A biomechanical analysis of good and poor performers of the vertical jump

Abstract

The vertical jump is widely used as a field test of performance capability, particularly in games like soccer. Invariably some players perform better than others and, while this is usually put down to greater strength or 'explosive power', there is no detailed information to explain how the muscles around the major joints contribute to this performance and what the nature of this contribution is, or indeed whether aspects of technique are important to performance. Detailed knowledge of this type would be useful to help understand which muscle characteristics are important in successful performance of jumping and may enable insights to be gained in terms of strength training for players. The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution made by the lower limb joints to vertical jump performance by good and poor performers of the counter-movement jump. Two groups of players were selected who were found to be good and poor jumpers, respectively. Each player was required to perform three maximal vertical counter-movement jumps with, and three jumps without, an arm swing. The jump performance was recorded simultaneously by means of a force platform and a ProReflex automatic motion analysis system at 240 Hz. Values at the ankle, knee and hip were computed from these data for joint moments and power.Generally, better jumpers demonstrated greater joint moments, power and work done at the ankle, knee and hip, and as a result jumped higher under both conditions. It appears that the superior performance of the better jumpers was due to greater muscle capability in terms of strength and rate of strength development in all lower limb joints rather than to technique, which differed less noticeably between the groups. It is concluded that the muscle strength characteristics of the lower limb joints are the main determinant of vertical jump performance with technique playing a smaller role.

Determinants of countermovement jump performance: a kinetic and kinematic analysis

“…The inclusion of peak power at the knee and ankle joints in the overall regression model supports previous claims that CMJ performance is positively associated with lower-limb power (Ashley & Weiss, 1994;Nuzzo et al, 2008;Sheppard et al, 2008;Vanezis & Lees, 2005). The work-energy-power relationship makes it inevitable that greater joint powers result in more positive work done and so greater total body kinetic energy and mass centre vertical velocities at take-off.…”

“…Hubley and Wells (1983) found the greatest contributor to be the knee joint (49% of the total positive work), whilst Fukashiro and Komi (1987) found it to be the hip joint (51%). More recently, Vanezis and Lees (2005) obtained values (30% at the knee and 42% at the hip) that were in closer agreement with Fukashiro and Komi (1987) than with Hubley and Wells (1983). A novel finding by Vanezis and Lees (2005) was a negative relationship between hip work and knee work, indicating a technique difference between participants.…”

“…More recently, Vanezis and Lees (2005) obtained values (30% at the knee and 42% at the hip) that were in closer agreement with Fukashiro and Komi (1987) than with Hubley and Wells (1983). A novel finding by Vanezis and Lees (2005) was a negative relationship between hip work and knee work, indicating a technique difference between participants. The authors suggested that this difference could account for previous discrepancies in the literature, implying that technique determines the relative contribution of different lower-limb joints.…”

“…Thus, both the technique used and the joint kinetics during the jump are likely important determinants of CMJ height in the current sample of participants, where jumping ability varied greatly (from 0.38 -0.73 m). Experienced jumpers would be expected to use similar, close to optimal, techniques and thus muscle capabilities may distinguish between their performances, as reported by Vanezis and Lees (2005).…”

“…Vanezis and Lees (2005) concluded that kinematic technique factors were less important than muscle capabilities, although their technique analysis was limited to the timing of the lowest vertical mass centre position and the use (or not) of an arm swing. An increase in strength does not always result in a subsequent performance improvement (Clutch, Wilton, McGown, & Bryce, 1983), perhaps due to the need to adapt coordination following strength gains (Bobbert & van Soest, 1994).…”