Whoa, boys!
A little context before you totally trash these guys. I think what a lot of you are doing is reacting to the media report of this study - and hard to believe, the media sometimes puts their own spin on things to generate interest.
First of all, this study was presented as an abstract at the American College of Sports Medicine meeting. It is very common for preliminary results or small-scales studies to be presented in this way. This study has not been published or undergone the more rigorous peer review that typically occurs before being published in a scientific journal, so it might be most appropriately considered a "preliminary study."
Second, the purpose of the study was not to show that if you walk when you play golf, you will play worse. Mark's reference to the Casey Martin case was more accurate. There is TONS of research on the golf swing. There is very little research on how the golf swing or golf performance might change over the course of a round, particularly when you walk.
I've read the abstract, so I'll even defend their methods to some extent. This was a biomechanical study - where they put the markers on specific segments of the body and use either high speed video or infrared to capture movement of specific body parts during the swing. Because of the variability in any one individual swing, it is common for biomechanists to capture repeated swings, thus the 20 tee shots after each walking segment.
Because this was a lab and not a field study, it would be very hard to exactly simulate a round of golf. So it looks like what they did was an approximation of the physical demands of walking 18 holes. We do know from other studies that people walk approximately 5-6 miles when they play 18 holes, so they set up a 6 mile walking task broken up into 6 segments, and captured golf swings for analysis after each segment.
Was this a comprehensive study that perfectly simulated a round of golf and took into account all possible elements that might affect the golf swing? No. But in an area where not much is known, it appears to be a reasonable, first small step. And that is the way science works - gaining information and knowledge through lots of small steps.
Also - these abstracts are required to list sources if the study was fund by a grant. None was listed for this abstract, so people can rest easy knowing no taxpayer money was wasted.
Andy