The popularity of golf has risen considerably in recent years with more than 35 million players around the world of all ages and skill levels (2). Golf has traditionally been viewed as a skill-based sport, in which the continual refinement of ball striking and putting skills has been given more emphasis than the development of physical fitness (4,10,11). However, physical training is now an integral component of an elite player's regimen, because golf is a demanding physical game, also in terms of creating explosive power through a wide range of motions (22).
The full golf swing is the technical skill most often used and it is the primary foundation on which all other golf swings are based (22). The primary goal of using the driver is to transfer power to a golf ball, which constitutes an explosive burst of muscular activity of the whole body that puts various joints of the body under stress (4,8,12,19,21,22). The displacement of a golf shot is a direct function of club-head velocity (8,21) and is a vital aspect of success in golf. Club-head velocity and ball speed are determined by the technical ability of golfers to swing the club and also by their capacity to powerfully contract the muscles involved in the movement (8,11,21). Typical club-head velocities can exceed 160 km/h and it takes only 0.2 seconds to accelerate the club to this speed, which is done 30 to 40 times per round (22). Therefore, golfers need major specific strength, especially in tasks such as full swing, in which the ability of the golfer to use muscle strength effectively plays an important part in performance. Consequently, one of the main aims of training programs should be to improve golf-specific strength to optimize swing mechanics and golf performance. In fact, several researchers have stated that golf performance can be improved by weight training, plyometric programming, and combined flexibility and strength training (1,4,6,9,11,19,20,23). However, the effects of strength training on golf performance have been mainly reported in young or senior recreational male golfers (1,6,9,11,19,20,23). The only recent study reporting these effects in a low-handicap cohort was carried out by Fletcher and Hartwell (4), who developed an 8-week combined weights and plyometrics training program with six male golfers. They registered significant gains in driving distance (between 5.1 and 17.3 m) and club-head speed (between 0.7 and 2.7 km/h) in comparison with players in the control group, who continued with their regular physical conditioning program and showed no improvements in these variables. Besides, in several of these studies reporting significant improvements in golf performance after strength training programs, no control groups were used (1,6,11,23). It is therefore difficult to confirm that variations were the result of any specific training program.
Because of the lack of related studies, more research into the effect of different strength training programs on the performance of low-handicap golfers was necessary. Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of an 18-week three-part (maximal, explosive, and golf-specific) strength training program on body mass, body fat, muscle mass, isometric grip strength, jumping ability, ball speed, club mean acceleration, and maximal strength in low-handicap male players. We hypothesized that with the strength training program implemented during the competitive season, which partially replaced the regular golf conditioning program, the experimental group of low-handicap golfers would demonstrate greater increases in maximal and explosive strength, which could be transferred to driving performance in terms of club mean acceleration and ball speed.
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To study the effects of a three-part strength training program on low- handicap golfers' performance, the adaptations of this type of training were compared with a regular standard physical conditioning program for golf. Participants were matched regarding their golf handicap to ensure similar levels of technical execution of the swing. Subjects participated in a prescribed number of monitored training sessions over the course of 18 weeks. They were evaluated on five occasions: 1 week before the start of the training program; after 6, 12, and 18 weeks of training; and 5 weeks after the end of the program (detraining period). The independent variables were type of physical conditioning program and time of dependent variable assessment. Dependent variables were body mass, fat mass, muscle mass, squat jump (SJ) height, counter movement jump (CMJ) height, ball speed, club mean acceleration, isometric grip strength, and maximal strength. Subjects were restricted from participating in any other exercise programs during the training period. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was conducted to assess the effects.
Ten right-handed male golfers agreed to participate in the study and were randomly divided into two groups: the control group (CG) and the treatment group (TG). Their demographic and anthropometric data are shown in Table 1. The groups were balanced so that no significant intergroup differences were observed for age, height, or body mass (p = 0.095–0.336).
All players reported a handicap of 5 or less. This limit was set to minimize the variability in the mechanics of the swing. There were no group differences with regard to golf-related experience (CG 10.2 ± 4.5 years; TG 9.7 ± 6.1 years). Players averaged 18.5 ± 6.2 hours of training per week and completed at least one full round (18 holes) of golf per week.
All players involved in the study attended all the sessions. Before the start of the intervention they were fully informed of the aims of the study. They provided written informed consent and completed a set of questionnaires on their health history and golf-playing history. All procedures described in this study were approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of León (Spain).
The specific training program was implemented during the competitive season (i.e., March, April, May, June, and July). Before the start of the intervention, both groups carried out the same regular standard physical conditioning program for 2 months.
During the intervention, all players participated in the regular golf training program, which included six training sessions a week, including at least one full round (18 holes). The physical conditioning program was different for the two groups. CG players followed the regular standard physical conditioning program for golf, which was partially altered in the TG to improve strength in the upper and lower limbs. Both training programs are detailed later. After the 18 weeks, TG and CG participants continued with the same regular standard physical conditioning program together. During the study, golfers were not allowed to perform any other training that might influence the results and they were previously informed about hydration, rest, and nutrition patterns. All training sessions were supervised by the lead researcher with careful attention to proper exercise technique. Subjects were given visual and tactile feedback to perform the exercises correctly. Whenever they had a competition, it replaced the training session. The training regimen of the golfers during the study is shown in Table 2.
Control Group Training
During the 18-week intervention, the CG players followed the training regimen set out subsequently: 1) Monday and Friday: Golfers practiced drives for 60 minutes followed by a half-round (nine holes); 2) Tuesday: Golfers practiced drives for 60 minutes and then underwent core stability training for 60 minutes with a general order made up of exercises for the lower body first, then for the upper body, and finally abdominal and lower back exercises; 3) Wednesday: Golfers practiced different iron and wood shots for 30 minutes, then performed a half-round (nine holes), and finally carried out stretching exercises focused on the muscles related to the full swing (i.e. deltoids, rectus abdominus, biceps, triceps, latissimus dorsi, external oblique, quadriceps, gluteus maximus, hamstrings, gastrocnemius, soleus and forearm muscles) for 30 minutes; and 4) Thursday: Golfers practiced different iron and wood shots for 60 minutes followed by 60 minutes of general strength training exercises focused on the same muscle groups previously mentioned (e.g., external resistance was provided by using portable rubber bands, ropes, or with the assistance of the trainer). A list of some of the exercises used is shown: 1) front deltoid raises, military press, abdominal crunches, one- and two-arm biceps curls, standing kickbacks, triceps extensions, overhead triceps extensions, standing back rows, lunges, squats, glute kickbacks, bent-over rows, hamstring curls, and different forearm exercises; and 2) Saturday or Sunday: Golfers played a full round (18 holes).
Treatment Group Training
The TG participated in an 18-week supervised strength training program divided into three parts. All players had previous experience of this type of training. Details are given in Table 3.
Maximal Strength Training (6 weeks)
TG golfers followed the same training regimen as CG golfers except that on Wednesdays and Fridays, they had a maximal strength training session instead of the session described previously. It included four upper extremity exercises (i.e., horizontal bench press, triceps cable push-down, seated barbell military press, and seated row machine) and two lower extremity exercises (i.e., barbell squat and seated calf extension). Exercises were performed using three sets of five repetitions with 85% of the maximal load with a 4-minute rest between sets. The general order of the maximal strength training routine was horizontal bench press, seated row machine, barbell squat, seated barbell military press, seated calf extension, and triceps cable push-down.
Explosive Strength Training
On Wednesdays and Fridays TG participants had explosive strength training sessions in place of the sessions described previously, completing a combined weights and plyometrics program. Sessions included the exercises detailed previously in the same order as a result of their specific nature (i.e., horizontal bench press, seated row machine, barbell squat, seated barbell military press, seated calf extension, and triceps cable push-down). They were performed with three sets of six repetitions with 70% of the maximal load. These characteristics aimed at performing the movements in an explosive manner. Each resistance exercise was combined with a plyometric exercise to mimic the stretch–shortening movement performed by the muscles involved in the golf swing action. The rests between sets were 4 minutes to guarantee the explosive manner in the execution.
Golf-specific Strength Training
During this 6-week period, on Wednesdays and Fridays, TG golfers partially replaced the training session with golf-specific strength exercises, carrying out swings with a weighted club (300 g) and performing accelerated swings with an acceleration tubing club system (Figure 1). Each exercise involved three sets of 10 repetitions with 4-minute rests between sets.
Before the initial testing session, each golfer was familiarized with the testing protocol.
All participants were required to attend two trial sessions. In the first, we assessed anthropometric profile, explosive strength of the lower limbs, ball speed, and club mean acceleration. Two days later, in the second session, maximal strength and isometric grip strength were measured. To standardize testing procedures, the same trained test leaders carried out the entire test procedure using an identical order and protocol. All players were tested on five separate occasions: T1, 1 week before the start of the training program; T2, T3, and T4, after 6, 12, and 18 weeks of the training program, respectively; and T5, 5 weeks after the end of the program (detraining period).
Anthropometric testing followed the protocols of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) (16) and was performed by an ISAK level II anthropometrist. Testing was carried out in a standardized order after a proper calibration of the measuring instruments. Height and body mass were measured using a Holtain Ltd. Stadiometer (95–190 cm, accurate to 0.1 cm) and a SECA Atrax 770 electronic scale (0–150 kg, accurate to 0.1 kg). To estimate body composition, six skinfold (triceps, subscapular, suprailial, abdomen, front thigh, and medial calf) and two diameter (wrist and femur) measurements were taken using a Holtain (British Indicators Ltd) limiting caliper (0–40 mm, accurate to 0.2 mm) and a Lafayette caliper (0–30 cm, accurate to 0.1 cm). Each skinfold and diameter was measured three times with the median result used in data analyses. Subsequently, fat mass, residual mass, bone mass, and muscle mass and their respective percentages were calculated to evaluate body composition using the formulas of Faulkner (3), Rocha (17), Würch (24), and Matiegka (15), respectively. All anthropometric measures were highly reliable with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.89 to 0.95 for skinfolds and 0.91 to 0.98 for diameters.
Explosive Strength of Lower Limbs
Before the start of the test session, golfers went through a standardized 20-minute warm-up period. Players' jumping ability was assessed with a jumping mat (SportJUMP System; DSD), which showed positive significant correlations (RXY = 0.998, p < 0.001) with the Ergojump Bosco System and with a Dinascan 600M force plate (RXY = 0.994, p < .L001) (5). Golfers performed two different jumps: a SJ and a CMJ, both with hands on hips, each one three times. The best result was used for the statistical analysis. The rest between trials was 60 seconds.
Driving Performance: Golf Ball Speed and Club Mean Acceleration Assessment
Ball speed and club mean acceleration were always assessed simultaneously, on the same movement, using regulation golf balls, always new, and tees of various heights to suit the preference of each participant. The performance area was set up at the first teeing ground of the course. After a short recovery of 4 minutes, the golfers practiced playing strokes for 5 minutes. This warm-up was designed to familiarize the participant with the performance area and to reduce any pretest anxiety.
The speed, expressed in km/h, was measured with a Stalker's type hyperfrequency radar (Stalker Professional Radar, Radar Sales, Plymouth, MA, USA) set up 3 m behind the tee, 4 cm above the ground and pointed directly at the ball. The reliability of the results offered by the radar gun with the current measuring protocol had previously been validated with a high-speed camera and a Kinescan/IBV 2001 2D photogrammetric system (IBV, Valencia, Spain). This pilot study revealed a positive significant correlation (RXY = 0.9947, p < 0.05) between the results registered by the radar gun and those recorded by the video system. The radar gun was calibrated immediately before all test sessions according to the user's manual.
Each participant performed five drives using his own club (stiff shaft) from the tee using the same driver each time and performing his individual preshot routine before each shot. Participants were instructed to swing maximally during each trial. The rest period between trials was of 1-minute duration and the highest speed was used in data analysis.
Club mean acceleration, expressed in m/s2, was measured with a 50-g piezoelectric transducer device (Signal Frame-An, Sportsmetrics, S.L., Valencia, Spain) with a fastening system selectively positioned on the shaft of the golf club, 94 cm from the head and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the shaft. It was communicated with a processor to monitor measurement data by means of a wire running down the player's right arm, inside the sleeve of his sweater, to ensure comfort during the swing. The highest value recorded was used in data analysis.
All driving performance measurements were highly reliable, with (ICCs of 0.90 to 0.96 for ball speed and 0.97 to 0.98 for club mean acceleration.
Maximal Strength and Isometric Grip Strength
Before the start of the second test session, participants went through a standardized 20-minute warm-up. A handgrip dynamometer (GripTrack; Jtech Medical Industries, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) was used to measure isometric grip strength with the participant in a standing position and maintaining a straight arm. The maximum reading (kg) for each hand from three attempts was used for statistical analysis. The rest period between trials was of 1 -minute duration. The measurements were highly reliable with an ICC for the right hand of 0.954 to 0.977 and 0.944 to 0.969 for the left.
A one-repetition-maximum (1-RM) test following the protocol established by the National Strength and Conditioning Association was performed to measure maximal strength. First, golfers were instructed to warm up with a light resistance that easily allowed five to 10 repetitions. After a 1-minute rest period, we estimated a warm-up load that would allow them to complete three to five repetitions by adding 5% to 10% for upper-body exercises and 10% to 20% for lower-body exercises. After a 2-minute rest period, we estimated a near-maximum load that would allow for two to three repetitions by adding 5% to 10% for upper-body exercises and 10% to 20% for lower-body ones. Then, we introduced a 3-minute rest before consecutive load increases of 5% to 10 % for upper-body exercises and 10% to 20% for lower-body ones until the player could complete only one repetition with a proper exercise technique. The one-repetition-maximum test was calculated for the same exercises used in the training program, which were always carried out in the same order: horizontal bench press, seated row machine, barbell squat, seated barbell military press, seated calf extension, and triceps cable push-down. A 5-minute rest was taken between exercises. The measurements were highly reliable with the ICC ranging from 0.966 to 0.992, indicating excellent trial-to-trial reliability.
The SPSS statistical software package (version 18.0; Chicago, IL, USA) was used to analyze all data. Normality of distribution was tested by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Standard statistical methods were used for the calculations of the means and SD. Student's t-tests were carried out to determine differences in the initial values among the members of the two groups in all variables analyzed. Training-related effects were assessed using two-way ANOVA with repeated measures (group × time). When a significant F-value was achieved by means of Wilks' lambda, Scheffe post hoc procedures were performed to locate the pairwise differences. The Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied. Magnitude of treatment effects within groups were estimated with Coheńs effect size (ES). The within-group ES is defined as the difference between posttest mean and pretest mean divided by pretest SD. Cohen classified ESs in “small” (0.2–0.3), “medium” (0.4–0.7), and “large” (greater than 0.8). In addition, the reliability of measurements was calculated using ICCs.
Statistical significance was considered to be p ≤ 0.05. The precisions of our estimates of outcome statistics are shown as 95% confidence limits (95% confidence interval).
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test suggested that all variables were distributed normally (p > 0.05). Results of Student´s t-test between CG and TG at baseline revealed that there were no statistically significant differences before the start of the training program (Table 4). Table 5 shows the data for all the variables on every test occasion (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5). A graphic display of these data is shown in Figure 2.
ANOVA revealed no significant time × group interaction effects for body mass, although there were significant interaction effects both for muscle mass (p = 0.01) and body fat (p = 0.01).
For the TG, the Scheffe post hoc tests found the differences in body fat between T1 and T2 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 9), T3 (p = 0.001, ES 1, 6 ), T4 (p = 0.002, ES 1, 8), and T5 (p = 0.001, ES 1, 7). Moreover, there were also significant differences between T2 and T3 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 6), T4 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 9), and T5 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 7) for this variable. For muscle mass, the differences were found between T1 and each of T3 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 8), T4 (p = 0.002, ES 1), and T5 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 8).
Explosive Strength of Lower Limbs
For explosive strength, ANOVA showed that there were significant interaction effects both for SJ (p = 0.001) and CMJ (p = 0.01).
For TG, Scheffe's post hoc tests found the differences between T1 and T2 (p = 0.002, ES 1, 4/p = 0.01, ES 1, 3), T3 (p = 0.001, ES 2, 5/p = 0.01, ES 0, 7), T4 (p = 0.001, ES 2, 8/p = 0.001, ES 2, 6), and T5 (p = 0.001, ES 1, 9/ p = 0.002 ES 1, 5) for both SJ and CMJ.
ANOVA reflected significant time × group interaction effects both for ball speed (p = 0.005) and club mean acceleration (p = 0.004).
For TG, Scheffe's post hoc tests gave the differences between T1 and T3 (p = 0.001, ES 1, 4/p = 0.002, ES 0, 6), T4 (p = 0.003, ES 1, 9 /p = 0.001, ES 1), and T5 (p = 0.001, ES 1, 5/p = 0.002, ES 0, 15) for both ball speed and club mean acceleration.
Maximal Strength and Isometric Grip Strength
ANOVA reflected no significant time × group interaction effects for isometric grip strength. However, it revealed significant interaction effects for all the variables related to maximal strength (horizontal bench press 1 RM [p = 0.001], barbell squat 1 RM [p = 0.002], seated row machine 1 RM [p = 0.001], triceps cable push-down 1 RM [p = 0.003], seated calf extension 1 RM [p = 0.001], and seated barbell military press RM [p = 0.002]).
For all the exercises related to maximal strength, Scheffe's post hoc tests located the differences between T1 and T2 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 34/ p = 0.001, ES 0, 5/ p = 0.002, ES 0, 4/ p = 0.001, ES 1 /p = 0.002, ES 1/ p = 0.002, ES 0, 3), T3 (p = 0.01, ES 0, 76/ p = 0.01, ES 1, 4/ p = 0.001, ES 0, 4/p = 0.002, ES 2, 5/p = 0.002, ES 1, 9/p = 0.001, ES 0, 6), T4 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 6/p = 0.01, ES 1, 5/ p = 0.001, ES 0, 7/p = 0.002, ES 2/ p = 0.001, ES 2/ p = 0.001, ES 0, 5), and T5 (p = 0.001, ES 0, 5/p = 0.01, ES 1, 1/p = 0.001, ES 0, 7/p = 0.01, ES 1, 9/p = 0.001, ES 1, 6/p = 0.001, ES 0, 4).
As mentioned previously, golf is a very demanding physical game in which performance is partially determined by the capacity of the players to create power through a wide range of motions (8,11,21,22). Consequently, one of the most important aims of training programs for low-handicap players should be to increase golf-specific strength. As a result of the lack of studies on highly trained players, our aim in the present study was to determine the effects of an 18-week strength training program on different variables related to golf performance in a skilled cohort. As we expected, the main findings indicated that the program, in addition to the regular golf training exercises, increased maximal strength in both upper and lower limbs, explosive strength of lower limbs, and driving performance, in terms of ball speed and club mean acceleration. However, there were no significant variations in isometric grip strength.
Many researchers have reported significant improvements in muscular strength after an 8-week conditioning program in recreational players (6,20,23). Nevertheless, estimated gains in recreational athletes may not apply to the low-handicap players, because measurable performance adaptations require more intense training in highly skilled athletes (7). Our findings indicate that a twice-weekly maximal strength training program, using the protocol outlined, was associated with significant improvements in maximal and explosive strength. These improvements were already evident after 6 weeks.
Several authors have suggested that leg, upper body, and arm strength are all correlated with performance measures, especially with the acceleration and speed reached in the swing (1,22). Although there is only one research report on the positive influence of strength training on driving performance in highly trained players (4), this influence seems to be clear in recreational amateurs (1,6,11,19,20,23). Golfers will therefore benefit from strength training programs provided that there is a positive transfer of the effects of these programs to driving performance. This is borne out by the results of the present study, because it was shown that the strength training program followed caused significant increases in driving performance, both in ball speed and in club mean acceleration. However, data revealed that although 6 weeks of maximal strength training was enough time to produce significant improvements in maximal and explosive strength, golfers needed 12 weeks, including explosive strength training, to convert these gains to the specific movement. The golf swing is a complex coordinated action that puts the whole body under stress to transfer power to a golf ball (4,8,12,19,22). The improvements in driving performance could be related to changes in kinematic variables that alter swing mechanics (e.g., an increased transfer of energy from proximal to distal segments) (1). In fact, small, consistent differences in technique may have existed (1), and golfers needed time to adapt to these variations. Further studies such as a high-speed three-dimensional motion analysis would provide a quantitative analysis of alterations in swing mechanics attributable to increases in strength (1).
In other sports in which the technical movement depends on the precisely coordinated action of different muscles, some authors have emphasized the importance of combining strength training with technical training in order to transfer the gains (14,18). On the other hand, several researchers have suggested that the addition of ballistic movements to a resistance-training program is also important to mimic the stretch–shortening movement performed by the muscles involved in the golf swing (1,4). Therefore, the specific nature of the exercises and the fact that golfers combined strength and technical training could be considered as key factors in the successful transfer of the strength gains to the actual movement (4,14,18).
Doan et al. (1) indicated that several previous studies had noted increases in club-head speed or distance of 4% to 7% after resistance training in recreational players. They also stated that more highly skilled golfers would respond differently to strength training. In our study, ball speed increased by 7% after 12 weeks of training. These improvements in driving performance have both statistical and practical importance because they have been positively correlated with scores in average golfers (r = 0.64) (7). In fact, a 5.3-km/h improvement in driver swing speed is associated, if all other impact variables were held constant, with increases of approximately 10 to 15 meters of carry distance off the tee (19). Therefore, it allows shorter, more accurate, iron shots onto the greens (1,20), which also entails less fatigue and enables golfers to perform more effectively, especially during the latter part of a round (20). Nevertheless, it might have been interesting to evaluate the impact of the changes registered in strength on consistency or putting distance control (1).
With regard to the mechanisms responsible for the motor performance adaptations, hypertrophy may have a role in the adaptations because there was a significant gain in muscle mass accompanied by a significant decrease in body fat. On the other hand, all the exercises used in the strength program were chosen on the basis that major agonists were highly active in golf-specific movements. Consequently, neural adaptations such as a greater activation and synchronization of the recruitment of higher-threshold motor units and an enhanced inhibition of antagonist muscle activity may have an important impact on the gains (1). In fact, the improvement of muscular coordination after the maximal and explosive strength training periods could be partly related to the specific nature of the movements used and with the regular technical training (4). These authors concluded that although hypertrophy may have a role in resistance training, neural adaptations have a greater impact. However, further studies that focus on neuromuscular factors are needed to determine the role of each factor in the improvements.
Westcott et al. (23) stated that a more specific strength training program might have an even greater impact on golfers' driving performance. Although our results revealed that changes achieved during the first 12 weeks of training remained unaltered or even increased slightly during the 6-week golf-specific strength program, there were no significant increments during that phase. This is probably the result of a ceiling effect that might be encountered in TG, in which golfers already have very high relative swing speeds (20). However, it is important to highlight the positive effect of this type of training to maintain the gains previously achieved. This could be related to the fact that the detraining period did not affect the changes recorded during the 18-week strength training program in anthropometric features, maximal strength, explosive strength, and driving performance. These results are in agreement with those of other authors, who found that a detraining period, in which the regular training of a specific sport is maintained, made it possible to maintain the gains previously achieved, also a key factor in planning the season (13,18).
Finally, it must be noted that forearm strength is correlated with measures of driving performance in golfers, because a good grip is the basis of a good swing (22). However, in our study, strength training did not seem to have any influence on isometric grip strength because there were gains in this variable not only in the CG, but also in the TG and they were not significant. Therefore, these variations were apparently caused by the regular golf training exercises. It would be interesting to include specific strength exercises aimed at improving the grip.
Although skilled golfers still refrain from strength training for fear that it will reduce their range of motion, this article contains information about the beneficial effects of a three-part strength training program on low-handicap golfers' performance.
On the basis of our results, it may be concluded that a 6-week maximal strength training program can improve maximal and explosive strength and form a basis for more specific strength exercises (4). These gains can be transferred to driving performance, which has practical importance because factors such as ball or club speed are significant determinants of golf performance. However players need 12 weeks of strength training, including explosive exercises to transfer the gains. Golf swing is a complex dynamic movement that depends on the precisely coordinated action of different muscles. On this point, golf coaches must take into account that strength exercises should be combined with technical training to transfer the gains in strength to the kinematic parameters of the swing. On the other hand, the specific nature of the exercises used is also important in the transfer (4). Upper and lower exercises should be focused on muscles directly involved in the golf movements.
On the other hand, the fact that a player's maximal and explosive strength and driving performance can subsequently be maintained at a high level by means of golf-specific strength exercises is also important for practitioners. Moreover, golf coaches must take into account that regular golf training can maintain the gains for several weeks after the 18-week program.
Finally, it may be concluded that physical training, especially strength training, should be an integral component of low-handicap players' practice regimen because of its potential to improve the performance of already proficient golfers. However, it must be taken into consideration that our sample is not as wide as to claim that results previously mentioned could easily be extrapolated. Therefore, further studies with a greater sample must be developed.