Compares swing plane biomechanics in low-handicap golfers, suggesting training for optimization.
Objective To compare swing plane biomechanics between the driver and 7-iron in golf and elucidate the kinematic and dynamic mechanisms underlying swing plane formation. Methods Sixteen male low-handicap golfers were recruited. A 3D motion capture system and two force plates were used to simultaneously record swing data for the driver and 7-iron. Swing plane angle, torso and pelvic angle, center of mass displacement, and ground reaction force (GRF) parameters were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using paired t-tests, correlation analysis, and SPM {t}. Results The driver showed a significantly smaller tilt angle than the 7-iron across all phases (p < 0.001), and a significantly smaller azimuth angle during the release-acceleration phase (p < 0.001). During the backswing, the 7-iron tilt angle was negatively correlated with torso rotation ROM (r = −0.701) and pelvic rotation ROM (r = −0.730), whereas the driver exhibited greater torso and pelvic rotation ROM than the 7-iron (both p < 0.05). During the release-acceleration phase, the driver tilt angle was positively correlated with pelvic forward tilt ROM (r = 0.850). SPM analysis further showed that the driver had a significantly smaller torso side tilt angle than the 7-iron during 0%–89% swing cycle (p = 0.001). During the downswing to follow through, the driver tilt angle was negatively correlated with AP RGRFmax (r = −0.805), whereas the 7-iron tilt angle was positively correlated with ML LGRFmax (r = 0.633). In addition, the driver exhibited significantly greater AP RGRF during 0%–5%, 37%–62%, and 83%–89% swing cycles, and significantly smaller ML LGRF during 0%–18% and 84%–93% swing cycles, compared with the 7-iron (p < 0.05). Conclusion The driver relies on rotation of the torso and pelvis, combined with power generation from the rear, to create a flat swing plane, while the 7-iron maintains a steep and highly consistent plane through body posture control and front-side braking. Training should focus on strengthening the corresponding biomechanical capabilities to optimize the stability of swing plane.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: