The application of measurement technology in golf is increasing. In particular, measures of golf performance are valuable to coaches, golfers, club-fitters and equipment manufacturers. Commercially available launch monitors, such as the TrackMan Pro IIIe and Foresight GC2+HMT, offer bespoke instantaneous methods to measure such parameters. Uncertainty in the outputs, however, is not well established nor independently verified. This study aimed to determine the degree of agreement between parameters from two launch monitors with measurements taken using a benchmark system. A total of 240 shots were collected with a driver, 7-iron and utility wedge. Shots were simultaneously tracked by each system and outputs compared using Limits of Agreement analysis. In addition, two reference grades were defined based on different levels of agreement; research and coaching grade. Agreement between the launch monitors and the benchmark system was noticeably stronger for ball parameters with greater variability in clubhead parameters. Furthermore, for both launch monitors, the strength of agreement for several parameters varied between clubs. The majority of ball parameters from both launch monitors fell within the research reference grade, but caution is needed for the use of clubhead parameters within a research environment. For coaches and clubfitters, the results suggest the launch monitor parameters are largely of sufficient quality.

BackgroundInjuries in association football (soccer) are debilitating for players and can also be detrimental to the success of a team or club. The type or condition of a playing surface has been empirically linked to injuries, yet results are inconclusive. The overall purpose of this study was to analyse elite football players’ perceived links between playing surfaces and injury from a worldwide cohort of players. The results of this study can help to inform areas for future playing surface research aimed at trying to alleviate user concerns and meet user (i.e. the player) needs.MethodsQuantitative data were collected from 1129 players across the globe to address the aim of this study.ResultsNinety-one percent of players believed the type or condition of a surface could increase injury risk. Abrasive injuries, along with soreness and pain, were perceived to be greater on artificial turf. Surface type, surface properties and age were all potential risk factors identified by the players and linked to the playing surfaces.ConclusionsThe results identified three areas where future research should be focussed to help develop surfaces that alleviate user concerns and meet user (i.e. player) needs: (i) current reporting of soreness, pain or fatigue as injuries, (ii) contribution of surface properties to injury; and (iii) surface experience of players from different countries differentiates their views of injury risk.

The decision by the International Football Association Board in 2004 to approve the use of artificial surfaces in elite football (soccer) competitions remains controversial amongst many players, managers and coaching staff. The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of players' opinions to better understand the influence of playing surfaces on the game of football and identify factors that may contribute to differences of opinion. Method: Qualitative data were collected from 103 elite footballers and 21 coaching staff during a series of interviews and focus groups. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the data. Results: Players considered that the type and condition of a playing surface influenced ball-surface interactions, game play, tactics/strategy, footwear selection, movement, risk of injury and fatigue. Together these influence a player's perception of the suitability of a surface and also their mindset, which could ultimately affect their performance. Conclusion: The majority of participants in this study expressed a higher preference for natural grass over artificial turf pitches. A perceived increased risk of injury on artificial turf remains a primary concern despite a lack of supporting evidence in research studies. To address this discrepancy, the reporting of muscle soreness and the effect of constant surface switching merit further consideration. Not all participants shared the same views and player characteristics such as age, surface experience, injury history and playing style/position were found to be potential factors that could account for differences in elite players' opinions regarding the surfaces used in football.

The golf swing is a multidimensional movement requiring alternative data analysis methods to interpret non-linear relationships in biomechanics data related to golf shot outcomes. The purpose of this study was to use a combined principal component analysis (PCA), fuzzy coding, and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) data analysis approach to visualise associations within key biomechanics movement patterns and impact parameters in a group of low handicap golfers. Biomechanics data was captured and analysed for 22 golfers when hitting shots with their own driver. Relationships between biomechanics variables were firstly achieved by quantifying principal components, followed by fuzzy coding and finally MCA. Clubhead velocity and ball velocity were included as supplementary data in MCA. A total of 35.9% of inertia was explained by the first factor plane of MCA. Dimension one and two, and subsequent visualisation of MCA results, showed a separation of golfers’ biomechanics (i.e., swing techniques). The MCA plot can be used to simply and quickly identify movement patterns of a group of similar handicap golfers if supported with appropriate descriptive interpretation of the data. This technique also has the potential to highlight mismatched golfer biomechanics variables which could be contributing to weaker impact parameters.

No abstract