In a post from last summer I stated that I thought Andy Murray would be a grand slam winner in the not too distant future. His form in the Australian open so far has done nothing to make me change my mind. He’s looked formidable in every match he’s played and is now to play Rafael Nadal in the quarter finals.

Unfortunately, a certain Roger Federer is also looking in very good form, particularly during his 3 set dismantling of Lleyton Hewitt. There is nothing Murray can do about the way Federer is playing and he has to ensure that he gives no credence to things that are outside of his control. All focus should be on the parts of the game he has influence over, namely how he plays and approaches the game.

I once had a rugby coach that used to say ‘concentrate on the performance and the result will look after itself’. The number of tries and points we could score was influenced by external factors; the other team. However, we knew that if we executed our set piece the way we wanted, made our tackles and played our quick offload game with limited errors we would win. A common example of the opposite can be seen every saturday on match of the day. It always makes me laugh when I see football managers blaming the referee after a game for their loss. By blaming an ‘external locus of causality’, it takes the result out of his players’ hands and actually serves to reduce their intrinsic motivation (the will to something because you want to, rather than because of some external reward).

If Murray sees the result as an internal locus of causality, or in his own hands, then my status as fortune teller could well be cemented.

This research overview focuses on strength and conditioning for golfers. Golf is a very technical sport, with athletes devoting vast amounts of time to swing mechanics through drills on the driving range and time on the course. In my experience, their physical preparation is often overlooked. This paper by Lephart et al (2007) looks at the effects of an 8 week training program on golf performance for recreational golfers.

The study had 15 participants with mean ± standard deviation age, height, weight and US golf association handicap of 47.2 ± 11.4 years, 178.8 ± 5.8cm, 86.7 ± 9.0kg and 12.1 ± 6.4 respectively. All participants were regular golfers playing 2-3 times per week and practicing at the range 2-3 times per week. They refrained from golf practice and play and any other conditioning activity during the intervention. Each participant took part in an 8 week strength and conditioning program aimed at improving strength, flexibility, balance and, more specifically, targeting stability of the lower body and mobility of the upper body.

Golf swing kinematic data was collected with an 8 camera 3D motion capture system, golf ball launch data was collected with the Vector Launch system, strength was tested using isokinetic dynamometry , balance was tested using a Kistler force plate and range of motion tested using a goniometer. For a full methodology please check the original paper.

Participants performed a program of exercises including static stretching exercises, high repetition band resisted golf swing exercises including resisted backswings and downswings and resisted hip adductions and abductions and balancing exercises. They were instructed to perform this session of exercises 3-4 times per week for the 8 weeks and to increase the load on the strengthening exercises once they became comfortable.

The results show significant improvements at the end of the 8 weeks in the majority of strength tests, in all of the flexibility values and a number of the golf launch data including club and ball velocities, total distance and carry distance. It was concluded that recreational golfers who partake in a targeted golf strength and conditioning program can develop a more stable base with greater functional flexibility allowing for greater rotational forces to be generated and resulting in greater club head velocity.

For golfers reading this overview looking to implement strength and conditioning into their training, it is worth remembering that everybody has their own baseline from which to start. An individualised training program based on your own individual needs, goals and training history from an accredited strength and conditioning coach rather than a generalised program is the best way to maximise improvement in your game.

Lephart, S.M., Smoliga, J.M., Myers, J.B., Sell, T.C. & Tsai, Y.S. (2007). A eight-week golf specific exercise program improves physical characteristics, swing mechanics and golf performance in recreational golfers. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3) pp. 860-869.

I recently read and saw a few pieces posted by and about Mike Boyle on his decision to not include the squat as part of his training programs instead preferring to prescribe Bulgarian split squats (watch the video here). I also read replies both advocating this stance and also, often quite angrily, disagreeing with it.

Neuromuscular patterning and movement specificity is an important part of the training program and the split squat, along with it’s variations, is a fantastic exercise for developing abductor strength for knee alignment and high levels of specificity for runners. Boyle mentioned one of the reasons for using this exercise was that scores for this lift with his athletes were greater than half of their regular squat scores.

I’m not 100% convinced that the Bulgarian split squat should deliver exactly half the lifting scores of a back squat, in fact I am not surprised by the fact it doesn’t as it is still, essentially, a two legged lift. I’d like to see some published research that compares EMG activity during both lifts and some training program based comparison evidence before I myself start to think about completely removing the squat and it’s derivatives from my programs.

I find that for an inexperienced lifter the squat will often see a much quicker increase in the load they can lift, purely from the balance and coordination issues associated with a split stance as well as an associated improvement in range of motion. For these reasons and the fact that, as a coach, I’m looking for the most improvement in the shortest time, I would probably still use squats as a primary method for strength increase with inexperienced lifters. But it’s definitely worth phasing the split technique in using the warm up to improve balance and coordination as well as correct or maintain knee alignment issues.

Some research comparing the 2 lifts would be great to see and I’m sure the discussion will continue for some time. What I would like to see less of though is the instant and aggressive response to any new ideas, particularly towards one of the most eminent practitioners in the world. We are all trying to maintain, and in this country, continue to establish strength and conditioning science as a respected field, for me this means discussion, debate and research not dismissal, slander and hearsay.