Exploring women's golf performance,swing biomechanics,and golf equipment: A constraints led approach

Abstract

A constraints led approach, guided by ecological dynamics, has been implemented in golf to identify biomechanical determinants of golf performance, guide coaching strategies, and to inform equipment design. Previous research has examined the interaction between individual, environmental, and task constraints on the golf swing relative to men golfers. When introducing women golfers to this system, there are inherent changes in individual constraints which should elicit adaptations to environmental, and task constraints. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the role of gender as an individual task constraint influences the environment and task constraints in women's golf performance. A deductive thematic analysis guided by a constraints led approach was conducted from semi-structured interviews with six golfers and nine golf coaches. Intentions, golfer biomechanics, and physical attributes were individual constraints that varied greatly from men golfers and played an influential role in shaping the environment and task constraints. Golfers, and coaches advocated for coaching strategies and golf equipment to be tailored to match the individual constraints of each golfer to afford them the best performance outcome. Yet, these interviews highlight that men-dominated constructs still exist, and more consideration is warranted to afford women better opportunities to be successful.

Keywords

Ecological dynamics gender physical attributes sociocultural norms

Introduction

Golf research has contributed a substantial amount of knowledge on the influence of modifications to golf club properties and biomechanical determinants related to a successful golf performance. However, the impact of the golf research is minimal, as it has been criticised to lack focus on the coordination and control of the golf swing and how internal and external influences (e.g., golf club, coaches) shape the emerging swing pattern.¹ A constraints led approach (CLA), utilizing ecological dynamics, has been suggested to better understand the interplay between these factors on the golf swing. Ecological dynamics proposes that knowledge of the environment emerges through the continuous interaction between perception and action, whereby individuals detect affordances during sport performance. In golf, affordances represent opportunities for action that enable players to perceive what is possible or constrained within their performance environment.² Golfers are therefore viewed as complex adaptive systems in which the control and coordination of the golf swing emerges from the interaction of individual (e.g., golfer's physical attributes, swing biomechanics, etc.), environmental (e.g., coach relationship, club atmosphere, course topography, etc.), and task (e.g., golf equipment, golf rules, etc.) constraints (Figure 1). For example, if a golfer experiences a physical constraint that limits their ability to perform a specific swing technique with a given club, they could adapt by developing an alternative movement pattern that enables them to achieve the task in a different way. These interacting constraints guide the ‘knowledge of’ (ability to complete an action) and ‘knowledge about’ (language from coaches and other resources that facilitate access to sport context) the golfing environment that are fundamental in regulating the emerging behaviour of the golfer.²

Figure 1.

Model of constraints and ecological dynamics applied in a golf context. Adapted from Glazier (2022) to include sex and gendered considerations (bold).

A CLA has been implemented in golf to underpin determinants of golf performance, guide coaching strategies, and develop new golf equipment.^1,3 Research using this lens has been crucial to translating research into application in the real-world setting. One limitation of this research is it has been conducted primarily on men. Mirroring sizeable discrepancies in other sports research, women golfers represent only 11.3% of golf biomechanics research, highlighting the gender based gap of knowledge relevant to this population.⁴

Sizeable growth has occurred in women's representation in recreational and professional golf. Recreationally, women represent the most rapid growing set of new golfers.⁵ Recording an all-time high, women represent 23% of the registered adult golfers worldwide and in 42 countries, women represent at least 25% of adult registered golfers.⁶ Not isolated to golf, other sports, such as women's football (soccer), have also experienced an uptake of women engaging in sport.^7,8 The increased women's sport participation sparked research dedicated to tailoring the sporting environment to women's constraints as the transferability of the recommendations based on men's sports research is minimal. Some of this research has resulted in women-specific running and football footwear, and redefining velocity-based thresholds in women rugby players.^9,10 As CLA has been applied in men's golf to design and adapt the golf environment to enhance performance and learning movement skills, it can be assumed that adding women into this system of interacting constraints may warrant different strategies and manipulation of environmental and task constraints in order to optimize the golf performance. While women have demonstrated slower swing speeds and shorter carry distances than men¹¹ which can partly be attributed to average biological differences in strength and power,¹² the performance gap is notably smaller than biological differences alone would predict. Villanen and Pederson¹³ found that despite women having only 40–60% of men's upper body strength, women's driving distance remains approximately 86% of men's, suggesting that women have developed effective compensatory swing adaptations to offset their relative strength disadvantage. This has historically resulted in women being directed to play from shorter forward tees. However, such assumptions obscure the substantial variability that exists among women golfers and risk reinforcing sociocultural norms that categorise women into simplified performance groups. It is therefore important to distinguish between sex-linked biological differences (e.g., strength, anthropometrics) and gendered sociocultural constraints (e.g., equipment marketing, tee distances), as both influence the constraint landscape within which golfers develop and perform. From an ecological dynamics perspective, both sex and gender influences performance not as single deterministic factors, but by shaping a cluster of interacting constraints, such as physical characteristics, coaching expectations, and equipment availability that vary both within and between sexes.

Even where the game has been adapted to account for biological differences, such as LPGA courses averaging approximately 90% of PGA course lengths,¹³ these may still underestimate women's relative capability, as scaling based on driving distance alone fails to account for downstream effects on approach shot distances, club selection, and scoring opportunity. Consequently, observed differences in performance may reflect a mismatch between equipment design and the biomechanics of women golfers, where women may be disadvantaged when using men's equipment not tailored to their movement characteristics, while some women may also be poorly served by women's equipment designed primarily for slower-swinging or age-based demographics over specific biomechanical adaptations. Likewise, some men may benefit from equipment traditionally labelled as “women's.”

The primary purpose of this paper was to use a CLA to identify the perceived individual, environment, and task constraints from the perspectives of women golfers and golf coaches. The second purpose was to understand how the role of gender, as an individual constraint influences the environment and task constraints. It was hypothesised that the environment and task constraints would be tailored to women golfers’ capabilities. ‘Women’ in this research refers to cisgender women.

Methods

Research design

Semi-structured interviews and a thematic analysis were utilized to achieve greater depth in understanding of the perceptions of women's golf performance. The interviews allowed the researcher to adapt questions based on the participants’ insights, deepening understanding of their perceptions and experiences.¹⁴ The benefit of using semi-structured interviews was to allow the interviews to be focused but still maintain the ability to explore pertinent thoughts that potentially are discussed.¹⁵ These qualitative methods have been readily used in golf to explore the factors involved in their psychological state after hitting a golf shot¹⁶ and gaining insights from caddies and golfers on the perceived caddie's role in decision-making of elite level golfer.¹⁷ Semi-structured interviews were selected as the appropriate approach to facilitate discussion around the participants experiences while providing the flexibility to allow golfers and coaches to elaborate on the unique experiences to them.

Participants

Golfers and golf coaches were recruited using a convenience sampling approach through local golf clubs and professional networks. Golfers and coaches had to have a minimum of three years’ experience to participate. A purposive sample of six women golfers (25.8 ± 5.9 years old, Table 1) and nine golf coaches (45.3 ± 15.5 years old, Table 2) participated in the study. Cisgender women were included in this study as both biological characteristics (e.g., strength and power differences) and sociocultural factors shape women's golfing experiences and performance. Each of the golfers played competitively and averaged 15 years of playing experience with a minimum of eight years of playing (15.7 ± 7.3 years playing). The coaches averaged 19 years of coaching with various experiences of coaching different skill levels of women and men golfers (19.9 ± 12.7 years coaching). All participants provided signed informed consent approved by the university's ethics committee prior to the interviews (Project ID: 16851).

Table 1.

Descriptive demographics of women golfers that participated in the study.

Golfer ID	No. years playing	Playing frequency	Handicap
1	12	6 days a week	0
2	27	2 days a week	Professional
3	18	Daily	0
4	20	Once every 2 weeks	3
5	9	3 days a week	1.3
6	8	4–5 days a week	1

Table 2.

Descriptive demographics of golf coaches that participated in the study.

Coach ID	Sex	No. years coaching	Frequency coaching women each week	Coaching qualification	Level of golfer most often coached
1	M	14	4–6 h	Level 3 PGA Coaching Qualification TPI Certified	Low-handicap university team golfers
2	M	30	5–10 h	Advanced PGA Professional	Junior girls and older women golf club members
3	F	34	50% of all sessions	Level 3 TPI Certification; LPGA and PGA Teaching and Club Professional	Tour professionals to older high-handicap women
4	F	42	50% of all sessions	Level 3 TPI Certification; LPGA and PGA Teaching Professional	Tour professionals to older high-handicap women
5	F	20	50 women	LPGA Teaching and Club Professional	Competitive junior golfers and competitive amateur women
6	F	13	40 h	TPI Level 2 Certified	Low-handicap university team golfers
7	F	13	20 h	TPI Level 2 Certified	Low-handicap university team golfers
8	F	4	10–20 h	Former Professional Tour Player; Senior Golf Professional	50–85 old women golf club members
9	F	9	60% of all sessions	LPGA Class A Certified Teaching Professional	Elite level juniors and beginner-high level women

Progression of Coaching (Introductory to Most Advanced): PGA Professional; PGA Advanced Professional; PGA Fellow Professional; PGA Advanced Fellow Professional; PGA Master Professional.

Data collection

Interviews were conducted in-person or via online video calls. Each interview was initiated with a brief introduction that re-iterated the purpose of the study, clearly addressed the anonymous usage of their data, and asked permission to start the audio recording.¹⁸ Interviews ranged from 30 minutes to an hour. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Two semi-structured interview guides (one for the golfers and another for the coaches) were derived from previously published golf literature. The interview guides followed similar structures to previously used guides in golf research, beginning with a brief introductory, topic questions, and follow-up questions.¹⁷ To develop topic questions, the swing technique and biomechanics section was shaped by prior research examining the women's golf swing, including research on kinematic differences between women and men golfers.^11,19,20 The equipment section was guided by research identifying equipment as a key task constraint in golf performance.^11,21 The fitting experiences section was informed by literature highlighting gaps in woman-specific club fitting practices and the limited representation of women in fitting research.²² This section was also shaped by research documenting the gendered nature of golf environments, wherein women report heightened visibility, tokenism, and social exclusion in spaces such as clubhouses and pro shops,^23–25 suggesting that women's fitting experiences are likely shaped not only by technical equipment factors but by broader social and environmental constraints within the golf setting. The interview guides were subjected to internal testing with the research team and field testing with potential study participants to reduce leading questions, ambiguity in questions, and interviewer bias.¹⁴ The interview guide was split into four sections (Table 3). Each section began with an open-ended question, followed by probing questions based on the discussion.

Table 3.

Sections and aims of the semi-structured interview guide used.

Section	Aim of section
Golfer/Coach Demographics	Gathered data on coaching/playing duration, weekly hours, and skill levels.
Golfer Swing Technique/Biomechanics	Aimed to identify golfer constraints by exploring the perceptions of the ideal women's golf swing and its impact on performance.
Golf Equipment	Aimed to identify task constraints, specifically the equipment-related constraints, and examined the influence of golf equipment on women's golf performance, focusing on the most impactful aspects of the club.
Golf Fitting Experiences	Aimed to identify environmental constraints by gaining insight on the golfer experiences and recommendations for the club fitting process.

Data analysis

As the primary aim of this research was to gain an understanding of the influencing constraints on women's golf performance, a deductive thematic analysis based on the proposed CLA was used. Deductive thematic analysis is informed by a pre-existing framework which influences the emerging codes and themes to be based on established constructs.^26,27 Guided by CLA, this thematic analysis was used to identify important themes relating to the golfer, environment, and task that commonly re-occurred throughout the interviews.²⁷

Each interview was transcribed with the QSR-NVivo software (Lumivero Denver, USA) and line-by-line coded. Line-by-line coding sought to stimulate analytic thinking while removing the potential bias of personal prejudices.²⁸ The process of coding was an iterative process repeated until data saturation was reached, and no new information or higher order categories were observed. Despite its widespread use in qualitative research, there remains no universally agreed method for establishing data saturation.²⁹ To address this, saturation was defined as the point during the data collection at which concepts of two individual interviews revealed no new categories of data.³⁰ After going through the initial codes created, the researcher grouped codes that were related to develop themes that provide insight to the relationships and trends related to the research questions.²⁷ The codes created between golfers and coaches were initially categorized and put into themes independently. After main themes were identified for both golfers and coaches, the themes were cross compared to understand the similarities in the emerging data to begin the process of conceptualisation and interpreting the findings.

Results and discussion

The CLA allowed for the identification of the perceived individual, environment, and task constraints related to women's golf performance. As one coach mentioned,

“A [golf] country club is where you see gender roles in front of you… [women] don’t know what they don’t know, or they haven't been shown themselves. They don't have that representation.”

Minimal education in women's golf performance exists. Therefore, the CLA aimed to provide a deeper understanding of the interacting constraints that influence the emerging control and coordination of a woman's golf swing and provide more knowledge to “what [women] don’t know.” Main themes from the interviews are discussed within each type of constraint (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Main themes within each constraint identified in the interviews as important influencers in women's golf performance.

Individual golfer constraints – are women just small men?

The individual golfer constraints (e.g., strength capacity, movement patterns, motivation, etc.) are primary considerations and should be central to the development of coaching plans and design of equipment. Within the individual constraints of a woman golfer, it is important to answer the question: “are women just small men?”

“She's just a young, slim petite, to me, girl. You know, she's 20”

Historically, women athletes have often been treated as though their performance, nutritional, and physiological needs align with those of men, resulting in practices predominantly tailored to the population of men. When gender is considered within the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA), distinct individual constraints become evident, as it is well established that women differ psychologically and physiologically from men.³¹ In golf, women golfers’ intentions, biomechanics, and physical attributes were important individual constraints that were perceived to greatly influence the golfing environment.

Intentions

The intention of women golfers is arguably the most important individual constraint.³² The intentions are reflective of how women golfers define golf performance and detail what they are trying to achieve when swinging a golf club. It has recently been reported that women define a successful golf performance based descriptive measures (e.g., smooth, control, rhythmic) rather than swing speed and driving distance, well-established performance metrics in the men's game.³³ Representative of all the golfers interviewed, women golfers, “wouldn’t say it's so much a numbers game… it's more of the actual movement and the flow of the swing. As long as the body is working efficiently and maintaining connection… that's what makes a good golf swing.” The intention to achieve a smooth swing instead of a distance-driven swing has the potential to influence the women golfers’ subsequent decisions and actions related to their golf performance.

Biomechanics and physical attributes

When examining individual constraints through a gender perspective, it is important to consider the biomechanical differences between women and men. In the interviews, golfers and coaches remarked on the different biomechanics of women golfers, discussing the limitations of a woman's golf swing in comparison to men. Golfers mentioned not being able to achieve similar biomechanics to the ‘textbook’ reference swing of men:

“The positions that some male players can get in, I can't get myself in them”

“My wrist is supposed to be straight here. Yeah, I can't do it.”

One of these “positions” women golfers could not achieve were termed by the golf coaches as “hyper/early extension,” which was believed to be a result of the physical strength capacity of women golfers, “because of the way [women's] hips are constructed, I am not going to use the word jelly like but… the golf swing is not as strong as a unit. So, the hips don’t connect to the legs and the torso and typically that causes an issue called early extension.” Another one of these “positions” was “overswinging” the golf club caused by the golfers extending their shoulder rotation past the ideal limits at the top of the backswing due to their increased shoulder flexibility in comparison to men. Further, the coaches commonly remarked on women golfers struggling to move their wrists similar to that of men golfers with limited ability to grip a golf club due to strength affordances. Consequentially, coaches recommended golfers to improve their hand strength as one coach remarked, “…you want to be an elite golfer, get in the gym, have strong hands.” It is important to distinguish between constraints that are biological in origin and those that are socially constructed through coaching norms and performance expectations calibrated against men's standards. Early extension, overswinging, and grip limitations are here framed by coaches as deficits relative to an implicitly men normative standard of swing mechanics, rather than as individual movement solutions that may be functional within the specific physical capacities of women golfers. This risks conflating biological personal constraints with social environmental constraints, treating what may be an adaptive movement strategy as a performance flaw. This distinction is supported empirically: although women have 40 to 60% of the strength and power capacity of men,^12,34 women's driving distances have been shown to be 86% of men's.¹³ This indicates that driving distance is reliant on more than just strength and power, and women golfers have adapted to utilize different strategies to be successful on course.

Further supporting women using their own swing technique and contrary to the coaches’ beliefs, the golfer's refuted the notion that their physical attributes were limiting factors of their golf swing and performance:

“More often women overswing the club than men do for two reasons one, we’re more flexible, and two, it's a way for us to generate more power.”

“I do a bunch of climbing and I feel like my grip strength and wrists are fairly strong”

In these interviews, women's golf swings were typically described in reference to men's swing even though gender differences between swing techniques have been established. Women golfers have been shown to have greater shoulder^35,36 and pelvic^19,36 axial rotation and slower thorax,²⁰ pelvis,²⁰ and wrist^11,36 velocities compared men. As gender differences have been established and the golfers interviewed were highly skilled, competitive golfers, it is evident that women golfers utilizing different biomechanics are still able to achieve success when playing. The difference in desired intent of the golf swing between women and men golfers could potentially explain the observed measured biomechanic differences between gender. With the newfound knowledge of what women define as a successful golf performance, regardless of whether playing competitively or socially, women may be adapting their biomechanics to achieve a smooth swing feel while men golfers may adapt strategies to increase driving distance and swing speed.³³ This re-iterates the need to centralize the understanding of women's golf performance around the intentions, swing biomechanics, and physical capacities of women.

Gender differentiates individual constraints between men and women golfers, which may influence their golf performance. As these constraints diverge from those typically observed in men's golf, it raises the question of whether women's golf involves distinct environmental and task constraints. This further prompts consideration of whether golf equipment and the educational environment should be adapted to better align with these constraints.

Environmental constraints – does one size fit all?

Golf coaching and golf education are key environmental constraints influencing women's golf performance. The golfers and coaches agreed that coaching should be specific to individual intentions and biomechanics, and that women's golf education should be more readily accessible. Acknowledging the individualized constraints of each golfer, coaches discussed their teaching philosophy was based on “it is not a one size fits all process” and reiterated “everyone swings differently.” Each coach described their approach to tailoring coaching strategies based first on the golfer's intentions, and second on their swing technique. Structuring coaching to be golfer-dependent is ideal as everyone has their own individual movement strategy. However, apparent through the interviews conducted, it is fair to ask if this “one size does not fit all” principle is adhered to when coaching.

It is unsurprising coaches highly valued the importance of understanding golfer's intentions as the use of a CLA has been advocated in golf coaching.³ Deviating from their coaching strategy, it was unanticipated that distance was the major topic of discussion addressed by coaches when defining women's golf performance. Coaches defined women's golf performance as:

“Female performance… is always gonna [SIC] be a distance… that's the same for men as well… the further a man hits it, the typically the better performing”

“Just hit it fast. Swing it quick. Learn to hit it a long way”

It is evident the coaches’ definitions of women's golf performance are congruent with the primary determinants, driving distance and swing speed, of men's golf performance and in conflict with definitions established by women golfers. This has further implications to the way the coaches teach women golf swing technique. As addressed in the individual constraint section, the coaches referenced limitations to women's golf swing to men golfers, potentially resulting from a subconscious bias of wanting women golfers to maximize speed and distance. It has been recommended as essential that coaches “have a well-developed awareness of the constraints underpinning performance”.³ The validity of this approach in women golf is questionable as the biomechanical determinants relating to clubhead speed and driving distance is not reflective of men golfers.^11,37

This gender bias is resultant of the educational resources and swing technique benchmarks historically dominated by research predominantly conducted on cohorts of men golfers. Coaches discussed the multitude of resources for viewing men's golf swings on the internet and in educational resources in comparison to minimal resources for women's golf swings. Even the women golfers discussed the limited access to women's golf swings when learning to play:

“The way that my coach coached was, he had like a database of professional swing…And the database had 2 woman's swings in it and maybe like, I don't even know, 30 or 40 male swings.”

The women's golf swing had been examined during educational seminar sessions but, “the first time we heard [women's golf swing biomechanics], I experienced it as if [women golfers] were inferior, just the way the biomechanics was presented.” Besides educational books and videos, benchmarks used in women's golf research are developed and based on men golfers. The Titleist Performance Institute golf screening evaluation tool was commonly utilized by the coaches to benchmark the efficiency of the golfer's swing technique. Nevertheless, the development of this tool was based on men's swings and monitored by a board of 52 advisory staff members of industry leading experts, only one of which is a woman.³⁸

Attempts made by LPGA professionals have aimed to reshape the instructional needs relevant to the women golfers. Proposed differences in women's swing biomechanics have included women's stance width, grip, posture and distance from the ball, hip and shoulder rotation, and leg action.³⁹ Though efforts have been made to modify teaching strategies for women golfers and improve education, golf coaches, regardless of sex, have been found to have a limited view on women golfer's golf capabilities and potential for performance improvement.⁴⁰ This poses as a potential issue as this gender bias may shape the environmental constraints through the golfer-coach relationship and employed coaching strategies and also negatively impact the golfer's self-efficacy and motivation. The “one size does not fit all” is the appropriate approach to teaching women golfers as their individual constraints differ from that of men. Yet, it is clear the current coaching strategies employed when teaching women golfers are not representative of their intentions and biomechanics. Increasing the educational resources for women golfers is warranted to establish better practices when coaching this population.

Task constraints – shrink it and pink it?

The golf club is a task constraint which can easily be manipulated by changing the properties and design of the club to improve performance. Interview discussions focused on the need for better-fitting equipment, emphasising the importance of aligning club characteristics with each golfer's individual constraints to enhance perceived task-related affordances. In the design of golf clubs, there is concern that the industry may rely on the oversimplified approach of ‘shrinking and pinking'—modifying products superficially to appeal to women golfers—rather than addressing their specific performance-related needs. As one coach suggests, “reps coming in, they’ll show us… ‘the lady's range’ and I can guarantee it's either turquoise or pink and that just makes my blood boil.” The philosophy of ‘shrinking it and pinking’ women's golf product consequentially limits the availability, fit, and design of the golf equipment.

Availability of women's golf equipment

With more women playing golf, the demand for women's golf equipment has increased. Despite this, “club manufacturers offerings for women, they're very limited. It's very one dimensional.” The ‘one-dimensionality’ has been addressed by coaches:

“[Women's clubs] are always high launch shafts and low spin shafts, which some women don't need, some do.”

“There should be more options within that, like, are you a tall woman? Or are you a short woman? Do you have a fast-swing speed?”

As the coaches highlighted in these examples, not every woman needs the same equipment but instead, equipment should be based upon the golfer's individual constraints of swing speed, swing technique, and physical stature. The current availability of women's product was criticised as not suitable for beginners or high skill level golfers. For beginner golfers buying equipment, coaches raised concerns that “it can be very intimidating to get fitted for clubs… So, they become very intimidated by all by the language.” The result of this intimidation often leads to “women will be like, ‘I'm a woman, so I need women's clubs’.” Whereas for highly skilled golfers, “the way female clubs are looked at, you'll never see a high performing golfer, using female clubs because they're all targeted for beginners, low swing speeds.” The low-handicap golfers and even the women coaches remarked that when they play, they use standard clubs. Depicting the experience of many low-handicap women golfers, “I haven’t swung a woman's club since I was 12 and I don’t think my swing speed will ever go back down there. I’ve always had men's clubs and had to have them adjusted length and loft.” Though the golfers did not play women's clubs, the golfers acknowledged the potential for a better designed club to fit them to address the inherent differences between women and men.

Fit of equipment

The limited availability of equipment designed specifically for women was identified as a significant issue, with poorly fitted gear perceived to negatively impact performance by prompting undesirable adaptations in swing technique. For example, one coach remarked, “the technique is adapting poorly to accommodate the poorly fitted equipment.” Golfers also mentioned experiencing detrimental changes to their swing technique and overall performance when using equipment not properly fitted to their swing:

“I got fit for clubs last year, they were totally wrong… It was hard to pinpoint, like, exactly what was wrong. But it's when you when you swing it, like, the weighting feels off. I'm used to a little bit more weight, like closer to the club. And so, in these clubs, it was like more like the centre of the shaft, and it was throwing, throwing my swing off. So being fit incorrectly, like I did not hit a good golf ball for about four months until we figured out what was wrong. So wrong clubs are terrible.”

“With the flexier shaft, I had to do much more with my arms to keep everything in place…”

In these instances, the golf performance was compromised because of equipment being inadequately fitted to the golfer. Therefore, both golfers and coaches stressed the significance of using golf clubs fitted to meet each golfer's individual needs. Whereas with perceived appropriately fit equipment, golfers were able to focus on the outcome (i.e., target) as opposed to the task they were trying to perform (i.e., hit the golf ball) as one golfer explained:

“I just focus on the target and go for it because I know the weight and the stiffness is going to [take away having to think about squaring the face] for me.”

Club properties

While the fit of golf clubs was perceived to be crucial to golfers and coaches, shaft flexibility and overall weight of the golf club were the most frequently discussed club properties that were thought to be commonly misfitted to women golfers and perceived to be most influential to women's golf performance. However, at times, there were discrepancies regarding the optimal properties of golf clubs for women golfers. For example, one coach believed that clubs were frequently “too heavy” for women golfers, while another coach suggested they were often “too light.” The difference in opinion may stem from the varying levels of golfers they coached. The coach who mentioned clubs being too heavy, primarily worked with older, beginner to amateur women golfers using second-hand clubs from their fathers or spouses. In general, such golfers are generating a (50th percentile) clubhead speed of 73.4 miles per hour (mph,.⁴¹). In contrast, the coach who felt clubs were often too light, coached university-aged, category one golfers. For 17- to 29-year-old women golfers relevant to this coach, the 50th percentile of clubhead is 92.8 mph and further, the 90th percentile is 98.8 mph.⁴¹ When discussing the influential club properties, one coach noted:

“[All women] just gets chucked in the same boat, you know, you've got ladies length which is what five foot four? Well, there's, you know, ladies are a lot of different heights, strength, you'll get whacked in a 45-gram shaft”

In general, the “ladies” clubs that this coach is referencing may be more suitable for the women golfers coached by this specific coach but may not be the optimal solution for all and especially the higher-level golfers (generating a clubhead speed of approximately 20 mph higher). Instead, golf coaches advocated to match the club properties based on the swing speed and swing technique of the golfer.

Prescribing the most suitable club properties for women golfers remains difficult as golfers have been shown to respond in unpredictable ways⁴² and there is minimal research investigating the woman golfer-club interaction. The influence of men's golfer-club interaction and modification to club properties on ball launch and performance variables has been extensively research with men golfers. This body of research focuses on torso, pelvis, and wrist biomechanics as generating a large separation between the thorax and pelvis at the top of the backswing and generating large velocities proximal to distally are associated with greater clubhead speed in men golfers.^43,44 Women golfers have been shown to demonstrate weaker associations between thorax-pelvis separation and clubhead speed than men.^20,36,37 This may have further implications for the construction and design of golf clubs for women, diverging from men-based designs.

Adding an additional layer of complexity to the design of women's golf equipment, the women golfers deemed the visual aesthetic and feel of the golf club as key factors in golf performance. The aesthetics of the golf club during the swing elicited emotional responses within the golfers which either indicated the need to change their equipment or promoted confidence and comfort in their clubs to achieve a successful golf performance.

The visual aesthetic of the golf club was a deciding factor in the clubs that were purchased when having a golf club fitting. Outlining her club purchasing strategy, one golfer explained her choice was based on “…first feel and looks and then distance and dispersion.” A coach also recounted an occasion with a golfer who when being fitted for a driver, did not chose a club that she was hitting ten yards further because she did not find the club visually appealing, “…she can’t get over the look of [the driver], even though the numbers and everything are telling her that it's a better fit.” Traditionally, as distance is the major determinant of golf performance, it is interesting that the visual appeal of the golf club was perceived as more important than measurable performance for women golfers.

This prioritisation of visual aesthetics aligns with broader evidence from the golf service quality literature. Lee et al.⁴⁵ found that the Tangibles dimension, encompassing the physical appearance of facilities, equipment, and personnel, was a significant predictor in golfer's satisfaction (β = 0.25) and was the only statistically significant predictor of revisit intention among women golfers (β = 0.46) and carried a stronger influence on their satisfaction compared to men golfers. The authors concluded that women golfers are sensitive to physical representations and the appearance of their environment. Taken together, these findings suggest that women's attentiveness to the visual and physical dimensions of their golf experience extends beyond the course and clubhouse environment to the equipment itself.

Placing a greater importance on visual aesthetics rather than measurable performance when choosing golf equipment is potentially reflective of the different performance definition established in women golfers. Women golfers define golf performance by descriptive measures is transferable to women wanting their club to achieve this feeling rather than distance, where the look of the club may itself be integral to producing that feeling of confidence and comfort at address.

Similar to the role of visual aesthetics, fitting to a certain feeling was highly valued by the women golfers. One golfer differentiated fitting experiences as a good fitting being “not just focused on the numbers, [the fitter] was focusing on the way I felt about [the clubs]” while a bad fitting experience being “really rushed, it was all distance focused.” This is another example of a golfer reiterating the value of feel over measurable golf performance. The club elicited either an unsatisfactory feel to the golfers, indicating the need to change their clubs:

“…your swing's good, it's just not going your way, and it just feels off, like the feelings just aren’t as good. So, you need to go up a shaft, especially if you tend to hit it high and hooks. So, if you know your driver shaft is too whippy, you will be hitting that. And you just can't control it. You should normally just feel it.”

Or the feel of the club grew confidence and comfort in the golfers’ performance:

“The iron heads, I think they feel very buttery. I can rely on them heavily whether I’m in the fairway or I’m in some wood chips… That's why I love my iron so much.”

“I don't know what it is about these irons they are so, it feels, it just feels so nice to hit and so easy to hit. I always trust them. I'm never like doubting myself with them.”

It is apparent that the feel of the golf clubs evoked an emotional response which could further enhance the golfer's mindset and subsequent golf performance.⁴⁶ Attempts have been made to quantify the feel of a golf shot as it is a common descriptor for the feedback of a golf swing. Feel is highly subjective, influenced by external auditory, tactile, and visual sources, making it difficult to quantify.⁴⁷ Women have been identified as having different spatial processing and perception than men.⁴⁸ To account for this, other sports research has sought to identify and account for feel perception,⁴⁹ suggesting the need to explore feel perception between women and men golfers. This could add complexity and further consideration in designing equipment relevant to the women's golfing population.

General discussion

The interviews conducted and guided by CLA, aimed to identify the constraints to women's golf performance and how the role of gender influences the emerging movement strategy. Central to CLA, a change in the system of constraints may lead to further changes to the environment and task constraints, and ultimately, to the resulting movement solution. When accounting for gender within the individual constraints of the golfer, the intent to play golf, the swing biomechanics, and the physical attributes of the golfers were different from previous constructs and affordances relative to men golfers. The perceived environment constraints related to women's golf performance were the coaching strategies and golf swing education. The availability of equipment, the fit of the equipment with matched club properties to the intentions and swing technique of the golfer were the task constraints perceived important to women's golf performance. It was anticipated that the environment and task constraints would be adapted to afford women golfers the best opportunities to enhance their golf performance. The golfers and coaches acknowledged in the interviews that due to the different individual constraints of women golfers, the subsequent environment and task constraints should be adapted. However, when discussing the current coaching experiences and equipment available, it is apparent that the coaching practices, education, and overall equipment design do not account for the individual constraints of women golfers. Previous research suggests that unequal opportunities and gendered norms lead to movement solution deficiencies between men and women rather than natural deficits between gender.^50,51 Coach expectations (environmental constraints) and club manipulation (task constraints)⁵² are biased towards men. It is plausible the lack of consideration of gender's influence on these constraints may create suboptimal movement strategies and decrements women's golf performance when compared to males. The golfers interviewed were highly skilled, low-handicap golfers, they have adapted movement strategies that enable them to achieve success on the golf course and overcome limitations in suitable equipment and education. However, these limitations are even more critical for new or higher-handicap golfers. Since 2020, the influx of new women golfers on course are subjected to learning golf with equipment and coaching practices primarily designed for men, which may not meet their individual needs.

Even if a woman golfer enhanced her strength and improved her swing mechanics, she may still be limited by equipment that does not match her anthropometrics or movement patterns. A club designed for a taller, stronger man may still be too long, too stiff, or poorly balanced, leading to compensatory swing adaptations. This suggests that equipment must evolve in tandem with the athlete, rather than assuming that physical improvements alone will resolve performance limitations. Similarly, task constraints such as the placement of “women's tees” in recreational golf may unintentionally reinforce certain movement patterns or strategic decisions that differ from elite play. These tees, while intended to accommodate average driving distances, may also shape how women approach the game tactically, potentially limiting skill development or reinforcing stereotypes about capability. Therefore, a more holistic approach is needed that considers how changes in one constraint (e.g., strength or biomechanics) may necessitate adjustments in others (e.g., equipment design, course setup, coaching strategies). This reinforces the CLA's emphasis on interaction over isolation and supports the argument for more inclusive and responsive design in golf environments. This individual-centred approach is increasingly reflected in both industry and course management practice. A growing number of equipment manufacturers now categorise clubs by swing speed and shaft specification (for example, Titleist promote “At Titleist, we choose to define players by swing characteristics, not gender”,⁵³ rather than gender, while the R&A and USGA World Handicap System now strongly recommends that tee markers avoid any association with gender or age, with many courses replacing red tees with ability-based alternatives accordingly.^54,55

This raises the question whether the current coaching philosophies and equipment pose as rate limiters to women's golf performance. If adaptations are made to the integrated cycle of individual, environmental, and task constraints with gender in mind, could women's golf performance improve, and might the performance gap between men and women diminish over time?

Conclusion

Using a CLA, this research sought to understand the interaction of constraints related to women's golf performance and how the influence of gender played a role on these constraints. It was apparent that the influence of gender directly impacted individual constraints which should require the adaption of the environment and task constraints. The intentions of women golfers, their swing biomechanics, and their physical attributes differ from that of men golfers which should be accounted for in coaching practices and equipment design. This research sheds light that the current golf environment still does not meet the demands of women golfers. It is possible that the golf coaching and golf equipment currently reduce the potential of women's golf performance as they are still tailored to men dominated philosophies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

N/A.

ORCID iDs

Lindsey Legg

Steph Forrester

Jonathan Roberts

Aimée Mears

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by Loughborough University's ethics committee (Project ID: 16851). This study was approved by Loughborough University's ethics committee (Project ID: 16851) on 23 January 2024.

Consent to participate

All participants gave written consent for review and signature before participating in the research.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from each participant for anonymised participant information to be published in this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was co-funded by PING golf and Loughborough University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

Glazier

. An ecological-dynamical approach to golf science: implications for swing biomechanics, club design and customisation, and coaching practice. Sports Biomech 2022; 23: 1–22.

Silva

Garganta

Araújo

, et al. Shared knowledge or shared affordances? Insights from an ecological dynamics approach to team coordination in sports. Sports Med 2013; 43: 765–772.

Renshaw

Arnott

McDowall

. A constraints-led approach to golf coaching. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2020.

Bourgain

Rouch

Rouillon

, et al. Golf swing biomechanics: a systematic review and methodological recommendations for kinematics. Sports 2022; 10: 91.

Ballard

. Thriving against the odds: The unstoppable rise of women's golf. Women and Golf 2025. https://womenandgolf.com/news/opinion/thriving-against-the-odds-the-unstoppable-rise-of-womens-golf (accessed 29 March 2025).

Golf Participation continues to surge worldwide. R&A. https://www.randa.org/articles/golf-participation-continues-to-surge-worldwide (2023).

Eime

Harvey

Charity

, et al. Participation of Australian women and girls in traditionally male-dominated sports 2016–2018. Int J Sport Policy Polit 2022; 14: 545–561.

Webster

. Engineering for women in sport. Proc Inst Mech Eng P J Sports Eng Technol 2025; 239: 3–5.

Bradley

Roberts

Archer

. Determining female-specific high-intensity activity GPS thresholds in women's rugby union: use of current use of male-derived absolute speed thresholds underestimates true levels. Eur J Sport Sci 2024; 24: 1079–1085.

10.

Okholm Kryger

Thomson

Tang

, et al. Ten questions in sports engineering: technology in elite women's football. Sports Eng 2022; 25: 25.

11.

Parker

Hellström

Olsson

. Differences in kinematics and driver performance in elite female and male golfers. Sports Biomech 2022; 21: 731–747.

12.

Nuzzo

. Narrative review of sex differences in muscle strength, endurance, activation, size, fiber type, and strength training participation rates, preferences, motivations, injuries, and neuromuscular adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 2023; 37: 494–536.

13.

Villanen

Pedersen

. Relative golf performance between men and women: A comparison of absolute differences in performance between players on the PGA and LPGA tours considering physiological and anthropometric sex-based differences. PLos One 2026; 21: e0323074.

14.

Kallio

Pietilä

Johnson

, et al. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs 2016; 72: 2954–2965.

15.

Adeoye-Olatunde

Olenik

. Research and scholarly methods: semi-structured interviews. J Am Coll Clin Pharm 2021; 4: 1358–1367.

16.

Swann

Keegan

Crust

, et al. Psychological states underlying excellent performance in professional golfers: “letting it happen” vs. “making it happen”. Psychol Sport Exerc 2016; 23: 101–113.

17.

Pilgrim

Robertson

Kremer

. A qualitative investigation into the role of the caddie in elite-level golf. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 599–609.

18.

Adams

. Conducting semi-structured interviewsHandbook of practical program evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2015, pp.492–505.

19.

Gryc

Zahalka

Brožka

, et al.

Do the pelvic and thorax movements differ between the sexes and influence golf club velocity in junior golfers?

Sports 2023; 11: 60.

20.

Horan

Evans

Morris

, et al. Thorax and pelvis kinematics during the downswing of male and female skilled golfers. J Biomech 2010; 43: 1456–1462.

21.

MacKenzie

. How the shaft of a golf club influences performanceRoutledge international handbook of golf science. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2017, pp.64–74.

22.

Cowley

Olenick

McNulty

, et al. Invisible sportswomen": the sex data gap in sport and exercise science research. Womens Sport Phys Act J 2021; 29: 146–151.

23.

McGinnis

McQuillan

Chapple

. I just want to play: women, sexism, and persistence in golf. J Sport Soc Issues 2005; 29: 313–337.

24.

Gray

Goffnett

Divine

. The grass ceiling: an investigation into what drives gender exclusion in golf. J Sport Soc Issues 2025; 49: 01937235251365599.

25.

Mitchell

Allen-Collinson

Evans

. Ladies present!': an auto/ethnographic study of women amateur golfers at an English provincial golf club. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2016; 8: 273–286.

26.

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

27.

Naeem

Ozuem

Howell

, et al. A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 2023; 22: 16094069231205789.

28.

Gibbs

. Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing qualitative data 1994; 703: 38–55.

29.

Guest

Namey

Chen

. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0232076.

30.

Coenen

Stamm

Stucki

, et al. Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods. Qual Life Res 2012; 21: 359–370.

31.

Szadvári

Ostatníková

Durdiaková

. Sex differences matter: males and females are equal but not the same. Physiol Behav 2023; 259: 114038.

32.

Renshaw

Chow

J-Y

. A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2019; 24: 103–116.

33.

Legg

Forrester

Roberts

, et al. It's not all about distance: exploring perceptions of women's golf performance. Womens Sport Phys Act J 2026; 34.

34.

Bartolomei

Grillone

Di Michele

, et al. A comparison between male and female athletes in relative strength and power performances. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 2021; 6: 17.

35.

Egret

Nicolle

Dujardin

, et al. Kinematic analysis of the golf swing in men and women experienced golfers. Int J Sports Med 2005; 27: 463–467.

36.

Zheng

Barrentine

Fleisig

, et al. Swing kinematics for male and female pro golfers. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29: 965–970.

37.

Brown

Nevill

Monk

, et al. Determination of the swing technique characteristics and performance outcome relationship in golf driving for low handicap female golfers. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 1483–1491.

38.

TPI. TPI Advisory Board. TPI. https://www.mytpi.com/about (accessed 17 May 2025).

39.

MacKinnon

. Gender differences in golf swing technique from the perspective of LPGA professionals. Int J Sport Soc 2013; 3: 1.

40.

Shapcott

Carr

. Golf coaches’ mindsets about recreational golfers: gendered golf experiences start on the practice tee. Motiv Sci 2020; 6: 275.

41.

Finn

. Club head speed by age group: What percentile are you in?. Titleist Performance Institute n.d. https://www.mytpi.com/articles/swing/club-head-speed-by-age-group-what-percentile-are-you-in (accessed 31 March 2025).

42.

Haeufle

Worobets

Wright

, et al. Golfers do not respond to changes in shaft mass properties in a mechanically predictable way. Sports Eng 2012; 15: 215–220.

43.

MacKenzie

Ryan

Rice

. The influence of clubhead mass on clubhead and golf ball kinematics. Int J Golf Sci 2015; 4: 136–146.

44.

Turner

Forrester

Mears

, et al. The effect of golf club moment of inertia on clubhead delivery and golfer kinematics. MDPI 2020; 49: 96.

45.

Lee

J-H

Kim

H-D

, et al. The influence of service quality on satisfaction and intention: a gender segmentation strategy. Sport Manage Rev 2011; 14: 54–63.

46.

Dyer

. An investigation into the product attachment between athletes and their sports equipment. Des J 2020; 24: 189–206.

47.

Roberts

Jones

Mansfield

, et al. Evaluation of vibrotactile sensations in the ‘feel’ of a golf shot. J Sound Vib 2005; 285: 303–319.

48.

Naylor

McBeath

. Gender differences in spatial perception of body tilt. Percept Psychophys 2008; 70: 199–207.

49.

Kong

Bagdon

. Shoe preference based on subjective comfort for walking and running. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010; 100: 456–462.

50.

Fraser

Kochanek

. What place does elite sport have for women? A scoping review of constraints. Front Sports Act Living 2023; 5: 1121676.

51.

Goodway

Robinson

Crowe

. Gender differences in fundamental motor skill development in disadvantaged preschoolers from two geographical regions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2010; 81: 17–24.

52.

Renshaw

Chow

Davids

, et al.

A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis?

Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2010; 15: 117–137.

53.

Titleist Women's Golf. Titleist, https://www.titleist.co.uk/womens-golf-equipment (accessed 3 March 2026).

54.

Cherry

. Gender neutral tees & teeing it forward. Women's Golf 2023. https://www.womensgolfmagazine.com.au/latest-news/gender-neutral-tees-and-teeing-it-forward/ (accessed 9 March 2026).

55.

Cradock

. It doesn't matter if you're male or female’ – Club unveils gender neutral tees. Golf Monthly 2022. https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/it-doesnt-matter-if-youre-male-or-female-club-unveils-gender-neutral-tees (accessed 9 March 2026).