A Comparison of Two Landing Styles in a Two-Foot Vertical Jump

Abstract

In team sports, such as basketball and volleyball, the players use different takeoff styles to make the vertical jump. The two-foot vertical jump styles have been classified according to the landing style and identified as Hop style, when both feet touch the ground at the same time and Step-close style, when there is a slight delay between the first and second foot making contact with the ground. The aim of this research is to identify the differences between the two styles. Twenty-three subjects participated in the study, of whom 14 were volleyball players and 9 basketball players. The jumps were video recorded and synchronized with two forcé platforms at 250 Hz. Two temporal periods of the takeoff were defined according to the reduction or increase in the radial distance between the CG and the foot support (T.-RD C G y T.+RD C G, respectively). The findings produced no specific advantages when both styles were compared with respect to takeoff velocity and consequently to jump height, but takeoff time was significantly shorter (p<0.001) in the Hop style takeoff. However, this reduction was compensated for by the greater time employed in the last step of the approach run (p<0.001). When the Step-close style was used, the vertical velocity of CG at the beginning of the takeoff is significantly lower. Moreover, the mean vertical forcé developed during T.-RD C G was reduced by -627.7 ± 251.1 N, so lessening impact on landing.Horizontal velocity at the end of the takeoff is less when the Step-close style is used (p<0.005), suggesting that this style is better for jumps where it is necessary to move horizontally during the flight against an opponent

Three-Dimensional Kinematics during the Take-Off Phase in Competitive Long Jumping

“…The CM follows a trajectory with a continuous elevation from TD to TO due to the technical and muscular actions that operate when the foot contacts the board. This behaviour is in agreement with that of other jumping specialities [16][17]. The principal component analysis shows that the jump distance was related to: i) the athlete's approach speed prior to the touch down; and ii) the energy exchange that occurs during the take-off which is intended to gain the maximum vertical velocity of the CM.…”

Kinematic Analysis of Volleyball Attack in the Net Center with Various Types of Take-Off

“…The study also showed that even in the reverse type of „goofy“ approach, there was no relationship between the jump height and vertical impulse, similarly as in other types of take offs, namely the step close jump and the hop jump ( Coutts, 1982 ; Gutierrez-Davila et al, 2009 ). The study emphasizes the importance of the vertical impulse increase during the last two steps regardless of the type of approach, which is in accordance with other studies ( Liu et al, 2001 ).…”

Vertical Jump and Leg Power Normative Data for Colombian Schoolchildren Aged 9–17.9 Years: The FUPRECOL Study

“…This test measures the vertical displacement of the center of mass between standing on the ground and at the apex of a jump (31). Jumping primarily involves the gluteal and quadriceps muscles, which are instrumental in many sport and work activities (2,11).…”

“…Raw measures of jump height may have some use in performance appraisal, but ideally, an estimate of peak leg power should accompany jump height normative data because this provides insight beyond the outcome of the jump itself (29). For example, 2 individuals of different body weight might be able to jump vertically the exact same distance, therefore calculating power values could provide additional information to that given by jump height alone (11). However, the heavier individuals' jump would show the ability to generate greater power, which could provide an advantage in activities which involve manipulation of mass outside the body (e.g., helping to identify talented athletes).…”

“…Typically, VJ can be measured using relatively inexpensive, portable, and easy-to-use tools (23,26,28) and is a reliable (2,11,22) and valid (3) method for strength assessment. *Data values are reported as mean (6) (SD).…”