Effect of concurrent training on trainability performance factors in youth elite golf players

Abstract

Background Due to the early specialization of golf players, examining the within session sequence of training should be considered to enhance performance and prevent injury risk. The present study analyzed the effects of an 18-week concurrent training developed before or after a specific golf session in adolescence elite golfers on several performance factors. Methods Sixteen right-handed male golfers, were randomly divided into two groups: after golf specific training (AG) (n = 8, age: 16.77 ± 0.58 years) and before golf specific training (BG) (n = 8, age: 16.93 ± 0.59 years). AG and BG players followed a concurrent physical conditioning program (CT) after or before the golf specific training, respectively. Body mass, body fat, muscle mass, jumping ability (CMJ), ball speed (Sball), golf movements screens (GMS), power in a golf swing-specific cable woodchop (Wmax) and the perceived training load (TL) in golf specific training (TL-G) and TL in CT (TL-CT) were measured on three separate occasions. Results BG demonstrates a lower TL-CT than AG (p < .001, ${\eta }_{p}^{2}=0.90$) along the training program without effects on TL-G, achieving significant percentage of change on CMJ (9.38%; p = .165; d = 0.73), GMS (50.52%; p = .41, d = 0.91), Wmax (16.93%; p = .001; d = 2.02) and Sball (1.82%; p = .018; d = 0.92) without interaction effects on anthropometric measures. Conclusions Performing CT sessions before the regular golf training can improve specific performance factors with a lower perceived TL than the same training carried out after the regular golf training.

Test–Retest Reliability of Task Performance for Golf Swings of Medium- to High-Handicap Players

“…This hypothesis was confirmed by our results, since seven to ten trials were required to reliably measure swing performance in high-handicap players. These numbers of trials were higher than those recommended for low-handicap players (i.e., three to five trials) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 20 ] and similar to those found for medium-handicap players (i.e., ten trials) [ 9 ]. Finally, Severin et al recommended between 4 and 12 trials for low-handicap players to measure kinematic and kinetic variables during swing performance [ 22 ].…”

“…In this sense, Read et al found excellent reliability (i.e., ICC = 0.87) with low-handicap players when club head speed was measured with a driver using three trials [ 10 ]. Other studies using five trials also found excellent values for club head speed with low-handicap players (i.e., ICC > 0.9) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Nevertheless, Weston et al found excellent reliability for club head speed (i.e., ICC = 0.84) with medium-handicap players (i.e., 11.2) but they had to perform ten trials [ 9 ].…”

“…The participants performed the tasks described below with a six iron and a driver in two experimental sessions separated by one week to allow the test–retest reliability to be determined between the two experimental sessions. The driver was selected because it is one of the golf clubs most frequently used both by practitioners of the sport and in studies [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. The six iron was selected because it is an intermediate iron and is also used in studies that carry out this type of analysis [ 22 ].…”

“…Readers who want a deeper description of swing performance variables can read [ 4 ]. Several studies determining the effects of different training protocols on swing performance have been published [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. One of the key methodological issues that should be addressed to obtain robust conclusions is the reliability of the protocol used to measure full swing performance, but very few of the published studies have provided a specific reliability analysis for the testing protocols used [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”

“…Most of these studies measured different performance variables in between three- to five-trial protocols and analyzed their reliability using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Read et al measured club head speed in a three-trial protocol with low-handicap players (i.e., 5.8 (2.26)) and obtained good reliability results (i.e., ICC = 0.87) [ 10 ], while other studies used a five-trial protocol with these players (i.e., ≤5) and obtained excellent ICC values (i.e., ICC > 0.9) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Weston et al used a ten-trial protocol to quantify club head speed, backspin and sidespin with participants with a medium handicap (i.e., 11.2 (6.1)), which provided moderate to good reproducibility indices (ICC = 0.68–0.84) [ 9 ].…”