf performance. Phys Ther Sport 22: 41–53, 2016.
28. Hellstrom J. The relationship between physical tests, Measures, and
clubhead speed in elite golfers. Annu Review Golf Coacing: 85–92, 2008.
29. Hetu FE, Christie CA, Faigenbaum AD. Effects of conditioning on phys-
ical fitness and club head speed in mature golfers. Percept Mot Skills 86:
811–815, 1998.
30. Keogh JWL, Marnewick MC, Maulder PS, et al. Are anthropometric,
Flexability, Muscular strength, and endurance variables related to club-
head velocity in low- and high- handicap golfers? J Strength Cond Res 23:
1841–1850, 2009.
31. Kim K. Effects of core muscle strengthening training on flexibility, mus-
cular strength and driver shot performance in female professional golfers.
Int J Appl Sports Sci 22: 111–127, 2010.
32. Lamberth J, Hale BD, Knight A, Boyd J, Luczak T. Effectiveness of a six
week strength and functional training program on golf performance. Int J
Golf Sci 2: 33–42, 2013.
33. Lehman GJ. Resistance training for performance and injury prevention in.
Golf J Of Can Chiro Assoc 50: 27–42, 2006.
34. Lemmer JT, Hurlbut DE, Martel GF, et al. Age and gender responses to
strength training and detraining. Med Sci Sport Exerc 32: 1505–1512, 2000.
35. Lephart SM, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, Sell TC, Tsai YS. An eight - week golf
- specific exercise program improves physical characteristics, swing me-
chanics, and golf performance in recreational golfers. J Strength Cond Res
21: 860–869, 2007.
36. Loock HV, Grace J, Semple S. The influence of Corepower training on
golfers’ physical and functional fitness as well as golf performance. Afr J
Phys Health Educ Rec Dance 18: 404–412, 2012.
37. Loock HV, Grace J, Semple S. The influence of corepower training on
golfers’ physical and functional fitness as well as golf performance: A pilot
study. Afr J Phys Health Educ Rec Dance 18: 404–412, 2012.
38. Loock H, Grace J, Semple S. Association of selected physical fitness pa-
rameters with club head speed and carry distance in recreational golf
players. Int J Sports Coaching 8: 769–777, 2013.
39. Macadam P, Cronin JB, Simperingham KD. The effects of wearable re-
sistance training on metabolic, kinematic and kinetic variables during
walking, running, sprint running and jumping: A systematic review.
Sports Med 47: 887–906, 2017.
40. Macadam P, Simperingham KD, Cronin JB. Acute kinematic and kinetic
adaptations to wearable resistance during sprint acceleration. J Strength
Cond Res 31: 1297–1304, 2017.
41. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, et al. The effect of training
volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in
resistance-trained men. Physiol Rep 3: 1–17, 2015.
42. McMaster DT, Gill N, Cronin J, McGuigan M. The development, re-
tention and decay rates of strength and power in elite rugby union, rugby
2660
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
league and amercian football: A systematic review. Sports Med 43:
367–384, 2013.
43. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
PLos One 6: e1000097, 2009.
44. Olivier MH, Horan SA, Evns KA, Keogh WL. The effect of a seven-week
exercise program on golf swing performance and musculoskeletal mea-
sures. Sports Sci Coaching 11: 610–618, 2016.
45. Oranchuk DJ, Mannerberg JM, Robinson TL, Nelson MC. Eight weeks of
strength and power training improves club head speed in collegiate golfers.
J Strength Cond Res 34: 2205–2213, 2020.
46. Parker J, Leagerhem C, Hellström J, Olsson CM. Effects of nine weeks of
isokinetic training on power, golf kinematics, and driver performance in
pre-elite golfers. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabilitiation 9: 1–12, 2017.
47. Read PJ, Lloyd RS, Croix MDS, Oliver JL. Relationship between feid-
based measures of strength and power and golf club head speed. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 2708–2713, 2013.
48. Roberts BM, Nuckols G, Krieger JW. Sex differences in resistance train-
ing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 34:
1448–1460, 2020.
49. Seiler S, Skaanes PT, Kirkesola G. Effects of sling exercise training on
maximal clubhead velocity in junior golfers, In: American College of
Sports Medicine 53rd annual meeting. 2006.
50. Sell TC, Tsai YS, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, Lephart SM. Strength, flexability,
and balance characteristics of highly proficent golfers. J Strength Cond
Res 21: 1166–1171, 2007.
51. Sgro M, McGuigan MR, Pettigrew S, Newton RU. The effect of duration
of resistance training interventions in children who are overweight or
obese. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1263–1270, 2009.
52. Siff MC. Specificity in training. In: Supertraining. Siff MC, ed. Denver,
COUSA: Supertraining Institute, 2003. pp. 27–32.
53. Sung DJ, Park SJ, Kim S, Kwon MS, Lim T. Effects of core and non-
dominant arm strength training on drive distance in elite golfers. J Sport
Health Sci 5: 219–225, 2016.
54. Tan B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize
maximum strength in men: A review. J Strength Cond Res 13: 289–304,
1999.
55. Thompson CJ, 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 Activity 12: 144–156, 2004.
56. Thompson CJ, Cobb KM, Blackwell J. Functional training improves club
head speed and functional fitness in older golfers. J Strength Cond Res 21:
131–137, 2007.
57. Thompson T, Berning J, Harris C, Adams KJ, DeBeliso M. The effects of
complex treaining in male high school athletes on the back squat and
vertical jump. Int J Sport Sci 7: 50–55, 2017.
58. Timmins RG, Shiled AJ, Williams MD, Lorenzen C, Opar DA. Architec-
tural adaptations of muscle to training and injury: A narrative review
outlining the contributions by fascicle length, pennation angle and muscle
thickness. Br J Sport Med 50: 1467–1472, 2016.
59. Valamatos MJ, Tavares F, Santos RM, Veloso AP, Mil-Homens P. In-
fluence of full range of motion vs. equalized partial range of motion
training on muscle architecture and mechanical properties. Eur J Appl
Physiol 118: 1969–1983, 2018.
60. Wells GD, Elmi M, Thomas S. Physiological correlates of golf perfor-
mance. J Strength Cond Res 23: 741–750, 2009.
61. Westcott WL, Dolan F, Cavicchi T. Golf and strength training are com-
patible activities. Strength Cond 18: 54–56, 1996.
62. Weston M, Coleman NJ, Spears IR. The effect of isolated core training on
selected measures of golf swing performance. Med Sci Sport Exerc 45:
2292–2297, 2013.
63. Weston M, Coleman NJ, Spears IR. The effects of isolated core training on
selected measures of golf swing performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:
2292–2297, 2013.
64. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Pryor JF. Musculotendinous stiffness: Its re-
lationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance. J Appl
Physiol 76: 2714–2719, 1994.
65. Young WB. Transfer of strength and power training to sports perfor-
mance. Int J Sport Physio Perf 1: 74–83, 2006.
66. Zatsiorsky VM. Goal-specific strength training. In: Science and Practice
of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995. pp.
136–172.
67. Zheng N, Barrentine SW, Andrews JR. Kinematic analysis of swing in pro
and amateur golfers. Int J Sports Med 29: 487–493, 2007.