Samuel J. Wilson1, Jessica A. Mutchler1, John C. Garner2, Kyle B. Rank3, Jeffrey D. Simpson3. 1Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA. 2Troy University, Troy, AL. 3University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

BACKGROUND: Within golf, force generation and the relationship to club head speed (CHS) has been frequently investigated. Recently, positive relationships between force generation and CHS during an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) have been reported in golfers that may reflect the force generation capability during the swing. But, contributions from the lead and trail legs and their relationship to CHS are not known. The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) to determine differences in force generation capability during an IMTP between the lead and trail legs, and 2) identify force generation predictors of CHS from an IMTP test. METHODS: 18 Division II golfers (male=10; female=8; age: 20±1 y; height: 171.4±4.7 cm; mass: 69.7±17.5 kg) completed the study. Participants completed 10 stock swings on a FlightScope Mevo+ in an indoor environment with their driver. On a separate day, 3 trials of a 5 second IMTP was completed on a dual-force platform. Ground reaction force (GRF) data was used to identify peak vertical GRF and RFD at 50, 100, 150, and 200ms during the IMTP trials from both legs. Averages from the 3 IMTP trials and the average of the 5 highest CHS from driver were used in the analysis. A stepwise regression model using backward elimination was computed to identify significant predictors of CHS. Further, dependent variables from the IMTP were also compared between the lead and trail legs using a dependent samples t-test (p<0.05) and the magnitude of differences were evaluated using Cohen’s D effect sizes. RESULTS: Average CHS for driver was 105.5±11.9 mph. The trail leg generated greater peak vertical GRF (p=0.023; ES=0.40), RFD at 150 (p=0.004; ES=0.004), and RFD at 200 (p<0.001; ES=0.039) compared to the lead leg. The stepwise regression model identified 5 variables that were significant predictors of CHS: (1) trail leg RFD at 50ms (p=0.001; r=0.646), (2) lead leg RFD at 50ms (p<0.001; r=0.514), (3) trail leg RFD at 100ms (p=0.014; r=0.650), (4) lead leg RFD at 100ms (p=0.006; r=0.514), and (5) trail leg RFD at 200ms (p<0.001; r=0.739), explaining a combined 88% of the variance in CHS. CONCLUSIONS: Greater peak force and RFD at 150 and 200ms suggests that the lead and trail legs exhibit different force generation capabilities during an IMTP. While the differences between legs could be due to many factors, both lead and trail leg RFD at 50 and 100ms appear to be significant predictors of CHS.

This document is currently not available here.