ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Comparisons of the biomechanical characteristics of the swing planes for the driver and 7-iron during the golf swing.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare swing plane biomechanics between the driver and 7-iron in golf and elucidate the kinematic and dynamic mechanisms underlying swing plane formation. Methods: Sixteen male low-handicap golfers were recruited. A 3D motion capture system and two force plates were used to simultaneously record swing data for the driver and 7-iron. Swing plane angle, torso and pelvic angle, center of mass displacement, and ground reaction force (GRF) parameters were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using paired t-tests, correlation analysis, and SPM {t}. Results: The driver showed a significantly smaller tilt angle than the 7-iron across all phases (p < 0.001), and a significantly smaller azimuth angle during the release-acceleration phase (p < 0.001). During the backswing, the 7-iron tilt angle was negatively correlated with torso rotation ROM (r = -0.701) and pelvic rotation ROM (r = -0.730), whereas the driver exhibited greater torso and pelvic rotation ROM than the 7-iron (both p < 0.05). During the release-acceleration phase, the driver tilt angle was positively correlated with pelvic forward tilt ROM (r = 0.850). SPM analysis further showed that the driver had a significantly smaller torso side tilt angle than the 7-iron during 0%-89% swing cycle (p = 0.001). During the downswing to follow through, the driver tilt angle was negatively correlated with AP RGRFmax (r = -0.805), whereas the 7-iron tilt angle was positively correlated with ML LGRFmax (r = 0.633). In addition, the driver exhibited significantly greater AP RGRF during 0%-5%, 37%-62%, and 83%-89% swing cycles, and significantly smaller ML LGRF during 0%-18% and 84%-93% swing cycles, compared with the 7-iron (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The driver relies on rotation of the torso and pelvis, combined with power generation from the rear, to create a flat swing plane, while the 7-iron maintains a steep and highly consistent plane through body posture control and front-side braking. Training should focus on strengthening the corresponding biomechanical capabilities to optimize the stability of swing plane.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.