A Comparison Of Two Golf Shoe Designs: Effect Of Perception And .
Lasse V. LockA comparison of two golf shoe designs: Effect of perceptionand biomechanical testing in elite and recreational golfersAuthor: Lasse V. LockSchool of Medicine and Health, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Northern Jutland, Denmark.Sports Science, Master’s Thesis, Group 10605.Article InfoArticle History:Written: September 4th, 2017 – January 5th, 2018.Submitted for the degree of Cand.scient/Master in Sport Sciences January 5th, 2018.Keywords: Golf, club, iron, traction, comfort questionnaire, artificial turf, MOCAP, speed.AbstractPurpose: The study set out to investigate two different golf shoe outer sole configurations in twoindependent stages: A comfort questionnaire and an indoor laboratory test. Methods: Fifteenrecreational and elite players volunteered to participate as subject’s. For stage l, the questionnairegroup, consisting of subjects being both recreational and elite players (age: 27.7 11.3 years;handicap: 7,6 10,7). Subjects were approached on the local golf driving range and tested each pairof ECCO golf shoes before completing the comfort questionnaire. For stage l, each answer andperception of the two different shoes were measured. For stage ll, the indoor laboratory test,consisting of subjects being only elite players (hcp: 4; age: 23.75 0.5 years; height: 1.85 0.05m; body weight: 86.3 5.3 kg). Subjects tested each pair of ECCO golf shoes and completed twentyshots on artificial grass mats in the laboratory setting. Stage ll, considered the independent variablesshoe (2: Soft spike model and hybrid model design); club (2: 3-wood and 5-iron) in relation to thedependent variables, ground reaction forces (Fy Max) in front and back foot and club head speedand ball speed. A two-way ANOVA was used to compare the independent and dependent variablesat a 5% significance level. Results: For stage l, the results indicated that the recreational golfers(hcp 4) tend to choose the hybrid shoe model, while elites (hcp 4) tend to choose the soft spikemodel. Between the subjects participating in the study 73% would choose the hybrid modelcompared to 27% choosing the soft spike model after trying each pair of ECCO shoes. For stagell, no significant difference (p 0.05) exists in ground reaction force (Fy Max) between the twovariables; club and shoe selection. However, a significant difference exists (p 0.05) in simple maineffects maximum and minimum (peak) force generation for the back foot within club selection (ironand 3-wood) and within shoes (soft spike and hybrid) used in the study. No significant differences(p 0.05) exist in club head speed and ball speed between any of the variables. Conclusion: Theresults indicate that the hybrid model seems to be the general favorite amongst subjects in thecomfort questionnaire. The tendency seems to be towards the general population of golfers, whileelites/ professionals prefer the soft spike model. Also, no differences were found in ground reactionforces and club head or ball speed suggesting that the hybrid model could potentially deliver similartraction as the soft spike model and thus not affecting the golf swing or outcome.1
Lasse V. LockIntroductionIt has been estimated that one hundred fiftythousand people in Denmark, and about fiftyfive million people worldwide play the sport ofgolf (1,2). The popularity of the sport is mostlymotivated by the engagement in the naturalenvironments, while being sociable (andactive) with other people. The playing andwalking benefits of the sport helps to improvecardiovascular health and reduce stress.Throughout the game, golf can be played byall ages and skill levels. In golf, handicaps(hcp) are developed over time and representhow many strokes a player will make over thecourse of a round. A lower hcp means a betterplayer. In Denmark, the hcp index goes from54 to 5 and being eligible for playingprofessional tournaments on must acquire ahcp of 4,4 or lower.The game of golf is both a sport of distanceand accuracy. The distance is enhanced bygreater stability, while accuracy is associatedwith greater stability and lesser mobility (3).The biomechanical lower extremity demandsof the golf swing involves two activities:walking and swinging. Walking over thecourse of a round can extend to 8-10kilometers, depending on the length of thecourse. The act of the golf swing is a highlycoordinated, multi-level motion, which can bedifferent for everyone. The traditional swing ismade up by solid stance, posture and gripwhile proper foot action is essential for theswing (4).The swing can be divided into four w through. During the swing, eachphase on the front and back foot performvarious functions. At address, stability iscrucial, while maintaining weight evenlydistributed on both feet, with pressure slightlyon the forefoot and medial of both feet. At thebackswing – the weight is shifted to the backfoot, which allows to create more momentumduring the downswing. However, excessivelateral weight shift may leave a player unstableresulting in sway which decreases power andmay lead to poor ball striking. During thebackswing, forces shift from anterior toposterior in the front foot and posterior toanterior in the back foot. This makes the backfoot heel potentially coming off the ground,which is crucial for allowing full shoulder turn.During the downswing, the back footaccelerates the body’s center of mass towardsthe front foot. The momentum of the swingreestablishes the support of the front footwhich, like address, allows for upcomingcontact with the ball. Ultimately, both feetperform a turning moment which is importantfor the downswing. The increasing groundreactive forces, with optimal weight transferfrom front to back foot increases club-headvelocity, which makes feet-to-ground interfacean important link in the swing performance. Atcontact and follow through, 80% of the bodyweight is shifted to the front foot and as theswing continues, it deaccelerates withpressure finishing on the lateral and heel of thefront foot. At finish, the player should beupright, well balanced and facing the target(5).As mentioned above, the feet play a key rolein completing the golf swing. Good foot actionduring the swing is considered the hallmark ofa trained experienced player. Essential formaintaining good foot action is the choice offootwear when playing the game of golf. Thegolf footwear market has been developingfast, with shoe companies developing lighter,more stable shoes. Historically, golf shoeswhere of the traditional Oxford model withmetal spikes. Nowadays, shoes are comprisedof high-tech lightweight materials, whichprovides less fatigue on the legs during around of golf. Furthermore, recent design hasmade golf shoes like cleats, with technologiesborrowed from football, cricket and baseball.Today, due to mandatory changes within the2
Lasse V. Lockgolf shoe spike requirements, golf shoes arecurrently placed within two categories;Spikeless (hybrid) or athletic (soft spikes) (1).The hybrid shoe is generally lighter, and haveno removeable spikes but has a symmetricalpattern of nubs and ridges on the entire sole.The style is more like sneakers, and the firstmodel was presented in 2010 when worn byprofessional golfer Fred Couples at the USMasters (ECCO Streets Premiers). This hybridgolf shoe style focuses on comfort and styleand the model accounts for currently 40-50%of all golf shoes sold (6). The athletic soft spikegolf shoe has cleats which can be replacedwhen worn out. In addition, they have a highnumber of nubs and ridges around the cleats,which makes traction even greater. In general,the athletic soft spike golf shoe is wider in thefront foot, providing more stability throughoutthe golf swing (6).Since the changes within golf shoerequirements, performance of the newermodels have raised concerns. Studiessuggests that metal spikes along with thealternative soft spikes provide higher tractionforces. Both models provide similar forces forboth maximal force, force generation andcoefficient of friction measures (7). Sinceswitching to the alternative soft spike model,no risk of injury or slippage causing loss ofmomentum, occurs. However, a comparisonbetween the alternative soft spike model andthe hybrid style model, tests performed at theSoft Spikes Advanced Research Center(Raven Golf Club, Phoenix, Arizona) showedthat soft spikes provide 70% more traction inwet conditions and holding 32% longer, whiledry conditions provide 51% more traction andholding 34% longer, when compared to thehybrid style shoe (6,8). However, no publishedrecords exist supporting this.As mentioned earlier, the newer hybrid stylemodel has become popular amongstrecreational golfers. However, it remains to beinvestigated whether the newer hybrid stylegolf shoe can be replaced with the alternativesoft spike model to provide better comfort andprovide the same traction along with reducingrisk of slippage and risk of injury whileswinging and walking.Therefore, the purpose of this study was todetermine if there exists a difference betweenthe alternative soft spike model compared tothe newer hybrid style model. To compareeach shoe, two different experimental stageswere developed. In Stage l, a group ofrecreational and elite players filling out aquestionnaire after the players were given theopportunity to each shoe model on the drivingrange while hitting golf balls. Afterwards eachplayer had to fill out a comfort questionnaire,regarding the shoes, answering specificquestions regarding both shoe models. ForStage ll, to assess shoe performance, a groupof elite players participating were testing theshoes at an indoor laboratory facility wherethey were to hit golf balls while data beingrecorded with Motion Capture (MOCAP)cameras and force plates. During the golfswing this investigation considered theindependent variables shoe (2: Soft spikemodel and hybrid model design); club (2: 3wood and 5-iron) in relation to the dependentvariables, maximum and minimum (peak)ground reaction forces (Fy Max) in front andback foot and club head speed and ball speed.MethodsParticipantsFifteen recreational and elite playersvolunteered to participate as subjects. InStage l, the questionnaire group, consisting offifteen male subjects being both recreationaland elite players. Characteristics were age:27.7 11.3 years; handicap: 7,6 10,7. Stagell, the indoor lab group, four subjects wererecruited from an elite squad from the local golfclub (Aalborg Golf Club) and consisted of3
Lasse V. Locksubjects being only elite players (hcp 4). Allsubjects participating in the study had aDanish Golf Union registered handicap.Following an explanation of the proposedresearch, each subject signed writteninformed consent, reporting they were freefrom any injuries or physical dysfunctions,which may have affected their performance.For Stage ll, the male subject group’s physicalcharacteristics were age: 23.75 0.5 years;height: 1.85 0.05 m; body weight: 86.3 5.3kgApparatusStage l: The players were fitted with the twodistinct ECCO golf shoes, with different outersole configurations. All shoes for the researchwere new and available in size 42 or 44. Eachplayer was using their own golf equipment. Alltests were completed on a driving range usingartificialgrassmats.Thecomfortquestionnaire was constructed with help fromthe ECCO Company production team.Stage ll: The equipment used for the swinganalysis in the biomechanics lab consisted ofa setup with a 4X3 m nylon net to intercept allgolf balls, along with two artificial grass mats.The golf balls used for the test was chosen asthis was a standard choice within all playersparticipating (Titleist Pro-v1, Model 2015).During the golf swing test, each player coulduse their own fitted golf clubs. Two AMTI Forceand Motion (AMTI Optima HPS, Watertown,MA, USA) force plates were used for the swingsequence test to measure ground reactionforces (Fy Max) separately on each foot. Eachforce plate measures peak force at left andright side of the force plate. This giving peakvalues in positive and negative directions (Seefigure 1).Figure 1. Maximum values occur on the left side of thefoot (towards playing direction) while minimum valuesoccur on the right side of the foot (away from playingdirection).The force plates were calibrated to measure aload over the full range of the plate. Thesystem hardware used for MOCAP systemwas Qualisys (OQUS 300,305,310 Cameras,8 in total) along with retro reflective sphericalmarkers used to track measurements of clubhead speed and ball speed. The force platesand cameras were connected to a computer(Dell, Model OptiPlex 5040) where thesoftware Qualisys Track Manager (version2.15) recorded the data.Golf ShoesBoth shoe models were used for stage l and llof the study. The ECCO soft spike model wasconstructed with an advanced cleat systemconsisting of CHAMP Slim-Lok spikes. Alongwith the spikes, the shoe was also fitted withthermo-plastic urethane (TPU) reinforceddots. The ECCO hybrid model wasconstructed with a newer 2018 Tri-Fi-Gripwhich highlight three areas of the outer solewhich has been specifically modified forstability, comfort and durability. The outer soleconfigurations on both models are as shownon figure 2. and 3. All shoes worn during thetests were new to avoid the chance of outersole,spikedegradation,orwearcharacteristics influencing the experimentaloutcome. Each subject was given time to gainfamiliarity with each type of golf shoe model4
Lasse V. Lockthrough playing shots and walking. No timelimit was set by the experimenter.Figure 2. - ECCO BiomGolf Men Hyb rid 3Figure 3. - ECCO BiomGolf G2 Men Soft SpikeExperimental ProcedureThe subjects participating in stage l, thecomfort questionnaire test, (See Appendix 4.3)were individually approached on the golfcourse driving range. Ex/inclusion criteriarequired each player to be a size 42 or 44, asthese were the only sizes available for thestudy. Following provision of consent topartake, each subject had to hit twenty golfballs with each pair of shoes. Afterwards theywere required to complete the comfortquestionnaire regarding the two differentECCO shoes. The questionnaire wasconstructed with help from ECCO Companyproduction team.The subjects participating in stage ll, thekinematic data of the indoor laboratory golfswing test were collected using the QualisysMOCAP system. This is a three-dimensionalmotion analysis system with eight opticalcameras surrounding the subject. Eachcamera was placed at 4 m from the golf teeingarea. A sampling rate of 500 frames persecond was used in this study. To ensure therepeatability of all measurements, all cameraswere calibrated to a capture rate of 250 Hzusing the wand calibration method, accordingto the manufacturer’s guidelines. The cameraswere calibrated to the force plate focused areafor 60 seconds by applying a perpendicularstick with retroreflective spherical markers.Prior to testing, each subject was fitted with 55retroreflective spherical markers placed on thebody (see worksheet 2.1.4). Each club usedwas fitted with 5 retroreflective tape markingson most outward tip of the club face, back ofthe club head and shaft (below grip, middleshaft and hozel). This was done to capturebody and club movement by the MOCAPsystem. Each subject was given a freelychosen number of familiarization swings priorto the actual test, as this was also consideredas a warm-up. During testing, each playeradopted their natural stance to perform a fullswing golf shot with each foot on a force plate.Both force plates were covered with anartificial grass mat, like the ones used on adriving range. Once the golfer had becomeaccustomed to the test environment the playerperformed 5 shots/swings with own 3-woodand 5-iron towards a directional marker set onthe nylon net. Each player was instructed toplay a straight shot as they normally wouldwithout fading or drawing. The outcome ofeach shot was recorded with the QualisysTrack Manager. Club and shoe order wererandomly assigned for each player.Data AnalysisTo analyze the data from the golf swing test atthe indoor laboratory facility, all files inQualisys Track Manager, from each subject,was converted to tsv files giving data for forceplates and retroreflective spherical markers.Each file was analyzed in Microsoft Excel2016 to give maximum and minimum (peak)ground reaction force (Fy Max) data along withvelocity collected from markers set on the clubhead and ball. Force plate data was filteredgiving peak forces for both left and right forceplate in two opposite directions ( -). Data forvelocity was filtered giving highest velocity forclub head before ball impact and highest ballvelocity after impact (mm/s). All velocity datawere converted to km/h.5
Lasse V. LockStatistical AnalysisNormality of the distribution for outcomemeasures was tested using the Shapiro-Wilktest, as this test is more reliable when testing 50 samples. To determine if there were anystatistical difference in mean and standarddeviation (SD) a two-way ANOVA test wasused to compare the independent variablesand the dependent variables (2X2) at a 5%significance level and used to calculate themean differences and SD to further illustratethe data. The data were analyzed usingStatistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS)version 24.ResultsStage l: Comfort QuestionnaireIn the questionnaire, which was handed out tothe subjects after playing with each golf shoemodel, they answered specific questionsregarding their previous experience in golfshoes and their perception of the current golfshoes tested in this study. 60% of theresponses indicated that a hybrid shoe wouldbe their preferred choice, if subjects were topick between each of the two shoe models,regardless of brand. Before beginning oftesting each pair of ECCO golf shoes, subjectswere asked to answer the first Likert scaleregarding general shoe characteristics. Figure4 below showing all subjects preferredcharacteristics from 1 (least important) to 5(most important) in their current golf shoechoice. Comfort, breathability and fit of shoeare highest ranked characteristics perceivedwithin all subjects with weight of shoe, outersole configurations (hybrid and soft spike) andcushioning material being the lowest ranked.General Shoe CharacteristicsIndividual values (1-5)80706050403020100Shoe CharacteristicsSub 1Sub 2Sub 3Sub 4Sub 5Sub 6Sub 7Sub 9Sub 10Sub 11Sub 12Sub 13Sub 14Sub 15Sub 8Figure 4. General shoe characteristics amongst all sub jects (1 b eing least important – 5 b eing most important).6
Lasse V. LockAfter trying the two ECCO shoe models,subjects were asked to answer the secondLikert scale. Figure 5 below showing allsubjects preferred characteristics, if they wereto buy a new pair of golf shoes, from 1 (leastimportant) to 5 (most important). Quality and fitof shoe being their most preferredcharacteristics in the buying new golf shoes,with price and brand being the lowest ranked.Individual vlaues (1--5)Most important characteristics when buying new golf experienceFitQualityGeneral Shoe CharacteristicsSub 1Sub 2Sub 3Sub 4Sub 5Sub 6Sub 7Sub 9Sub 10Sub 11Sub 12Sub 13Sub 14Sub 15Sub 8Figure 5. General shoe characteristics if sub jects where to b uy a pair of new golf shoes (1 b eing least important – 5 b eingmost important).After finishing the test of the shoes, eachsubject was asked which of the two ECCOshoe models they would now prefer. Figure 6below showing the general tendency being 73% in favorite of the hybrid shoe model withthe soft spike shoe only preferred amongst 27% of all subjects.Shoe model most prefer after testingDifference in %8060402001Shoe ModelHybrid ShoeSoft Spike ShoeFigure 6. Most preferred shoe model after sub jects tried b oth pair of ECCO golf shoes.7
Lasse V. LockStage ll: Indoor Lab Testshoe selection. However, a significantdifference exists in main effects for maximumand minimum (peak) force generation for theback foot within club selection (iron and 3wood) and within shoes (soft spike and hybrid)used in the study. The results also suggestthat the general tendency is that more force isgenerated with the hybrid model compared tothe soft spike model. Furthermore, results alsoshow a tendency towards the left footgenerating the highest amount of force on theleft side of the foot during the golf swing,however, no significant differences existbetween the two factors.Force PlateMeasurements for maximal ground reactionforce (Fy) (table 1 & figure 6) all shown below.Table 1 shows mean values for all subjects inmax force generation for the five shots,recorded in N for front foot (left) and back foot(right) with both iron and club while wearingeither the hybrid or soft spike model. Averagemaximum (peak) values are highest measuredon left side of the foot, and average minimumvalues are highest measured on the right sideof the foot.Results show no significant difference(p 0.05) between the two factors; club andTable 1.HybridMean ClubHybridMean IronSpikeMean ClubSpikeMean IronMax Right75.57 (42.78) *46.82 (32.63) *56.54 (42.28) *29.76 (19.95) *Min Right-10.46 (25.23)*5.94 (13.39) *4.85 (20.06) *10.68 (8.64) *Max Left52.99 (23.82)46.17 (20.70)52.74 (19.30)46.05 (20.72)Min Left-102.86(20.11)-86.92 (29.44)-94.11 (17.92)-99.66 (29.96)Tab le 1. Fy force generation (Right is b ack foot, left is front foot in playing direction). Data are means ( SD)* p 0.05Spike ClubSpike IronHybrid ClubHybrid IronTest Spike ClubSpike IronHybrid ClubHybrid IronTest Spike ClubSpike IronHybrid ClubHybrid IronTest Spike ClubSpike IronHybrid ClubHybrid Iron140120100806040200-20-40-60-80-100-120-140Test Force (N)Individual mean values for all subjectsClub & ShoeRight MaxRight MinLeft MaxLeft MinFigure 7. Individual maximum and minimum values for front and b ack foot. Each value is average of 5 shots hit witheither club or iron and with either hyb rid or soft spike shoe.8
Lasse V. LockClub & Ball SpeedFigure 8 below shows mean club head and ballspeed between the five shots, recorded inKm/h. No significant difference exists betweenany of the factors. Results indicate that thehighest club speed and ball speed isgenerated with the 3-wood compared to the 5iron, which is to be expected. Furthermore, nosignificant difference (p 0.05) exist within thevalues between shoe models or club selectionfor the club head speed and ball speed with aslight increase of 1% in club speed and 2%in ball speed with the spike shoe compared tothe hybrid shoe for both iron and club. Thisindicates that no apparent effects existbetween the hybrid shoe or the soft spike shoewhen hitting golf shots with either a 5-iron or3-wood.300250200150100500Test Subject 1Hybrid IronSpike IronHybrid ClubSpike ClubTest Subject 2Hybrid IronSpike IronHybrid ClubSpike ClubTest Subject 3Hybrid IronSpike IronHybrid ClubSpike ClubTest Subject 4Hybrid IronSpike IronHybrid ClubSpike ClubSpeed (Km/h)Individual club and ball speedClub & ShoeClub Speed Km/hBall Speed Km/hFigure 8. Individual means for club head- and b all speed for all sub jects.DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to determine theeffects of two different golf shoe models on twoseparate stages involving stage l: Comfortquestionnaire and stage ll: Indoor laboratorytest measuring maximal ground reaction forcealong with club head speed and ball speed.The two golf shoes that were assessed were2017 ECCO soft spike golf shoe and a newer2018 ECCO hybrid golf shoe. The studyfocused on whether the two-different outersole configurations show a significantdifference and if the newer hybrid shoepotentially can replace the more traditional softspike shoe for better comfort while stillproviding identical traction during the golfswing. The results revealed that for thefootwear no significant difference existsbetween the two golf shoe models or the clubselection. However, main effects for maximumand minimum forces in the right foot withinshoe models and club selection showsignificant differences. Furthermore, nosignificant difference was found within club orball speed when comparing shoe models andclub selection. Club head speed and ballspeed showed no significant differences inspeed (km/h) between all subjects whenswitching between shoe models or clubs.Comfort QuestionnaireAt the end of testing, 11 out of 15 respondersreported that the ECCO hybrid shoe modelwould be their preference when choosing agolf shoe. The few subjects not preferring thisgolf shoe model further elaborated as to whythis was the case. Shoe design was the reasonwhy both shoe models were not preferred,9
Lasse V. Lockalong with their general tendency towards softspikes. Werd et al 2010 reported that elite andprofessionals in general do not tend to go forversatility when wearing a hybrid golf shoe asopposed to the traditional soft spike golf shoeproviding maximal traction. Approximatelyonly 5% of all elites and professionals wear thehybrid shoe style (1). The few subjects in thisstudy not preferring the hybrid shoe model andchoosing more towards the soft spike shoe ingeneral, were all elite/professional playerswith hcp 0 (1). This indicates that eliteplayers and professionals tend to choosetraction and weight in a golf shoe as opposedto the versatility the hybrid shoe modelprovides.For the 11 out of 15 subjects, all reported thatfor general shoe characteristics, comfort is thehighest valued. Their preferred golf shoemodel was the hybrid shoe model. Regardlessof brand, all 11 of these subjects reported thattheir current golf shoe also was within thehybrid/street style model across variedbrands. Furthermore, all 11 subjects wouldconsider switching to the ECCO hybrid modelin the future. This indicates that between alarger width of skill levels and ages, the hybridmodel seems to be the shoe model most of theindividuals would select.Ground Reaction ForceThis research emphasized the demands offorce on the front and back feet/shoescomparing two outer sole shoe configurations.Williams and Sih (1998) tested three differentgolf shoes on artificial turf, however, theirstudy tested older metal spikes friction alongwith smooth soled shoes and soft spike shoes(9). Their study revealed that soft spikesprovided less friction than the metal spikesshoes while smooth soled shoes being thelowest in producing friction. Their findingsrevealed that the highest amount of forcebeing produced at the front foot. Worsfold et al2006 reported the same observations (10).This finding is similar with the results found inthis study, revealing that the left foot generatesa higher amount of force in the medial/lateral(Fy) direction. Furthermore, Worsfold et al2006, assessed the linear foot and medial andlateral whole feet friction of different shoe-soleinterfaces (smooth, metal and soft spike).Their results supported previous findings fromWilliams and Sih (1998) and Slavin andWilliams (1995) highlighting limited friction ofsmooth soled shoes (9,11). Interestingly, nosignificant differences were identified betweenmetal and soft spikes shoes. In terms ofmaximal force, force generation andcoefficient of friction, both metal shoes andsoft spike shoes produced similar forces.Furthermore, Worsfold et al (2007) found thatouter sole shoe design did not significantlyincrease ground reaction forces on naturalgrass (7). However, the main determinant offorce measures was the type of club used.This means that the shorter clubs used (irons)had a greater force generation compared toclubs(driver/3-wood).However,themediolateral force generated across each footin both metal and soft spike when using thedriver was greater than when using the irons.This would mean that the soft spike shoe,replacing the metal spike shoe, would notplace the golfer at risk of slippage, loss ofmomentum during the swing sequence, orinjury.Nowadays, since the mandatory changes ingolf shoes, soft spikes are considered the‘golden standard’. Since the newer hybridmodel has been introduced to the market in2011, the Soft Spike Advanced ResearchCenter tested the newer hybrid models againstthe soft spike models. Their findings supportedclaims that soft spikes provided 70% moretraction in wet conditions and 51% moretraction in dry conditions. However, nopublished records exist regarding specifics ofthese findings. However, companies likeECCO, Nike, FootJoy etc. claim that the newer10
Lasse V. Lockgeneration of hybrid golf shoes providetraction like soft spike shoes found on themarket. Even with the small sample sizeanalyzed in this preliminary study, someinteresting trends were found. Even thoughnot significant, the ECCO hybrid shoes tendsto provide the same, if not higher, amount ofmedial/lateral force on both the front and backfoot in four elite golfers (hcp 4).between ball speed and club speed. Thesubjects Smash Factor in the present studyseen in table 2 below:Table 2.SmashFactorIronSmashFactorClubTest Subject 11.421.35Club & Ball SpeedTest Subject 21.391.43Several other studies have investigated thedriving distance in relation to the club headspeed and ball speed (12,13,14). However, nostudies have investigated the impact of thelower body, especially the implication of thefeet, during the golf swing because of thepower and forces the legs create. A review byTorres-Ronda et al (2011) analyzed differentapproaches to golf performance and theimprovement of muscle strength (15). Severalstudies suggested that when training hip-legand trunk power as well as grip strength isespecially relevant for golf performanceimprovement (16,17). Furthermore, thesestudies also investigated the difference in hcpand found that golfers playing from scratch(zero hcp) or better had a positive correlationbetween skill and their muscle strength. Thissuggests that golfers with low hcp utilize theirskill/strength more efficiently, making strengthtraining of the lower body crucial to hitting theball further (15). When compared to thepresent study, no apparent effec
distinct ECCO golf shoes, with different outer sole configurations. All shoes for the research were new and available in size 42 or 44. Each player was using their own golf equipment. All tests were completed on a driving range using artificial grass mats. The comfort questionnaire was constructed with help from the ECCO Company production team.
Golf, Golf GTI, Golf GTD Edição 11/2013 Manual de instruções: Golf, Golf GTI, Golf GTD Data de fechamento: 19.08.2013 . os modelos e versões do Golf. Você encontra um índice remissivo em ordem alfabética no final do manual. Um índice de abreviaturas ao final do manual
Golf, Golf GTI, Golf GTD, Golf eTSI, Golf R Notice d'Utilisation. Page 2 sur 789 Merci de votre confiance Votre Volkswagen est un véhicule doté des innovations technologiques les plus récentes et possède de nombreux équipements de confort dont vous souhaitez certainement profiter lors de la conduite
Der neue Golf GTI Exterieur Fahrwerk Interieur Räder & Motoren Der neue Golf GTD & Golf GTD Variant Exterieur Interieur Räder & Motor Infotainment Connectivity Assistenzsysteme Volkswagen Zubehör Volkswagen Lifestyle Lackierungen & Sitzbezüge Service 04 06 08 10 12 14 18 20 22 26 29 30 32 34 36 38 Der neue Golf GTI, Golf GTD & Golf GTD .
Manual de instruções Golf, Golf GTI, Golf GTD Edição 11/2013 Manual de instruções: Golf, Golf GTI, Golf GTD Data de fechamento: 19.08.2013 Português Brasil: 11.2013
The new Golf 03 Contents. 04 The new Golf 06 Exterior 08 Interior 10 Infotainment 14 Connectivity 16 Driver's assistance systems 18 The new Golf Trendline and Comfortline 20 The new Golf Highline 22 Wheels 24 Paint 26 Upholstery 28 Combinations 30 Technical specification 38 Technology and Dimensions 40 The new Golf Estate 42 The new Golf GTD and GTI 44 The new Golf GTD 46 The new Golf GTI .
RUTGERS GOLF TURF MANAGEMENT Alumni who staff Golf Digest's Top 100 American Golf Courses NEW YORK Bethpage State Park - Farmingdale, NY (Rank #5 in Golf Digest's Top 100 American Public Golf Courses) Andrew R. Wilson - Class of 2000 Saratoga National Golf Course ‐ Saratoga Springs, NY (Rank #91 in Golf Digest's Top 100 American Public Golf Courses)
Hampton Cove Golf Club The Shoals Golf Club Mobile Magnolia Grove Golf Club Montgomery Cambrian Ridge Golf Club Capital City Club Capitol Hill Golf Club Highland Oaks Golf Club Shenandoah Hunting Club Wynlakes Golf Newport& Country Club San A L A S K A Anchorage Petroleum Club Anchorage** Aliso A R I Z O N A Phoenix Anthem Golf & Country Club
Nuevo Golf GTI, Golf GTD y Golf Variant GTD . Las imágenes de las siguientes páginas muestran equipamientos opcionales con sobreprecio. Índice 04 06 08 10 12 14 18 20 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Nuevo Golf GTI, Golf GTD y Golf Variant GTD - Índice 03 Nuevo Golf GTI. Consumo de combustible en l/100 km: 6,3-6,6 (combinado).
