Open Foot Stance Reduces Lead Knee Joint Loading During Golf Swing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foot stance and club type's relationship with lead knee joint biomechanics and possible involvement with injury incidences in amateur golfers have not been evaluated. This study included 16 male right-handed amateur golfers who performed golf swings with 2 different foot stances (straight and open) using 4 different club types (driver, 3 iron, 6 iron, and 9 iron) while standing on 2 force plates in a motion capture laboratory. A custom program calculated the kinematics and kinetics of the lead knee. Overall, the open stance reduced most translations, rotations, forces, and torques of the lead knee in all 4 club types when compared with the straight stance. The open stance reduced the rotation motion (-28%), compressive force (-5%), and rotation torque (-9%) when compared with the straight stance, which are the highest contributors to grinding of cartilage. The driver club had significantly larger values in most translations, rotations, forces, and torques when compared among the 4 club types. The open stance reduced the rotation motion, compressive force, and rotation torque in the lead knee joint compared with the straight stance. Lead knee joint biomechanics should be monitored to reduce injury in amateur golfers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".