Practices and perceptions of strength and conditioning training in female golf: A cross-sectional survey study of high-level amateur players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to ascertain an in-depth understanding of current practices and perceptions of S&C training in high-level amateur female golfers. A cross-sectional, explorative survey study was constructed which asked questions relating to four key areas: i) general participant information, ii) current strength and conditioning (S&C) practices, iii) the perceived influence of S&C training on golf performance, and iv) knowledge and awareness of S&C. Results showed that the majority of female players had participated in some form of S&C training in the past, with the majority believing that clubhead speed and carry distance were the primary golfing metrics which could be positively impacted. More specifically, 91-97% of the players "Strongly agreed" or "Agreed" that the key physical characteristics for golf were strength and power for the lower and upper body, and flexibility. Interestingly, 58% of the players believed that S&C training should mimic the movement of the golf swing, which based off current evidence, is not how drive metrics and ultimately shots gained, can be maximised. This survey study provides useful information relating to the practices and perceptions of S&C training in high-level female amateur players and areas where education may be able to further advance player understanding of physical preparation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".