排序方式： 共有4条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Ben L. Langdown Jack E.T. Wells Sean Graham Matt W. Bridge 《Journal of sports sciences》2019,37(6):656-664
Previous research has highlighted the positive effect that different warm-up protocols have on golf performance (e.g. Sorbie et al., 2016; Tilley & Macfarlane, 2012) with the design of warm-ups and programmes targeting and improving golf performance through the activation and development of specific muscle groups. This study aimed to examine the acute effects of two warm-up protocols on golf drive performance in comparison to a control condition. Using a randomised counterbalanced design over three testing sessions, twenty-three highly skilled golfers completed the control, dynamic and resistance-band warm-up conditions. Following each condition, a GC2 launch monitor was used to record ball velocity and other launch parameters of ten shots hit with the participants’ own driver. A repeated-measures ANOVA found significant increases in ball velocity (ηp2 = .217) between the control and both the dynamic and resistance-band warm-up conditions but no difference between these latter two, and a reduction in launch angle between control and dynamic conditions. The use of either a dynamic stretching or resistance-band warm-up can have acute benefits on ball velocity but golfers should liaise with a PGA Professional golf coach to effectively integrate this into their golf driving performance. 相似文献
2.
Langdown BL Bridge M Li FX 《Sports biomechanics / International Society of Biomechanics in Sports》2012,11(2):273-287
Traditionally, golf biomechanics has focused upon achieving consistency in swing kinematics and kinetics, whilst variability was considered to be noise and dysfunctional. There has been a growing argument that variability is an intrinsic aspect of skilled motor performance and plays a functional role. Two types of variability are described: 'strategic shot selection' and 'movement variability'. In 'strategic shot selection', the outcome remains consistent, but the swing kinematics/kinetics (resulting in the desired ball flight) are free to vary; 'movement variability' is the changes in swing kinematics and kinetics from trial to trial when the golfer attempts to hit the same shot. These changes will emerge due to constraints of the golfer's body, the environment, and the task. Biomechanical research has focused upon aspects of technique such as elite versus non-elite kinematics, kinetics, kinematic sequencing, peak angular velocities of body segments, wrist function, ground reaction forces, and electromyography, mainly in the search for greater distance and clubhead velocity. To date very little is known about the impact of variability on this complex motor skill, and it has yet to be fully researched to determine where the trade-off between functional and detrimental variability lies when in pursuit of enhanced performance outcomes. 相似文献
3.
ABSTRACTDespite a growing body of evidence on the positive impact of sports science for golf, there is still a paucity of research investigating the “perceptions” and “practices” of high-skilled golfers. Professional Golfers’ Association Assistant Professionals (future-qualified coaches; n = 430) were surveyed on their “perceptions” and “practices” of “sports science”, “warm-ups”, “cool-downs” and “strength and conditioning” for golf. Participants perceived the discipline of sports science as beneficial to golfers but lacked implementation in coaching settings. Warm-up protocols were also perceived to be beneficial to all aspects of golf performance; however, the duration of tournament-based (37.84 ± 20.05 min), warm-ups was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than practice rounds (26.26 ± 18.63 min) and range sessions (13.00 ± 13.38 min). Education continues to be required to raise the understanding of warm-ups for golf. There were mixed perceptions regarding the benefits of a cool-down, with 62.1% of the high-skilled golfers omitting a cool-down following tournament play and practice. Strength and conditioning was perceived as beneficial, with 78.51% engaging in some form of training throughout the year. Results confirm, however, that certain misconceptions around surveyed sports science practices still exist and it is imperative that education disseminates research findings and validated applied practices to coaches and golfers alike. 相似文献
4.
Brad Griffiths James Grant Louis Langdown Paulo Gentil James Fisher 《Research quarterly for exercise and sport》2019,90(1):95-102
Purpose: Resistance training is often performed in a traditional training style using deliberate relatively longer repetition durations or in an explosive training style using maximal intended velocities and relatively shorter repetition durations. Both improve strength, “power” (impulsivity), and speed. This study compared explosive and traditional training over a 6-week intervention in 30 healthy young adult male recreational soccer players. Method: Full body supervised resistance training was performed 2 times a week using 3 sets of each exercise at 80% of one repetition maximum to momentary failure. Outcomes were Smith machine squat 1 repetition maximum, 10 meter sprint time, and countermovement jump. Results: Both groups significantly improved all outcomes based on 95% confidence intervals not crossing zero. There were no between-group differences for squat 1 RM (TRAD = 6.3[5.1 to 7.6] kg, EXP = 5.2[3.9 to 6.4] kg) or 10 meter sprint (TRAD = ?0.05[?0.07 to ?0.04] s, EXP = ?0.05[?0.06 to ?0.03] s). Explosive group had a significantly greater increase in countermovement jump compared to the traditional group (TRAD = 0.7[0.3 to 1.1] cm, EXP = 1.3[0.9 to 1.7] cm). Conclusion: Both the traditional training and explosive training performed to momentary failure produced significant improvements in strength, speed, and jump performance. Strength gains are similar independent of intended movement speed. However, speed and jump performance changes are marginal with resistance training. 相似文献
1