# Golf-Putting Performance in Skilled Golfers at Different Distances to the Hole
## 3 Results  
Table 2 presents a general overview of the results, where mean and standard deviation are shown for each Practice Condition (PC1, PC2, PC3 and PC4), along with the statistical comparisons between each PC for each process variable. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Variables Obtained from InPutter** & **Units** \\ \hline Impact pressure & \(\text{KgF.cm}^{-2}\) \\ Impact duration & \(\text{\SIUnitSymbolMicro s}\) \\ Movement duration in each phase & s \\ Amplitude of angular position & degrees \\ Amplitude of linear (cartesian) position & m \\ Peak angular velocity & degrees.\(\text{s}^{-1}\) \\ Peak linear velocity & m.\(\text{s}^{-1}\) \\ Peak angular acceleration & degrees.\(\text{s}^{-2}\) \\ Peak linear acceleration & m.\(\text{s}^{-2}\) \\ Face angle & degrees \\ Declination angle & degrees \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Variables obtained from InPutter. Regarding the variables related to amplitude, it is possible to observe that both linear (m) and angular (deg) metrics tend to increase with the distance to the hole. In fact, statistically significant differences were found between all 4 PC for each of the amplitude variables: backswing/downswing amplitude (F(3, 1677) = 214.33; \(p\)-value = 0.001; \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.28; \(\pi\) = 1), the follow-through amplitude (F (3, 1677) = 332.12, \(p\)-value = 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.37, \(\pi\) = 1) and the maximum amplitude of the putting movement (F (3, 1677) = 511.72, \(p\)-value = 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.48, \(\pi\) = 1). In terms of inter-individual motor performance, the variation coefficient (see Table 3 in attachment) in the backswing/downswing phase ranged between 36% (PC1) and 23% (PC4). The results obtained for the follow-through show an increase in amplitude as the distance to the hole increases. The variation coefficient indicates an inter-individual variation between 23% and 30%. For the maximum amplitude, the inter-individual variation values were relatively low, bellow 22% in all distances. Additionally, maximum putting amplitude indicated that the majority of players made this movement with greater amplitude when the distance to the hole increased, as it may be confirmed in Table 4. This was not the case for player 3, however, namely for PC3 and PC4. Regarding the duration of each phase, the results of backswing duration (ms) indicated statistically significant differences between the beat distances (F(3, 1677) = 10.51, \(p\)-value = 0.001, \(\eta\)2 = 0.02, \(\pi\) = 0.99). We found longer backswings when comparing between PC1 and PC3 (\(p\)-value = 0.006), PC1 and PC4 (\(p\)-value = 0.001), and between PC2 and PC4 (\(p\)-value = 0.006). On an inter-individual analysis of the backswing duration (ms), 8 players (1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14) depicted a clear tendency to increase the duration time of this phase as the distance to the hole increased. In the remaining phases of putting, this tendency of proportionality is not so evident (Table 5, in attachment). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Process Variables** & **PC1** & **PC2** & **PC3** & **PC4** & **F** & \(p\)* & **n2** & \(\pi\) & **ES** \\ \hline Back/downswing\_amp. & 9.23 \(\pm\) 2.72 \({}^{\text{a}\lambda c}\) & 11.07 \(\pm\) 2.91 \({}^{\text{a}\lambda c}\) & 12.80 \(\pm\) 3.17 \({}^{\text{b}\lambda d}\) & 14.78 \(\pm\) 4.27 \({}^{\text{c}\lambda d}\) & 214.33 & 0.001 & 0.28 & 1 & Moderate \\ Back/downswing\_amp. & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}\lambda c}\) & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}\lambda c}\) & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}\lambda d}\) & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{c}\lambda d}\) & 218.10 & 0.001 & 0.28 & 1 & Moderate \\ Followthrough\_amp. & 15.89 \(\pm\) 4.50 \({}^{\text{a}\lambda c}\) & 20.49 \(\pm\) 6.08 \({}^{\text{a}\lambda c}\) & 25.27 \(\pm\) 6.84 \({}^{\text{b}\lambda d}\) & 29.40 \(\pm\) 8.32 \({}^{\text{c}\lambda d}\) & 332.12 & 0.001 & 0.37 & 1 & Moderate \\ Followthrough\_amp.