Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the biomechanics of countermovement (CMJ) and preferred-style (PrefJ) jumps. Eight male basketball players (age: 19 ± 1 year; height: 1.84 ± 0.14 m; mass: 92.8 ± 11.4 kg) participated in a cross-sectional study for which they performed max effort CMJ and PrefJ while motion capture and force plate data were recorded. The CMJ were performed according to common procedures. For the PrefJ, the eight players chose to use a short approach run and a step-in jump, with a clear lead and trail leg foot contact pattern. Vertical ground reaction forces (GRF), center-of-mass (COM) parameters, as well as hip, knee, and ankle flexion angles, extension velocities, net joint moments, powers, and work were all calculated and used for analysis. Bi-lateral data from the CMJ were averaged, whereas lead and trail leg data from the PrefJ were kept separated. The PrefJ was characterized by greater jump height and GRF and shorter contact times. Joint-level differences indicated that the PrefJ was characterized by larger joint kinetics. Importantly, very few biomechanical variables of the CMJ and PrefJ were correlated, which suggests that each jump type is characterized by unique movement strategies. Since PrefJ may better represent athlete- and sport-specific movement pattern, these findings could have implications for assessing and monitoring neuromuscular performance of basketball players.
Highlights
The countermovement jump (CMJ) is often used to assess maximal neuromuscular performance of the lower body muscles [1,2]
This problem is perhaps best illustrated by the procedures that are used to administer the CMJ test, which is typically performed in a highly controlled laboratory setting with standardized procedures that constrain athletes into prescribed movement patterns [10,11]
The pragmatic implications of such limitations are important in that CMJ performance etc. may not reflect an athlete’s neuromuscular capacities or movement strategies within the context of their sport [8]
Summary
The countermovement jump (CMJ) is often used to assess maximal neuromuscular performance of the lower body muscles [1,2]. The ecological validity of the CMJ in the context of neuromuscular assessment and monitoring is sometimes ignored in the scientific literature This problem is perhaps best illustrated by the procedures that are used to administer the CMJ test, which is typically performed in a highly controlled laboratory setting with standardized procedures that constrain athletes into prescribed movement patterns [10,11]. CMJ are often performed bi-laterally and with hands placed on the hips (i.e., without arm swing) While these constraints could in some instances be considered useful (e.g., isolating body neuromuscular performance), they may inadvertently impose artificial constraints on athletes that limit them from using their preferred movement strategy (or solution) [12,13,14]. The pragmatic implications of such limitations are important in that CMJ performance etc. may not reflect an athlete’s neuromuscular capacities or movement strategies within the context of their sport [8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
