Relationships between Challenge Tour golfers' clubhead velocity and force producing capabilities during a countermovement jump and isometric mid-thigh pull

A number of field-based investigations have evidenced practically significant relationships between clubhead velocity (CHV), vertical jump performance and maximum strength. Unfortunately, whilst these investigations provide a great deal of external validity, they are unable to ascertain vertical gro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of sports sciences 2019-06, Vol.37 (12), p.1381-1386
Main Authors: Wells, Jack E.T., Charalambous, Laura H., Mitchell, Andrew C.S., Coughlan, Daniel, Brearley, Simon L., Hawkes, Roger A., Murray, Andrew D., Hillman, Robert G., Fletcher, Iain M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Golf
impulse
Isometric
peak force
rate of force development
Velocity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A number of field-based investigations have evidenced practically significant relationships between clubhead velocity (CHV), vertical jump performance and maximum strength. Unfortunately, whilst these investigations provide a great deal of external validity, they are unable to ascertain vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) variables that may relate to golfers' CHVs. This investigation aimed to assess if the variance in European Challenge Tour golfers' CHVs could be predicted by countermovement jump (CMJ) positive impulse (PI), isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) peak force (PF) and rate of force development (RFD) from 0-50 ms, 0-100 ms, 0-150 ms and 0-200 ms. Thirty-one elite level European Challenge Tour golfers performed a CMJ and IMTP on dual force plates at a tournament venue, with CHV measured on a driving range. Hierarchical multiple regression results indicated that the variance in CHV was significantly predicted by all four models (model one R 2  = 0.379; model two R 2  = 0.392, model three R 2  = 0.422, model four R 2  = 0.480), with Akaike's information criterion indicating that model one was the best fit. Individual standardised beta coefficients revealed that CMJ PI was the only significant variable, accounting for 37.9% of the variance in European Challenge Tour Golfers' CHVs.
ISSN:0264-0414
1466-447X
DOI:10.1080/02640414.2018.1559972