The Effect of Dynamic and Static Stretching on Golf Driving Performance (P3)
Descriptive statistics were performed to establish if there were any notable diﬀerences between the dynamic and static warm-up protocols. A relationship between shot accuracy and distance was established in the form of a performance index. Paired t-tests were applied and a null hypothesis was assumed between the two stretching protocols. Paired t-tests were performed to reject or accept each of the driving performance variables. Statistical significance was set to
P = 0.05.
Within participants, there was a significant diﬀerence between driving distance after performing the dynamic stretch and static stretch (P = 0.012). With regards to driving accuracy, there was a signifcant diﬀerence between participants after the dynamic and static warm up (P = 0.049). Within participants, the driving distance coefcient of variation after the dynamic and static stretch protocols were – range: 2.55% – 7.09% and range: 1.88% – 7.37% respectively.
Also within each participant, there was a greater variability in the shot accuracy afer the dynamic stretch protocol (Mean (SD): 55.77 (9.29) %) compared with the static stretch protocol (Mean (SD): 49.83 (12.18) %). Te results showed no significant diﬀerences between the angle of deviation after the administration of both stretching
protocols (P = 0.660).
In general, all the participants declared a high level of good clubface contact with the golf ball after stretching. The diﬀerence between the clubface contact with the golf ball after stretching was insignificant (P = 0.064). Te data indicate that the participants have a 78.3% chance of generating solid contact with the clubface and ball afer performing the dynamic stretch. The data also suggests that the same group of participants have a 70% chance of generating solid contact with the clubface and ball after performing the static stretch.
All participants produced a low shot accuracy distance index (≤ 0.04) after both stretching protocols. The results showed a high level of symmetry with respect to the distance and shot accuracy performance indicators (Table 2, Table 3).
The results of the present study demonstrate that DS could significantly increase driving distance and accuracy in comparison to SS. However, no significant diﬀerence was displayed in club contact with the ball between the dynamic and static stretching protocols. Although no control participants (i.e. performing task without the incorporation of either a DS or SS technique) were involved with the study, the above enhancements have the potential to improve total golf performance. The results of the present study support the findings of previous research comparing dynamic and
static stretching. A considerable amount of studies report, dynamic stretching increases ROM in specific muscle groups and / or enhances sporting performance [16,20,21,27]. Fletcher and Jones (2004) report that a dynamic warm-up protocol significantly increased 20m sprint performance within trained rugby union players over static stretching . Yamaguchi et al. (2007) also report an improvement in peak power output on a leg extension exercise after dynamic but not static stretching .
The results of the SS are in agreement with many previous studies. Research studies on SS often resulted in force production loss prior to competition, thereby having a negative eﬀect on performance [28– 30]. Young et al. (2001) reported that static stretching had an adverse eﬀect on maximal strength exercise . Wallmann et al. (2012)
also reported that sprint performance showed the greatest improvement without stretching. Joke et al. (2007) conﬂicts with these researchers, as they demonstrated static stretching in isolation improves jump height performance.