TWO FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE ACQUISITION

OF THE GOLF SWING

by

LANA JEANNE V700DL0CK, B . S .

A THESIS

IN

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

August^ 1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express her deepest apprecia-

tion to the professors and students of Texas Tech University

who offered constructive suggestions concerning various por-

tions of this study.

The writer also wishes to acknowledge her apprecia-

tion of the students of Andrews Junior High School who

served as subjects for this study.

Special thanks go to Dr. Margaret Wilson and Dr.

Mary Owens for serving on the committee.

The writer wishes to acknowledge her greatest per-

sonal indebtedness to Dr. Doris A. Horton for her under-

standing, patience^ encouragement, and assistance through-

out' the conduct of this study.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OP TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Definition of Terms 3

II. REVIEl'J OF LITERATURE 4

Importance of the Straight Left Ann in the Execution of the Golf Swlng 4

Studies of Methods of Teaching

the Golf Swing 9

III. PROCEDURES ih

Report of the Pilot Study ih

Selection of Golf Test for the Five-Iron l4

Development of Elbov7-Movement Restriction Device 17

Conduct of the Pilot Study . . . 17 Collection of Pilot Study Data . 19 Findings of the Pilot Study . . 19

Procedures for Conduct of the Experiment 21

Selection of Subjects and Assignment to Groups . . . . 22

Selection of a Five-Iron Golf Test 23

iii

iv

Chapter Page

Description of Experimental Conditions 25

Collection of Data 25

Statistical Analysis 27

IV. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS 28

Reliability Estimates 28

Comparison of Performances Among Groups 29

Post Hoc Comparisons 3^

Comparison of Experimental Group Means 3^

Comparison of Experim.ental Groups

with Control Groups 35

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 37

Sumraary 37

Discussion 38

Conclusions 38

Recomraendations for Further Study . . 39

LIST OF REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX

A. Pilot Study ^3 B. Experimental Study 48

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE page

I. Design of the Experiment 22

II. Reliability Estimates for the Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test 28

III. Means and Standard Deviations for the Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test . . . . 30

IV. Means and Standard Deviations Used in

the Analysis of Variance 31

V. Summary of the Analysis of Variance . . . 33

VI. Scheffe^Test for Comparison Between Means of Experimental Groups 34

VII. Results of the jb Test for Differences Between Experimental and Control Group Means 35

VIII. Raw Data, Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test Two Week Experimental Group 49

IX. Raw Data^ Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test Tvio Week Cont ro l Group 50

k. Raw Data, Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test Three Week Experim.ental Group . . . . 51

XI. Ravr Data, Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test Three Week Control Group 52

XII. Raw Data, Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test Four Víeek Experimental Group 53

XIII. Raw Data, Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test ^ Four Week Control Group 54

LIST OF FIGURES

PIGURE Page

1. Elbow-Movement Restriction Device l8

2. Pilot Study Data--Mean Scores on the Hunter Five-Iron Golf Test 20

3. Specifications for Vanderhoof Five-Iron Golf Test 24

4. Specifications for Modified Vanderhoof Five-Iron Golf Test 26

5. Subject Scorecard for Hunter Five-Iron Test 44

6. Specifications for the Hunter Target for the Pive-Iron 46

7. Target for the Hunter Test 47

8. Form Used in Recording Scores for the Modified Vanderhoof Golf Test for the Five-Iron 55

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A need for development of more effective methods

for teaching the golf swing dictates that new techniques

or new combinations of techniques be discovered, and that

new teaching aids be investigated thoroughly in an inten-

s ve search for methods to increase learning.

From a relatively small number of motor skill studies

completed by physical educators and extensive studies done

in psychology on verbal learning^ maze learning^ puzzle

solving, and fine motor skills, physical education instruc-

tors have derived principles for the learning and teaching

of motor skills. Singer states that " . . . the danger in

applying principles from one learning task to another m.ust

be realized and considered. Generalizations must be made

with caution rather than v/ith recklessness until further

evidence on motor skill upholds or reputes these prin-

ciples." (29. p. 13)

There have been studies in physical education and

in other fields of a variety of factors involved in the pro-

cess of learning a motor skill. Length of practice periods,

work-rest ratio V7ithin a practice period, spaced and massed

practice^ retention of a motor skill^ and effects of physio-

logical and psychological factors are some of the variables

2

which have been investigated. However, there is a need

for additional studies in the field of physical education

concerning the effective use of time in learning a sport

skill as defined by maximum skill development in a minimum

practice time. Enough practice to establish the learning

of the skill is necessary. However, prolonged practice may

reach the point of diminishing returns in the acquisition

of a motor skill. More direct studies on the learning pro-

cess as it involves participants in the physical education

program must be fostered. Hence, this study is concerned

with the length of time involved in learning the golf swing

and the influence of a left elbow restriction device on

learning the golf swing.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to investigate two i'

factors involved in the acquisition of the golf sv;ing. The

two variables studied were time and restricted left elbov;

flexion.

In this study the following questions were asked;

(1) Would there be a difference in skill obtained between subjects v/ho used an elbow-movement restriction device and those subjects who did not use an elbow-movement restriction device in learning the golf sv/ing?

(2) Would there be differences in the final achieve-ment level of subjects who practiced the golf swing for two weeks, three weeks^ or four weeks with and v/ithout elbow-movement restriction?

Definition of Terms

Elbow-movement restriction devicej as used in this

study, refers to a thin cupped sheet of m.etal approximately

eight inches long, padded with foam rubber and covered in

vinyl, worn on the outside of the left arm at the elbow,

thereby restricting left elbow flexion.

Beginning golfers^ as used in this study, refers to

subjects who have had no previous instruction in golf.

Two week practice period refers to a two week prac-

tice period. Subjects practiced the golf swing fifteen

minutes daily Monday through Friday for two consecutive

weeks.

Three v/eek practice T)eriod refers to a three v;eek

practice period. Subjects practiced the golf swing fifteen

minutes daily Monday through Friday for three consecutive

weeks.

Four week practice period refers to a four week

practice period. Subjects practiced the golf sv/ing fif-

teen minutes daily Monday through Friday for four consecu-

tive væeks.

Golf swing, as used in this study, refers to the

execution of the full swing using the five-iron.

SubJectSj as used in this study^ refers to forty-

seven beginning golfers in three physical education classes

at Andrev /s Junior High School in Andrews^ Texas. The sub-

Jects v/ere female students in the seventh grade.

CHAPTER II

REVIEV7 OF LITERATURE

There is agreement among golf authorities concern-

ing the importance of the straight left arm in v/ood and

iron play. Although it is recognized that individuals de-

ve op their own style of play^ there seems to be agreement

among authorities regarding certain fundamentals in the

execution of the golf drive no matter v/ho the player or

what his style of play.

The review of literature will be composed of tv/o

sections: Authoritative opinions and information about

the importance of a straight left arm, and studies on

methods of teaching golf.

Importance of the Straight Left Arm in the Execution of the Golf Swing

Much of the available information about golf has

been contributed by professional golfers. Each professional

player has expressed his ideas as to the imiportance of the

straight left elbow in the execution of the golf swing.

Brown described golf as a left-handed game for

right-handed people. He also stated: "Individual swings

vary greatly, but one principle must guide all styles: a

proper swing must be controlled by the left hand^ left

arm, and left side." (5, p. 55)

4

5

According to Rees, "The straight left arm has been

a golf expression for a half-century or more, and it re-

mains a very good piece of advice." (26^ p. 32)

Bending the left elbow is a common error among be-

ginners according to Palmer. He stated:

At least one out of every four amateurs, it has been my observation^ bends the left elbow con-sistently or at least on every shot where he is trying for extra distance. Bending the left elbov; is one of the few errors that must be consciously avoided. (25, p. 37)

Lema stated, "The theory of the straight left arm

is sound. It is one of the building blocks of the golf

swing." (18, p. 40) The safest way to hit a solid shot

is with a straight left elbow (19).

Middlecoff reasoned that "by means of a straight

left arm, one m.ovement--that of the elbow Joint--is elimin-

ated, and this allows the left arm to act as a fulcrum. in

the movement of both hands when hitting the ball." He

also stated that " . . . the more troublesome phases that

can be eliminated from a golf swing, the more simple the

process of hitting the ball correctly will become." (22,

P. 27)

Camerer stated that "size and type of swing may dif-

fer but relative position of perpendicular right arm. to

straight left arm at this crucial instant is basic for all.

There is no other RIGHT way to come into the ball." (7,

p. 15)

6 Hogan stressed the importance of the extended arm

in the execution of the backswing by stating: "The golfer

can't have control of the club or start down into the ball

with any power or speed unless his left arm is straight to

begin with." (l6, p. 70)

Further agreement among authorities regarding the

undesirable characteristic of the bent elbow is evident

when Boros, in discussing the execution of the backswing,

pointed out that "without a straight left arm, the long

full arc, which is instrumental in producing distance, is

Just about impossible. A bent left arm will permit your

shaft to drop far below the horizontal at the top of your

backswing, making a smooth start on the forward swing very

difficult." (2, p. 80)

In describing Marty Fleckman's swing, Nelson stated

that "his left arm is perfectly straight, which helps keep

the clubhead in the same path swing after swing. This

firm left arm will lead to consistency in any golfer's

sw ng." (23, p. 56)

Toski (33) agreed with Nelson that the straight

left elbow adds consistency to golf shots.

A survey by Rehling (27) of eleven professional in-

structors and one amateur showed unanimous agreement among

the twelve that the left arm and shaft of the club formed

a straight line to the ball from the backswing through

contact.

The majority of literature reviewed stressed the

importance of the straight left arm. However, two profes-

sional golfers contended that a straight left arm v/as not

absolutely essential to the golf swing.

Vardon (34) contended that it was impossible for

the left arm to be straight at the top of the backswing.

But Stanley stated that "maybe this was wishful thinking,

for Vardon's left arm was bent." (31, p. 65)

This opinion is also expressed by Snead when he

stated:

A straight left arm is not essential to good golf, but it is good form, and is conducive to a good game. Many fine golfers bend the left arm slightly at the top of the backsv/ing, but early in the downsv;ing, it is straightened so that at impact it is in a position that forms a straight line from the clubhead to the left shoulder.

The left arm connects the club to the left .-.shoulder, which is the hub of the swing. By keep-' ing it straight, the swinging arc is lengthened, enabling the golfer to get a longer sweep at the

ball. (30, p. 109)

Kinesiologists have not only stressed the importance

of a straight left arm in the execution of the golf swing,

but have explained the mechanical reasons for its impor-

tance.

The importance attached to correct position of the

left a m in stroke execution was again advised by Bunn: The front arm should be kept straight. This

gives a longer lever. A longer lever gives greater linear velocity of the clubhead with the same angular velocity. The ball should be met at the bottom of the sv;ing. The clubhead is moving with

8

the greatest spesd in the desired direction of the flight of the ball at this point.

As a guide to the analysis of errors in the timing of the sequence of movements in the swing, the following may be helpful: Lifting the arms or bending the elbow will cause the ball to be topped. The lever is shortened so that the clubhead will not quite reach the ball for a perfect hit. (6, p. 231)

Broer also stated:

It is not important that the left arm be straight at the top of the backswing, it is only important that it be straight at impact. If the student is relaxed in his swing, centrifugal force and gravity will pull the arms straight at the center of the arc of the svring. Too frequently concentration on a straight left arm throughout the swing leads to so much tension in that arm that the student actually pulls it in as he swings through and tops or misses the ball. (3, p. 254)

According to Hav/ley, "it is necessary, in order to

avoid a slice, to swing the head of the club dov/n and

through exactly in the line of direction of the hole (or

aini), the left elbow during the backswing must be kept

almost straight." (15, p. 94)

A study by Garrison (l4) using electiomyographic and

cinematographic recordings of experienced golfers^ showed

that the left elbow was fully extended during the back-

^swing and through the point of contact.

Through an electromyographic- study of a female sub-

Ject hitting with a five-iron, Broer and Houtz found that

during the backswing, "The increased activity in the left

triceps without doubt indicates its involvement in main-

taining the elbow in a relatively extended position." (4,

p. 69)

During the forward swing to the point of contact

the triceps continue to maintain the extended left elbow.

In the analysis presented by these authorities, it

is obvious that there is general agreement among them con-

cerning the position of the left elbow during the execution

of the golf swing. The differences of opinion are minor

and center around a question of whether or not the elbov/

is straight or slightly bent at the top of the backswing.

Studies of Methods of Teaching the Golf Swing

Very little experimentation has been undertaken to

standardize a method of teaching the golf swing that would

achieve maximum results. No one answer is available to

the question of how an individual should be taught to svíing

a five-iron.

In the following comments advocating methods of

teaching the golf swing, it should be noted that all are

conclusions derived from experimental evidence.

A study by McCoy (20) was made to determine the

effect of three methods of teaching the golf drive. Em-

^phasis was placed on (l) speed of golf ball follovjed by

eraphasis on ball placement accuracyj (2) placement accur-

acy of a golf ball followed by emphasis on speed; and

(3) equal emphasis of placement accuracy and ball speed.

Thirty college students at the University of Wyoming were

randomly placed into three groups. The practice and

10

instruction period was divided into two periods of ten days

each.

Analysis of covariance and analysis of multiple

covariance were computed. A significant difference dur-

ing the first ten days v;as noted betv;een the equal-emphasis

group and the accuracy-speed group. The accuracy-speed

group was significantly better on p acement accuracy and

the equal-emphasis group was significantly better on ball

velocity. No other significant differences were found.

Toole studied the effects of three methods of teach-

ing golf to determine " . . . the effect of teaching cues

focusing attention on different aspects of a full golf

swing on achievement of learners selected on the basls of

differential skill in the related task of batting." (32,

p. 71)

Subjects, ages twelve through eighteen v;ith no pre-

vious instruction in golf were assigned to one of three

methods on the basis of sex and batting ability.

One method was based on the assumption that those

with less skill in the related task of batting needed in-

struction on similar body movement in golf. The total

golf swing v;as divided into six phases.

The second method emphasized the plane, range, and

acceleration of the clubhead. This method was based on

the assumption that for subjects v;ho could perform the body

movements essential to batting, attention to the effect of

11

the weight of the clubhead through its arc on continuity

and acceleration would be sufficient to elicit the required

body movement v;hich had been learned in the skill of bat-

ting.

The third method was a combination of the other two

methods.

After the completion of seven hours of lessons with

a five iron, two trials of the subjects executing the golf

swing were filmed.

The conclusions reached were:

1. Subjects with greater batting ability had significantly greater clubhead velocity and range of pelvic rotation in the golf swing than subjects with less batting ability.

2. Different golf teaching cues did not sig-nificantly differentiate achievement in either clubhead velocity or range of pel-vic rotation among learners.

3. Body movement and club movement cues had a comparable effect on the plane of the swing, the length of pause at the top of the backswing, and the ratio of dovm-swing to backswing.

4. Although there v;ere no significant differ-ences in the effect of body or club move-ment teaching cues on achieving a straight left elbow at the top of the backswing, it appeared that attention to the action of the club enhanced extension of the left arm.

Nelson (24) investigated the effects of slow-motion

loop films on the learning of golf. Forty-seven male and

female subjects were placed into groups on the basis of a

12

pretest. The experimental and control groups practiced

for fifteen days. The experimental group used slov;-motion

loop films during each practice period. The jt test showed

no significant differences between groups.

The effectiveness of Golf-0-Tron as a teaching aid

as compared to the conventional practice range method of

instruction was investigated by Chui (8).

The Golf-0-Tron is a modified missile tracking com-

puter. This device v;as used v;ith color photographs of a

selected golf course. The approximate position of the

ball on the fairway and the exact yardage the ball v;ould

travel v/ere instantly shown after each shot.

Subjects for the study were eighty-five beginning

men and women golf students at the University of Hav;aii.

The group that used the Golf-0-Tron formed the experimental

groúp v;hile the group that used the conventional practice

range method formed the control group. Data were collected

following four weeks of instruction.

Analysis of covariance was computed. No signifi-

cant differences were found between the group that used

the Golf-0-Tron and the group that used the conventional

practice range method of instruction.

The process involved in learning the golf sv;ing is

a matter of great concern to physical educators. Various

teaching methods have been continuously applied to bring

about more efficient learning.

13

It is the general opinion of the golf authorities

that the straight left arm is an important factor in the

execution of the golf swing. Hov;ever, the method studies

reviev;ed did not contain a method of controlling the left

arm. Therefore, this study was concerned v;ith a method

of teaching the golf swing v;hich included restriction of

the left elbow.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

A description of the methods and procedures followed

in carrying out the purposes of the study are presented in

this chapter.

Report of the Pilot Study

It v/as necessary to conduct a pilot study to deter-

mine if an elbow-restriction device could be designed that

would effectively restrict elbow flexion. A survey was

also necessary to determine if there was a mid-iron golf

test that would raeet the criteria for selection.

Selection of Golf Test for the Five-Iron

Although the game of golf may be considered its own

best test, a number of attempts have been made to measure

the various elements involved (9). Through a review of

literature, five tests were found that measured performance

with a five-iron.

Rehling (28) devised five tests to determine the

ability and progress of a beginning golfer. The tests in-

cluded the chipping test, pitching test, wood shot test,

short-iron test, and putting test. Only the chipping test

used a five-iron. Stroke accuracy for the five-iron was

measured by the subject's ability to hit the ball fifteen

feet from the green within a five foot and ten foot radius

14

15

of the cup. No reliability or validity coefficients were

reported for the Rehling tests.

Clevett (10) designed indoor tests to measure accur-

acy with the brassie, mid-iron, and putter. The mid-iron

test was given in a cage and the target was ten feet square

divided into twenty-five equal segments^ each of which was

twenty inches square. The subjects stood tv;enty-one feet

from the center of the target. Each subject hit ten shots

with no preliminary practice or instruction permitted. No

reliability or validity was reported for the tests.

A five-iron test which measured velocity of the ball^

angle of impact of the clubhead, and angle of deviation to

the right or left of an intended line of flight was de-

veloped by McKee (21). One hundred thirty-five women sub-

Jects performed twenty trials. Each trial v;as marked v;ith

a stake v/here the ball first touched. A stop watch was

used to time the ball from the moment of impact until the

ball touched the ground. The distance the ball traveled

along the intended line of flight was measured, and the

distance the ball deviated from the intended line of flight

was measured. Trigonometric functions v;ere used to de-

termine the angle of deviation from the intended line of

flight, the distance the ball actually traveled^ and the

angle of im.pact. The reliability of the distance-driving

golf test was .90 and v;as calculated from the average of

the ten odd and the ten even-num.bered trials.

16

The Vanderhoof Test (1) was developed to raeasure

golfing ability. The target was marked on a gymnasium

floor and covered an area seventy-four by thirteen feet.

The target consisted of three sections which were tv;enty

by thirteen feet and one section which v;as fourteen by

thirteen feet. The subjects hit fifteen plastic balls

over a rope placed eight feet above the floor. A ball had

to pass over the rope and land in the areas marked on the

floor to be scored. T\<;o topped balls in succession were

scored as one trial. The reliability coefficient was .84 *

for 110 college women at the State University of lowa.

An unpublished test devised by Hunter (17) was de-

signed to evaluate skill of beginning golf students. Stroke

accuracy for the five-iron v;as measured by the subjects

ability to hit a twelve by tv;elve and one-half foot v/all

target from a distance of thirty feet. Twenty trials v;ere

given and the score for each trial v;as the sum of the verti-

cal and lateral deviations. The reliability of the test

was .89 for twenty subjects in a beginning golf class at

Texas Tech University. The odd-numbered trials v;ere cor-

related v;ith the even-numbered trials and stepped up by

the Spearman-Brown Prophecy fonnula. Face validity was

claimed.

Of the five tests reviev;ed, the Rehling test and the

Clevett test reported no technical standards. The McKee

test was an outdoor test. Both the Hunter and Vanderhoof

17

test reported adequate technical standards. Hov;ever, since

the Hunter test required less space, it v;as selected.

Development of Elbov;-Movement Restriction Device

A way to inhibit elbow flexion was needed; therefore,

a restriction device v;as constructed and tried v;ith various

golfers to determine that it v;ould comfortably restrict

elbow flexion. After modification and improveraent the

final device was raade of a thin-cupped sheet of metal pad-

ded with foam rubber, covered with vinyl and held in place

by two leather straps. See Figure 1 on the following page.

Conduct of the Pilot Study

A four-week unit in golf was planned for students

in Andrews Junior High School in Andrews, Texas. Eighty

female students in the seventh grade constituted the sample

for the pilot study. Subjects volunteered and were placed

into tv;o groups. One group formed the experimental group

and wore the elbov;-movem-ent restriction device v;hile practic

ing the golf swing. A second group was the control group

who practiced the golf swing v;ithout any restriction de-

Vice on the left elbov;.

The pilot study was conducted in regular physical

education classes during the spring of 1969. All classes

met five days a week for forty-five minutes, fifteen of

which were spent practicing with or v;ithout the elbow-

movement restriction device.

18

0)

o >

p

o .H -P o .H

-P co 0) •p <D

6 > o S I o iH

w

0) ÎH

bD

19

Collection of Pilot Study Data

Data for the pilot study were collected following

fifteen days of instruction. The subjects were instructed

before the testing session. Appendix A contains the in-

structions read to the subjects before the testing session.

The Hunter test was administered in the gymnasium regularly

used for class instruction.

The Hunter test v;as placed on a piece of oil cloth

and suspended from the ceiling. Specifications for the

target appear in Figure 6, Appendix A.

Scores for twenty trials were recorded for each

subject following five practice trials. The score card

used in recording scores for the Hunter five-iron test ap-

pear in Appendix A, Figure 5- The lateral deviation and

vertical deviation scores were determined by the point at

which the ball hit the target. The composite score for

each trial was the sum of the vertical and lateral devia-

tions. Figure 7 in Appendix A shows hov; the Hunter target

was scored.

Findings of the Pilot Study

The means by trials were computed for both groups.

The results are shown in Figure 2. To ansx>;er the question,

was there a difference in skill obtained between subjects

who used an elbow-movement restriction device and those

subjects who did not use an elbow-m.ovement restriction de-

vice, a _t test for significance of difference betv;een means

20

H cd

'H

£ri

O

H

rH

H

VO H

H

H

OO H

OJ H

O H

-• Ch f '

OD

^ -

V O

ro

OJ

H

ttí

o o H o

o o

í i o u o H ctí "p c <u H 0) PH

o\ co t - VD in ^ m OJ

o H I

> •H

ÍH <D

- P

Q)

•P

c o CQ Q)

O O

c cd <D

I I

cO •P ctí

p

> i 'O Zi

+> co • p o H H (1<

C\J

<D

fcû W H O

H O O

21

was made. The test was made under the null hypothesis,

and the .05 level set for rejection.

Data were analyzed using the Texas Tech t test pro-

gram at the Texas Tech Computer Center. The obtained

value for t was I.83, and this value was insufficient in

magnitude to reject the null hypothesisj therefore, no dif-

ferences beti een the two groups existed.

Factors which may have influenced the outcome of

the pilot study were that some subjects chipped on the test

instead of taking a full swing; the study was made in the

last nineteen days of the school year during which time

numerous interruptions to regular class periods occurred;

the subjects volunteered; and the test used was found to

have a reliability of .68 for seventh grade subjects,

v;hereas the reliability reported for college women v;as .89.

The elbow-movement restriction device v;as found to

effectively restrict elbov; flexion. The subjects stated

that it v;as not uncomfortable and that it did not interfere

with the execution of the golf stroke.

Procedures for Conduct of the Experiment

Based on the questions raised by the pilot study,

there was reason to believe an experiment using the elbow-

movement restriction device designed for the pilot study

would warrant repeating.

22

Therefore, the methods and procedures used in this

study were designed to determine if the extended left arm

and the length of practice periods v;ere factors involved

in the acquisition of the five-iron stroke.

Selection of Subjects and Assign-ment t o GrouiDS I — *

Students without previous instruction in golf were

selected as subjects for this study. The subjects were

forty-seven beginning golfers in three physical education

classes at Andrev;s Junior High School in Andrews, Texas.

The subjects were female students in the seventh grade.

The subjects were randomly assigned to one of six

groups.

TABLE I

r DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT i'

Treatments ipij^e Tl T

Conditions 1 2

Two Weeks Víith Arm Restriction Víithout Arm Restriction

Three Víeeks With Arm Restriction VJithout Arm Restriction

'Four Víeeks Víith Arra Restriction V/ithout Arm Restriction

The elbov;-movement restriction device developed for

the pilot study w?s used to restrict left elbow flexion

for the three experimental groups.

23

The three experimental groups wore the elbov;-

movement restriction device v;hile practicing the golf swing

The three control groups practiced the golf sv;ing without

any restriction device on the left elbow.

Practice periods of tv;o, three, and four v;eeks v;ere

chosen to determine if there were any differences in skill

acquired among the subjects follov;ing tv;o v;eeks, three

weeks, or four weeks of practice.

Selection of a Five-Iron Golf Test

The Hunter test used in the pilot study v;as found

to have a lov;er reliability for seventh grade subjects

than the reliability reported for college women. The test

did not adequately discriminate betv;een the Junior high

school skill levels.

From the survey of the available five-iron tests, f'

the Vanderhoof test reported adequate technical standards.

However, the Vanderhoof test v;as designed to measure golf

skill at the college level. Therefore, the test was mxOdi-

fied by adding one additional scoring area to the right

and the left sides of the target. The decision to modify

'the target was made following an analysis of the pilot

study data. The data showed that the Junior high school

golfers deviated more v;idely right and left than did col-

lege v;omen.

Specifications for the Vanderhoof test appear in

Figure 3, and the modified Vanderhoof target widened

24

^__/X Point of Aim

Rope

__ Ball X—. Subject

Figure 3. Specifications for Vanderhoof Five-Iron Golf Test

25

thirteen feet on either side appears in Figure 4.

Description of Experlmental Conditions

The study was conducted during regular physical edu-

cation class periods during the fall of I969. All classes

met five days a week for sixty minutes. The actual prac-

tice time for each subject was fifteen minutes daily.

During the remaining thirty minutes of the class period

the students practiced putting and received instruction on

the rules of golf. Subjects had either ten, fifteen, or

twenty practice periods before post experimental data were

collected.

Collection of Data

Data for this study v;ere collected at the conclusion

of each of the three experimental periods. Instructions

read to the subjects before the testing session, form used

in recording scores, and rav; data appear in Appendix B.

The modified Vanderhoof target, appearing in Figure

4, was marked on the gymnasium floor. A ball had to pass

over the rope and land in the areas marked on the floor

'to be scored. Two topped balls in succession were scored

as one trial. The point of aim was a ten pin placed within

the last tv;enty by fourteen foot section in the center of

the target. The maxiraum score for any one trial was eight

points.

26

rîx (o Xr- — Point of Aim

Ball X Subject

Figure 4. Specifications for Modified Vanderhoof Five-Iron Golf Test

27

One-half of the subjects in each group v;ere tested

at the conclusion of each of the three experimxental periods:

two, three, and four v;eeks. The remaining subjects of each

group v;ere tested the following day.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed by intrac ass correlation

techniques to determine reliability estimates for the raodi-

fied Vanderhoof five-iron golf test. Estiraates v;ere raade

using the reliability of the average as outlined by Ebel

(12).

Analysis of variance procedures were used to com-

pare the experimental and control groups and the three

practice periods. All tests v;ere made under the null hy-

pothesis, and the .05 level set for rejection.

Víhen the overall F ratio attained significance, the

Scheffe test and Fischers _t test were utilized to mxake

post hoc comparisons betv/een means.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

The results of the analysis of data will be pre-

sented in this chapter. Data v/ere obtained from forty-

seven subjects randomly assigned to practice the golf swing

either with an elbow-moveraent restriction device or v;ith-

out a restriction device for a period of ten days, fifteen

days, or twenty days.

The analysis i ill consist of reliability estimates

and comparisons of final performances of the six groups.

Reliability Estiraates

The data were analyzed by an intraclass correlation

technique described by Ebel (12). The correlation coeffi-

cients obtained appear in Table II.

TABLE II

RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR THE MODIFIED VANDERHOOF GOLF TEST

Group r*

Two Víeeks Practice--(N = 15) .901

Three V eeks Practice--(N = l6) .388

Four Weeks Practice--(N = 16) .850

•x-

r = reliability of the average

28

29

The estimates for the two and four v;eek practice

groups were both satisfactory. However, the erratic per-

formance of the three v;eek practice groups, the relatively

small standard deviation around the mean, shov;n in Table

III, and lov; reliability estimates make subsequent analysis

of the data for these two groups questionable.

Comparison of Performances Among Groups

The analysis of variance was utilized to ansv;er

the questions posed in the statement of the problem:

V/ould subjects with arm restriction differ from subjects

without arm restriction in the execution of the golf swing

and v;ould subjects practicing tv;o, three, or four weeks

differ?

The mean performance of each of the six groups

appear in Table IV and constitutes the data used in the

analysis. Five of the six groups were composed of eight

subjects each v;ith the exception of the two week control

group which consisted of seven subjects. Because the com-

puter program v;as designed to compare only samples of

equal size, one subject was randomly drawn from each of

the five groups containing eight subjects to equate the

sample sizes.

Data were analyzed using the Texas Tech analysis

of variance program, completely randomized factorial de-

sign. The analysis was made to compare the experim.ental

30

TABLE III

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED VANDERHOOF GOLF TEST

88.63

83.38

88.00

17.33

7.54

12.92

Group X sd

Experimental Groups

Two weeks practice

Three weeks practice

Four weeks practice

Control Groups

Two weeks practice

Three weeks practice

Four v;eeks practice

N = 47

65.00

78.00

78.63

22.26

10.04

19.06

31

TABLE rv

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Group X sd

Experimental

Two Week Practice Period 86.43 17.47

Three Week Practice Period 84.14 7.80

Four Week Practice Period 85.43 11.53

Control

Two Week Practice Period

..Three Week Practice Period

Four Víeek Practice Period

N = 7 for each group

65.00

77.75

78.57

22.26

10.77

20.58

32

and control groups, and the three practice periods. The

computer program was based on techniques described by Kirk

(13). The summary of the analysis of variance appears in

Table V. The analysis v;as made under the null hypothesis

with the point of rejection set at the .05 level.

The computer program utilized designated the prob-

ability level for all sources of variance and are reported

in Table V. The F ratio of 5.54 obtained for groups ex-

ceeded the value required at the .05 level. Therefore,

the null hypothesiSj v;hich states no difference, was re-

Jected, and it can be stated that the overall performance

of subjects v;ho used an elbov;-movement restriction device

was significantly better than the overall performance of

subjects who did not use an elbov;-movement restriction

device.

' The F values obtained for the three practice periods

failed to reach the value required for the rejection of

the null hypothesis. There were no significant differences

between subjects v;ho practiced tv;o v;eeks, three weeks, or

four weeks.

The obtained F values for the interaction of groups

with practice periods did not reach the value required for

rejection of the null hypothesis. There were no signifi-

cant differences v;hen the tv;o factors, tim.e and left elbow

restriction, interacted.

33 >> •p H H H

O

f^

cS (D

CO

o cO

Sco

<H O

CQ

g 3

CQ 0) u ci ^ u*

co w

:i o u o

<^J o

l A

LPV

H O

+3 C O O

<H O <1>

o <D C O ctí JH H Zí i^ O cd C 0 >

CQ Ch

H <0 -P C <D s H ^ 0 P X w

H

H vo

CVJ

o CVJ

•o c ctí

H

O H

I I

CQ > i cC

Ch

o\ o\

CVJ LA

t ^ H - ^ H

LTV o VD Ln H

^ -Vû

CVJ i n CVJ

H c-Ln Ln CVI

00 O

O^ t--CVJ

CVJ Ln

C--H ^ H

O G\

cn H m

co cn LTv o i n

H c--Ln o CVJ o

t--^

CVJ - ^ ^ H

CVJ

CQ >5 Ctí

Q

X CQ Pí

O

o

vo m

H

P^ :3 o u tû

o cd

Q)

O <H

o

H

H cd + o

S *

CVJ O

<u s:

CO

-P cd o H <H H C tû H CQ

3h

Post Hoc Comparisons

When F as an overall test indicates significant

differences among groups, further tests may be made to

see v;hether two selected means differ significantly (35).

Comparison of Experimental Group Means

The conservative Scheffe^may be applied to a sig-

nificant F value when it is of interest to m.ake further

comparisons between means. The question v;as: Did the ex-

perimental groups differ from one another?

The Scheffe''test v;as applied to the differences be-

tween m.eans for all three experimental groups and the re-

sults appear in Table VI. The differences were all less

than that required for significance; therefore, it can be

stated that no differences existed betv;een means of the

three experimental groups.

TABLE VI

SCHEFFE^TEST FOR COMPARISON BETI>JEEN MEANS OF EXPERB'IENTAL GROUPS

Differences Betv;een Means

10 Day 15 Day 20 Day

10 Day 2.29 1.00

15 Day 1.29

20 Day

22.74 required for significance at .05 level

35

Comparisons of Experimental Groups with Control Groups

The analysis of variance results showed all experi-

mental groups to be significantly better than all control

groups in performance; hov;ever, it was of interest to know

specifically if for each practice period, the experimental

group performed better than its control group.

The Fisher t test may be used for post hoc compari-

son of means provided the means meet the requirement of

independence.

Each experiraental group raean v;as compared with its

control group mean and the results appear in Table VII.

TABLE VII

RESULTS OF THE t TEST FOR DIFFERENCES BET /JEEN EXPERIÍ' ENTAT: AND CONTROL GROUP IffiANS

Experim.ental Control

Groups Mean Mean t

Two Week Practice Period

Three VJeek Practice Period

Four Víeek Practice Period > _ ^ _ _

N = 7 in each group

Tests v;ere made under the null hypothesis that there

were no differences between the experimental and contro

groups for the ten day practice period, fifteen day practice

86.43

84.14

85.43

65.00

77.57

78.57

2 .00

1.31

.77

36

period, and tv;enty day practice period. The level set for

rejection of the null hypothesis v;as the .05.

The t values obtained for all three coraparisons

failed to reach the value required for rejection of the

null hypothesis. There were no significant differences

betv;een experiraental and control groups when they v;ere

corapared for the three different lengths of practice periods.

r

f '

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study evolved from an interest in im-

proved teaching of the golf swing. The purpose of the

study was to determine if the extended left elbow and the

length of practice periods v;ere factors involved in the

acquisition of the five-iron golf swing.

A five-iron golf skill test was administered to

forty-seven Junior high school students during the fall

semester of I969. The female students were in regular

physical education classes that met five days a week for

sixty minutes. The subjects were randomly placed into

three experim.ental groups and wore an elbow-moveraent re-

striction device while practicing the golf sv;ing or, into

one of three control groups who practiced the golf swing

without any restriction device on the left elbow. Sub-

Jects had either ten, fifteen, or tv;enty practice periods

before post experim.ental data v;ere collected.

Data v/ere collected at the conclusion of each of

the three experiraental periods. The data were analyzed by

intraclass correlation techniques to deterraine reliability

estimates. Estim.ates were made using the reliability of

the average trial.

Comparisons among groups showed a significant dif-

ference between subjects who used an elbov;-movement

37

38

restriction device and subjects who did not use an elbow-

movement restriction device. There were no significant

differences between subjects who practiced tiío weeks,

three weeks^ or four weeks. No significant interactions

occurred when the two factors, time and left elbow restric-

tion, interacted. Post hoc comparisons between means

showed no significant differences among the three experi-

mental group means. Post hoc comparisons betv;een each

experimental group mean and its control group mean showed

no significant differences betv;een subjects who used an

elbow-moveraent restriction device and subjects who did not

use an elbow-raoveraent restriction device for any of the

three tirae periods.

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that the straight

left arm is beneficial in learning the golf swing. Since

there were significant differences in overall perform.ance

in favor of the three experimental groups, practice with

an elbow-movement restriction device brings about improved

performance in the acquisition of the golf swing using

'the five-iron.

Conclusions

Based on the results obtained and within the limi-

tations of the study, the follov;ing statements seem. Justi-

fied:

39

1. Overall performances of subjects who wore an

elbow-movement restriction device were significantly

better than performances of subjects who did not wear an

elbow-movement restriction device.

2. There were no significant differences in per-

formance among subjects v;ho wore an elbow-moveraent restric-

tion device for two weeks, three v;eeks, or four weeks of

practice.

3. Maintaining the straight left arra v;hile learn-

ing the golf swing is beneficial.

Recoraraendations for Further Study

A study should be made to determine if there are

significant differences in final performance betv;een sub-

Jects v;ho wear an elbow-movement restriction device for

two. weeks follov;ed by one week or two weeks of practice

without left elbow restriction and those subjects who

practice for three weeks or four weeks without an elbow-

movement restriction device.

The effectiveness of an elbow-movement restriction

device in teaching golf skills that do not require a full

'swing such as a chip shot or pitch shot, should be investi-

gated.

The effectiveness of an elbow-movement restriction

device using different age levels of beginning golfers

should also be investigated.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Barrov;, Harold M. and McGee, Rosem.ary. A Practical Approach to Measurement in Physical Educatio"n. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1964.

2. Boros, Julius. Swing Easy, Hit Hard. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1950.

3. Broer, Marion R. Efficiency of Human Movement. Phila-delphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 19^5.

4. Broer, Marion R. and Houtz, Sara Jane. Patterns of Muscular Activity in Selected Sport Skills--An Electromyographic Study\ Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 19o7.

5. Brown, Cal. "Seven Score-Lowering Resolutions for the New Year," Golf Digest, XX (February, I969). 54-57-

6. Bunn, John Víilliams. Scientific Principles of Coaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall^ Inc, 1960.

7. Camerer, Dave. Golf VJith the Masters--The Secret to Better Golf. New York: A. S. Barnes and Com-pany, 1955.

8. •• Chui, Edward F. "A Study of Golf-0-Tron Utilization as a Teaching Aid in Relation to Improvement and Transfer," Research Quarterly, XXXVI (May, I965), 147-152.

9. Clarke, Harrison H. AiDDlication of Measurement to Health and Physical Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall^ Inc., 1959-

10. Clevett, Melvin A. "An Experiment in Teaching Methods of Golf," Research Quarterly, II (December, 1931)^ 104-112.

11.' Cooper, John M. and Glassow, Ruth B. Kinesiology. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Corapany, 19^3.

12. Ebel, Robert L. "Estimation of the Reliability of Ratings," Psychometrika, XVI (December, 1951)^ 407-424.

40

41

13. Kirk, Robert E. Experimental Desígn Procedures for the Behavioral^ Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, I968.

14. Garrison, Levon. Electromyographic-Cinematographic Study of Muscular Activity During the Golf Swing. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, 1963.

15. Hawley, Gertrude. An Anatomical Analysis of Sports. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1940.

16. Hogan, Ben. The Modern Fundamentals of Golf. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1957.

17. Hunter, Nancy. Indoor Five-Iron Test. Unpublished paper, Texas Tech University, 1969.

18. Lema, Tony. Champagne Tony's Golf Tips. Pocket Books. New York: Simon and Sch ster, Inc, I966

19. Lema, Tony. "Tips and VJarnings on Playing the Long Irons," Sports Illustrated, XXII (March, I965), 50-51.

20. McCoy, Keith W. "Effect of Varied Speed and Accuracy Training Upon a Gross Motor Skill," Abstracts of Research Papers, V7ashingt.on, D. C : National Education Association, I969.

21.'' McKee, Mary Ellen. "A Test for the Full Swinging Shot in Golf," Research Quarterly, XXI (March, 1950), 40-46.

22. Middlecoff, Cary. Golf Doctor. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, 1950.

23. Nelson, Byron. "A Lesson in Shoulder Power," Golf Digest, XIX (April, 1968), 55-58.

24. Nelson, Dale 0. "Effect of Slow-Motion Loopfilms on '• * the Learning of Golf, " Research Quarterly, XXIX

(March, 1958), 37-45.

25. Palmer, Arnold. My Gam.e and Yours. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc, 19^5.

26. Rees, Dai. The Key to Golf. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 19bl.

42

27. Rehling, Conrad H. An Analysis of the Technlques of the Golf Drive. Unpublished Master Thesis, Springfield College, 1949.

28. Rehling, Conrad H. "Beginning Golf Test," Athletic Journal, XXXVI (March, 1955), 18-21.

29. Singer, Robert N. Motor Learning and Human Perform-ance: an Application to Physical Education Skills. New York: The Macmillan Company, I968.

30. Snead, Sam. How to Play Golf. Garden City, New York; Garden City Publishing Company, Inc, 1946.

31. Stanley, Louis T. Golf With Your Hands. New York: Thoraas Y. Crowell Company, Inc, 1966.

32. Toole, Tonya. "Effects of Three Teaching Methods in Golf on Achievement of Learners with Differen-tial Skill in a Related Task," Abstracts of Research Papers. Víashington, D. C : National Education Association, 1970.

33. Toski, Bob. "Firm Left Side Controls Hogan's Sv;ing," Golf Digest, XIX (August, I968), 20-23.

34. Vardon, Harry. How to Play Golf. Philadelphia: George Ví. Jacobs and Com.pany, Publishers, 1915.

35.' VJiner, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experiraental • Design. Nevj York: McGraw-Hill Book Company^

19627

43

APPENDIX A

PILOT STUDY

44

OJ H C\J

VÛ

oo OJ

P O u

o H

o

00

c ^

^

Ln

m

OJ

CM CVJ

H CVJ

O CVJ

cr\ H

co H

C^

v Û

in

m H

<D

e

CQ +3 O <D

T-D

co

m

m m

CVJ

m

m

o m

CVJ

OD CVJ

CVJ

CVJ

m CVJ

-p CQ <D

EH

O

H I

(D > H

ÍH <D

4 ^ C

å u o

<H

•CJ ctí o <D ^ O O

CO

•P O 0

•»-3 X> :3 co

in <D

u tû T\

5

Directions to Subjects

Each student v;ill hit twenty-five golf balls at the

target suspended from the ceiling. The first five trials

will be practice shots. The point of aim is a two foot

by tv;o and one-half foot rectangle located ten feet from

the floor in the center of the target. The score for each

trial will be determined by the point at which the ball

hits the target.

46

XII A

XI

X

IX

/III

VII

VI

V

IV

III

II

I

B C D E

k. - ít ^ - 4

/ 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 12'

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

Figure 6. Specifications for the Hunter Target for the Five-Iron

hl

12 1

11 1

10 1

9 1

8 1

7 1

6 1

5 1

^ 1

3 1

2 1

1 1 — i — _

12 2

11 2

10 2

9 2

8 2

7 2

6 2

5 2

^ 2

3 2

2 2

1 2

12 3

11 3

10 3

9 3

8 3

" 3

6 3

5 3

^ 3

3 3

2 3

1 3

12 2

11 2

10 2

9 2

8 2

7 2

6 2

5 2

^ 2

3 2

2 2

1 2

12 1

11 1

10 ,

9 1

8 1

7 1

6 1

5 1

^ 1

3 1

2 1

1 1

Figure 7. Target for the Hunter Test

Key to Scoring: Black numbers constitute the vertical score

Red numbers constitute the lateral score

The trial score was the sum of the lateral and vertical values

48

APPENDIX B

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

^ 9

o

H

x; w w

H H H >

9 PQ < EH

E-í co H H

OLF

O

fe o

, " 0

w

.p p w H

H

8 a

s

in H

H

m H

cvi H

H H

O H

O^

CX)

CQ H ctí H ÎH

EH VO

Ln

m

CVJ

00 t ^ j ^ í - ^ t ^ c - - ^ t^

c ^ ^ t ^ c o c ^ L n c v j t-

o o . = í t ^ ^ t ^ o o c o c o

c ^ L n ^ - 0 0 m ^ j - ^ c o

C ^ ^ j r j - t ^ H C V l C V J C ^

00 m c ^ o o ^ v o - : t ^-

c ^ c o c ^ o o cvj c ^ L n ^

00-=}- L n o o - = í v o ^ ^-

C ^ ^ C ^ S O ^ C - - C V J C 0

L n c ^ c o o o cvj L n H o o

c > - c ^ o o o o - = î - L n c - - c ^

i n c ^ - = i - c ^ c - v o C--00

00 c ^ - ^ L n - = í - o o c v j c o

c ^ i n o o c ^ c ^ i n c - L n

c o c ^ c ^ o o - = i - o o c v j i n

CQ -P O <D t-i £i ^ co

o H

i H O

1 w

o H

1 CVj o

1 pa

o H

1 m o

1 w

o H

1 -=r o

1 w

o H

1 Ln o

1 w

o H

1 vo o

1 H

o H

1 c^ o

1 H

O H

1 co o

1 w

50

p

o CÎ5

o

o o

X H

s PQ < EH

EH co P & O

o fX4

o

f^

p w H P^ H P O

CQ H ctí H

^- .=r ^ m cvj c-- 00

00 .=1- -=í- m m ^ c^

t-- m H Ln cvj c- cvj

V£> -=í- c \ j c ^ CVJ . = t CM

c^ H H t^ m b- c^

C-- H cn J:t .=t H 00

C^ C\J H H t ^ C\J CVI

VO Ln H H C^ CVJ 00

Ln vo m c^ -:t oj 00

\ o C\l C\J C ^ ^ CVJ c ^

c^ ca co in -=J- -:t 00

0 0 CVJ OJ CVJ C\J . = t 0 0

m o o ^ - - = t o j - = í - H m

Ln H

•=t H

m H

CVJ H

H H

O H

O^

CO

C--

\D

in

C\J Ln cvj m c^ .:j- cvj cvj

c^ c^ Ln ^- cvj in co

CQ -P O <D

T-3 X> í co

o H

1 H O

1 O

o H

1 CVJ o

1

o

o H

1

m o

1

o

o H

1 ^ o

1

o

o H

1 Ln o

1

o

o H

J

\o o 1

o

o H 1

c-o 1

o

51

(U

o o

<

H

PH

w

W

W

EH co

X

S a o o o

w

p w H

H

§

s

CQ H

H U

EH

Ln H

-=1-H

m H

CVI H

H H

O H

O^

00

C ^

VO

L n

m

CVJ

C V J : = 1 - C ^ C - - ^ 0 J C ^ C \ J

c^^cvj t - ^ - m m c o : = j -

-=1- C ^ C ^ . : t t ^ t - t ^ C ^

L n c - - c ^ . = t ^ - c - - - = í - m

c ^ t ^ ^ cvj L n \ o i n - = t

c ^ o o m c - - - = t - = t c ^ c - -

.=r m - = t o o H ^ L n . = t

- = t b - \ O C V J O J C - Í ^ C ^

. = t o o t - c v j ^ - ^ i n - = t

^ c - - c ^ c - o o v o c - - c ^

c ^ c - - = t o j \ o ^ ^ ^-

c ^ c ^ o o - = t - = t - = t ^ ^

t - - : t C ^ V D ^ L n t - C ^

C - C - ^ C ^ V û c ^ c o c- - -=t

c ^ c ^ c o c ^ c ^ o o c ^ c ^

CQ -P O (D

T-3 X) :s co

L n H

1 o\ o

1

w

i n H

1 o H

1

w

i n H

1 H H

I

w

Ln H

1 CVJ H

1

w

Ln H

1 m H

1

w

L n H

1 ^ H

1

w

Ln H

1 i n H

1

w

i n H

1 vo H

1

w

Ln H

C ^ - = t . : t C ^ . = t C V j J i t C^

-=t H • = t . = t c v j . = t . = t m c \ J O J

o Pí o

o

o o

w

m H

CM H

H H

O H

O O C ^ C V J . = t C \ J C ^ t - C ^

c ^ c ^ o o i n - = t C - - C - - C -

C - - H - = t C ^ . = t V û C ^ C -

c ^ c v j m c v j oj m o o - = t

w

H X

a m < EH

EH CQ

^

a o o

w o o

cr\ v û c \ i c v j i n c - - . = t m m

CQ H CÔ H

EH

00 v o ^ c ^ - = t ^ c ^ c ^ i n

c^ L n c ^ c ^ - = t m ^ o o c ^

vo t - c ^ L n c \ J C M v o ^ - c ^

'w

P w H W H P O

in o o ^ c o o o ^ cvj c ^ . = t

c ^ c - - c ^ c - - c v j ^ c - i n

m m c v j . = t c ^ t - i n ^ L n

g 2

CVJ o o - = t . = t D - c ^ c o c ^ - = t

.=t i n c - - c ^ o o o o m t ^

CQ -p o <D

.o :3

Ln Ln I

o\ o

I co I o

o H

I

o

in H I

H H I

O

in H

I OJ H

I O

in H

I m H

I o

in H I

H I

O

Ln in H H

I I L n VD H H

I I o o

53

» C - - . = t - = t C--CVJ OJCO c^

.=t H

t ^ - = t c « - \ o \ o c ^ o o c o

p<

o o

!2;

H

P4 X w

H H X

o EH co W E-<

O

o ; O • O

pí w

p w H

8 s g ã s

m H

CM

o H

crv

00

CQ H C--ctí

H

E-í

vo

Ln

t ^ c ^ c ^ o o c ^ L n - ^ c o

c ^ . = t . = t C^VÛ c ^ c ^ o o

c ^ c \ j . = t c ^ L n v o c ^ c ^

C^-=t C ^ C ^ V D O J . = t C

L n - = t ^ i n v û c - - L n - = t

C - - O J . = t c ^ v o C \ J C 0 0 0

c^ oj t - , c > - v o in ^ - 0 0

c ^ c o ^ c ^ v ^ c - L n c o

c ^ c ^ - = t c > ^ L n L n c - - c ^

m - = t - = t c ^ c - - ^ - . = t Ln

m c ^ . = t o j L n o o L n c ^ c ^

OJ L n t ^ c - - c ^ v o i n H c^

c ^ c ^ c ^ c ^ o o L n i n t -

CQ +3 O <D

•«-3 .O íJ

CO

o CVJ 1

c--H 1

w

o C\J 1

0 0 H

1

w

o CVJ 1

G\ H

1 W

o CVJ 1

o CVJ 1

w

o OJ 1

H CVJ

1

w

o CM 1

CVJ CVJ

1

w

o OJ 1

m OJ 1

w

o CVJ 1

-=t OJ

1

w

5>i

in H

i n v D c - - c ^ o j L n c \ j . = t

H L n i n o o c ^ o j L n o j c\i

(u

o

o

o

o o w w

m H

OJ H

H H

O H

\ o o o c ^ - = t . = t L n o j c ^

C V J V O C ^ C ^ C V J 0 J C \ J - = t

C ^ C ^ O O C ^ j : t - = t CM OJ

oj c ^ c o c--.=t L n c - c ^

H H H X

o

co

o o w o o

w

p w H P^ H

8

CQ H RJ

H SH

EH

o m i n c - - c ^ ^ L n c ^ c v j

00 c v j c ^ o o c - - m . = t c \ j . = t

C^ - = t . : t C 0 0 J - = t L n C V J C ^

vo o j c ^ c o i s - c ^ t > > - m t ^

Ln i n o o o o c - c ^ L n t - - c -

L n i n m o o c v j c ^ o j c ^

m c v j L n c ^ o o o J O J C \ J C ^

OJ v o o o c ^ c ^ v o c ^ c ^ c ^

c ^ L n c ^ i n i ^ - i n c ^ L n

CQ -P O <D

T-O X í 3

co

o OJ

1 c-H

1 o

o OJ

1 co H

1 o

o C\J

1 G\ H

1 O

O cvj

1 O OJ

1 o

o CVJ

1 H CVI

1 o

o OJ

1 OJ OJ

1 o

o CVJ

1 m OJ

1 o

o OJ

1 ^ OJ

1 o

55

GOLF TEST

Name Class

5-Iron Test

Total

for Figure 8. Form Used in Recording Scores the Vanderhoof Golf Test for the Five-Iron

56

Directions to Subjects

Each student v;ill hit twenty plastic golf balls.

The first five trials will be practice shots. The point

of aim is the ten-pin that is located in the center of the

target. A ball must pass over the rope and land in the

areas marked on the floor to be scored.