THE EFFECTS OF STATIC AND DYNAMIC STRETCHING ON BALANCE
MEASURES DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF A GOLF SWING

A THESIS
Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies
and Research
of
California University of Pennsylvania in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

by
Adam Groose

Research Advisor, Dr. Thomas F. West
California, Pennsylvania
2013

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank God for
blessing me with the opportunity and the ability to be able
to attend graduate school and complete this thesis.

I

would also like to thank my parents, Tom and Linda Groose,
as well as my brother Matt and the rest of my family and
friends for always being there to support me in my
endeavors.
As for completing my thesis, I would especially like
to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Thomas F. West,
Justin D. Barroner, and Vanessa MacKinnon for helping me
through this process with minimal stress.
done it without them.

I could not have

I would also like to thank the

Professional Golf Management Program at the California
University of Pennsylvania for allowing me to complete my
study using some of their instruments as well as their
students as subjects.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SIGNATURE PAGE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
METHODS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Research Design
Subjects

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Preliminary Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Procedures

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Hypotheses

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Data Analysis
RESULTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hypotheses Testing

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

v
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
APPENDIX A: Review of Literature

. . . . . . . . 22

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Biomechanics of Golf

. . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Stretching Techniques Compared

. . . . . . . . 26

Static Stretching

. . . . . . . . . . . 27

Dynamic Stretching

. . . . . . . . . . . 35

Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation . 38
The Role of Balance in Golf

. . . . . . . . 41

Stretching’s Effects on Balance. . . . . . . 43
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
APPENDIX B: The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Significance of the Study

. . . . . . . . . . 50

APPENDIX C: Additional Methods .

. . . . . . . . 51

IRB: California University of Pennsylvania (C1) . . 52
Individual Data Collection Sheet (C2) . . . . . . 54
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table

Title

Page

1

Balance Measures Dependent on Stretch . . . 11

1

INTRODUCTION

Performance enhancement is very popular today and
there is a growing market in the athletic industry for
performance enhancement programs and equipment.

Any

serious athlete is always looking for that extra edge in
sports performance whether it is experimenting with
supplements or using new training techniques.

Warm-ups

prior to athletic performance are commonly performed by
recreational and professional athletes alike as a method to
enhance performance and prevent injury. Stretching is
commonly used by athletic trainers and sports medicine
professionals for injury prevention and sports performance
enhancement.1
Golf is no different from other sports in that
stretching routines are commonly performed prior to
swinging the golf club.

There are multiple types of

stretching but the two stretching techniques that are most
commonly seen during a warm-up prior to an exercise bout
are static and dynamic stretching.2-6,7-14,15-20,21
The effects of static stretching have been researched
relating to many different areas of physical performance

2
including flexibility, muscular speed, and muscular power
to name a few.

It is well known in the research that

static stretching will increase flexibility, short and
long-term depending on the regimen,12,22,23 but also has the
potential to have detrimental effects on performance.24,6,8,13,14,16,17,22,23

A review of literature by Janot, Dalleck,

and Reyment14 compared static stretching with other
stretching techniques and found that in all of the
performance measures tested, vertical jump, drop jump, peak
force, and maximal voluntary contraction of the quadriceps
and plantar flexor muscles, were either unchanged or
decreased.14
Dynamic stretching has been gaining popularity in
sports due to its positive effects.

Research has found

time and time again that not only will it increase
flexibility,12 but unlike static stretching, it has the
potential to actually increase performance.2,3,5,7,9-12,14-19
articles were found in the course of this review that
showed a decrease in performance following dynamic
stretching.
Clearly, the type of stretching a golfer chooses
before playing may impact their swing significantly.
Balance is an important performance aspect, especially in
the sport of golf.33 Highly skilled golfers tend to have

No

3
better balance than lower skilled golfers.24 There has been
very little research that has examined how balance is
affected by stretching, and the potential effects that
stretching could have on balance during the golf swing may
be the difference between winning and losing a tournament.
There is no single golf-specific warm-up that has been
used by all golfers.

The warm-up routine is usually based

on the golfer’s previous experience and what they prefer to
do to help them prepare for a round. The purpose of this
study is to examine the effects of static and dynamic
stretching routines on balance during the golf swing.

This

will provide athletic trainers, performance enhancement
specialists, and clinicians alike a more specific and
intelligent way to guide golfers towards a proper warm-up.
With a more specific warm-up regimen, golfers can improve
their performance, or at the very least prevent them from
inadvertently hurting their own performance.

4

METHODS

The primary goal of this study was to examine the
effect of different stretching interventions on balance
during the performance of a golf swing.

Static stretching

versus dynamic stretching of the lower extremity was
compared to determine their effects on balance and
stability of the athlete during the golf swing performance.
The following section includes these subsections: research
design, subjects, instruments, procedures, hypotheses, and
data analysis.

Research Design

This research was a quasi-experimental, within
subjects, repeated measures design.
variable was stretching condition.

The independent
There were two levels:

static and dynamic stretching conditions of the lower body.
The dependent variable was balance during a golf swing as
measured by the Science and Motion BalanceLab®.

5
Subjects

The subjects that were tested in this study included
19 volunteer male golfers over the age of 18, from the
Professional Golf Management program and the golf team at
California University of Pennsylvania.

All subjects had to

be healthy and not currently suffering from an injury to
the upper or lower body that would affect their performance
in this study or place them at greater risk for injury due
to their participation.
Each subject was required to participate in two
testing sessions, one measuring the dependent variables
following a static stretching protocol, and one measuring
the dependent variables following a dynamic stretching
protocol.

All subjects in the study signed an Informed

Consent Form (Appendix C1) prior to participation in the
study.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review

Board at California University of PA prior to any data
collection.

Each participant’s identity remained

confidential and was not to be included in the study.

6
Preliminary Research

There was a pilot study conducted with this research
project.

Three healthy and proficient golfers were used to

test this protocol. The subject performed all of the
testing procedures. The researcher looked for the subject’s
ability to understand directions, the amount of time used
to complete the tasks and if the warm-up protocol before
service testing is accurate.

Data was collected on the

data collection sheet (Appendix C2).

Instruments

The main instrument that was used was the Science and
Motion BalanceLab force plate.

It is a high resolution

force plate that can evaluate balance and weight transfer
during a golf swing.

All participants used a driver for

their tests as suggested by the golf professional.

Each

subject used a driver of their choice to ensure the subject
is as comfortable as possible to not place any uncontrolled
effect on the dependent variable.

The Science and Motion

BalanceLab® software was used on a computer in the golf
performance lab at California University of Pennsylvania.

7
Procedures

Each participant performed a static stretching routine
(Appendix C) on day one, and a dynamic stretching (Appendix
C) routine on day two.

There was three static stretches

and three dynamic stretches each lasting a duration of 30
seconds with a minute rest in between repetitions.
duration was chosen based off previous research.34

This
The

static stretches that were used were the standing calf
stretch, sitting single-leg hamstring stretch, and a prone
quadriceps stretch.

The dynamic stretches that were used

were the calf step-backs, standing leg swings for
hamstrings, and standing butt-kicks for the quadriceps.
Immediately following the stretching, the subject then
stood on the balance platform and performed 10 golf club
swings with 1 minute of rest in between each swing.16,17
Confidence ellipse width: the forward and backward sway of
the subject on the balance plate; and confidence ellipse
angle: the degree the subjects stance on the balance plate
was relative to the target the balls were hit at (a
perpendicular stance being 90o), were measured by the
balance force plate to determine if static or dynamic
stretching had positive or negative effects on overall
balance during the performance of a golf swing. Other

8
balance measures such as confidence ellipse height and
center of force measures defined in the appendix were also
recorded and will potentially be explored as part of this
project.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were formed based on previous
research and by the researcher’s conclusions from a review
of the literature.
1)

There will be an improvement in balance as measured by
the confidence ellipse width in the dynamic stretching
group when compared to the static stretching group.

2)

There will be an effect on the confidence ellipse
angle in the dynamic group as compared to the static
stretching group.

Data Analysis

All data was analyzed by SPSS version 19.0 for windows
at an alpha level of 0.05.

The research hypotheses were

analyzed using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA).

9

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the
difference between two different stretching protocols
(static stretching and dynamic stretching) on balance
measures during the performance of a golf swing.

The

following section contains the data that was collected
during this study.

Demographic Information

Twenty male subjects in the Professional Golf
Management Program, on the Division II golf team, or both
at California University of Pennsylvania volunteered for
this study.

Nineteen subjects completed all the testing

and one dropped out due to injury unrelated to the study.
All subjects that completed the testing were considered
healthy and did not suffer from any type of injury or
illness during the testing period.

These individuals were

all skilled golfers; while specific handicaps were not a
factor for this study, all of the subjects had a handicap
lower than 15.

10

Hypothesis Testing

The following hypotheses were tested for this study.
All of the hypotheses were tested at the .05 alpha level.
Hypothesis 1:

There will be an improvement in balance

as measured by the confidence ellipse width in the dynamic
stretching group when compared to the static stretching
group.
Hypothesis 2: There will be an effect on the
confidence ellipse angle in the dynamic stretching group as
compared to the static stretching group.
A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed comparing the effects of the independent
variables, static stretching and dynamic stretching, on the
dependent variables, confidence ellipse width and
confidence ellipse angle.

On the first hypothesis, no

significant difference was found (F(1,18)=1.32, p > .265).
The test revealed no significant difference between the
static (54.85mm ± 21.99) and dynamic (52.48mm ± 16.60)
stretching conditions on confidence ellipse width.

In the

second hypothesis, a significant difference was found
(F(1,18)=5.03, p > .038).

The test revealed there was a

11
significant difference between the static (83.35deg ± 4.26)
and dynamic (82.74deg ± 4.31) stretching conditions on the
confidence ellipse angle.

Additional Findings

In addition to testing the above hypotheses, the
researcher also measured the effects of the independent
variables on confidence ellipse height since the SAM
BalanceLab automatically recorded the data alongside the
rest of the data.

On the additional test no significant

difference was found (F(1,18)=3.97, p > .062).

The test

revealed no significant difference between the static
(288.18mm ± 66.10) and dynamic (299.01mm ± 73.33)
stretching conditions.

Table 1. Balance measures dependent on stretch
Warm-up
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
ellipse width,
ellipse
ellipse angle,
mm
height, mm
deg
Static

54.9 (21.99)

288.9 (66.10)

83.3 (4.26)

Dynamic

52.5 (16.60)

299.0 (73.33)

82.7 (4.31)

12

DISCUSSION

The following section is divided into three
subsections: Discussion of results, conclusions, and
recommendations for further research.

Discussion of Results

It is very common for athletes to perform warm-ups
prior to activity regardless of skill level.

Sports

medicine professionals use stretching for injury
prevention, rehabilitation, and sports performance
enhancement.1 The two stretching techniques that are most
commonly seen prior to performance are static and dynamic
stretching.2-21 Because these two stretching techniques are
so common, many research studies have been performed on
both stretches to find out their true effects.
Static stretching has been tested on several measures
of performance including flexibility, muscular speed, and
muscular power.

It has been found time and time again that

static stretching will increase flexibility both short and
long-term depending on the stretching regimen.12,22,23

The

13
research has also found that static stretching can have
detrimental effects on performance measures.24,6,8,13,14,16,17,22,23

Dynamic stretching is growing in popularity,
especially in the elite levels of sports because the
research is showing positive effects.

It has been found

that dynamic stretching will increase flexibility12 as well
as in many cases increase performance measures.2,3,5,7,9-12,14-19
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
static and dynamic stretching routines on three different
balance measures during the golf swing.
It was hypothesized that the dynamic stretching
condition would yield better results in terms of stability
in the three measurements that were recorded by the Science
& Motion BalanceLab: confidence ellipse width, confidence
ellipse angle, and confidence ellipse height.

Statistical

analysis revealed no significant difference on the
confidence ellipse width and height measures.

There was a

statistical significant difference between static and
dynamic stretching conditions on the confidence ellipse
angle.
The results of this study show mixed results among
static and dynamic stretching effects.

The insignificant

results from the two tests contradict most of the research

14
on performance measures.

In a review of literature by

Cervantes and Snyder,10 dynamic warm-ups were compared to
static and PNF stretching conditions in college athletes.
The conclusions from this review of literature suggested
that dynamic warm-ups would be more beneficial to
performance than the other two stretching conditions.
Several studies examined the effects of static
stretching on different performance measures finding little
to no positive effects on such measures.5-9,11,15,20,21,25,26

The

only measure that was positive was that static stretching
significantly improved active and passive ranges of
motion.5,6,19 Finally, a review of literature by Janot,
Dalleck, and Reyment14 compared static stretching with
dynamic, ballistic, and PNF stretching.

Performance

measures included vertical jump, drop jump, peak force, and
maximal voluntary contraction of the quadriceps and plantar
flexor muscles.

In the static stretching condition, all of

the performance measures were either unchanged or
decreased, suggesting that there may be a better form of
stretching prior to performance.
Finally, the last test found that the dynamic
stretching condition had a statistically significant effect
on confidence ellipse angle when compared to the static
stretching condition.

Although the data suggests that a

15
dynamic stretch may be more beneficial than a static
stretch in this case, there is no evidence to discuss
whether the confidence ellipse angle plays an important
role during the golf swing.

Based on the conclusions from

this study, recommendations have been provided for further
research in order to investigate the mixed results that
were obtained.
It must be noted that the data was collected in a lab
on a hard, flat force plate and the subjects were tested in
tennis shoes.

This may not translate well to the golf

course because most golfers wear golf shoes which have
extra grip and may actually improve their balance on a
grassy surface compared to a lab.

Also, some of the

subjects noted that they wouldn’t feel as comfortable
performing the dynamic stretches that were used in this
study in a live situation.

Conclusions

The results of this study discovered the following
conclusions to aforementioned hypotheses:
1. There was no significant improvement in balance as
measured by the confidence ellipse width in the

16
dynamic stretching group when compared to the static
stretching group.
2. There was a significant effect on the confidence
ellipse angle in the dynamic stretching group as
compared to the static stretching group.
3. There was no significant effect in the additional
findings on the confidence ellipse height in the
dynamic stretching group as compared to the static
stretching group.
The data collected in this study provide mixed results
regarding stretching effects on balance.

It cannot be

concluded that one type of stretching is better than the
other prior to performance in golf.

It is this

researcher’s opinion that golfers should maintain a warm-up
of their choosing that is comfortable for them until future
research shows clearer results.

Recommendations

The following recommendations should be considered to
expand upon this research:
1. Perform the same study using a female only population
in order to determine if there are any possible gender
differences.

17
2. Expand the research to determine the role of the
confidence ellipse angle during the golf swing to find
out if the significant results in this study are
meaningful.
3. Expand the research to determine if a different type
of dynamic warm-up such as a stationary bike warm-up
is more effective than a static warm-up.
4. Conduct a study on the effects of a long-term
stretching program.
5. Perform tests on the other measurements recorded by
the SAM BalanceLab in this study that were not
examined.
6. Expand the research on the additional finding
confidence ellipse height because the p-value was
.062, close to being significant.

18
REFERENCES
1.

Costa PB, Graves BS, Whitehurst M, and Jacobs PL. The
acute effects of different durations of static
stretching on dynamic balance performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2009; 23(1):141-147.

2.

Vanderka M. The acute effects of stretching on
explosive power. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae
Universitatis Comenianae. 2011; 51(2): 23-34.

3.

Curry BS, Chengkalath D, Crouch GJ, Romance M, and
Manns PJ. Acute effects of dynamic stretching, and
light aerobic activity on muscular performance in
women. J Strength Cond Res. 2009; 23(6): 1811-1819.

4.

Kay AD, and Blazevich AJ. Effect of acute static
stretch on maximal muscle performance: a systematic
review. Med Sci in Sports &Exerc. 2012; 44(1): 154–
164.

5.

Cervantes SJ, and Snyder AR. The effectiveness of a
dynamic warm-up in improving performance in college
athletes. J Sport Rehab. 2011; 20(4): 487-493.

6.

Pearce AJ, Kidgell DJ, Zois J, and Carlson JS.
Effects of secondary warm up following stretching.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009; 105(2): 175-183.

7.

Janot JM, Dalleck LC, and Reyment C. Pre-exercise
stretching and performance. IDEA Fitness Journal.
2007; 4(2): 44-51.

8.

Weerapong P, Hume PA, and Kolt GS. Stretching:
mechanisms and benefits for sport performance and
injury prevention. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2004;
9(4): 189-206.

9.

Fletcher LM, and Monte-Colombo MM. An investigation
into the possible physiological mechanisms associated
with changes in performance related to acute responses
to different preactivity stretch modalities.
ApplPhysiolNutrMetab. 2010; 35(1): 27-34.

10.

Faigenbaum A, Kang J, McFarland J, et al. Acute
effects of different warm-up protocols on anaerobic

19
performance in teenage athletes. Pediatric Exerc Sci.
2006; 18(1): 64-75.
11.

Arabaci R. Acute effects of differential stretching
protocols on physical performance in young soccer
players. Sport Sciences. 2009; 4(2): 50-63.

12.

Silveira G, Sayers M, and Waddington G. Effect of
dynamic versus static stretching in the warm-up on
hamstring flexibility. Sport J. 2011; 14(1).

13.

Bradley PS, Olsen PD, and Portas MD. The effect of
static, ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on vertical jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21(1): 223-226.

14.

Papadopoulos G, Siatras T, and Kellis S. The effect
of static and dynamic stretching exercises on the
maximal isokinetic strength of the knee extensors and
flexors. Isokinetics and Exerc Sci. 2005; 13(4): 285291.

15.

Yamaguchi T, and Ishii K. Effects of static
stretching for 30 seconds and dynamic stretching on
leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;
19(3): 677-683.

16.

Gergley JC. Acute effects of passive static
stretching during warm-up on driver clubhead speed,
distance, accuracy, and consistent ball contact in
young male competitive golfers. J Strength Cond Res.
2009; 23(3): 863-867.

17.

Gergley JC. Latent effect of passive static
stretching on driver clubhead speed, distance,
accuracy, and consistent ball contact in young male
competitive golfers. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;
24(12): 3326-3333.

18.

Moran KA, McGrath T, Marshall BM, and Wallace
ES.Dynamic Stretching and Golf Swing Performance. Int
J Sports Med. 2009; 30(2): 113-118.

19.

Molacek ZD, Conley DS, Evetovich TK, and Hinnerichs
KR.Effects of low- and high-volume stretching on bench
press performance in collegiate football players. J
Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24(3): 711–716.

20

20.

Fradkin AJ, Sherman CA, and Finch CF. Improving golf
performance with a warm up conditioning programme.Br J
Sports Med. 2004; 38(6): 762-765.

21.

Dale RB, and Myers D. Proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation for trunk mobility and strength. Human
Kinetics. 2009; 14(5): 26-29.

22.

Maddigan ME, Peach AA, and Behm DG.A comparison of
assisted and unassisted proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation techniques and static stretching. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26(5): 1238-1244.

23.

Marek SM, Cramer JT, Fincher AL, et al. Acute effects
of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle strength and power
output. J Athl Training. 2005; 40(2): 94-103.

24.

Sell TC, Tsai Y, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, and Lephart SM.
Strength, flexibility, and balance characteristics of
highly proficient golfers. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;
21(4): 1166-1171.

21

APPENDICES

22

APPENDIX A
Review of Literature

23

INTRODUCTION

For years, athletes of all different skill levels and
sports have employed stretching as part of their warm-ups
prior to exercise or events.

Certain sports, such as golf,

require a more sport-specific warm-up due to the nature of
the game.

Golfers at the recreational and competitive

levels have begun including stretching routines in their
pre-event warm-ups in hopes of increasing their
performance.

The purpose of this literature review is to

determine the effects of different stretching interventions
on balance during the golf swing to help provide golfers
with the best possible warm-up before an event.

Biomechanics of Golf

Several different studies have been performed on the
important aspects of movement kinematics from the human
body during a golf swing.

These aspects focus mainly on

their effects on distance once the ball has been struck by
the golf club.

The most relevant motions that affect the

typical golf swing are upper torso-pelvic separation (X-

24
factor), rapidly stretching the hip, trunk, and upper limb
upon backswing, trunk lateral bending, and superior pelvic
weight shift.1-4
All articles examined in this review on the
biomechanics of the golf swing determined that upper torsopelvic separation (X-factor) was a critical factor in golf
swing performance.1-3 It was determined that upper torso
rotation as well as pelvic rotation were insignificant
alone but together as the X-Factor separation, they are
significant to ball velocity.2,3
The first article examined multiple factors that were
determined to be involved in producing a large angular
velocity, which helps produce a greater distance: rapidly
stretching hip, trunk and upper limb muscles during the
backswing, and uncocking the wrists when the lead arm is
about 30° below the horizontal.

This review concludes that

stability, Newton’s laws of motion (inertia, acceleration,
action reaction), lever arms, conservation of angular
momentum, projectiles, the kinetic link principle and the
stretch-shorten cycle are the important characteristics in
proper golf biomechanics. Distance and accuracy will both
be positively affected with proper biomechanics.1
In a similar study by Myers’2 the biomechanical role of
the upper torso and pelvic rotation during driving velocity

25
were examined.

Two different independent variables were

measured: Upper torso rotation and pelvis rotation on the
dependent variable of velocity, and torso-pelvic separation
on the dependent variable of velocity.

One-hundred

recreational golfers were measured and the results found
that torso-pelvic separation played the most significant
role in maximizing ball velocity for the golfers.

The

authors suggest golfers should try to create a maximal
separation between the upper torso and pelvis in order to
achieve maximal ball velocity, therefore increasing
distance.2
One study that measured the X-factor also measured
other factors in the golf swing that other research had not
measured.

Delayed release of the arms and wrists, trunk

forward and lateral tilting, and weight shifting during the
swing were also analyzed in three-hundred and eight
golfers.

Chu, Sell, and Lephart3 found that trunk lateral

bending, pelvis superior weight shift, and the X-Factor
were found to be most critical in driving performance.
Greater upward and backward rotation of the arms were also
important in swing performance.3
The last study looked at different types of golf swing
shots to determine the similarities and differences among
kinematic proximal-to-distal sequencing and speed

26
summation.

Partial and full swing shots were the

independent variables measured.

Forty-five golfers

participated, eleven of which were male tournament
professionals, and twenty-one male and thirteen female
elite amateurs.
were recorded.

Pelvis, upper torso, and hand movements
Results showed a proximal-to-distal

temporal relationship as well as an increase in maximum
angular velocity for both genders and in both shot
conditions.

This common proximal-to-distal sequencing will

provide better mechanical and control points thus
increasing the likelihood of improving speed and accuracy
of both types of shots.4 This research could potentially
provide insight as to how and when different segments in
the upper body should be stretched during the warm-up.

Stretching Techniques Compared

Stretching as part of a general warm-up is a common
occurrence among the active population whether it is
directed by a knowledgeable health care professional or
strictly based off of an individual’s own beliefs.

Three

of the most commonly used stretching techniques and the
three that will be examined in this review are static,

27
dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
(PNF) stretching.5-30

Static Stretching
The most common form of stretching is typically static
stretching. This type of stretching technique involves no
movement.18 The general thought behind static stretching is
that it will increase flexibility, which will improve
performance and provide less opportunity for injury.
Contrary to popular belief, more recent research has begun
to show that static stretching may have little or no affect
on performance and may possibly even hinder performance.59,11,15,20,21,25,26

The main idea behind any type of stretching is usually
to improve range of motion.

It is common practice for

people to stretch before activity or just to improve
flexibility.

There has been a lot of research on the

effects of static stretching on range of motion.

Several

studies have examined different areas of the body and came
to the conclusion that static stretching significantly
increases active and passive ranges of motion.5,6,19
Another common idea of stretching is the thought that
it will help enhance performance in some way or another.
Static stretching is performed regularly prior to athletic

28
event but recent research is beginning to show this may not
only be ineffective, but also may hinder performance.
Several articles assessed the effects of static stretching
on muscular speed.

Tests included measuring

electromyography activity, movement time, reaction time, 10
yard sprint, agility drills, and clubhead speed.5,6,14,16-18,2527

There was not a single article that showed an improvement

in movement speed.

Most of the research results including

a literature review by Janot,14 concluded no significant
differences in performance.5,14,16-18,

27

Three articles on

golf swing performance showed significant decreases in
driver club head speed and ball velocity following a static
stretching regimen.25-27
Maddigan’s5 study looked at reaction time and movement
time at the hip.

Measurements were taken before and after

a static stretching intervention.

The subjects were

thirteen active healthy adults; the six males were an
average age of 24.6 years and the seven females averaged
23.7 years.

The stretching protocol did significantly

decrease angular velocity (movement time).

The conclusion

from this study was that athletes must take caution before
competition because the possibility of impairment in limb
strength and movement time may occur.5

29
A literature review by Janot, Dalleck, and Reyment14
compared the effects of static stretching vs. dynamic,
ballistic, and PNF stretching techniques on performance and
found no positive results for the static condition.

Almost

all of the articles that were reviewed showed all types of
performance were either decreased or unchanged post-static
stretch.

When compared with the other three stretching

techniques, static stretching showed no more effectiveness
than any other stretch condition and it was concluded that
other forms of stretching should be done instead of static
prior to an event.14
A golf specific study completed by Gergley25 measured
the acute effects of a 20 minute full body static
stretching routine followed by an active dynamic warm-up.
The effects were measured on the dependent variables:
clubhead speed, distance, accuracy, and consistent ball
contact.

There were 15 male competitive golfers studied

with an average age of 20.6 years.

After the warm-ups were

completed the subjects were instructed to hit 10 full swing
shots with a driver with 1 minute rest between each trial.
The static stretch condition showed decreased driver
performance in all dependent measures compared with a
general active warm-up condition.

This research suggests

that full-body static stretching will be less effective

30
than an active, gradual warm-up routine before
competition.25
A second study was performed by Gergley26 on the
effects of a 20 minute full-body stretch routine followed
by an active dynamic warm-up.

This study measured the

long-term effects on driver clubhead speed, distance,
accuracy, and consistent ball contact.

There were 9 male

subjects used in this study with an average age of 20.4
years.

They were instructed to hit 3 shots with their

driver with a minute rest in between all three shots at
intervals of 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes post-stretch.
For the condition with the static stretch routine, distance
and consistent ball contact showed a significant decrease
in all five time intervals while clubhead speed and
accuracy showed decreases, but recovered by the 45 minute
and 60 minute intervals respectively.

This suggested that

static stretching prior to performance should be avoided
and a more gradual active dynamic warm-up should be
performed instead.26
Golf swing performance with a 5 iron was also analyzed
in another study by Moran.27 Static stretching and no
stretching interventions were compared as part of a general
warm-up.

Measurements were taken at 0, 5, 15, and 30

minutes after stretching. The subjects were eighteen male,

31
right-handed experienced golfers with a handicap of 6 or
less, average age of 23.2 years.

Both the static

stretching and no stretching interventions produced no
significant results in any of these conditions.

It was

concluded that a different form of stretching may be more
effective than static in any golf warm-up to produce the
best performance results.27
Muscular power plays a critical role in athletic
performance in some sports more than others.

This is why a

pre-performance stretching routine must be done properly in
order for the athlete to achieve the best results possible.
Articles that assessed muscular power used the following
tests: vertical jump on a force platform, countermovement
jump, drop jump, and medicine ball toss.6-8,11,16,17 Once
again, like muscular speed, the effects of static
stretching were found to be negligible or even detrimental
to performance.6-8,11,16,17
The objective of the article by Marek6 et al was to
study the acute effects of static stretching peak torque
and mean power output of the vastus lateralis and rectus
femoris muscles.

The measurements were recorded during

voluntary maximal concentric isokinetic leg extensions at
60 and 300o·s-1.

The subjects were ten females with an

average age of 23, and nine males with an average age of

32
21.

At both measurements, peak torque and mean power

output significantly decreased after the static stretch
intervention.
found.

There were no positive significant changes

The conclusion was that acute static stretching

decreased muscular strength, power, and activation;
however, the author did note the reader must weigh the
risk-to-benefit ratio when using these stretching
techniques because the change in muscle was small.6
Muscular power was assessed through vertical jump in a
few studies measuring static stretching effects.7,11,17

The

first of the three articles studied the acute effects of
static stretching on vertical jump performance.

A counter

movement jump and a jump with no counter movement which was
measured by a force plate were performed.

Subjects were

twenty-four men with an average age of 22.4 years.

The

results of this study showed the non-counter movement jump
was unaffected; however, there was a significant decrease
in the counter movement jump after static stretch.

The

authors concluded that static stretching has the potential
to decrease performance acutely on vertical jump.7
The next article that assessed muscular power through
vertical jump tested a secondary warm-up following
stretching due to the idea that stretching commonly
inhibited muscular performance.

There were thirteen

33
participants; two females and eleven males age range from
18-28 years.

Each participant completed a 5 min warm-up,

followed by a vertical jump measured on a force platform.
They then underwent one of the three interventions: static
stretching, dynamic stretching, or no stretching.

After

the intervention they performed a second vertical jump
followed by a series of movements.

Finally, a third

vertical jump was performed up to 60 min post activity.
After the first intervention there was a 10.7% difference
in static versus dynamic stretching conditions.

After the

second warm-up, vertical jump height showed no difference
after the static stretch intervention.

These results

provided the conclusion that a secondary warm-up will most
likely not reverse the detrimental acute effects of static
stretching on performance.11
The last study that used vertical jump as a
measurement of muscular power found similar results as the
other two researchers.

Pre-activity static stretching was

performed by thirty teenage athletes of about 15 years of
age.

The results showed no significant improvements in

performance thus giving the conclusion that a static warmup will be potentially less beneficial to performance than
perhaps another form of stretching.17

34
In the last few articles that assessed static
stretching on muscular power, several different dependent
variables were studied.

Countermovement jump, isometric

time to peak knee extension, drop jump, and peak torque
were measured.8,16 The results showed no significant
differences between any variables, but that all
performances had decreased after the stretching
intervention.8,16
Another systematic review by Kay and Blazevich studied
pre-exercise stretching to determine whether there are
decreases in post-stretch force and power.

106 articles

were reviewed that met the inclusion criteria.

The results

showed that static stretches of less than 60 seconds were
found to have no significant impacts while stretches
greater than 60 seconds showed decrements in eccentric
strength.

This review determined that although no

improvements were recorded, short-duration static
stretching has little to no effect on maximal muscle
performance.9
Despite stretching commonly being performed before
exercise to enhance performance and reduce the risk of
injury, there is limited scientific data to support the
suggested benefits of stretching. Static stretching has
been shown to have detrimental effects on muscle strength

35
and functional performances such as jumping, and to have
inconclusive effects on the incidence of injury, and no
effects on the severity of muscle damage.15
Of all the articles reviewed under the static
stretching intervention, it is concluded by this author
that static stretching is a great way to increase range of
motion, however it may not be best used prior to
performance.

There was not a single article that showed

any evidence of static stretching being the lone cause of
an improvement in performance.

Continued research may be

needed to provide a more clear and concise agreement on the
effects of static stretching, but this will provide a good
base of evidence.

Dynamic Stretching
Another common form of stretching is dynamic
stretching.

Dynamic stretching consists of performing

movements that take the limb through range of motion (ROM)
by contracting the agonist muscles, which allows the
antagonist muscles to relax and elongate due to reciprocal
inhibition.31 As this type of stretching has become more
common place in sport, more and more research is being
performed to study its effects.

Not only has most research

found no detrimental effects to performance caused by

36
dynamic stretching, but it has also shown that it can
increase performance as well.7,8,10,14,16-19,21,23,25-28
Dynamic stretching has often been compared with static
stretching and even proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching in much of the research.

Only one

article in this review covered both range of motion effects
and performance effects caused by dynamic stretching.
Silveira19 studied dynamic stretching on flexibility vs.
static stretch and no stretch groups.

Twelve participants

performed the three interventions and it was reported that
dynamic stretching not only improved dynamic flexibility
but also static flexibility.

The author concluded that

dynamic stretching may be more effective for sport
performance than static stretching alone.
Vanderka,7 Pearce,11 and Yamaguchi23 all performed
similar research on dynamic stretching and muscular power.
Vertical jump, countermovement jump, and leg extension
power were the variables that were assessed.7,11,23 In the
study by Vanderka, dynamic stretch before warm-up
significantly increased performance in both the
countermovement and the vertical jump.7 Pearce’s study
tested a secondary warm-up following stretching and also
found that vertical jump height increased significantly
after performing dynamic stretching.11

Finally, Yamaguchi

37
measured leg extension power and found dynamic stretching
significantly improved performance.23
The idea in this review was to help determine whether
a dynamic warm-up would improve performance more than
static or PNF stretching in college athletes.

Four studies

were found that fit all the inclusion criteria.

The

research suggests there is moderate evidence to believe
dynamic warm-ups will be more beneficial to performance
than static or PNF stretching.

Clinicians must be careful,

however since all of the studies that were reviewed
performed testing in a lab.

This evidence may not

transcend to a live event.10
A golf specific conditioning program was created by
Fradkin, Sherman, and Finch29 in order to determine its
effectiveness immediately prior to performance as well as
after being performed five times a week for five weeks.
Clubhead speed was measured by 2D video analysis.

The

subjects participating were twenty male golfers that were
matched by age and handicap.

10 underwent the conditioning

program and 10 were in the control group.

Results showed

that clubhead speeds increased significantly in the testing
group compared to the control group.

The overall

conclusion of this study is that golf performance is

38
enhanced by performing a golf specific warm-up compared to
when not performing any warm-up.29

Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching
A third form of stretching that is generally used more
often in clinical settings than in sport settings is
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF).

This

stretching technique uses proprioceptive, cutaneous, and
auditory input to produce functional improvement in motor
output and can be a vital element in the rehabilitation
process of many conditions and injuries.32 PNF is
controversial in the athletic population due to the fact
that it can create positive effects, but also negative
effects such as decreased force production or muscular
speed.

Acute range of motion increases have been shown by

most research on PNF stretching, but it is suggested that
all other benefits occur only if it is performed
regularly.5,6,12,13,22
Sharman13 focused specifically on the effects of
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on
range of motion.

It was found that range of motion

increases most after the first repetition of PNF, but to
obtain a longer lasting increase in ROM, PNF stretching,
like other types of stretching, needs to be performed at

39
least a couple times per week.

Sharman concluded that PNF

stretching is the most effective way of increasing range of
motion alone acutely, however the heterogeneity of
different PNF techniques must be examined to more
accurately determine the best stretch to use.13
The goal of a literature review by Dale and Myers30 was
to look at proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
stretching of the trunk because there had not been much
research on this topic before.

PNF has been found to

positively affect sport-specific rehabilitation in other
areas of the body.

Two PNF patterns have been developed

from this article: Chopping and lateral bending of the
trunk simulate movement patterns similar to golf motions
and help to stabilize the trunk for better performance in
golf.30
A second literature review also investigated the
different physiological theories behind the effects of PNF.
Four theories were determined to be the most reasonable
mechanisms as to why PNF techniques affect range of motion.
These theories include: autogenic inhibition, reciprocal
inhibition, stress relaxation, and the gate control theory.
This review concluded that PNF stretching decreases maximal
strength performance when completed before exercise.
these techniques are preformed regularly as part of a

When

40
stretching routine, as well as post exercise, performance
and range of motion have been shown to increase.

The

authors suggest that if the PNF techniques are performed
correctly and adequately, there could be potential for many
positive effects.12
The goal presented in the last study reviewed on PNF
stretching compared its effects of high and low-volume
static and PNF stretching on 1 repetition maximum bench
press.

5 different stretching interventions were used as

the independent variables: 1) non-stretching group, 2) lowvolume PNF stretching 3) high-volume PNF stretching, 4)
low-volume static stretching, and 5) high-volume static
stretching.

Subjects for this study were fifteen male NCAA

DII football players average age 19.9 years.

In all 5

conditions, the results showed no significant changes in
performance of the 1RM bench press in these resistance
trained football players.

It was concluded that

performance in already trained athletes is not
significantly affected by PNF and static stretching.28
The effects of stretching have been studied across a
wide variety of different human movements involving the
lower extremity.

These studies examined the effects of

static, dynamic, and PNF stretching techniques on different
lower extremity tasks in order to create a generalized

41
consensus as to which should be used prior to athletic
performance.

In golf the lower extremity plays a big role

in swing performance.

The performance of a golf swing also

involves a lot of upper body motion and this is why it is
important to examine the effects that the aforementioned
stretching techniques have on upper body performance, not
only in golf but other activities involving similar muscle
activity.

After reviewing all of the literature on how

stretching affects performance, a few conclusions have been
made.

All three types of stretching (static, dynamic, and

PNF) can increase range of motion at least acutely.
However, prior to performance dynamic stretching should be
used for best results, and finally if proper rest is
allowed prior to performance, static and PNF stretches can
be used as well.

In this study it was determined that

proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation would not be
included due to its impracticality in a live situation on
the golf course.

The Role of Balance in Golf

There are many different performance measures in the
game of golf, some of which play more important roles than
others.

One performance measure that is often overlooked

42
in the sport is balance, especially in non-professional
golfers because it is not easily observable.

Balance is

crucial to the success of any athletic movement, and the
golf swing is no exception.33 The fact that it plays an
important role in golf creates the question as to why there
is such little research on its role in the sport.
A study by Sell et al. looked at strength,
flexibility, and balance in golfers to help determine the
important physical characteristics in golf.

The subjects

in this study were 257 healthy male golfers age 45.5 +/12.8 years.

They were split into three groups by handicap:

0, 1-9, and 10-20.

Measurements were taken for strength

and flexibility in the torso, shoulder, and hips, and
balance was measured with a single-leg balance test on the
right leg.

The results found that the golfers with the

lowest handicap (highest skill) had significantly greater
strength and flexibility in the torso, shoulders and hips.
They also had better single-leg balance (eyes open) scores
for medial/lateral and anterior/posterior ground reaction
forces.

These results suggest that higher skilled golfers

possess these important physical characteristics, balance
specifically, that allow them to produce better shots than
lower skilled golfers.24

43
Stretching Effects on Balance

As reviewed above, stretching, whether static or
dynamic has effects on performance.

The purpose of this

section is to determine whether either stretching condition
will affect balance positively or negatively.

Because

balance plays a big role in golf swing performance,
learning the effects of stretching could help guide a more
logical warm-up for golfers.
A Body Basics article by Dylla and Forest34 that
focuses on the benefits from a daily static stretching
routine lists several different benefits of stretching such
as elongation of muscle which reduces imbalances and
dysfunction, increased flexibility, circulation, and blood
flow, postural improvements, as well as better balance and
coordination.

The article also demonstrates with pictures,

how to perform stretches and for how long.

The most

commonly recommended regimen involves performing each
stretch 1-3 times for 30 seconds at a time.

This may show

us that a regular and consistent static stretching routine
may be beneficial for all golfers.34
Behm et al35 studied the effect of acute static
stretching on force, balance, reaction time, and movement
time of the lower extremity.

Sixteen subjects were tested

44
pre and post static stretching of the quadriceps,
hamstrings, and plantar flexors or after a similar duration
for a control condition. The stretching followed a 5 minute
bicycle warm-up.

Each stretch was held for 45 seconds and

had a 15 second rest period in between. A computerized
wobble board was used to measure balance.

It was found

that acute bouts of static stretching actually impaired
balance measures.35
The last study by Costa et al36 examined the effects of
different durations of static stretching on dynamic
balance.

This study continued the last study discussed by

Behm et al.35 Twenty-eight women were tested for this study
and underwent three different conditions, each one
performed on separate days.

There were two stretching

conditions that were repeated 3 times with 15 seconds rest
between and one control condition.

One static stretch

condition was held for 15 seconds while the second static
stretch condition was held for 45 seconds but both used the
same protocol as the study by Behm et al35 stretching the
quadriceps, hamstrings, and plantar flexors.

A warm-up on

an exercise bicycle was also performed prior to stretching.
The control condition used the same warm-up but had a 26
minute rest period between both testing sessions.
was assessed using the Biodex Balance System.

Balance

Testing

45
revealed that the 15-second condition produced a
significant improvement in the balance scores whereas there
were no significant effects with the control condition or
the 45-second treatment. These results suggest that shorter
duration stretching protocols may be more effective to
improve balance and that longer duration protocols will
most likely not affect balance.36

Summary

Golf is a game of precision and like any other sport,
the athletes that play the game are always looking for the
best performance results possible.

Almost all athletes

warm-up prior to performance and this usually includes a
stretching routine.

The goal in this study was to

determine which stretching routine would be best to perform
prior to playing a round of golf.

Acute static and

proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching
techniques showed little or no positive results in all
studies while dynamic stretching showed positive effects on
almost all performance measures.

Balance was assessed to

play an important role in golf performance and that better
golfers tend to have better balance.

With little research

overall on the effects of stretching on balance, the few

46
studies that were examined showed mixed results.

One study

showed decreased balance ability after an acute bout of
stretching while another showed improved balance.

Another

study showed a regular stretching routine can increase
balance ability.

These mixed results suggest there is need

for further research on the topic and this thesis aims to
find additional results in order to help guide golfers
towards better performance.

47

APPENDIX B
The Problem

48
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

For years, athletes of all different skill levels and
in all different sports have employed stretching as part of
their warm-ups prior to events or exercise.

Certain

sports, such as golf, require a more sport-specific warm-up
due to the nature of the game.

Golfers at the recreational

and competitive levels have begun including stretching
routines in their pre-event warm-ups in hopes of increasing
their performance.

Balance is a key component of golf and

affecting it will affect performance.

The purpose of this

study is to determine the effects of different stretching
interventions (static and dynamic) on balance during the
performance of a golf swing to help guide golfers in the
right direction before an event.

Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms will be defined for
this study:
1)

Golf Swing – a full swing with a driver as if the
participant were teeing off at a hole.

2)

Confidence ellipse width – indicates the width of the
ellipse in millimeters; the anterior/posterior sway of
the subject’s center of gravity.

49
3)

Confidence ellipse angle – indicates the orientation
of the direction of the longitudinal axis of the
ellipse compared to the longitudinal (x/-) axis of the
platform in degree and the orientation direction (left
or right).

4)

Confidence ellipse height – indicates the height of
the ellipse in millimeters; the lateral sway of the
subjects center of gravity.

5)

Center of force horizontal and vertical deviation –
the standard deviation and characterize the sway path
width in millimeters.

Basic Assumptions
The following are basic assumptions of this study:
1)

The subjects will be honest when they complete their
demographic sheets.

2)

The subjects will perform to the best of their ability
during testing sessions.

3)

The subjects will be above average in their golf
skills.

Limitations of the Study
The following are possible limitations of the study:

50
1)

This study is conducted in a controlled environment
and may not simulate a typical round of golf.

2)

The amount of subjects is limited to one university
golf program.

Significance of the Study
There are a few reasons why this study may prove
significant.

It can provide golfers with a more specific

and intelligent warm-up which can lead to possible
improvements in performance.

Another reason this study may

be effective is that it will help prevent inadvertent
performance decrements.

This is because golfers will learn

which stretches are positive and which stretches are
negative towards their performance.

51

APPENDIX C
Additional Methods

52

APPENDIX C1
IRB: California University of Pennsylvania

53

From: instreviewboard <instreviewboard@calu.edu>
Subject: FW: IRB approval template 11-03-11
Date: February 11, 2013 4:15:00 PM EST
To: "GRO6497 - GROOSE, ADAM R" <GRO6497@calu.edu>
Cc: "West, Thomas" <west_t@calu.edu>

Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, Room 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP,Chair

Dear Mr. Groose:
Please consider this email as official notification that your
proposal titled"The effects of static and dynamic stretching on balance measures
during the performance of a golf swing” (Proposal #12-029) has been approved
by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as
submitted.
The effective date of the approval is 2-11-2013 and the expiration date is 210-2014. These dates must appear on the consent form .
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study
(additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are
implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated
by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 2-102014 you must file additional information to be considered for continuing
review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Chair, Institutional Review Board

54

Appendix C2
Data Collection Sheet

55
Data Collection Example
Average Force Distribution
N/cm^2
20

Confidence
ellipse height

18
16

Confidence
ellipse angle

14
12
10
8
6

Confidence
ellipse width

4
2
0

Parameters

25-02-2013 Static 1

Confidence ellipse width, mm

81.9

Confidence ellipse height, mm

316.1

Confidence ellipse angle, deg

81.6, right

Confidence ellipse area, mm*mm

20326.5

COF total track length, mm

1196.1

COF horizontal deviation, mm

127.8

COF vertical deviation, mm

38.1

56

REFERENCES

1.

Hume PA, Keogh J, and Reid D. The role of biomechanics
in maximizing distance and accuracy of golf
shots.Sports Medicine. 2005; 35(5): 429-449.

2.

Myers J, Lephart S, Tsai Y, Sell T, Smoliga J, Jolly
J. The role of upper torso and pelvis rotation in
driving performance during the golf swing. J Sports
Sci 2008; 26(2): 181-188.

3.

Chu Y, Sell T, and Lephart SM. The relationship
between biomechanical variables and driving
performance during the golf swing. J Sports Sci.
2010; 28(11): 1251-1259.

4.

Tinmark F, Hellstroem J, Halvorsen K, and Thorstenssen
A. Elite golfers kinematic sequence in full-swing and
partial-swing shots. Sports Biomechanics. 2010;
9(4): 236-244.

5.

Maddigan ME, Peach AA, and Behm DG.A comparison of
assisted and unassisted proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation techniques and static stretching. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26(5): 1238-1244.

6.

Marek SM, Cramer JT, Fincher AL, et al. Acute effects
of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on muscle strength and power
output. J Athl Training. 2005; 40(2): 94-103.

7.

Vanderka M. The acute effects of stretching on
explosive power. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae
Universitatis Comenianae. 2011; 51(2): 23-34.

8.

Curry BS, Chengkalath D, Crouch GJ, Romance M, and
Manns PJ. Acute effects of dynamic stretching, and
light aerobic activity on muscular performance in
women.J Strength Cond Res. 2009; 23(6): 1811-1819.

9.

Kay AD, and Blazevich AJ. Effect of acute static
stretch on maximal muscle performance: asystematic

57

10.

review. Med Sci in Sports &Exerc. 2012; 44(1): 154–
164.
Cervantes SJ, and Snyder AR. The effectiveness of a
dynamic warm-up in improving performance in college
athletes. J Sport Rehab. 2011; 20(4): 487-493.

11.

Pearce AJ, Kidgell DJ, Zois J, and Carlson JS.
Effects of secondary warm up following stretching.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009; 105(2): 175-183.

12.

Hindle KB, Whitcomb TJ, Briggs WO, and Hong J.
Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF): Its
mechanisms and effects on range of motion and muscular
function. J Human Kinetics.2012; 31: 105-113.

13.

Sharman MJ, Cresswell AG, and Riek S. Proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation stretching. Sports Med.
2006; 36(11): 929-939.

14.

Janot JM, Dalleck LC, and Reyment C. Pre-exercise
stretching and performance. IDEA Fitness Journal.
2007; 4(2): 44-51.

15.

Weerapong P, Hume PA, and Kolt GS. Stretching:
mechanisms and benefits for sport performance and
injury prevention. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2004;
9(4): 189-206.

16.

Fletcher LM, and Monte-Colombo MM. An investigation
into the possible physiological mechanisms associated
with changes in performance related to acute responses
to different preactivity stretch modalities.
ApplPhysiolNutrMetab. 2010; 35(1): 27-34.

17.

Faigenbaum A, Kang J, McFarland J, et al. Acute
effects of different warm-up protocols on anaerobic
performance in teenage athletes. Pediatric Exerc Sci.
2006; 18(1): 64-75.

18.

Arabaci R. Acute effects of differential stretching
protocols on physical performance in young soccer
players. Sport Sciences. 2009; 4(2): 50-63.

19.

Silveira G, Sayers M, and Waddington G. Effect of
dynamic versus static stretching in the warm-up on
hamstring flexibility. Sport J. 2011; 14(1).

58
20.

Bradley PS, Olsen PD, and Portas MD. The effect of
static, ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on vertical jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21(1): 223-226.

21.

Papadopoulos G, Siatras T, and Kellis S. The effect
of static and dynamic stretching exercises on the
maximal isokinetic strength of the knee extensors and
flexors. Isokinetics and Exerc Sci. 2005; 13(4): 285291.

22.

Rees SS, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML, McLachlan KA, and
Coutts AJ. Effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation stretching on stiffness and forceproducing characteristics of the ankle in active
women. J Strength and Cond Res. 2007; 21(2): 572-577.

23.

Yamaguchi T, and Ishii K. Effects of static
stretching for 30 seconds and dynamic stretching on
leg extension power. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;
19(3): 677-683.

24.

Sell TC, Tsai Y, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, and Lephart SM.
Strength, flexibility, and balance characteristics of
highly proficient golfers. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;
21(4): 1166-1171.

25.

Gergley JC. Acute effects of passive static
stretching during warm-up on driver clubhead speed,
distance, accuracy, and consistent ball contact in
young male competitive golfers. J Strength Cond Res.
2009; 23(3): 863-867.

26.

Gergley JC. Latent effect of passive static
stretching on driver clubhead speed, distance,
accuracy, and consistent ball contact in young male
competitive golfers. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;
24(12): 3326-3333.

27.

Moran KA, McGrath T, Marshall BM, and Wallace
ES.Dynamic Stretching and Golf Swing Performance. Int
J Sports Med. 2009; 30(2): 113-118.

28.

Molacek ZD, Conley DS, Evetovich TK, and Hinnerichs
KR. Effects of low- and high-volume stretching on
bench press performance in collegiate football
players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24(3): 711–716.

59

29.

Fradkin AJ, Sherman CA, and Finch CF. Improving golf
performance with a warm up conditioning programme.Br J
Sports Med. 2004; 38(6): 762-765.

30.

Dale RB, and Myers D. Proprioceptive neuromuscular
facilitation for trunk mobility and strength. Human
Kinetics. 2009; 14(5): 26-29.

31.

Samukawa M, Hattori M, Sugama N, and Takeda N. The
effects of dynamic stretching on plantar flexor
muscle-tendon tissue properties. Manual Therapy.
2011; 16: 618-622.

32.

Prentice WE. Rehabilitation Techniques for Sports
Medicine and Athletic Training. 5th ed. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill; 2011: 296.

33.

Craig S. Balance: Golf’s invisible key.
September, 2009. 77-88.

34.

Dylla J, and Forrest JL. Stretching and strengthening
for balance and stability: part I. Access. 2006;
20(9): 38-43.

35.

Behm DG, Bambury A, Cahill F, and Power K. Effect of
acute static stretching on force, balance, reaction
time, and movement time. Official Journal of the
American College Sports Medicine. 2004; 36(8): 13971402.

36.

Costa PB, Graves BS, Whitehurst M, and Jacobs PL. The
acute effects of different durations of static
stretching on dynamic balance performance. J Strength
Cond Res. 2009; 23(1):141-147.

Golf World.

60
ABSTRACT
TITLE:

The Effects of Static and Dynamic Stretching
on Balance Measures during the Performance
of a Golf Swing.

RESEARCHER:

Adam Groose, ATC, PES

ADVISOR:

Dr. Thomas F. West

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to examine the
effects of static and dynamic stretching
routines on different balance measures
during the performance of a golf swing, to
provide golfers with a better guide to a
proper warm-up.

METHODS:

Balance measures were recorded by the
Science & Motion BalanceLab®. Subjects
consisted of 19 males from the California
University of Pennsylvania Professional Golf
Management Program and golf team. Two
separate days of testing occurred. On day
1, a static stretching routine was performed
followed by 10 golf swings. On day 2, a
dynamic stretching routine was performed
followed by 10 golf swings. A driver of the
subjects choice was used and there was a
minute rest between each golf swing.

FINDINGS:

Three different balance measures were
recorded. No significant differences were
found between the two stretching conditions
in the balance measures of confidence
ellipse width and height. A significant
difference was found in the balance measure
confidence ellipse angle. The dynamic
stretching routine was found to have a
significant effect on confidence ellipse
angle.

CONCLUSION:

After reviewing the results of this study,
it cannot be accurately concluded as to
which stretching routine is better prior to
performance of a golf swing.