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

Ergonomics
ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/terg20
A biomechanical analysis of good and poor
performers of the vertical jump
Athanasios Vanezis & Adrian Lees
To cite this article: Athanasios Vanezis & Adrian Lees (2005) A biomechanical analysis of
good and poor performers of the vertical jump, Ergonomics, 48:11-14, 1594-1603, DOI:
10.1080/00140130500101262
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130500101262
Published online: 20 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 13151
View related articles
Citing articles: 20 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20
Ergonomics,
Vol. 48, Nos. 11 – 14, 15 September – 15 November 2005, 1594 – 1603
A biomechanical analysis of good and poor
performers of the vertical jump
ATHANASIOS VANEZIS and ADRIAN LEES*
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University,
Henry Cotton Campus, Webster Street, Liverpool L3 2ET, UK
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.
Keywords: Vertical jump; Joint kinetics; Muscle strength; Technique
*Corresponding author. Email: a.lees@livjm.ac.uk
Ergonomics
ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online ª 2005 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00140130500101262
Biomechanical analysis of vertical jump performance
1595
1. Introduction
Jumping for height is a common performance requirement in soccer and other sports and
this ability is normally measured by a test of jump height. The standing counter-movement
vertical jump (CMVJ) is one of the more enduring methods of measuring lower limb explosive strength. The CMVJ is frequently used to test the efficacy of strength training regimens, probably because it is simple to perform and is closely related to actions made during
games play. Many low cost methods are used to measure the height jumped (e.g. contact
mat, jump and reach, waist belt system) but these are limited because they use parts of the
body (e.g. finger tip, head, waist, toes) to record jump height rather than the displacement
of the centre of mass (CM) which better reflects the effort expended in jumping. The
movement of the CM can be obtained from contemporary motion analysis systems.
The performance characteristics of the CMVJ have been well researched. One avenue
of research has been on the effect of strength training programs on jump performance
(McKethan and Mayhew 1974, Eisenman 1978, Brown et al. 1986, Paasuke et al. 2001)
which has demonstrated a moderate relationship between leg strength and jump
performance, but only two investigations have also addressed the relationship between
magnitudes of ankle, knee and hip joint moments and powers and the resulting jump
performance (Hubley and Wells 1983, Fukashiro and Komi 1987). Hubley and Wells
(1983) found that 49% of the total positive work produced during the jump was done by
the knee, with 28% and 23% done by the hip and ankle, respectively. In contrast,
Fukashiro and Komi (1987) found that the greatest contributor to jump performance was
the hip (51%) followed by the knee (33%) and ankle (16%). These discrepancies do not
seem to have been investigated further in the literature. In addition, there appear to be no
data on how joint moments and powers differ between better and poorer performers.
Such information would help to understand the muscle strength characteristics that are
associated with superior performance.
Another question relating to the difference between good and poor performers of the
vertical jump is whether the better performers use a more effective technique. The
technique used together with the coordination of body segments may enable individuals
to perform better without greater strength capabilities of muscles. A major perturbation
of jumping technique can be applied by requiring performers to jump without the use of
an arm swing. It has been widely reported that restricting the use of the arms leads to a
10% reduction in performance (Luhtanen and Komi 1979, Shetty and Etnyre 1989,
Harman et al. 1990). No studies in the literature appear to have investigated this in
relation to good and poor performers of the jump.
In order to understand the reasons why some individuals are able to perform the
vertical jump better than others it is necessary to investigate both their muscle strength
capabilities and the technique used. To date, no study has attempted to do this. Therefore
the purpose of this study is to investigate muscle and technique characteristics associated
with better and poorer performers of the counter-movement vertical jump.
2. Method
A preliminary jumping test was used to identify participants for this investigation. A total
of 50 male soccer players were tested for vertical jump ability using a vertical jump meter
(TKK 5106, Takei Scientific, Japan). Based on the mean value of three trials, the worst
nine were selected as the LOW jump group (age 20.0+1.9 years; height 1.75+0.05 m;
mass 77.2+10.3 kg) and the best nine were selected as the HIGH jump group
1596
A. Vanezis and A. Lees
(age 20.6+1.5 years; height 1.75+0.05 m; mass 72.8+4.5 kg). Data are presented as
mean+SD. All participants were fit and injury free and each gave informed consent as
required by the university’s Human Ethics Committee.
2.1. Data collection
Participants were given the opportunity to warm up with light exercise and stretching,
and to practice the maximal CMVJ. They were required to perform three repetitions
using a natural jumping technique which included the use of an arm swing, and this was
followed by three further jumps in which the participants held their arms on their hips.
Participants performed each jump on a force platform (model 9287B, Kistler,
Winterthur, Switzerland). Reflective markers were placed over the second metatarsal –
phalangeal joint, the lateral malleolus, the lateral aspect of the mediolateral axis of joint
rotation at the knee, hip, wrist and elbow (Plagenhoef 1971), the acromion process and
C7, and on the vertex of the head using a marker placed on the top of a cap worn on the
head. The three-dimensional position of each marker was recorded using a six-camera
optoelectronic motion capture system (ProReflex, Qualysis, Savedalen, Sweden). Data
were collected for a period of 6 s which allowed approximately 2 s of quiet standing before
the jump commenced. The motion data were collected at 240 Hz and the force data were
collected at 960 Hz. All data were electronically synchronized in time.
2.2. Data reduction
2.2.1. Kinematic analysis procedures. The three-dimensional motion data from the 16
markers was used to define a 12-segment biomechanical model using segmental data
proposed by Dempster (1955) for adult males. These data were used to calculate the
segment and whole-body CM locations. As vertical jumping is essentially a sagittal plane
activity, data were projected onto the sagittal plane in order to compute segment
orientations and joint flexion angles. All kinematic data were then smoothed using a
Butterworth fourth-order zero-lag filter with padded endpoints (Smith 1989) and a cut-off
frequency of 7 Hz based on a residual analysis and qualitative evaluation of the data.
Derivatives were calculated by simple differentiation (Winter 1990).
2.2.2. Kinetic analysis procedures. The force data were averaged over four adjacent
points so that each force value corresponded to each motion data value at 240 Hz. Inverse
dynamics using standard procedures (Miller and Nelson 1973, Winter 1990) was used to
compute the segment proximal and distal net joint reaction components and the net joint
torques at the ankle, knee and hip. Joint power (the product of net joint torque and
joint angular velocity) and work done (the time integral of the power production at a
joint between specified time points) were calculated using standard procedures
(de Koning and van Ingen Schenau 1994). Extension joint torques are presented as
positive, while flexion joint torques are negative. Similarly, joint power generation is
presented as positive, while joint power absorption is negative. The sum of the left and
right limbs was computed for all joint variables. All kinetic variables were normalized to
body mass in order to reduce its influence on the values computed.
2.2.3. Presentation of data. Data are presented over the period from the start of the
movement to take-off, which was termed the movement time. The start was defined when
the vertical ground reaction force went above or below body weight by a threshold value.
Biomechanical analysis of vertical jump performance
1597
In order to account for occasional erratic starts to the movement, the threshold was set at
100 N and the start point for analysis was taken as the 30th data point before the
threshold point. This ensured that the start of the movement was reliably obtained and
was just in advance of the first detectable change in force indicating the true start of the
movement. Take-off was defined as the data point at which the vertical ground reaction
force fell below an absolute value of 40 N. The resulting dataset defined the movement
time of the action that was isolated and normalized to 100 points by linear interpolation.
Finally, each normalized trace was averaged over all participants and all trials (total of 27
datasets per condition for each group) to provide a mean curve for that variable.
2.3. Statistical analysis
An independent sample t-test was used for establishing differences, and a Pearson
correlation was used to establish relationships. A P-value 50.05 was used to indicate
statistical significance.
3. Results
The position of the body during the movement with and without the use of an arm swing
is depicted in figure 1 which also shows the percentage of the movement time at which the
Figure 1. Positions of the body during the arm swing (top) and no arm swing jumps
(bottom). The lowest position of the centre of mass is attained at a percentage of the
movement time as indicated on the figure for the HIGH and LOW groups.
1598
A. Vanezis and A. Lees
CM reverses its downward direction. This was slightly earlier for the HIGH group. The
highest mean jump height made by a member of the LOW group with an arm swing was
0.52 m and the lowest jump made by a member of the HIGH group was 0.54 m, thus
confirming the selection of participants as appropriate for each group.
The HIGH group members were able to jump on average over 11 cm higher than the
LOW group (table 1) in the arm swing condition and 9 cm higher in the no arm swing
condition (table 2). The peak joint moments were greater for all joints in both the arm
swing and no arm swing conditions, but this difference was not significant. Similarly the
peak power, and hence the total positive work done, was also higher in the HIGH group.
The peak power and work done were significantly different between groups only for the
ankle joint, and the only other significant difference was for the peak power in the
Table 1. Variables (mean + SD) associated with vertical jump performance with arm swing.
CMVJ with arm swing
HIGH
LOW
P-value
Jump height (m)
0.579 + 0.021
0.468 + 0.025
50.001*
Peak moment (N m/kg)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
3.23 + 0.53
3.54 + 0.59
3.45 + 0.57
2.89 + 0.46
3.09 + 0.59
3.12 + 0.81
0.170
0.134
0.342
Peak power (W/kg)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
22.39 + 3.29
19.14 + 3.12
15.04 + 3.51
17.38 + 3.26
15.79 + 3.26
12.47 + 4.34
0.005*
0.041*
0.186
Work done (J/kg)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
2.21 + 0.27
2.29 + 0.55
3.42 + 0.73
1.82 + 0.32
2.03 + 0.60
2.70 + 0.99
0.014*
0.355
0.098
*Significant at P 5 0.05.
Table 2. Variables (mean + SD) associated with vertical jump performance with no arm
swing.
CMVJ with no arm swing
HIGH
LOW
P-value
Jump height (m)
0.487 + 0.039
0.388 + 0.033
50.001*
Peak moment (N m/kg)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
3.06 + 0.44
3.40 + 0.81
3.50 + 0.78
2.75 + 0.41
3.13 + 0.53
3.09 + 0.74
0.145
0.407
0.277
Peak power (W/kg)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
21.62 + 2.42
1847 + 3.74
15.87 + 4.64
17.10 + 32.78
15.60 + 3.48
12.57 + 3.19
0.002*
0.111
0.122
Work done (J/kg)
Ankle
Knee
Hip
2.21 + 0.15
2.28 + 0.68
3.16 + 0.88
1.82 + 0.22
2.08 + 0.55
2.46 + 0.81
50.001*
0.501
0.098
*Significant at P 5 0.05.
Biomechanical analysis of vertical jump performance
1599
knee joint for the arm swing condition. The lack of significant difference was attributed to
the high variability in knee and hip data.
The time courses of the joint moments and powers are shown in figures 2 and 3,
respectively. This shows clear differences between the two groups over all variables
(figures 2(a), (c) and (e), and 3(a), (c) and (e)), particularly during the upward phase of the
motion (from about 72% movement time). These differences are generally characterized
by a more rapid increase and a greater peak value. The power outputs for the ankle and
knee joints became positive at around 72% movement time and coincided with the
change of direction of the CM. However, this occurred earlier for the hip joint, suggesting
that hip extension began before the CM reached its lowest position.
Figure 2. Mean moment curves for the ankle, knee and hip joints for the HIGH and
LOW groups with (CA) and without (CN) the use of an arm swing. The graphs on the
right represent the difference between the arm swing and no arm swing conditions for
both groups.
1600
A. Vanezis and A. Lees
Figure 3. Mean power curves for the ankle, knee and hip joints for the HIGH and LOW
groups with (CA) and without (CN) the use of an arm swing. The graphs on the right
represent the difference between the arm swing and no arm swing conditions for both
groups.
The differences between the arm swing and no arm swing conditions are small but
are amplified in figures 2 and 3. In the joint moment graphs (figures 2(b), (d) and (f))
there is a characteristic peak during the extension phase (72 – 100% movement time).
Similarly, in the joint power graphs (figures 3(b), (d) and (f )) there is a characteristic
trough as the extension phase begins, followed by a characteristic peak during
the later period of extension. These features can be related to the influence of the
arms (Lees et al. 2004) and is discussed in more detail below. However, it was noted
that the differences between the HIGH and LOW groups are generally small,
suggesting that the influence of the arms on jump technique is similar between the
two groups. One difference is apparent—the greater power output of the hip and
knee joints for the HIGH group during the later descent phase (50 – 75% movement time).
Biomechanical analysis of vertical jump performance
1601
4. Discussion and conclusion
The major difference between the HIGH and LOW performance groups appears to be
both the magnitude and rate of development of the muscle moments and powers. This is
evident from figures 2 and 3 where the peak values are associated with the main effort
expended during the joint extension phase around 90% of movement time. The greater
peak joint powers lead to greater work done at each of the joints by the HIGH group. It
is also evident that the rate at which the joint moments and powers are developed is also
higher in the HIGH group. We discount the possibility that this difference was due to
anthropometric differences between groups as the jump height difference between the two
groups (24%) was substantially greater than the mass difference (6%). Further, joint
moment, power and work done are all normalized to body mass. The differences may be
due to the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres. Bosco and Komi (1979) found that the
percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibres was significantly related to vertical jump performance. Therefore it is likely that those in the HIGH group also possessed a high
proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres although this could not be established in the
present study. It is not known whether these differences are related to the training history
of participants or are due to some natural predisposition. All participants were selected
from the same highly competitive university soccer squad and appeared homogeneous in
terms of their playing ability and training background. If this was so, then it would imply
that natural predisposition was a more likely factor distinguishing the members of the
LOW and HIGH groups. One might suppose that those in the LOW group, lacking some
important physical attributes, were able to compensate in their play in other ways.
Only the ankle joint was consistently found to differ significantly between the HIGH
and LOW groups. The general lack of significant difference for the knee and hip joints
was attributed to a high variability in the data. Closer inspection of the individual subject
data suggested that participants were using different strategies for jumping. Some
preferred to emphasize the knee, while others emphasized the hip joint. When higher than
average moments, powers and work done around the knee were observed for an
individual, this was often associated with lower than average values for the hip, and
vice versa. A negative relationship was found in all cases and was significant between hip
work and knee work (with arm swing, r=– 0.473, P=0.048; without arm swing, r=– 0.604,
P=0.008) and for peak hip moment and peak knee moment (without arm swing,
r=– 0.488, P=0.040). This finding suggests that there is an important difference in vertical
jump performance technique that has not yet been explored. This may account for the
differences noted in the Introduction between the percentage contributions of the ankle,
knee and hip joints to performance. In this study the percentage contribution for the
ankle, knee and hip, respectively, were 28%, 29% and 43% for the HIGH group and 28%,
31% and 41% for the LOW group. This is in closer agreement with Fukashiro and
Komi (1987) than with Hubley and Wells (1983). The differences between these two earlier
studies may well be the result of different strategies employed by subjects.
The second area of interest in this investigation was whether technique might be an
explanatory factor in performance. To that end a major alteration to technique was
imposed by the restriction of arm movement. This reduced jump height by about 10 cm in
both groups, as was expected from previous data in the literature. However, the
differences between joint moment and power data when using the arms compared with
when no arm swing was used were small and, as is evident from figures 2 and 3, the
differences between groups still dominated. It is likely that smaller differences in
technique, i.e. those associated with a knee-dominated or a hip-dominated performance,
1602
A. Vanezis and A. Lees
would also lead to only small differences in joint moments and powers between the two
groups. Therefore, although technique may be a factor in jump performance, it is less
important than the possession of the appropriate muscle characteristics.
Even though the differences in technique between the two groups were small, there
were still some features worth noting. The effect of an arm swing has been shown to load
the muscles during the downswing. This results in a greater muscle moment during the
early part of the ascent but a reduced power output because energy is being stored in the
muscles and tendons of the lower limb (Lees et al. 2004). This energy is then rapidly
released during the last part of the take-off, leading to an enhanced power output
(90 – 100% movement time) (figures 3(b), (d) and (f)) and more work done over this phase
of the movement, leading to a better performance. It is also evident from these graphs
that the HIGH group members deliver more power at the knee joint, and so it is likely
that the muscles operating around the knee function more effectively. Why this should be
so is uncertain, but it may be due to greater elastic storage and return properties of
muscle and tendon around the knee, or a lower level of coactivation of antagonist muscle
activity (i.e. hamstring muscle group) which occurs because of the need for joint
stabilization. In the latter case, this would imply that neuromuscular activity was
exceptionally well coordinated with the task and would evidence a high level of
neuromuscular skill in these participants.
A second feature noticeable in figures 3(d) and (f) occurs at around 50 – 70% of
movement time. The use of an arm swing enables the trunk to be brought forward to a
greater angle of inclination and so that it can do more work as it is extended. It is evident
from these figures that the HIGH group deliver more power (and therefore do more
work) during this phase. This increase in performance is a clear technique factor, with the
HIGH group modifying their movement in order to take advantage of the opportunity to
generate more work.
In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to understand why some individuals are
able to perform the vertical jump better than others. The findings suggest that the
capability to produce a greater muscle force at a faster rate is the predominant factor that
distinguishes the better from the poorer performers of the vertical jump. While this
may be attributable to a natural disposition, it also implies that strength development
would be a worthwhile objective for players and coaches. The performance technique
appears to be a less important factor, although there is evidence to suggest that it plays a
small role. There is evidence to suggest that intersegment coordination may also influence
the outcome of jump performance. This is an area of performance which is unexplored at
this time and future attention to this issue would be worthwhile.
References
BOSCO, C. and KOMI, P.V., 1979, Mechanical characteristics and fiber composition of human leg extensor
muscles. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 41, 275 – 284.
BROWN, M.E., MAYHEW, J.L., and BOLEACH, L.W., 1986, Effect of plyometric training on vertical jump
performance in high school basketball players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 26, 1 – 4.
DE KONING, J.J. and VAN INGEN SCHENAU, G.J., 1994, On the estimation of mechanical power in endurance
sports. Sports Science Review, 3, 34 – 54.
DEMPSTER, W.T., 1955, Space Requirements of the Seated Operator. WADC Technical Report 55 – 159 (Dayton,
OH: Wright – Patterson Air Force Base).
EISENMAN, P.A., 1978, The influence of initial strength levels on responses to vertical jump training. Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 18, 227 – 282.
FUKASHIRO, S. and KOMI, P.V., 1987, Joint moment and mechanical flow of the lower limb during vertical jump.
International Journal of Sport Medicine, 8, 15 – 21.
Biomechanical analysis of vertical jump performance
1603
HARMAN, E.A., ROSENSTEIN, M.T., FRYKMAN, P.N. and ROSENSTEIN, R.M., 1990, The effects of arms and
countermovement on vertical jumping. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22, 825 – 833.
HUBLEY, C.L. and WELLS, R.P., 1983, A work – energy approach to determine individual joint contributions to
vertical jump performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 50, 247 – 254.
LEES, A., VAN RENTERGHEM, J. and DE CLERCQ, D., 2004, Understanding how an arm swing enhances
performance in the vertical jump. Journal of Biomechanics, 37, 1929 – 1940.
LUHTANEN, P. and KOMI, P.V., 1979, Mechanical power and segmental contribution to force impulses in long
jump take off. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 41, 267 – 274.
MCKETHAN, J.F. and MAYHEW, J.L., 1974, Effects of isometrics, isotonics, and combined isometrics – isotonics on
quadriceps strength and vertical jump. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 14, 224 – 229.
MILLER, D.I. and NELSON, R.C., 1973, Biomechanics of Sport, 39 – 88 (Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger).
PAASUKE, M., ERELINE, J. and GAPEYEVA, H., 2001, Knee extension strength and vertical jumping performance in
Nordic combined athletes. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 41, 354 – 361.
PLAGENHOEF, S., 1971, Patterns of Human Motion: A Cinematographic Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall).
SHETTY, A.B. and ETNYRE, B.R. 1989, Contribution of arm movement to the force components of maximal
vertical jump. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 11, 198 – 201.
SMITH, G., 1989, Padding point extrapolation techniques for the Butterworth digital filter. Journal of
Biomechanics, 22, 967 – 971.
WINTER, D.A., 1990, Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement (New York: John Wiley).