For many years, golf performance was viewed primarily through the golf swing. If golfers wanted to improve, the traditional prescription was straightforward: improve technique, practice more effectively, develop the short game and learn how to manage the golf course. Those elements remain fundamental to playing better golf, but our understanding of performance has expanded considerably. The golf swing does not occur independently of the person producing it. Every backswing, transition, impact position and finish is created by a human movement system with its own mobility, stability, strength, power, balance, coordination, training history and physical limitations.
This is why I believe we need to think more broadly about the development of the performance golfer, rather than simply the development of the golf swing. The objective is not to turn golfers into weightlifters, sprinters or bodybuilders. It is to develop the physical qualities that allow golfers to move efficiently, produce and control force, tolerate the repetitive demands of practice and competition and continue performing over time. Research in golf biomechanics, strength and conditioning, exercise physiology and long-term athlete development increasingly provides us with a framework for understanding how those qualities interact.
The Titleist Performance Institute (TPI), National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM), American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), Gray Institute, PGA of America and Golf & Health approach human performance from different perspectives. When these systems are considered alongside the growing body of peer-reviewed golf research, a common principle emerges: the golfer should be assessed as an individual and then progressively developed through movement, stability, strength, power, integrated athleticism and appropriate recovery. The process is not about finding one ideal exercise. It is about building the physical capacity from which golf performance can develop.
One of the most important developments in modern golf performance has been recognition of the relationship between physical capabilities and swing mechanics. TPI's Body-Swing Connection has helped the industry understand that limitations in the body can influence how golfers organize movement during the swing. This does not mean that every swing characteristic has a physical cause, nor does it suggest that the fitness professional should diagnose golf technique. It means that before repeatedly asking a golfer to achieve a particular position, we should determine whether that golfer possesses the physical capacity required to produce and control the movement.
This principle becomes particularly important when we consider compensation. A golfer with limited hip rotation may still complete a backswing, but additional movement may be created through the pelvis or lumbar spine. A golfer with restricted thoracic rotation may find another way to create turn. An athlete who lacks sufficient stability may demonstrate a movement pattern that initially appears to be a mobility restriction. The body is remarkably effective at finding solutions to movement problems, but those solutions are not always mechanically efficient or sustainable. As I discussed previously in the TPI Body-Swing Connection series, when movement is unavailable in one area, the body frequently borrows it from somewhere else, potentially affecting sequencing, consistency and tissue loading.
This is why assessment must precede programming. Screening should help us understand how the golfer moves, where meaningful restrictions exist, how well movement is controlled and whether those findings are relevant to the golfer's swing, training history, age, competitive demands and injury history. Instead of beginning with the question, “What are the best exercises for golf?” the more useful question is, “What does this golfer need in order to perform better?”
Once we understand the golfer, movement becomes the logical starting point. Mobility and stability are often discussed as separate physical qualities, but effective athletic movement requires them to function together. Mobility provides access to movement, while stability allows the athlete to control that movement. Increasing range of motion without developing the ability to control the new range may have limited value. Conversely, attempting to create stability around a movement pattern that lacks the necessary mobility can reinforce compensation rather than improve performance.
Golf demonstrates this relationship particularly well because the swing requires coordinated movement throughout the kinetic chain. The golfer interacts with the ground, transfers force through the lower extremities, rotates through the hips and pelvis, creates movement between the pelvis and thorax and ultimately transfers energy through the upper body and into the club. At the same time, the golfer must maintain sufficient postural control and balance to manage those forces as speed increases. Although we commonly describe golf as a rotational sport, the movement is not exclusively transverse plane. The golfer is simultaneously managing sagittal, frontal and transverse plane forces throughout the swing.
Gray Institute's Applied Functional Science framework is useful in understanding this aspect of performance because it considers human movement as three-dimensional, integrated and task dependent. A golfer may demonstrate adequate passive hip rotation during an isolated assessment, for example, but that does not necessarily mean the golfer can control that rotation while standing, loading one leg, changing direction or producing speed. The performance professional must therefore consider not only whether movement exists, but whether the golfer can use that movement within progressively more functional environments.
This does not mean that every exercise needs to resemble the golf swing. Squats, hinges, pushes, pulls, carries and other fundamental resistance exercises remain valuable because they develop general physical capacity. The mistake occurs when “golf-specific” training becomes an attempt to reproduce the golf swing while holding resistance. Golfers already receive thousands of opportunities to practice the golf swing. The purpose of physical preparation is different. We should use the training environment to improve the body's ability to meet the physical demands that golf places upon it.
Mobility deserves particular attention because it has become one of the dominant themes in golf fitness. Adequate mobility can allow the golfer to access positions required by the swing and can reduce the need to create compensatory movement elsewhere. However, the emerging research also tells us that we should be precise about what mobility can and cannot accomplish.
Ehlert's (2021) systematic review and quantitative analysis found moderate-to-large relationships between clubhead speed and measures of muscular strength and power, while flexibility demonstrated only a trivial pooled relationship with clubhead speed. More recently, Brennan et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review and meta analysis of 20 studies and similarly found significant relationships between clubhead speed and lower-body strength, upper-body strength, jump displacement, jump impulse, jumping peak power and upper-body explosive strength. Flexibility and balance were not significantly associated with clubhead speed in the pooled analysis.
These findings do not mean that mobility or balance are unimportant. They tell us something more useful: different physical qualities serve different purposes. Mobility may provide the movement options necessary to execute a swing efficiently, but additional flexibility beyond what the individual requires should not automatically be interpreted as additional performance potential. Once sufficient movement capacity exists, the development of strength and the ability to express force rapidly become increasingly important to performance.
The objective should therefore not be to make every golfer as flexible as possible. It should be to establish sufficient usable movement for the individual golfer and then develop the physical qualities necessary to control and exploit that movement.
NASM's Optimum Performance Training Model (OPT) adds an important component to this developmental process by organizing physical preparation through stabilization, strength and power. The value of the OPT model is not that every golfer must progress rigidly through the same sequence. Its greater contribution is recognition that physical development should have structure and that higher levels of force and velocity should be supported by underlying movement competency.
At the stabilization endurance level, NASM emphasizes postural control, muscular endurance, proprioception, balance and controlled movement. A stabilization-oriented program begins with movement preparation and progresses through core and balance training before incorporating fundamental resistance patterns. The NASM programming materials illustrate this progression through mobility work, followed by core and balance exercises and then squat, hinge, push, pull and press patterns. The underlying principle is that the athlete should develop the ability to control the body before substantially increasing the demands of force and velocity.
For golfers, this raises practical questions that should influence programming. Can the golfer maintain posture while the extremities move? Can the pelvis move independently of the torso? Can the athlete control the body on one leg? Can the golfer rotate and then decelerate that rotation without losing position? Can force be accepted efficiently through the lead side? These capabilities do not guarantee a technically efficient golf swing, but they influence the physical options available to the golfer and establish the platform from which strength and power can be developed.
Golf historically had an uneasy relationship with resistance training. There were concerns that golfers might become too muscular, lose flexibility or negatively affect the golf swing. The scientific literature has moved well beyond those assumptions. Properly prescribed resistance training should now be viewed as an important component of physical preparation for golfers.
Torres-Ronda, Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo (2011) provided an early critical review of the relationship between muscular strength and golf performance. Their analysis identified relationships between muscular strength and clubhead speed, ball speed, driving distance and measures of playing ability, with leg-hip power, trunk power and grip strength appearing particularly relevant. The authors were appropriately cautious because the available studies differed substantially in methodology and many training interventions combined resistance exercise with flexibility, balance or cardiovascular work. Nevertheless, the review established an important direction for golf performance research: physical strength and power appear meaningfully related to the golfer's ability to generate performance at the club and ball.
The research has become considerably stronger since that review. Ehlert (2020), in a systematic review of strength and conditioning interventions, found that structured physical training could improve clubhead speed, ball speed, distance and other golf performance variables. Uthoff, Sommerfield and Pichardo (2021) subsequently examined different resistance-training approaches and concluded that nonspecific, golf-specific and combined resistance-training methods can improve clubhead speed and hitting distance, with combined approaches showing particular promise.
These findings support an important principle: the performance golfer needs both general physical capacity and appropriate sport-specific preparation. Fundamental strength exercises do not need to look like golf to benefit the golfer. They create a larger physical foundation. Golf-specific training can then progressively challenge the athlete to express that capacity through movements, velocities and force orientations that more closely reflect the demands of the sport.
The 2026 ACSM Position stands on resistance training provide an important contemporary foundation for this discussion. The umbrella review synthesized 137 systematic reviews and evaluated the effects of resistance-training prescription on strength, hypertrophy, power, muscular endurance, balance and physical function. Its broader message is particularly relevant to golf performance: resistance training is effective, but successful programming does not need to become unnecessarily complicated.
For maximal strength development, ACSM reports advantages from heavier loading, while training through an appropriate range of motion and performing sufficient weekly volume also contributes to adaptation. For muscular power, moderate loads moved with high intended velocity become increasingly important. These principles align with the developmental progression represented within NASM's OPT model, where the athlete progresses from stabilization and control toward greater strength and ultimately power.
The supplied NASM maximal strength programming illustrates this transition by progressing toward substantially greater resistance, while retaining movement preparation, core work and balance. This is important because strength development should not require abandoning movement quality. Rather, the golfer develops a larger force-producing capacity while continuing to maintain the movement qualities necessary to use that strength.
The practical value of greater strength also extends beyond lifting heavier weights. When maximal capacity increases, submaximal activities can represent a smaller percentage of the athlete's total capacity. Strength additionally provides an important foundation from which power can be developed. The amount and type of strength required, however, should remain individual. A developing junior, collegiate golfer, Tour professional, recreational adult and older golfer may all benefit from resistance training, but the prescription should reflect their developmental stage and performance objectives.
Strength and power are related, but they are not interchangeable. Strength describes the ability to produce force. Power introduces another critical variable: how rapidly that force can be expressed. This distinction matters in golf because the downswing provides very little time to generate and transfer force. The golfer cannot gradually develop maximum force over several seconds. The movement requires force to be produced, transferred and controlled at considerable speed.
The recent golf literature reinforces this distinction. Brennan et al. (2024) found that jump impulse demonstrated the strongest pooled association with clubhead speed among the physical characteristics examined, while jumping peak power and upper body explosive strength also showed substantial relationships. Ehlert (2021) found meaningful relationships between clubhead speed and upper and lower body strength and power, with specific measures such as squat strength, estimated jump power and medicine ball throw performance demonstrating relatively large associations.
These relationships should not be interpreted as evidence that improving one physical test will automatically increase clubhead speed. Golf performance remains a complex interaction of technique, coordination, equipment, physical capacity and the golfer's ability to transfer force through the kinetic chain. They do, however, provide important direction for physical preparation. Once adequate movement and strength exist, the athlete must eventually learn to express force at higher velocities.
This creates logical progression. Movement provides access to the required positions. Stability allows those positions to be controlled. Strength increases force-producing capacity. Power develops the ability to express that force rapidly. The role of the performance professional is to determine where the individual golfer currently sits within that continuum and what quality should be emphasized next.
An additional area of research is expanding our understanding of how golfers use the ground to create performance. The golf swing does not begin with the hands or club. The golfer interacts with the ground and those forces contribute to the kinetic sequence through which energy is transferred toward the club.
Recent systematic review evidence examining ground reaction forces and center-of-pressure characteristics during the golf swing further supports the importance of lower body function. This research reinforces why lower body strength, power, balance and force transfer capabilities should not be treated as peripheral components of golf fitness. The golfer must not only generate force but also orient, accept and redirect it within a rapidly changing movement.
For programming, this supports the inclusion of lower-body strength, unilateral control, jumping and landing progressions, multiplanar movement and eventually more explosive tasks when appropriate for the golfer. It also demonstrates why physical preparation cannot be reduced to rotational exercises alone. Rotation is the visible expression of the golf swing, but the forces supporting that rotation involve the entire body.
The body adapts to the demands placed upon it, making progressive overload fundamental to long-term development. If the training stimulus remains unchanged, the need for further adaptation eventually decreases. However, progressive overload should not be reduced to simply adding weight to exercise. Progression can occur through resistance, volume, velocity, range of motion, movement complexity, training density, stability demands or changes in the way force must be produced and controlled.
This is another area where the ACSM evidence provides a useful message for golf performance professionals. Effective resistance training does not require constant novelty or excessive complexity. Equipment type, elaborate exercise variations and increasingly complicated programming do not replace the fundamentals of sufficient training stimulus, progression, recovery and consistency.
Golf adds another layer because physical training exists within a larger performance environment. The golfer may simultaneously be receiving technical instruction, practicing, playing, speed training, competing, traveling and managing professional or family responsibilities. All of those demands contribute to total workload. A program that appears scientifically impressive but consistently leaves the golfer unable to practice effectively or recover adequately is not a successful performance program.
The goal is not to create the hardest training session. It is to create the appropriate adaptation.
The development of the performance golfer should also distinguish between the health benefits of playing golf and the physical adaptations created by structured training. Research summarized through Golf & Health demonstrates that golf can provide meaningful moderate intensity physical activity and can contribute to cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal and psychosocial health. Sorbie et al.'s systematic review of golf and physical health found evidence of benefits across several health domains, particularly when golf contributes meaningfully to overall physical activity.
However, playing golf and physical training for golf are not the same thing. The systematic review evidence also indicates that golf participation alone should not be expected to maximize muscular strength or aerobic capacity. This distinction is important. Walking 18 holes can provide valuable physical activity, but it does not replace progressive resistance training. Repeatedly swinging a golf club develops skill and sport-specific coordination, but it does not provide the same physiological stimulus as a structured strength-and-conditioning program.
The two should therefore be viewed as complementary. Golf provides movement, walking, skill, competition, social interaction and an activity that can remain meaningful throughout much of the lifespan. Structured physical preparation develops capacities that playing the game alone may not sufficiently stimulate. Together, they create a more complete model of performance and health.
The PGA of America's American Development Model adds an important long-term perspective. Athlete development should not be viewed only through individual workouts or 12-week training programs. For junior golfers especially, development occurs over years, and physical preparation should reflect biological development, training age, skill acquisition and broader athletic experiences.
Young golfers benefit from developing physical literacy through running, jumping, throwing, catching, balancing, reacting, changing direction and participating in multiple activities. These experiences build a larger movement vocabulary from which more specialized golf performance can eventually emerge. As the athlete matures, training can become progressively more targeted toward strength, power, speed and competitive demands.
The same principle continues throughout adulthood. A collegiate golfer may require more structured periodization around tournaments. A professional player may need highly individualized management of force production, speed, recovery, travel and injury history. A recreational golfer may need a program that fits around work and family obligations. For an older golfer, maintaining strength, power, mobility and balance increasingly become important not only for golf performance but also for physical independence and healthy aging.
The exercises change because the golfer changes. The principle remains the same: meet the golfer at the appropriate stage of development and progress from there.
When TPI, Gray Institute, NASM, ACSM, golf specific strength-and-conditioning research, the PGA American Development Model and Golf & Health are considered together, the common theme is not a particular exercise or certification system. It is the recognition that performance develops through an integrated process.
TPI helps us understand the relationship between the body and the golf swing. Gray Institute expands our understanding of three-dimensional human movement. NASM provides a systematic framework for progressing stabilization, strength and power. ACSM provides a contemporary evidence base for resistance training. Golf specific research helps identify the physical qualities most closely associated with clubhead speed and demonstrates that structured conditioning can improve golf performance variables. The American Development Model places physical preparation within the larger process of athlete development, while Golf & Health reminds us that the value of physical development ultimately extends beyond performance.
The process is not perfectly linear because human development rarely is. A golfer may simultaneously require mobility in one area, greater strength in another and improved motor control somewhere else. Training history, age, injury history, competitive schedule and individual goals continually change priorities. What matters is that the program has a rationale and that each component supports the larger performance objective.
The golf fitness profession has advanced considerably. We have better screening systems, more sophisticated biomechanical analysis, improved technology, stronger professional education and a growing body of research explaining how physical characteristics relate to golf performance. The next step is not simply accumulating more information. Our challenge is learning how to integrate that information intelligently.
We should resist reducing golf performance to one exercise, one physical metric, one technology or one training philosophy. The evidence does not support that approach, and the complexity of the golfer certainly does not. Golfers arrive with different bodies, different histories, different swings and different objectives. The responsibility of the performance professional is to determine which variables matter for the individual standing in front of us and then build the program accordingly.
Ultimately, developing the performance golfer means developing the athlete behind the swing. When golfers possess sufficient movement, can control that movement, develop appropriate strength, learn to express force through power and progressively adapt to the demands of training, we increase the physical resources available to them. Golf instruction can then operate upon a more capable physical system, while structured physical preparation can support the equally important goals of health and longevity.
This is where I believe the development of the performance golfer becomes larger than simply increasing clubhead speed. The objective is to build golfers who possess the physical capacity to learn, practice, compete, recover, adapt and continue playing the game throughout their lives. Performance, health and longevity should not be treated as competing objectives. Properly developed, they are part of the same process.
That is the future of golf performance and the standard our profession should continue to advance.
Dr. Steven Lorick is an exercise physiologist specializing in golf performance and fitness. He holds a doctorate from the University of Southern California and an MBA from Georgetown University, with advanced credentials in performance and nutrition. A military veteran, he received the U.S. Congressional Award of Special Recognition as a member of the Presidential Escort and a leadership award from the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition.
References:
American College of Sports Medicine (2026) ‘Resistance training prescription for muscle function, hypertrophy, and physical performance in healthy adults: An overview of reviews’, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
Brennan, A., Murray, A., Mountjoy, M., Hellstrom, J., Coughlan, D., Wells, J., Brearley, S., Ehlert, A., Jarvis, P., Turner, A. and Bishop, C. (2024) ‘Associations between physical characteristics and golf clubhead speed: A systematic review with meta-analysis’, Sports Medicine, 54, pp. 1553–1577.
Draovitch, P. and Simpson, R. (2007) Complete Conditioning for Golf. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ehlert, A. (2020) ‘The effects of strength and conditioning interventions on golf performance: A systematic review’, Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(23), pp. 2720–2731.
Ehlert, A. (2021) ‘The correlations between physical attributes and golf clubhead speed: A systematic review with quantitative analyses’, European Journal of Sport Science, 21(10), pp. 1351–1363.
Gray Institute (2026) 3D Functional Golf Coach Certification. Adrian, MI: Gray Institute.
National Academy of Sports Medicine (2026) Optimum Performance Training Model. Gilbert, AZ: NASM.
PGA of America (2026) Golf's American Development Model. Frisco, TX: PGA of America.
Sorbie, G.G., Beaumont, A.J., Williams, A.K. and Lavallee, D. (2022) ‘Golf and physical health: A systematic review’, Sports Medicine.
Titleist Performance Institute (2023) The Body-Swing Connection: Screening and Swing Characteristics. Oceanside, CA: Titleist Performance Institute.
Torres-Ronda, L., Sánchez-Medina, L. and González-Badillo, J.J. (2011) ‘Muscle strength and golf performance: A critical review’, Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 10(1), pp. 9–18.
Uthoff, A., Sommerfield, L.M. and Pichardo, A.W. (2021) ‘Effects of resistance training methods on golf clubhead speed and hitting distance: A systematic review’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(9), pp. 2651–2660.
Watson, A., Murray, A., Ehlert, A., Xu, J., Williams, S. and Spiegelhalter, A. et al. (2026) ‘Ground reaction force and centre of pressure during the golf swing and associations with clubhead speed and skill level: A systematic review’, Sports Medicine, 56, pp. 1191–1212.