IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v2y2002i1p44-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the jump height in vertical jumping with two different evaluation concepts

Author

Listed:
  • K. Schwieger
  • A. Baca

Abstract

When evaluating jumping performance two different concepts are most frequently applied for quantifying jump height. In many investigations jump height is defined as the flight height (hflight), i.e. lifting height of the body´s center of mass (CM) from the liftoff position (htakeoff) to the vertex of the flight trajectory. In other studies the jump height is defined as the difference between the height of the CM at the apex of the jump and the height of the CM in upright standing (htotal). The purpose of this study was to compare these concepts. In addition, the study was undertaken to gain deeper insight in the relationship between htakeoff and hflight. 230 jumps (10 per subject) were selected for the comparisons. Force plate data were used to compute both kinds of jump height. The mean difference between htotal of the best trial and that with highest hflight (10 trials per subject) was 0.33 ±0.56 % (1.53 ± 2.37 mm) indicating that it is more or less alike which parameter to use in order to identify the best trial of a jump series. Spearman´s coefficient between htakeoff and hflight ranged from −0.503 to 0.842 (mean: 0.117) and did not show a general tendency (one-sample t-test: p>0.2). The reason might be individual differences in motor control stategies.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Schwieger & A. Baca, 2002. "Quantifying the jump height in vertical jumping with two different evaluation concepts," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 44-54, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:44-54
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2002.11868260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2002.11868260
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2002.11868260?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:44-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.