Evaluation of shaft angle to ball-to-target line as a predictor of horizontal delivery plane angle in the golf swing.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1080/14763141.2024.2315253
Andrew Morrison, Jack Wells
{"title":"Evaluation of shaft angle to ball-to-target line as a predictor of horizontal delivery plane angle in the golf swing.","authors":"Andrew Morrison, Jack Wells","doi":"10.1080/14763141.2024.2315253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The shaft angle to the ball-to-target line at various points in the golf swing is used by coaches as an indication of the horizontal delivery plane angle (HPA). The aim of the current study was to understand to what degree this simplified method of using the shaft orientation can predict the orientation of the HPA. Fifty-two male golfers hit 40 drives each in an indoor biomechanics laboratory. Between-subject regression models were created for the relationship between the HPA and the shaft angle to the ball-to-target line at three different swing positions. Additionally, single subject regression models were created for each subject for the small variables. The only significant between-subjects regression model was for mid-downswing (Adjusted R<sup>2</sup> = 89.5%, RMSE = 2.41°); however, this was deemed not accurate enough to distinguish differences between typical driver and wedge HPA. The only shaft position to have significant single-subject regression models for all participants was mid-downswing. The mean RMSE for those models was determined to be low enough to distinguish typical driver and wedge swing planes within individuals. Overall, the shaft angle was only deemed accurate enough to predict the HPA within individual subjects, and only for mid-downswing.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2024.2315253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The shaft angle to the ball-to-target line at various points in the golf swing is used by coaches as an indication of the horizontal delivery plane angle (HPA). The aim of the current study was to understand to what degree this simplified method of using the shaft orientation can predict the orientation of the HPA. Fifty-two male golfers hit 40 drives each in an indoor biomechanics laboratory. Between-subject regression models were created for the relationship between the HPA and the shaft angle to the ball-to-target line at three different swing positions. Additionally, single subject regression models were created for each subject for the small variables. The only significant between-subjects regression model was for mid-downswing (Adjusted R2 = 89.5%, RMSE = 2.41°); however, this was deemed not accurate enough to distinguish differences between typical driver and wedge HPA. The only shaft position to have significant single-subject regression models for all participants was mid-downswing. The mean RMSE for those models was determined to be low enough to distinguish typical driver and wedge swing planes within individuals. Overall, the shaft angle was only deemed accurate enough to predict the HPA within individual subjects, and only for mid-downswing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将杆杆与球到目标线的角度作为高尔夫挥杆中水平击球面角度的预测指标进行评估。
在高尔夫挥杆的不同阶段,杆身与球到目标线的角度被教练用作水平击球面角度(HPA)的指示。本研究的目的是了解这种使用杆身方向的简化方法在多大程度上可以预测 HPA 的方向。52 名男性高尔夫球手在室内生物力学实验室每人击出 40 次发球。研究人员针对三种不同挥杆姿势下的 HPA 与球杆与目标线夹角之间的关系建立了受试者间回归模型。此外,还为每个受试者的小变量建立了单个受试者回归模型。唯一有意义的主体间回归模型是中下杆(调整后 R2 = 89.5%,RMSE = 2.41°);然而,这个模型被认为不够精确,无法区分典型发球木杆和挖起杆 HPA 之间的差异。在所有参与者中,唯一一个具有显著单主体回归模型的杆位是中下杆。这些模型的平均均方根误差(RMSE)被认为很低,足以区分个人中典型的发球木杆和挖起杆挥杆平面。总体而言,杆身角度只被认为足以准确预测单个受试者的 HPA,而且只适用于中下杆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1