The majority of studies investigated postural stability in association with shooter performance. Postural stability and stability of hold were identified as the main factors influencing air rifle shooting performance (Era et al., 1996; Konttinen et al., 1998; Ball et al., 2003). High postural stability and small gun barrel movements determine shooting performance in novice shooters (Mononen et al., 2007). High postural stability is also important in elite rifle shooters (Lang and Zhou, 2021). Specifically, CoP variables measured during stance on a force plate negatively correlate with shooting score and aiming accuracy, whereas there is a positive correlation with the stability of hold and stability of triggering (Lang and Zhou, 2021). The timing of triggering, cleanness of triggering, and aiming accuracy then influence shooting score in elite-level air rifle shooters (Ihalainen et al., 2016a). Taking together, postural stability, cleanness of triggering, aiming accuracy, and stability of hold affect performance in both training and competition situations even in athletes at high–shooting skill levels (Ihalainen et al., 2016b). Particularly, body sway is related to aim point fluctuation in shooters (Ball et al., 2003). Aim point fluctuation increases and performance decreases as body sway increases for most relationships (Ball et al., 2003). However, Spancken et al. (2021) identified that body sway does affect shot score in national- and elite-level athletes in both small-bore and air-rifle shooting, whereas aiming time, aiming accuracy, and horizontal rifle stability influence shot score in national-level air-rifle athletes. A higher Romberg quotient in shooters than in controls indicates that they use an increased amount of vestibular and proprioceptive cues to stabilize their posture (Aalto et al., 1990). The coordination patterns of pistol motion and posture are more variable in the novice than in the skilled group (Ko et al., 2018). There are different quantitative and qualitative dynamics in pistol-aiming reflecting athlete’s skill level with postural control foundation (Ko et al., 2018). The skill acquisition in pistol-aiming reduces the kinematic variables into a lower-dimensional functional unit over the posture and upper-limb system (Ko et al., 2017).

Vertical holding ability and cleanness of triggering are also important for shooting performance in the biathlon (Ihalainen et al., 2018). Postural stability in shooting direction is related to technical components of shooting, which indicates that athletes can reduce the aiming point movement in the holding and triggering phase by stabilizing their posture (Ihalainen et al., 2018). It seems that expert biathletes use a different strategy than expert rifle shooters, each of them adapting to the characteristics of their respective discipline (Larue et al., 1989).

The synchronization of bow and body sway plays a role in shot accuracy, which indicates that combined bow stability and balance exercises would contribute to better archery performance (Sarro et al., 2021). Reduced postural sway speed post-arrow release, greater bow draw force, and reduced clicker reaction time are predictors of higher scoring shots in elite recurve archers (Spratford and Campbell, 2017).

Furthermore, specific postural stability control plays an essential role in acrobatic sports. Gymnastic experience during childhood is beneficial for the development of proprioceptive reweighting processes that lead to a more mature form of controlling and coordinating posture similar to adults (Busquets et al., 2021). Anthropometric characteristics and discipline-specific training experience are associated with postural steadiness (Opala-Berdzik et al., 2021). There is a relationship between anterior–posterior postural steadiness with eyes open and the artistic gymnasts’ biological maturity, body mass, body height, greater age, and longer training experience (Opala-Berdzik et al., 2021). Overall postural steadiness regardless of visual conditions is associated with the acrobatic gymnasts’ BMI percentiles and greater body mass (Opala-Berdzik et al., 2021).

The sport-specific task (i.e., single-leg back scale) is more sensitive in differentiating the level of expertise in young gymnasts than the simple task (i.e., bipedal standing) (Marcolin et al., 2019). While basic-level gymnasts have better postural stability in the bipedal standing, advanced-level gymnasts perform better in the single-leg back scale, particularly on balance time-dependent response to the rondade plus flic–flac (Marcolin et al., 2019). In addition, experts have a more efficient perception of body orientation in space in skills that require a fine postural adjustment than controls (Bringoux et al., 2000). Increasing expertise through specific gymnastic training increases the relevance of interoceptive and/or otolithic inputs (Bringoux et al., 2000). There is an expert advantage on sway areas for dance-like but not static postural tasks (Munzert et al., 2019). Their advantage is task specific, which provides new insights into the specificity of postural performance in highly skilled athletes (Munzert et al., 2019).

Specific postural control in gymnasts’ skills (i.e., postural ability in the handstand) is not transferred to basic upright stances (Asseman et al., 2004). Gymnastics expertise seems to improve postural performance only in conditions to which their practice is related (Asseman et al., 2008). There is lower frequency and variation of body sway in the handstand in more than less-experienced gymnasts (Sobera et al., 2019). While the first group concentrates on reducing anterior–posterior body sway with minimum medial–lateral movements, its values in a medial–lateral direction are irregular in the second group (Sobera et al., 2019). Postural performance in the handstand is significantly better in expert gymnasts than non-experts, whatever the visual condition (Croix et al., 2010). Experts are less field-dependent than non-experts, and this is positively correlated with postural performance (Croix et al., 2010). They use the remaining sensory modalities more efficiently under eyes closed conditions (Croix et al., 2010). The ability to change the frame of reference is improved through a high level of gymnastics training (Croix et al., 2010). Variables obtained in the handstand and standing position significantly correlate in the senior but not in the junior gymnasts (Omorczyk et al., 2018). Disabling visual control in the handstand and free-standing position in seniors deteriorates postural sway and increases CoP displacement in the anteroposterior and both directions. Lack of differences in CoP variables in the mediolateral direction in a free-standing position indicates that eye control is not important for body stability in the frontal plane in seniors practicing gymnastics CoP movement control in the mediolateral direction (Puszczałowska-Lizis and Omorczyk, 2019).

Postural stability control is also important for performance in team sports and may vary among athletes of different competition levels. Both dynamic and static tests should be used for the assessment of balance as postural control performance in these two cases is not related (Pau et al., 2015). For instance, the measures from the Star Excursion Balance Test may not reflect the balance performance in well-trained athletes (i.e., professional basketball and football players) who have a better balance when performing sport-related skills (Halabchi et al., 2020). However, this test includes static postures, which may better reflect postural deficits in more experienced athletes than dynamic tests (Halabchi et al., 2020).

The hockey skating performance significantly correlates with balance and sprint tests, which demonstrates the important role postural stability plays in skating speed in young players (Behm et al., 2005). Improving postural control by decreasing CoM speed at ball release is important for a higher level of shooting in basketball (Verhoeven and Newell, 2016). Incorporating postural control in the free throw shot is a critical qualitative change in coordination resulting from practice (Verhoeven and Newell, 2016). Also, volleyball players may develop a unique postural control (Borzucka et al., 2020b). Their sensory resources should be optimally distributed between sport-specific skills on the court and postural control (Borzucka et al., 2020b). They use diversified postural strategies for the maintenance of balance whereby reducing the contribution of proprioception for more challenging posture-motor tasks (Borzucka et al., 2020a). A different model of sensory integration is used by volleyball players for postural control compared to non-athletes, which may be explained by their better “dynamic” visual acuity (Agostini et al., 2013). Dynamic balance is better in professional than collegiate and high school baseball players (Butler et al., 2016).

Soccer players have superior postural control when compared to those involved in contact sport and no sport at all (Liang et al., 2019). Contact sports increase postural control through increased use of vestibular and proprioceptive information (Liang et al., 2019). Players with soccer-specific training improve executive control and proprioceptive functions, which results in better single-support balance during a dynamic visuomotor lower limb-reaching task (Snyder and Cinelli, 2020).

The contribution of vision in the maintenance of balance is less important in the professional national-level than amateur regional-level soccer players (Ben Moussa et al., 2012). Balance performance in terms of more efficient and faster stabilization after a forward jump is better in young national-level soccer players, whereas a one-leg static standing test is not sensitive enough to reveal differences in postural control associated with the combination of physical and technical features (Pau et al., 2018). Stabilometric variables improve with age until maturity (Zago et al., 2020). The higher the sport level of football players, the better their balance (Jadczak et al., 2019a). Greater balance in professional soccer players is on the non-dominant leg (Jadczak et al., 2019b). Static balance in elite soccer players varies across playing positions with better postural control in midfield players than those in other positions (Jadczak et al., 2019b). The level of playing experience influences postural control in test conditions specific to playing soccer (Paillard et al., 2006). Postural regulation changes from visual to vestibular and proprioceptive contribution, which allows better visual control of game situations in the field (Paillard et al., 2006).

Experienced team-handball players exhibit better balance performance, which is more associated with the maturation of the motor system than their performance level (Caballero et al., 2020). It seems that players with a higher level of expertise exhibit a better ability to perform motion adjustments to reduce motor output error (Caballero et al., 2020). Although postural adjustments during a balance task have a differential feature in expert players, this ability is not crucial for a tennis serve performance (Caballero et al., 2021). However, this does not reject the association of balance with other tennis drills such as pivoting maneuvers, sudden decelerations, and fast cutting maneuvers (Caballero et al., 2021).

Furthermore, balance, core strength and stability, flexibility, and peripheral muscle strength are associated with golf performance (Wells et al., 2009). Using concurrent mental tasks, differences in balance performance between expert surfers and controls can be found, whereas standard balance tests may not be able to elucidate whether surfing expertise facilitates balance adaptations (Chapman et al., 2008). When sharing attention with a concurrent mental task, sway path length increases in expert surfers compared to controls (Chapman et al., 2008). A different model of sensory integration was found in young kayaking and canoeing athletes than in non-athletes, which may be ascribed to a subtle re-adaptation deficit after disembarking to a stable surface with diminished sensitivity of vestibular apparatus and vision (Stambolieva et al., 2012). Better postural stability is also present in pentathletes who are less vision-dependent than untrained individuals. Conscious control of body alignment and a high level of concentration are the main factors responsible for minimizing body oscillations in pentathletes (Sadowska et al., 2019). Horseback riding may develop better postural muscle tone and particular proprioceptive abilities on standing posture during bipedal dynamic perturbations (Olivier et al., 2019). Interestingly, less anteroposterior movement during chair rising was found in master runners compared with young athletes, suggesting that they are not spared from the age-associated decline in postural stability and may benefit from specific balance training (Leightley et al., 2017).

However, some studies found no significant relationship between postural balance control and athlete performance. For instance, both the isokinetic core power and a one-legged static balance do not correlate with overall World Cup points in competitive snowboarders (Platzer et al., 2009b). Furthermore, unilateral stance with eyes closed demonstrates a positive correlation with pitch velocity, whereas there is no significant correlation between unilateral stance with eyes open or eyes closed and pitching error in college baseball pitchers (Marsh et al., 2004). Similarly, there is a lack of correlation between balance, measured with scattering variables in a non-specific task, and tennis serving speed and accuracy (Caballero et al., 2021). Furthermore, balance is not associated with team-handball performance (Caballero et al., 2020). Although the accuracy of the throws revealed a slight positive correlation with mean CoP velocity magnitude (players with better throw accuracy moved faster during the balance task), there was a negative correlation between the ball speed and bivariate variable error in experts (Caballero et al., 2020). Nevertheless, low-to-moderate correlations between unipedal balance ability and the players’ technical level suggest that some technical soccer skills improve more after balance than typical soccer training (Cè et al., 2018). This discrepancy in findings may be mainly ascribed to the degree of physical development of a particular group of athletes or their exposure to sport-specific tasks. Also, a variety of methods used for balance assessment may play a role in a weak relationship between postural stability and functional movement or athlete performance. While static balance tests may be suitable for shooters, biathletes, or archers, for athletes of freestyle sports, snowboarding, skateboarding, windsurfing, or cycle acrobacy, the dynamic balance tests may represent a more appropriate alternative. Additionally, measurement of CoP variables using laboratory diagnostic systems may not be specific enough for most athletes, namely, those at a high level of competition. Moreover, postural stability may not be a key factor of athletic performance, for instance, a tennis serve or the accuracy and speed in throwing.

Among seven studies, six investigated the association of core stability with variables of athletic performance (Chaudhari et al., 2011; Anand et al., 2017; de Bruin et al., 2021) or both functional movement and athletic performance (Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009; Ozmen, 2016), whereas one study dealt with changes in functional movement resulting from compromised core stability (Abt et al., 2007).

The most investigated characteristics of core stability (Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009; Ozmen, 2016; Anand et al., 2017) were core or lumbopelvic neuromuscular control (Chaudhari et al., 2011; de Bruin et al., 2021), and core strength and endurance (Abt et al., 2007; de Bruin et al., 2021). Among functional movement characteristics, it was the kinematics of movement (Abt et al., 2007) and jumping abilities that stood out (Ozmen, 2016; de Bruin et al., 2021), whereas factors of athletic performance included ball speed (Anand et al., 2017), running speed, agility, and explosiveness of upper body (de Bruin et al., 2021). All studies dealing with the association of core stability with functional movement and athletic performance used a cross-sectional design. In all seven studies, only one selected group of athletes of a certain type of sport was tested.

Regarding the methodology of core stability characteristics, the following tests were used: trunk flexion, back extension, left and right bridge (Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009), core stability McGills protocol (Ozmen, 2016), prone plank, left and right side plank (Anand et al., 2017), and Biering-Sørensen test (de Bruin et al., 2021). The “Level belt” was used for the lumbopelvic control (Chaudhari et al., 2011), isokinetic torso rotation test on a Biodex system and 32 min circuit of exercises targeting the core muscles evaluated core muscle fatigue (Abt et al., 2007), and biofeedback unit was applied for the core neuromuscular control (Ozmen, 2016). Regarding the functional movement characteristics, three-dimensional motion analysis (Abt et al., 2007) and star excursion balance test for dynamic balance (Ozmen, 2016) were used. Athletic performance characteristics were evaluated using the radar speed gun (Anand et al., 2017), 20-m run, 40-m run, T-test, agility test, shuttle run, medicine ball throw (Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009; de Bruin et al., 2021), squat jump (Ozmen, 2016), and the number of innings pitched during a season (Chaudhari et al., 2011).

Core stability provides a foundation for force production in the lower and upper limbs (Willardson, 2007). This is a requisite for optimal functional movement and consequently also for better athletic performance (Abt et al., 2007; Chaudhari et al., 2011; Anand et al., 2017). However, some studies do not find this link between core functions and the movement of lower and upper limbs. In general, two research approaches exist that examine the association of core stability (lumbopelvic control) with functional movement and athletic performance. Some studies examined the importance of core stability or lumbopelvic control using strength, endurance, agility, speed, or other physical abilities tests as surrogate measures of functional movement and athletic performance (Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009; Ozmen, 2016; de Bruin et al., 2021). It has been proposed that well-trained athletes have general level of abilities, such as agility, explosive power, and speed, in addition to core stability, regardless of the specificity of the sport, and that there is a relationship between them. Other studies used direct measures of functional movement or athletic performance (Abt et al., 2007; Chaudhari et al., 2011; Anand et al., 2017). For instance, investigating the relationship between cycling mechanics and core stability revealed that improved core stability and endurance could promote greater alignment of the lower extremity when riding for extended durations as the core is more resistant to fatigue (Abt et al., 2007). Lumbopelvic control influences overall performance for baseball pitchers, thus a simple test of lumbopelvic control can potentially identify individuals who have a better chance of pitching success (Chaudhari et al., 2011). Throwing accuracy is significantly better in cricket bowlers with well-developed than poorly developed core stability (Anand et al., 2017).

The association of core stability with some variables of athletic performance in sports such as hockey, netball, tennis, soccer, and running supports the fact that its significance regarding some motor abilities in particular sports partly differs. However, when these sports were analyzed separately, there were similar moderate correlations between core strength or endurance and motor abilities in the tests used (de Bruin et al., 2021). There were strong correlations between abdominal flexion endurance and the vertical jump in runners, and between isometric back extension strength and the sprint in tennis players. However, the core strength and/or stability does not correlate with the strength and performance measures (10 yard shuttle run, 40 yard sprint, countermovement jump, 1RM squat, 1RM bench press) in athletes who train for strength and football skills. Despite these non-significant correlations, it is not reasonable to neglect the core. Nonetheless, it seems that the core musculature is no more important than any other part of the body (Nesser and Lee, 2009).

A belief that core stability is important for strength and power production in sport was not corroborated in male football players. The core stability was significantly but not strongly correlated with power and strength variables (10-yd shuttle run, 20- and 40-yd sprints, countermovement jump, 1RM squat, 1RM bench press, 1RM power clean). Correlations between core stability and strength or power, and sprints or shuttle run were moderate to weak but significant. This indicates that core strength contributes to power and strength performance and therefore should be taken into account (Nesser et al., 2008). However, there was a negative correlation between the jump height and trunk flexion, and no significant association was found between the jump height and side-bridge trunk extension in male soccer players. Similarly, the relationship between core stability and dynamic balance was not significant (Ozmen, 2016). These findings indicate that an understanding of the role of core stability in body movements most likely requires testing under sport-specific conditions. All of the athletic performance measures were mainly one repetition of explosive movements or sprints lasting a few seconds. The core stability was evaluated using isometric muscle contractions or muscle endurance tests. However, the core stability and performance of these two variables should not be compared. While sub-maximal muscle contractions, activation of more slow-twitch muscle fibers, and anaerobic glycolysis are typical for most core stability tests, the agility, power, strength, and running tests involve primarily maximum force production, activation of fast twitch muscle fibers, and the ATP–CP energy system (Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009; de Bruin et al., 2021).

The second type of study represents relationships between core stability and bowling speed in cricket, walks, hits per innings pitched and total innings pitched in baseball and functional movement in cycling. Cricket players with well-developed stability of the core manifest high quality in the kinetic chain of movements when bowling that probably results in increased bowling speed. They can better control their trunk position and motion over the pelvis and leg. This allows optimum generation and transfer of force to the terminal segment in the kinetic chain of specific movements. Core stability provides integration of proximal and distal segments in increasing bowling speed (Anand et al., 2017). Lumbopelvic control is related to performance in baseball pitchers (Chaudhari et al., 2011). The study revealed differences between lumbopelvic control and walks plus hits per innings pitched and total innings pitched. Significantly lower walks plus hits per innings pitched were found in the group with better than those with poorer lumbopelvic control. Furthermore, core stability also plays a role in the functional movement in cycling. For instance, lower extremity cycling mechanics is influenced by the core fatigue workout. Several kinematic variables were altered whereas work variables and the pedal force remained unchanged (Abt et al., 2007).

Training programs were usually aimed at the increase of athletic performance factors (Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Kuhn et al., 2019) or variables of functional movement (Stanton et al., 2004; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Vitale et al., 2018; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020) and were often combined with the development of core stability and strength (Stanton et al., 2004; Kuhn et al., 2019; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020) or the dynamic balance (Vitale et al., 2018).

The duration of intervention was from 4 to 6 weeks (Stanton et al., 2004; Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Kuhn et al., 2019; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020) or 8 weeks (Vitale et al., 2018), two times per week with a duration of 25–45 min (Stanton et al., 2004; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Vitale et al., 2018; Kuhn et al., 2019) to 60–75 min (Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020). While the 25–30 min programs were a part of warming up, the 45–75 min programs were organized apart from standard training. Core stabilization training programs were supervised by coaches, conditioning specialists, or researchers.

Core stabilization training programs included core exercises (Stanton et al., 2004; Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Kuhn et al., 2019; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020), or core exercises combined with plyometrics and body strengthening (Vitale et al., 2018). These exercises were often performed in unstable conditions or in both stable and unstable conditions (Stanton et al., 2004; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Vitale et al., 2018; Kuhn et al., 2019).

The assessment of athletic performance or measurement of functional movement variables was focused on throwing velocity (Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Kuhn et al., 2019; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020) and jumping performance (Vitale et al., 2018). Running economy was assessed with a test to exhaustion on a treadmill (Stanton et al., 2004). The core assessment included the Swiss Olympic test (Kuhn et al., 2019) and the Sahrmann core stability test (Stanton et al., 2004); dynamic balance was tested by means of Y-Balance test (Vitale et al., 2018); and jump abilities by using the side hop test, triple hop test, 6-m timed hop test, and the Sargent vertical jump test (Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017).

Core stability and core strength training have been used for the improvement of functional movement and consequently also athletic performance. The purpose of core stability exercises is to control the lumbar spine, whereas core strength exercises improve the transfer of muscle power, activation of local stabilizers, and global mobilizers (Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Sharrock et al., 2011; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017). The training programs incorporating core stability exercises performed under stable or unstable conditions showed improvements in core muscle strength, muscular endurance, and body balance (Stanton et al., 2004; Vitale et al., 2018; Kuhn et al., 2019). However, there is a controversy as to whether an increase in core stability and strength is transferred to athletic performance.

For instance, a 6-week isolated resistance training program in young baseball players did not improve the throwing velocity in contrast to the ball-exit velocity (Felion and DeBeliso, 2020). Similar findings were found also after a 6-week core stabilization training in adult female handball players. Both experimental and control groups significantly increased throwing velocity of the jump throw, but their throwing velocity of the standing throw remained unchanged (Kuhn et al., 2019). Furthermore, an integrated short-term Swiss ball training failed to enhance the running economy measured by VO₂max, vVO₂max, or running economy at speeds of 60, 70, 80, or 90% vVO₂max (Stanton et al., 2004). On the other hand, an isolated progressive core stability training in unstable conditions improved the throwing velocity significantly in young handball players (Saeterbakken et al., 2011). Also, an 8-week integrated neuromuscular training focused on core stability, plyometrics, and dynamic postural control led to an improvement of postural stability but not of jump performance in junior alpine skiers (Vitale et al., 2018). Furthermore, a 4-week integrated core stabilization program improved the one-leg jump abilities but not the bipedal vertical jump in the prepubertal athletes (Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017).

Depending on how the special core stabilization programs were integrated into standard training, it is possible to distinguish two variants, that is, either integrated programs conducted during warm-ups within a training session (Stanton et al., 2004; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Vitale et al., 2018; Kuhn et al., 2019) or isolated additional programs carried out as the standard training (Felion and DeBeliso, 2020; Saeterbakken et al., 2011). With regard to these differences in integrated and isolated core stabilization training programs, findings in the literature are not consistent.

Most studies investigated the association of core stability with functional movements and athletic performance or the effect of specific core stabilization programs on functional movement and athletic performance in junior or younger age groups (Stanton et al., 2004; Nesser et al., 2008; Nesser and Lee, 2009; Chaudhari et al., 2011; Saeterbakken et al., 2011; Anand et al., 2017; Sannicandro and Cofano, 2017; Vitale et al., 2018; Felion and DeBeliso, 2020; de Bruin et al., 2021). However, only a few studies have investigated the role of core stability in the functional movement and athletic performance in adult athletes and the changes induced by core stabilization training (Abt et al., 2007; Chaudhari et al., 2011; Ozmen, 2016; Kuhn et al., 2019). The reason for this disproportionality could be the accessibility of young athletes compared to the elite ones for participating in intervention studies.