Analysis of Golf Swing Introduction Biomechanics can be described as a scientific discipline that uses the application of mechanical principles

in order to provide an understanding of movement (Hume, Keogh and Reid, 2005). Golf biomechanics involves applying the principles and techniques of mechanics to a performers own technique in an attempt to improve their golfing performance. Consequently, a biomechanical evaluation of performers swing may incorporate qualitatative and quantitative analysis of movement, patterns of muscle activation and the influences of internal and external forces. Researchers have conducted biomechanical studies investigating the kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic characteristics of the golf swing in an attempt to symbolise the ideal golf swing, with their overall aims being to improve performance and reduce golf related injuries, (Dillman and Lang, 1994). Cochran and Stobbs (1968), conducted the first real pioneering study into the biomechanics of the golf swing, they suggested that the golf swing could be described as a planar-two link system, this system was a based on a mathematical model which they called the double pendulum. The double pendulum highlighted the relationship between the pivoting motion of the left arm and the club around the chest; they described the chest as a fixed hub. In concluding their study Cochran and Stobbs (1968) stated that the golf swing should appear as a pendulum motion moving through a single plain. This study was further built on by the work of Jorgensen (1970) and Bundey and Bellow (1983). Jorgensens (1970) investigation into the dynamics of the golf swing found that improvements could be made to the double pendulum model if movement of the chest (hub) was incorporated. The study posited that by allowing both vertical and horizontal acceleration of the chest superior upper body rotation could be achieved which in turn allowed for greater club head speed to be generated. Bundey and Bellow (1983) suggested that the actions of the upper body and the arms during both the downswing and the backswing were conducted in a single plain. They also highlighted the wrist action during the downward phase of the swing, stating that the cocking and uncocking action of the wrists as well as torso rotation was crucial in order to achieve maximum club head velocity.

The general consensus amongst the previous research was that all the movements carried out during backswing and the downswing phases the golf swing were through a single plain. These studies all used similar models of varying levels of complexity in which to perform kinetic analysis of the golf swing. However, with technological advancements in the equipment used to analyse the golf swing, recent literature has called into question the validity of these studies, suggesting that the models used were limited and the golf swing could be better described as a three dimensional model. Nesbitt and Serrano (2005) proposed that models used by Jorgensen (1970) and Bundey and Bellow (1983) were restricted to one or two rigid link (double pendulum) systems which constrained the motions to two dimensions.

Nesbit (2005) conducted a three dimensional kinematic and kinetic study analysing and comparing the golf swings of 84 males and one female all of whom were amateur players of various skill levels. The analysis was achieved by using a variable full-body computer model of a human, combined with a flexible model of a golf club. The results from the analysis revealed that the golf swing is a highly coordinated and individual motion where significant subject-to-subject swing variations exist. The analysis also found that as the club moved through the stages of the swing it did not appear in one constant plane. This is supported by the work of Egret et al., (2003) and Coleman and Rankin (2005). Egret et al., (2003) conducted a three dimensional kinematic analysis of three different clubs during the golf swing and found that there was evidence to suggest that certain clubs followed different swing planes. Coleman and Rankin (2005) findings stated that the left arm and the shoulder girdle do not move in a consistent plane throughout downswing and therefore previous models of the downswing in golf may be inaccurate. From reviewing the literature above, it is clear that there are inconsistent findings, so for a greater understanding of the complex process that is the golf swing to be obtained a structured analysis of the four different phases of the golf swing needs to be used in order to provide accurate and understandable feedback. Completing a quantitative analysis of a performers downswing and qualitative analysis of their stance, backswing, downswing and follow through and making comparisons against what literature describes as the ideal swing will enable this to be achieved. Breaking

down a skill into a series of phases allows both coaches and athletes to identify what is causing certain errors (Carr, 1997).

Method/Filming Process Subject. The subject (age, 21 years; height, 178cm; weight, 75kg) an amateur golfer gave their voluntary and informed consent to participate in the swing analysis, which was approved by Loughborough College. Recording of the swing. The video camera (Sony Handycam, model HDR-FX1000) was mounted on a stationary, rigid tripod following the frontal plane of motion. It was positioned 5 metres back from the action point in order to reduce the levels of perspective error. The lens was adjusted to focus the image of the subject; this was achieved by zooming in on the subject and then zooming out to the required field of view. The field of view was adjusted to coincide with the area where the subject was performing the swing. This maximized the size of the subject on the projected image and allowed for increased accuracy during the digitising process. The camera was set with a shutter speed of 1/1000 seconds to insure for a sharp image and sufficient light was directed onto the subject by using three mounted floodlights. One was positioned near the optical axis of the camera and the other two were situated either side of the plane of motion at a 30 angle. The subject being analysed wore dark, close fitting clothes and prior to the start of the filming process joint makers were placed at the centre of rotation on the subjects left shoulder joint and left wrist, a marker was also placed on the club-head. This was so the centre of rotation for each joint could easily be established for each frame during the digitising process. The subject was instructed to stand perpendicular to the axis of the camera in order for the whole swing to be captured. On the camera operators cue the subject performed a golf swing, hitting the ball perpendicular to the axis of the camera. This filming process was repeated three times. Data Collection. The best of the subjects three swings was chosen. The selected video clip was then played through a computer software package called Silicon Coach to create the subjects swing pattern using the double lever model. This clip was advanced frame-by-frame until the subject had completed their backswing. On the initiation of the subjects downswing the digitising process was started by locating and clicking on the joint markers positioned on the subjects left shoulder, left wrist

and the club-head. The film was then advanced frame by frame with the process of clicking on the left shoulder, left wrist and club head being continually repeated until the end of the swing. The fully digitised image was then printed off. Qualitatative Analysis. Using the print out of the swing pattern and the video clip, the subjects swing was qualitatively analysed. The clip was reviewed in order for subjective feedback to be provided on the four phases of the subjects golf swing. In addition to this, the subjects swing pattern was visually compared to a swing pattern of a professional (also derived using the double lever model) and an analysis of the subjects timing and technique were made relative to that of the professionals. Quantitative analysis. In order to provide objective feedback on the subjects downswing, the arm and club angles were measured from the digitised image. The arm angle is illustrated as in figure 1 and the club angle (angle between the axis of the arm and the axis of the club) is illustrated as in figure 1. Both the arm and the club-head angles were measured for every digitised frame using a protractor. When recording the angles of the arm and the club if the distal part of the arm was down (hand below shoulder) then the angle was 0. Any clockwise angle from this point was recorded as a positive angle and any anticlockwise as a negative.

Figure 1. Determination of the arm and club angles for golf swing analysis.

Results Frame Number Time (s) Relative Club Angle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -0.76 -0.72 -0.68 -0.64 -0.6 -0.56 -0.52 -0.48 -0.44 -0.4 -0.36 -0.32 -0.28 -0.24 -0.2 -0.16 -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.32 0.36 -127 -125 -122 -120 -119 -107 -100 -99 -94 -89 -84 -75 -73 -67 -54 -48 -43 -37 -24 -4 12 27 32 41 63 74 84 84 Absolute Arm Angle -142 -142 -139 -138 -136 -135 -132 -128 -119 -112 -109 -103 -94 -86 -72 -68 -61 -32 -12 -2 8 14 25 37 45 51 62 70

Table 1. The subjects relative club and arm angles measured from the digitised image.

-150

Angle (Degrees)
-100

Time (seconds)

-50 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4

-1

50

100

Relative club angle

Absolute arm angle

Figure 2. Graph representing the relationship between the relative club angle and absolute arm angle during the downswing.

Figure 3. Changes in position and speed during the golf swing of a professional. Adapted from Budney and Bellow, 1979 and copied from Hay, 1993.

Phase Description Sub-phase 1

Stance Feet facing forwards shoulder width apart allowing for good stability, with eyes on top of the ball.

Backswing Head is kept still and in an appropriate position.

Downswing Little weight transfer onto the front foot caused by lack upper body and trunk rotation.

Follow-through Good extension of the arms through and past impact.

Sub- phase 2

The right shoulder is slightly lower than left

No vertical or horizontal acceleration of the hub

Wrists are cocked at the point of impact reducing the risk of a hook or a slice.

Head remains in an appropriate position for the duration of the follow through.

shoulder suggesting that (chest) is present and more weight placed on his back foot. there is a slight bend in the left arm at the top of the backswing suggesting that he may be over swinging. Sub-phase 3 Knees are only slightly flexed. There is a lack of flexion in the knees which is limiting weight transfer onto the back foot, negatively affecting the power of the swing.

Maintains an appropriate head position throughout the downswing and the arms were fully extended on impact.

Suitable flexion of the back knee allows for rotation of the body.

Table 2. Phase analysis model, providing a qualitatative analysis the four different phases of the subject swing.

Figure 4. Digitised images comparing the subjects swing pattern to that of a professional. The swing pattern of the professional is taken from William (1969) and the professional is Bobby Jones. The subjects swing pattern was created using the Silicon Coach software.

Discussion Qualitative analysis is a systematic observation and introspective judgement of the quality of human movement its purpose is to provide the most suitable intervention in order to improve performance, (Knudsen and Morrison, 1996). Qualitatative analysis was completed using video playback to provide subjective feedback on the four phases subjects swing (table.2). As well as this, a subjective comparison of the subjects downswing swing to that of a professional golfer was also completed (figure.4). Stance (Set-up) The subjects stance was reasonable good. Their shoulders and feet were parallel. Their feet were wide enough to allow for good stability and the right shoulder was slightly lower than left shoulder suggesting that slightly more weight was placed on their back foot. 50-60% of the golfer weight should be on the back foot (Barrentine et al., 1994). However, there was very little flexion of the knees present, which if maintained in other phases of the swing could inhibit weight transfer, consequently reducing both swing power and control. A set-up with knees flexed to 20-25 is thought to be most favourable for generating optimal power and maintaining control of the golf swing, (Hume, et al., 2006). Backswing During the subjects backswing there is an evident lack of vertical and horizontal acceleration of the hub (chest). Vertical and horizontal acceleration of the hub is central in order to produce greater levels of upper body rotation, which can create increased club-head speed. By allowing both vertical and horizontal acceleration of the chest, superior upper body rotation can be achieved, which generates greater club head speed (Jorgensen, 1970). A lack of flexion in the knees was also apparent during the subjects downswing. This lack of flexion limited their ability to transfer their weight onto their back foot; consequently having a negative effect on the velocity of the club-head at impact. For club head velocity to be maximised at impact, considerable ground reaction forces (Newtons 3rd law) must be produced (Richards et al., 1985). In order to increase ground force reactions the legs should be pushed down into the ground.

Subsequently, an apparent lack of flexion in the subjects back knee suggests a lack of ground force reaction on the subjects back leg during the backswing. When investigating the differences in magnitude of the transfer of weight between golfers of varying ability Kawashima et al., (1999) reported that during the backswing lowhandicap players had considerably greater GRF on the back leg than higher handicappers. Downswing The main purpose of the downswing is to return the club-head to the ball in the correct plane with maximum velocity (Hume et al., 2005). During the subjects downswing there is little weight transfer onto the front foot caused by a lack of upper body and trunk rotation. As a result, a lack of club-head acceleration is present during the subjects downswing. This corresponds with Newtons second law, which states that the acceleration of an object is proportional to a force being exerted on an object. Applying this theory to the subjects downswing there is lack of force being exerted as result of poor upper body and trunk rotation.

Reference List Budney, D. R and Bellow D. G. (1979). Kinetic analysis of a golf swing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 50, (2), 171-179.

Budney, D.R. and Bellow, D.G. (1982).On the swing mechanics of a matched set of golf clubs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, (3), 185-192.

Barrentine, S.W., Fleisig, G.S. and Johnson, H. (1994). Ground reaction forces and torques of professional and amateur golfers. In: Science and Golf II. Proceedings of the World Scientific Congress of Golf; 1994 July 4-8; St Andrews. Scotland. Eds: Cochran, A.J. and Farrally, M.R. London: E &FN Spon. 33-39. Carr, G. (1997). Sport Mechanics for Coaches. 2nd edn. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.

Cochran, A. and Stobbs, J. (1968).The search for the perfect swing. London: Heinemann.

Coleman, S.G.S. and Rankin, A. J. (2005). A three-dimensional examination of the planar nature of the golf swing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, (3), 227-234.

Dillman, C.J. and Lange, G.W. (1994). How has biomechanics contributed to the understanding of the golf swing? In: Science and Golf II. Proceedings of the 1994

World Scientific Congress of Golf; 1994 July 4-8; St Andrews, Scotland. Eds: Cochran, A.J. and Farrally, M.R. London: E &FN Spon. 1-13.

Egret, C.I., Vincent, O., Weber, J., Dujardin, F.H. and Chollet, D. (2003). Analysis of 3D Kinematics Concerning Three Different Clubs in Golf Swing. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, (6), 465-470. Hay, J. G. (1993). The biomechanics of sports techniques. 4th edn. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Hume, P. A., Keogh, J. and Reid, D. (2005). The Role of Biomechanics in Maximising Distance and Accuracy of Golf Shots. Sports Medicine, 35, (5), 429-449.

Jorgensen, T. (1970). On the dynamics of the swing of a golf club. American Journal of Physics, 38, (5), 644-651.

Kawashima, K., Meshizuka, T. and Takaeshita S. A. (1999). Kinematic analysis of foot force exerted on the soles during the golf swing among skilled and unskilled golfers. In: Science and golf III. Proceedings of the 1998 World Scientific Congress of Golf; 1998 Jul 20-24; St Andrews. Eds: Cochran, A.J. and Farrally, M.R. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, 40-45.

Knudson, D. and Morrison, C. (1996). An Integrated Qualitative Analysis of Overarm Throwing. The Journal of Physical Education, recreation and Dance, 67, 31-36.

Nesbitt, S. M. (2005). A Three Dimensional Kinematic and Kinetic Study of the Golf Swing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 4, 499-519. Nesbitt, S. M. and Serrano, M. (2005). Work and Power Analysis of the Golf Swing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 4, 520-533. Richards, J., Farrell, M., Kent, J. and Kraft, R. (1985). Weight transfer patterns during the golf swing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, (4), 361-365.

Williams, D. (1969). The Science of the Golf Swings. London: Pelham Books Ltd.