The Value of the Titleist Performance Institute’s Movement Screen

A hallmark of The Titleist Performance Institute is a concept they refer to as “The Body-Swing Connection.”  Simply, the type of swing that a golfer can perform is dependent on what their body can physically do.  So, the swing is connected to the body’s available strength, balance, flexibility, coordination, etc.  As we already know, proficient golfers score better on physical performance tests than high handicap golfers which should be no surprise because it makes sense that being stronger, more flexible, and having more balance would help improve your mechanics.  Click —> HERE for an article I wrote on this topic.

Does this surprise you?!
Does this surprise you?!

With this understanding, TPI has created a movement screen that is specific to golfers.  The goal of the screen is to identify physical limitations that may hinder golf performance and potentially increase risk of injury.   This should be of interest to any golfer because of the high prevalence of injuries in professional and recreational golfers.  Check out this overview of golf injuries —> HERE.  Furthermore, understanding a relationship between key movement patterns and a golfer’s mechanics can help tailor a training program to maximize golf performance.  To view the TPI movement screen click —> HERE.

Hopefully it is easy to see that physical limitations can hinder the golfer from performing an “optimal” swing, and the movement screen gives us a holistic view of mobility and potential stability deficits in specific areas of the body.  However, do we learn anything about the golf swing by putting someone through the movement screen?  In other words, can we predict swing faults based on the results of an athlete’s movement screen?  The answer is YES!

In a 2014 study by Gulgin et al., the authors set to investigate The TPI movement screen’s relationship to golf swing faults.  Interestingly, the authors were the first to administer formal research on this topic even though TPI has suggested several correlations in the past.  Several finding were the same, but some of the findings did not validate TPI’s previous claims.

Before we dive into the study, check out the list of the body swing connections presented by The Titelist Performance Institute below. This list helps make the connection between the physical screen and the Big Twelve swing characteristics that may result from a failed test.  TPI also is forthcoming with the fact that they call these swing “characteristics” because they report that many successful golfers have these characteristics.  Before reading ahead, click —> HERE for examples of the swing characteristics.

 STANDING TESTS

  • Pelvic Tilt – S-Posture, Early Extension, Reverse Spine Angle
  • Pelvic Rotation – Over the Top, Casting, Scooping, Chicken Winging, Slide, Sway, Hanging Back
  • Torso Rotation – Loss of Posture, Flat Shoulder Plane, Early Extension, Sway, Slide
  • Overhead Deep Squat – Early Extension, Loss of Posture
  • Toe Touch – C-Posture, Too Much Knee Flex, Loss of Posture
  • 90/90 – Loss of Posture, Flying Elbow, Chicken Winging, Early Extension
  • Single Leg Balance – Sway, Slide, Hanging Back, Loss of Posture, Early Extension, Reverse Spine Angle
  • Lat Test / Reach, Roll and Lift – Loss of Posture, Flat Shoulder Plane, Early Extension
  • Lower Quarter Rotation – Sway, Slide, Reverse Spine, Hanging Back, Early Extension
  • Cervical Test – Loss of Posture, Early Extension, Reverse Spine Angle
  • Wrist Patterns – Casting, Over-the-Top, Chicken Winging, Loss of Posture

SEATED TEST

  • Seated Trunk Rotation – Loss of Posture, Flat Shoulder Plane, Reverse Spine Angle, Early Extension, Sway, Slide

SUPINE TEST

  • Bridge w/ Leg Extension – All 12 possible
Loss of Posture as presented by TPI.  It is important to know how to diagnose it, but it is also important to know which physical limitations promote it!
Loss of Posture as presented by TPI. It is important to know how to recognize it during the swing, but it is also important to know which physical limitations contribute to it!

Now lets get back to the study.

The authors looked at thirty-six subjects who were instructed on how to perform each of the tests in the TPI movement screen.  After, they were instructed to hit several golf balls with their 5-iron while being recorded.  The video recording was performed on a commercial software program that had the ability to pause their swing at any point which allowed the authors to identify swing faults.  The results are as follows:

  • The most frequent physical test limitations were overhead deep squat, toe touch, single leg balance, and bridge with leg extension.
  • The most common golf swing faults associated with those physical tests were early hip extension, loss of posture, and slide in the downswing.
  • A golfer who was unable to perform an overhead deep squat is 2x more likely to early hip extend in the golf swing, and 54% of golfers who failed the deep squat demonstrated a loss of posture.  A golfer who was unable to perform a toe touch is 6x more likely to hip extend.  A golfer who is unable to balance on their left leg is 3x more likely to early extend, lose posture, and slide during the swing.  A golfer who is unable to bride on their right side is 5x more likely to early hip extend, 6x more likely to lose posture, and 2x more likely to slide on the downswing.

The authors went on to discuss some incite into why they feel this is important for the golf swing.

  • Early hip extension does not allow the golfer to drop the arms into the proper slot during the downswing, and thus may shots may get “blocked” or hooked.  Furthermore, early hip extension may affect one’s ability to properly rotate their hips during the swing which may cause a slide during the downswing.
  • Loss of posture is an indicator of an inefficient golf swing because this makes the golfer’s ability to return the club on plane less likely.
  • A Slide makes it difficult to stabilize the lower body during the down swing which takes away power from the upper body or transfer of momentum.  This lateral shift or slide generates a feeling up the club being behind the golfer and makes it difficult to square the face in relation to the swing path.

The authors concluded that the physical limitations that relate to swing characteristics should be addressed by the fitness and/or medical professional to prevent the golfer from swinging with improper mechanics.

Regardless of how the findings of the study compare to TPI’s previous list, it is important to know that the study used a small sample size (36 subjects), so further investigation is warranted to be able to generalize findings and validate Gulgin et. al’s work.

However, there is a take home message!  Both the study and TPI agree that there is a clear connection between physical limitations including flexibility, strength, and balance and the ability to perform proper golf swing mechanics.  This illustrates yet again a huge reason why a full evaluation of each golfer (including a movement screen) is of utmost importance to optimize performance and injury prevention.

 

References

Gulgin, HR, Schulte, BC, Crawley, AA. Correlation of Titleist Performance Institute (TPI) Level 1 Movement Screen and Golf Swing Faults. J Strength Cond Res 28(2): 534-539, 2014.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Value of the Titleist Performance Institute’s Movement Screen

  1. It’s a pity that the researchers didn’t look for a correlation between the 12 tests and the club head speed. If they would have, I’d think they would a found a strong one between the Seated Trunk Rotation Test and that speed. Data obtained from a large number of Tour pros and amateurs, show that the trunk rotation (the X-factor, which is the difference between pelvis rotation and shoulder girdle rotation at the top of the backswing) of the former on average is between 29 and 34 degrees greater.

    Like

    • Thanks for the comment, Frank. I hope you are finding the site informative. In regards to your comment, I agree that conceptually this would make sense in regards to swing width and potential optimization of the myotatic stretch reflex (stretch shortening). However, I believe that the aim of the TPI golf screen is to determine potential risk factors as opposed to performance measures. Are you involved with research or know of any that correlates the x-factor to CHS? To my knowledge, we know from several authors including Sell et. al, that greater flexibility correlates to lower handicaps, but not CHS directly. In fact, research from Gordon et. al, suggest otherwise. In their article from 2009, they found, “Rotational trunk flexibility did not show a statistically significant relationship with CHS, which may indicate that the players with high swing speeds and low flexibility were still able to swing the club over a great enough distance to generate maximum speed. This finding is in agreement with that of Doan et al. (6) who used golfers of a similar standard to those in the present study.” I was surprised by this finding, but looking at world long drive athletes it is interesting that most lift their lead heel during the backswing which would in theory minimize the need for a large x-factor. I am indifferent to the importance of the x-factor from a teaching standpoint as I am a physio and S&C, so teaching is out of my scope; however, it appears it may be more important for injury prevention than CHS. What are your thoughts?

      Like

  2. Hey Luke,

    Good to see you’re a physio as well (I hadn’t looked at your profile yet)! I am, too, (in The Netherlands) and I’ve noticed that non-physios often lack in-depth/detailed knowledge on human biomechanical matters. Plus, I have a science background as well — from 2001 to 2006 I’ve been an almost full-time literature reviewer, even though of just medical affairs. We should therefore be having very interesting exchanges of thoughts and resources, I’d think! 🙂

    To begin with the correlation between X-Factor and golf swing performance. I came across this video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvEzEYl0Re0. In it, based on what I assume data measured with the K-Vest and/or Golf Biodynamics system (so, accurate), it is said that the average amateur has an X-Factor of 40 degrees, and the average Tour pro one of 74….

    That is a humongous difference, don’t you think? Even if we would add 5 degrees to the amateurs’ average due to the possible lack of X-Factor Stretch, in turn due to lack of correct kinematic sequence. Add to that the very strong correlation between CHS and handicap, as found by Fradkin et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15712503), and see why I would expect a very meaningful correlation between CHS and X-Factor.

    You wrote that Sell et al could not correlate greater (torso) flexibility directly to CHS, but I don’t read that in the abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076270)? Perhaps in the full text (see later)?

    A small but important side step: regarding subject selection, the study design by Sell et al is the perfect one, I’d think: golfers with handicaps below 20, down to below 0. The reason is that one then largely excludes the ‘elbow benders’. I usually book alone and thus have played with hundreds of other people, and I generally see that those who bend their lead elbow early in the backswing do not master the basic golf swing movement (triple rotation [pelvis, thoracolumbar spine and shoulder girdle], combined with the L movement of the lead arm [straight elbow, cocked and late decocking wrists]). And that those below hc 20 do master that, in principle.

    Another study that found a significant correlation between X-Factor and (ball) speed was the one by Chu et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20845215). So, it is puzzling why Gordon et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19620901) and Don et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16503694) did not find a significant correlation. Subject selection, which would allow for too little differences to be statistically significant? Difference between trunk (= pelvic plus thoracolumbar) rotation ROM versus X-factor, which includes shoulder girdle ROM? I don’t know yet, apart from that the CHS of course depends on muscle power and co-ordination (including kinematic sequence) as well.

    Would you happen to have access to the full texts of the articles we’re discussing? That might help a lot. Here’s my e-mail address: f[DOT]conijn[AT]gmail[DOT]com.

    Regarding the swings of the long-drive champs, I analyzed the swing of Carl Wolter yesterday. And I get the distinct impression that he is lifting his lead heel not to get more pelvic back swing rotation, but to be able to plant it later so that he can get more powerful derotation. And/or to protect his lead hip joint from excessive inner rotation at the swing’s end position. But I’d have to analyze the swings of more of those champs.

    Hope to hear from you! 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s