The golf and strength and conditioning coach interface: A model to optimise performance support for golfers

Abstract

The benefits of strength and conditioning (S&C) for golf are well established in the empirical scientific evidence base. While more longitudinal training studies are required, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed the viability of S&C for golfers, particularly for improving clubhead speed, a critical performance determinant. Golfer support is also evolving, whereby the historic “team” of golfer and golf coach are expanded. Elite golfers seek additional coaching from various sport science disciplines including S&C in the quest for sustained optimal performance. However, until recently, how S&C integrates within an overall golf plan had not been considered. Our research addressed this knowledge gap. This article is the first to synthesise these findings, make practical recommendations for golfers and their support team and provide suggestions for future research. The article highlights a continued need for improved communication between S&C coach, golf coach, and golfer. The golfer's wants and needs are not always aligned to those of the golf coach and the qualities the S&C coach needs to possess vary depending on the perceptions and practices of the golf coach and/or golfer. The S&C coach also needs to be cognisant of their varying overall impact on performance potential in a highly technical sport.

Part 1 – Rationale for S&C in golf

Introduction

The highest performance levels in golf are represented by elite amateur competition and by the various professional tours. The golfers who perform on these tours are known colloquially as “touring professionals” or “tour pros”. Although difficult to calculate, a reasonable estimate is that internationally for men's golf, the total number of touring professionals, either on main or developmental tours is around 3000 (nine main tours + development tours with 200–250 players per tour). There are fewer female tours worldwide by comparison with approximately seven main tours and three development tours, ¹ with a reasonable estimate of ∼1500 golfers on these. Considering the total number of golfers is ∼80 million worldwide, ² the chances of becoming a touring professional are exceptionally low. Consequently, golfers attempting to reach these performance levels utilise various strategies to optimise the likelihood of achievement, of which, strength and conditioning (S&C) training has become widely adopted in recent years. ³

Golf has traditionally maintained a status as a game of skill rather than a sport requiring solely heightened athleticism, which has been stated by the Royal and Ancient (R&A), golf's law maker. ² Despite this, early adopters of S&C for golf demonstrated that physical training could support and possibly improve golf performance. Possibly the earliest publicly known example of physical training and its benefits for golf performance was from Frank Stranhan, a successful American golfer. ⁴ A case study showed that his performance on the golf course could be enhanced with strength training. Stranahan advocated for S&C and was a regular winner on the high-performance amateur golf circuit in the 1940s and 1950s. Stranahan had a structured training plan and utilised his knowledge and prior experience as a competitive weightlifter to support his physical training. ⁴ In more recent times, athletic golfers such as Gary Player and Tiger Woods significantly raised the profile of physical conditioning for golfers. Rory McIlroy and Bryson Dechambeau in the men's game, and Lexi Thompson and Nelly Korda in the women's game regularly compete for the highest prizes and promote their workouts via social media.

It is reasonable to contend that regular engagement with a well-structured and rationalised S&C programme can develop golfers’ physicality to support better golf. However, there are limitations to the role S&C plays in golf performance. The strongest and most well-conditioned golfer, if lacking in technical skill, or tactical understanding of the sport, will invariably perform poorly. However, in high-performance golf, there will exist a greater homogeneity with regards golf skill and tactical acuity, and when this is the case, small improvements in other aspects of the golfer's overall ability, such as physicality and drive distance, and preventing injuries (leading to better availability and therefore increased opportunities to play and perform at tournaments) may be a determining factor for successful golf performance.

The overt aim of this paper is to put forward a performance support model for golfers and their multidisciplinary support team. The corresponding aims to enable this are to: 1) rationalise S&C in the model as a methodological approach for supporting the development of golfers. 2) to describe the challenges around integrating S&C within a golfer's schedule. 3) to offer recommendations for practitioners in the field to optimise their support of golf athletes. This will be achieved by describing, analysing, and critiquing contemporary evidence on the topics as well as the authorship groups’ experience of planning and integration processes for S&C within the sport and supporting high performance golfers to achieve their goals.

S&C for golf

The principal mechanism (with the strongest empirical evidence base) by which S&C training can support golfers is through improving clubhead speed and subsequently drive distance.^5,6 It is known that greater ball displacement from the tee is critical to overall performance. ⁷ In the USA, mean drive distance on the PGA tour increased by 24 yards between 1992 (260 yards) and 2003 (286 yards). ⁸ More recent evidence demonstrated drive distances have continued to increase, with the European Tour group mean being 295 yards in 2019, ⁹ up from 280 yards in 2002 ¹⁰ and the PGA Tour average being 303 yards in 2025. ¹¹ Mark Broadie, creator of the “Strokes Gained” system ¹² demonstrated that a 20-yard increase in drive distance for a PGA Tour player equates to an approximate 0.75 shot improvement per round, or 3–4 shots per typical four round tournament. ¹³

Some of these changes will have resulted from improved ball and club technology, but the R&A introduced rules for manufacturing processes and materials used in golf equipment to “bring to an end” the impact of distance dominating the sport. ² Whilst technological advancements in the sport have supported enhanced drive distances, the golfer's capability to harness their own body's potential to rapidly generate substantial forces has become increasingly important as physicality has been linked to clubhead speed. ¹⁴ A golfer's strength is unconstrained by external factors, such as a ruling from a governing body, placing greater importance on S&C training as a priority. Therefore, aspirational golfers who adopt an appropriate S&C strategy to improve their golf performance will benefit from greater force production, potentially resulting in higher clubhead and ball speeds. Additionally, it is known that stronger golfers (i.e., those who can generate higher peak forces and generate greater positive impulses when jumping) have higher clubhead speeds and hit the ball greater distances. ¹⁴ Indeed, across a season, longer hitters have better outcomes on professional tours^15,16 whether by finish position or money earned. Empirical evidence shows that increased drive distance corresponds with improvements in the subsequent approach shot's proximity to the hole resulting in a higher probability of holing the resulting putt. ¹⁷

Performance determinants in golf

As with any sport, it is necessary to understand which factors determine performance to effectively rationalise and implement S&C. For golf, while drive distance is important, the determinants of performance are varied and complex, and therefore S&C for golfers is equally multifaceted. The main performance determinants categorised by golf shot type can be deconstructed to the following constituent parts:

Driving and long game

Approach play

Scrambling, short game, and bunker play

Putting

As the professional tours have embraced technology to collect performance statistics during tournaments, there have been a range of academic papers that have utilised quantitative approaches to establish relationships or predict performance using a variety of metrics.^{8–13,15–18} Historic data demonstrate that minor performance differences can significantly impact event outcomes, finish positions, and earnings. Jiménez & Fierro-Hernández ¹⁹ demonstrated on the European Tour that variables such as drive distance, greens in regulation, and sand saves could statistically differentiate better and poorer performers. Throughout the season, these variations determine a player's score and finishing position. Drive accuracy and putting metrics accounted for 41–52% of stroke average from 1998–2001, ¹⁰ while players with higher drive distance perform better on par four and five holes. ¹⁷ More recently, no analysis of hole type and performance variables had been conducted on the European Tour until 2021. ⁹ The determinants study presented by Bliss ⁹ suggested that on the European Tour, drive distance has increased in recent years with no change to drive accuracy. There, nine regression models were used to establish the most important predictor variables for hole score. Models separately considered holes scores on par threes, fours and fives across three separate years. Greens in regulation and putts per round entered all predictive models, in combination with either drive distance, which entered seven of nine models, drive accuracy which entered four of nine models, and/or scramble % which entered three of nine models. These predictive models explained a large proportion of hole performance. For example, the combination of greens in regulation, putts per round, and drive accuracy could explain up to 81% of performance on par four holes in the 2018 season. Par three holes were more difficult to predict, with the strongest model explaining 57% of performance, with par fives at 68%. ⁹

Given that drive distance appears in almost all predictive models across the empirical evidence base, an important aspect of a golfer's development is to explore strategies to improve this performance variable, and S&C has become a primary method to achieve this. ⁵

Transfer of training and dynamic correspondence

Perhaps the principle challenge faced by the S&C practitioner is ensuring that the athlete's exercise regime results in physical and golf performance improvement and therefore it is important to recognise the role of S&C training and how improving an athlete's physical qualities transfers from training exercises into the golf swing. Transfer of training refers to the degree of crossover between the training task that is prescribed and the target task, in this case, the golf swing. ²⁰ Brearley and North ²⁰ describe how various approaches and methods have been used to assess the potential for an exercise and its associated benefits to transfer positively to drive distance, including cross-sectional and interventional study designs, as well as examining the biomechanical profile of the golf swing. A widely- recognised methodological perspective adopted by S&C practitioners to assess whether transfer is likely to occur is the Dynamic Correspondence Framework. ²¹ Dynamic Correspondence suggests that there are five principal components to consider when selecting an exercise and assessing its likelihood of transferring into the target exercise:

The amplitude/direction of the movement

The accentuated region of force production

The dynamics of effort

The rate and time of maximum force production

The regime of muscular work

However, it should be noted that, the most optimal way to achieve all of these criteria is to conduct the sport skill itself (i.e., swing a golf club). This would be an example of primary transfer, whereby direct transfer to performance is highest. However, to apply the principles of training, particularly progressive overload, there is a requirement to reduce some of the correspondence in one or more of these dynamic correspondence criteria. For example, a jump exercise in a golfer's exercise programme may achieve a number of the dynamic correspondence criteria, but not fully achieve others. The task can be tweaked to target elements of the dynamic correspondence criteria such as “dynamics of effort” in an attempt to optimise transfer of training potential. These specifically targeted exercises would attempt to create secondary transfer, whereby the sporting movement is not recreated, but some of the underpinning dynamic correspondence or mechanical/physiological components are. Lastly, general exercises (squatting, lunging, pushing, pulling, bracing etc.) may further sacrifice elements of the dynamic correspondence criteria in order to produce general strength improvements. This type of training is referred to as tertiary or general exercise. ²¹ In an overview of the topic, Brearley and Bishop ²² contend that overload and specificity are conflicting principles and that, while hyper-specific S&C training has its place in the development of athletic qualities (particularly in experienced athletes), S&C practitioners should not rely on this approach alone as there is a risk of ill-preparing an athlete for their sport. Therefore, a combination of general strength training, and movement- or sport-specific training appears to be the most pertinent approach. ²²

Part 2: Integrating S&C with the overall golf plan – the PGA golf coach and S&C coach interface

Despite the isolated benefits of S&C for golfers outlined earlier, the introduction of S&C to the golfer's overall performance plan is not without challenge. Once the above aspects of the S&C plan have been considered, and a strategy adopted, the next stage is integrating the S&C programme with the golfer's other golf tournament and practice requirements. The practical approaches to ensure this happens effectively have not been explored in the research literature in golf until recently.^3,23,24 This article is the first to create a working model to support S&C coaches, PGA golf coaches, and golfers to work collaboratively in an optimised way.

Most golf research into the benefits of S&C for performance have been conducted in isolation, with little consideration given to, or reports made as to the golfer's other activities. As golf is a highly technical and tactical sport, the golfer will likely spend considerable time during any given training period working on these aspects. ²⁵ In a recent interview with a touring professional, it was clear that the requirement to balance golf practice, tournament play, travel, administration, multi-disciplinary team management, as well as overall motivation to train and manage fatigue can all impact on the willingness of the golfer to adhere to an S&C intervention. ²⁴

Practices and perceptions of golfers and golf coaches

Many golfers employ S&C coaches as part of a multidisciplinary team-based approach to maximise performance.^25,26 While golf coaches might also programme swing-specific speed training (e.g., swinging over and under weighted clubs), the bulk of a golfer's physical training will be administered by the S&C coach. However, our work^3,23 demonstrated that the desirable attributes of the S&C coach vary between golfers and golf coaches. Golf coaches place a high emphasis on relationship building and personal attributes, whereas this is less important for golfers, who see the relationship as more transactional and place more emphasis on an S&C coach's knowledge and golf experience (3,23; Figure 1). Consequently, the ability to select the “right” S&C coach for the golfer's multidisciplinary team is complicated.

Figure 1.

Responses to survey question concerning desirable qualities of the S&C coach working in golf. Positive difference values represent a greater percentage selection from golfer respondents, with negative values representing a greater percentage selection from golf coach respondents. Summarised from the work of Bliss & Langdown.^3,23

Our research highlighted further complexities with integrating S&C with golf practice, whereby the golf coach may expect the S&C coach to work to their practice schedule, but not involve them in the planning process. ²³ In other sports, coaches have reported concerns that S&C training may interfere with technical or tactical practice. In judo and volleyball, the disadvantages coaches reported was S&C training leading to perceived “stiffness in joints”, “performing exercises poorly… leading to exhaustion” and “limitations of time for training”.^27,28 Concerns raised in golf from a leading PGA professional coach in the UK was that golf coaches risk their reputation if they recommend an S&C coach who negatively impacts their golfer, whether directly or indirectly, and a golf coach choosing to work with an S&C coach needs to relinquish some “control” over the golfer's practice schedule willingly. ²⁹ These reasons, amongst others might contribute to the lack of integration of S&C with golf practice. While our work has opened this avenue for investigation, further exploratory studies are required to elucidate potential barriers for S&C and golf practice integration as well as the creation of further coach education and support frameworks to aid the multidisciplinary team working with the golfer. With these observations in mind, we have proposed a schematic (Figure 2) which represents areas of mutual and shared interest and responsibility between the PGA Professional coach, the S&C coach and the golfer, referred to as the “interface”.

Figure 2.

The PGA professional coach and S&C coach interface. Developmental aspects on the left side of the diagram represent an increasing supporting role for The PGA Professional Coach. Right side is increasingly within the S&C Coach's remit, with the central interface or crossover being areas of shared, mutual interest and ability to provide support.

Golf coach and S&C coach interface

The schematic has the golfer in the centre to represent an “athlete-centred” approach to support. It is recognised in the schematic that certain aspects of a golfer's development will have a greater natural fit with either coaches’ experience and expertise, but there exists a central interface, an area of overlap where both coaches can support the golfer. It is these areas where the greatest opportunity for mutual collaboration exists, but conversely, the aspects of golfer development that fall within this area of interface can be a source of potential conflict, misaligned prioritisation, or misunderstanding.

Summary performance golf model

Performance models

Expanding on the ideas within the discussion above, a more holistic overview of supporting performance golf is modelled in Figure 3. The model aims to expand on Figure 2 which showcased the golfer, S&C and PGA professional golf coach interface by representing the other performance sport science disciplines. Both performance models were informally presented to and discussed with a small group of PGA professional coaches prior to presenting them here. Multidisciplinary sport science services are assigned to areas of skill, tactical, and physical components suggested by Laursen & Buchheit. ³⁰

Figure 3.

Holistic performance golf model. This golfer-centred, three aspect schematic is based on Laursen & Buchheit ³⁰ classifications. All sport science disciplines are pictured with equal size to represent equality of importance across the multidisciplinary team. However, the skill component compared to the physical or technical component is presented as the largest and sits at the bottom of the figure, forming the foundation of golf, as is intended by the R&A. Readers will note the S&C and PGA Professional Golf Coach are adjacent throughout. The specifics of the S&C and PGA Professional Golf Coach relationship were explored in Figure 2 whereas this Figure is “zoomed out” to include other sport science disciplines.

Practical applications

The integration of S&C within overall golf performance is complex and multi-faceted. If golf coaches, S&C coaches, and other multi-disciplinary support staff work in isolation there are risks of confusion and conflict between the approaches taken and messages communicated to the golfer, resulting in a sub-optimal performance environment. The research undertaken in the area, alongside the authors’ collective ∼35-year experience in the sport allows for some practical considerations to be recommended.

As demonstrated in the schematic (Figure 2) and overall holistic model (Figure 3), the golfer should be at the centre of the performance environment. All considerations and practices should be optimised to provide the golfer with the best developmental circumstances to allow them to maximise their potential in line with their wants and needs.

As the multi-disciplinary team around the golfer expands to include more performance personnel, areas of functional crossover will occur at the interfaces between disciplines. These interfaces offer excellent opportunities for collaborative working, but also present potential areas of conflict and confusion if poorly communicated. Where conflict does arise, resolution should be sought as quickly as possible to ensure impact to working relationships is minimal and the ripple effects of the conflict are not transferred into the golfer's environment.

To adhere to the above, the multi-disciplinary team supporting the golfer should communicate regularly, with the golfer at the centre of the discussion, particularly before the season starts to agree objectives and ensure that training processes from all disciplines are aligned to previously agreed, mutually determined performance goals. The golfer should be included in these discussions where appropriate to promote empowerment and sense of autonomy, and to encourage a tight knit between an active and autonomous athlete and their environment.. ³¹ However, there also may be discussions that are golfer focused, but where the golfer is not included. This should be carefully managed between the team, with the golfer setting their expectations to ensure they are included where they feel it is required.

Practitioners supporting golfers should understand, as highlighted in Figures 2 and 3, where individual expertise lie within the performance team. For example, it is the authors’ contention that, while the S&C coach might understand the mechanics of the movement, technical swing advice is the remit of the technical golf coach. Similarly, planning and periodising physical training interventions should be the remit of the S&C coach. We reach this contention owing principally to volume of training and practical exposure. For example, a qualified PGA Professional golf coach will have studied modules on sport science as part of their degree (since 2005), but an S&C coach will likely have multiple years of formal education, vocational qualification, and coaching experience. Similarly, the S&C coach may have formal training in the biomechanics of human movement, but the PGA Professional golf coach will have studied this specifically as aligns to golf, may have other vocational qualifications, and of course, practical experience of the situational and contextual factors aligned to administering this with golfers via coached sessions. These should be discussed and understood prior at the start of golfer support where possible. A blended approach to analysis may take place where skillsets complement each other and can promote a cohesive multidisciplinary approach to optimising performance support.

Once areas of specialism and responsibility are established, where areas of overlap occur, such as with “overspeed and resisted speed training” for example, (a combination of golf swings at lighter and heavier loads), or “planning the season” these are opportunities for collaboration, and it is important that all coaches involved in these processes work together. In the case of overspeed training, the swing technique aspect should be the remit of the golf coach, with the exercise order, sets/repetitions schemes, volume and monitoring of workload etc. overseen by the S&C coach but discussed as part of the support strategy with the wider multidisciplinary team to establish goals for support.

Recommendations from our planning the season research^3,23 suggest that golfers and golf coaches want different qualities from the S&C coach. The S&C coach should be aware that relationship building, and long-term athlete development appear to be more desired by the golf coach, with golfers themselves more focused on the immediacy of performance, as corresponds with our and others’ ³² research

Lastly, research regarding planning the season, the integration of S&C within overall golf performance, and multidisciplinary team operations in the sport are relatively new areas of enquiry, although some evidence does exist.^3,23,24 The recommendations made above are a combination of evidence from objective, peer-reviewed, empirical data, and the authors’ combined experience in the sport. We encourage greater emphasis to be dedicated to this area via collaboration between academic researchers and applied golf practitioners and golfers themselves who should always be central to the development process. Consequently, the recommendations, schematics, and models presented here represent our attempt to propose optimised golfer support with the best current available evidence, whilst recognising that these will need updating in the future when new evidence becomes available.

Conclusions

Over the past two decades, golf has undergone a transformation marked by advancements in equipment, course design, coaching methodologies, and a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the golf swing. Concomitantly, as sport science has continued to evolve, golf has experienced a substantial surge in interest in, and utilisation of, quantitative performance metrics, particularly drive distance and club and ball speeds. Sport science disciplines (physiology, psychology, nutrition, and biomechanics) and S&C have also supported improvements in equipment and the golfers’ physical conditioning, respectively, in high-performance golf. S&C has become an integral part of the golfer's overall schedule.

However, amidst the increasing focus on clubhead speed, S&C practitioners must not overlook other aspects of performance and must continue to understand and integrate their services alongside others in the golfer's multidisciplinary support team. In conjunction with the use of S&C to improve the physical aspect of golf performance, the sport's tactical and skill components remain pivotal. The importance of these components is indicated by the stability of certain performance measures such as putting and greens in regulation in performance models. Additionally, it is important to consider the contextual influence of course design and environmental constraints that ensure golf is always presenting a different task to the golfer, or a different “problem” that requires solving.

Implementing S&C interventions requires thoughtful consideration and alignment with the golfer's specific needs and overall performance objectives. As the sport continues to evolve, a comprehensive approach, including physical, tactical, and skill aspects, must be guided by a well-reasoned rationale to meet the wants and needs of the golfer. Although proffered as a perspective in the piece herein, future research should seek to explore this performance model and empirically test it to ensure its validity and effective application in practice.