Content uploaded by Jessica A Calderbank
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessica A Calderbank on Dec 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Association of Jumping Ability and Maximum Strength
With Dive Distance in Swimmers
Jessica A. Calderbank, Paul Comfort, and John J. McMahon
Purpose:The aim of the current study was to investigate the relationship between dive distance (DD) and countermovement
jump (CMJ) height, track start CMJ height, countermovement broad jump (CMBJ) distance, track start broad jump distance, and
isometric midthigh pull peak force and relative peak force. Methods:A total of 27 (11 female and 16 male) regional-national-
international-standard swimmers (mean [SD]; age = 19.5 [5.5] y; mass = 69.3 [10.5] kg; height = 1.77 [0.09] m) performed 3
trials of a track start dive, CMJ, track start CMJ, CMBJ, track start broad jump, and isometric midthigh pull. Results:Data were
separated into pooled (females and males combined), females, and males. Large to very large correlations were found between
DD and all variables tested for pooled data (r= .554–.853, P<.001–.008), with DD-CMBJ displaying the highest correlation
(r= .853, P<.001). CMBJ accounted for 70% of the variance in DD. Females demonstrated moderate nonsignificant correlations
between DD isometric midthigh pull (r= .379, P<.125). Males demonstrated very large significant correlations between
DD-CMJ (r= .761, P<.001). Conclusions:DD demonstrated strong correlations with jump performances and multijoint
isometric force production in pooled data. Males showed stronger correlations than females due to being stronger and being able
to perform the jumping/strength tasks to a higher standard. Enhanced jump performance and increased maximal force production
may, therefore, enhance DD in swimmers.
Keywords:countermovement jump, broad jump, track start, isometric midthigh pull, force
Marginal parameters in swimming can have a notable effect on
overall race performance, particularly the swimming start (SS). The
start relates less to performance as race distance increases
1
but can
contribute to up to 30%
2–4
of total race time over 50 m. The SS is
marked from the initial takeoff from the blocks to the 15-m mark
down the pool. The first 15 m of the race comprises a sequence of
different stages which include the following: block time, dive
distance (DD), dive time, angle of entry, depth achieved, dis-
tance/average velocity of the underwater phase, and total time to
15 m.
5
An important factor of the SS is DD, which is the measure-
ment from the front of the block to the first contact with the water.
5
There are a number of different SS styles used, but the most
frequently used is the track start (TS). The TS incorporates a split
stance with preferred leg forward, back leg on the backboard wedge,
and hands on the front of the block (Figure 1). The TS has been noted
as the most efficient way to perform a competition start,
6
allowing
swimmers to leave the block more quickly with a shorter reaction
time compared with grab starts (parallel footed start).
Stronger individuals demonstrate greater muscular enhance-
ments in athletic performance, such as increased hypertrophy of
type II muscle fibers and increased intramuscular firing, compared
with weaker individuals.
1,7
Such improvements result in a right-
ward shift of the force–velocity curve, causing increased force of
contraction at any given velocity, thus improving maximal power.
8
Suchomel et al
9
reported that a foundation of strength must be set
before force–velocity characteristics can be improved, which was
reinforced by Beretic et al,
2
who stated that, as isometric lower
body strength increased, overall SS performance increased. There-
fore, it is probable that, as strength increases, DD will also increase.
Researchers have previously investigated the relationships
between different power and strength tests using a variety of SS
techniques.
6,10–19
Durovic et al
14
found a moderate inverse relation-
ship between absolute peak power during squat jumps and start times
to 10 m (r=−.391); however, the start to 10 m includes block time,
dive time, DD, angle of entry, maximum depth achieved, and time to
10 m, suggesting that the squat jump could be related to any, or all, of
the stated factors. Similarly, Arellano et al
11
reported relationships
between countermovement jump (CMJ) height with dive block time,
takeoff angle, mean velocity, and vertical impulse. Although Are-
llano et al
11
broke down the start into these aspects, they found a
moderate correlation (r= .612) between CMJ performance and mean
velocity between 5.0 and 7.5 m. The absence of a backboard wedge
meant Arellano et al
11
were driven toward using a grab start,
meaning findings are not necessarily ecologically valid.
Breed and Young
12
identified CMJ height as being related to
DD in different start variations (track r= .63, grab r= .60, and
swing r= .65). However, a higher correlation may be evident
between horizontally-oriented jumps and DD due to the large
horizontal orientation of the body during a dive. Conversely, diving
requires an optimal technique, therefore Breed and Young
12
sug-
gested athletes with a more advantageous technique may perform
better; however, if an athlete has good technique, further improve-
ments in performance may be more likely to come from enhanced
force production.
Currently, there is limited research correlating both jump
performance and isometric lower body strength to track start
DD. It would seem applicable to compare similar motor skills
to DD such as TS jumps and jumps that are oriented in a horizontal
direction. The aim of this study was to determine if correlations
exist between vertical and horizontal TS/parallel footed jumps,
isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) peak force (PF), relative peak
force (PF
Rel
), and DD. We hypothesized that DD will be related to
IMTP PF, IMTP PF
Rel
, and all jump tests, with the strongest
The authors are with the Dept of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy, School of
Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom. Calderbank
(jessicacalderbank@gmail.com) is corresponding author.
1
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0773
© 2020 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
relationship occurring between the track start broad jump (TSBJ)
and DD as the TSBJ shares the same starting position as the dive
and is a horizontal action. Data would be split into 3 categories,
pooled (females and males combined), females, and males to
identify any differences in associations between variables for
each sex. The results would allow swimmers/coaches to incorpo-
rate the best techniques into training and monitoring programs.
Subjects and Design
Using an observational, cross-sectional, between-subjects design,
27 (11 females and 16 males) regional-national-international com-
petitive swimmers who swam a range of different sprint events
including 50- to 100-m butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, and
freestyle with FINA points ranging from 500 to 700 + volunteered
to participate in this study (pooled age= 19.5 [5.5] y; mass = 69.3
[10.5] kg; height = 1.77 [0.09] m, female age = 17.9 [1.5] y; mass =
60.5 [7.66] kg; height = 1.69 [5.71] m, male age = 20.6 [6.9] y;
mass = 75.4 [7.54] kg; height = 1.83 [6.49] m). Data were collected
from 2 different groups at 2 separate sites. All dive, jumps, and IMTP
data were collected in a single testing session. Data were analyzed
pooled and separately for females and males to determine differences
in associations based on sex. Written informed consent and parental
assent were provided where appropriate, with ethical approval
provided by the institutional review board of the University of
Salford. All participants were in the English winter national qualifi-
cation period and were familiar with jump and strength training.
Methods
Jump Trials
Using a similar procedure to McMahon et al,
20
participants per-
formed a standard protocol warm-up comprising 4 submaximal
jumps, 1 of each jumping test. All participants completed jumps in
the same order (CMJ, TSCMJ, CMBJ, and TSBJ).
Vertical Jumps. Vertical jumps (VJs) were performed on a
portable force platform (400 Series Performance Force Plate;
Fitness Technology, Adelaide, Australia) at a sampling frequency
of 600 Hz.
Participants stood with their feet parallel at hip width apart for
CMJs. For the TSCMJs, participants were required to place their
feet in a split position with their preferred leg forward and the rear
foot positioned on the ball of the foot in replication of a swimming
TS dive. Participants remained stationary in their set position
20
for
2 seconds before being told to jump (to allow detection of body
weight).
Participants were instructed to dip down rapidly (ie, flex
ankles, knees, and hips) and then drive up with the intention to
jump as “high and as fast as possible”
20
while extending ankles,
knees, and hips. Participants kept hands on their hips throughout
the jumps and were instructed not to tuck or dorsiflex in the air,
landing with feet parallel.
Three maximum efforts of each VJ test were completed after
the warm-up trial, interspersed with a 1-minute rest period.
Raw force–time data were exported for input into a computer
system using Ballistic Measurement System software (Fitness
Technology, Adelaide, Australia). Force–time data of VJs for
the 3 CMJs were analyzed and jump height was derived from
“velocity of center of mass at takeoff”using (vertical force –body
weight)/body mass, and then the resultant product was integrated
using the trapezoid rule. The start of the VJs was identified as
30 milliseconds before the vertical force had reduced by a force
threshold equal to 5 SDs of the body weight attained from the quiet
period of stationary standing.
21
Takeoff was defined as the instant
that vertical force had fallen below a threshold equal to 5 times the
SD of the residual force during the first 300 milliseconds of flight
phase of the jump (ie, when the force platform was unloaded).
21
Horizontal Jumps. Testing for the broad jumps (CMBJ and
TSBJ) took place on a flat sports hall floor. Jump distance was
recorded to the nearest centimeter using a measuring tape. For
CMBJs, participants were instructed to start with the toes of both
feet behind the starting line, then dip down rapidly (flexing ankles,
knees, and hips) and jump horizontally as far as possible, using an
arm swing for momentum, and stick the landing with feet parallel.
Distance in CMBJ was measured from the toes of the starting
position to the heel of the foot closest to the starting point upon
landing.
In TSBJ, participants were instructed to split their feet (pre-
ferred leg forward), placing their front foot behind the starting line
and trailing foot on the ball of the foot in a comfortable TS position,
then jump horizontally as far as possible, using an arm swing for
momentum, and stick the landing with feet parallel.
Distance in TSBJ was measured from the toes of the front foot
in the starting position to the heel of the foot closest to the starting
position upon landing. Three maximum effort trials of each jump
were completed with a 1-minute rest period between trials.
Isometric Midthigh Pull
Using similar methods to Dos’Santos et al
22
and Comfort et al,
23
a
Kistler 9286AA force platform (Kistler Instruments Inc, Amherst,
NY) with a portable IMTP rack was set to 1000 Hz. The
immovable IMTP bar was adjusted to replicate the start of the
second pull phase of the clean (just below the crease of the hip, hip
and knee joints flexed to ∼145°, feet hip width apart). All
participants used standard lifting straps to ensure that grip was
not a limiting factor.
Figure 1 —Demonstration of a track start diving position.
(Ahead of Print)
2Calderbank, Comfort, and McMahon
All participants received the same instructions to “pull as hard
and fast as possible and push the ground away with their feet”
22,23
until being told to stop. Once in position, participants were
instructed to keep completely still to allow a stable baseline force
trace during the weighing period. Two warm-up pulls (50% and
75% perceived effort) were carried out before 3 maximal pulls
during which strong verbal encouragement was provided. Trials
were separated by 1-minute rest periods. A difference in PF of
<250 N between trials was considered acceptable.
23
Data were collected for a duration of 8 seconds using Bioware
software (version 5.11; Amherst, NY), which was interfaced within
the computer setup. Raw unfiltered data were exported for further
analysis.
22
The highest force recorded across each trial was re-
corded as PF. Average PF across the 3 trials was calculated and
used for correlational analysis. PF
Rel
was then calculated.
Diving Trials
The Olympic standard wave breaker lane ropes segments were
compacted as much as possible using tape to prevent separation of
the segments during movement of the water. Foam subdivisions
were fixed onto the wave breaker to determine a calibration frame.
At site 1, foam markers were taped at 2.40 m and at 3.54 m up the
wave breaker from the start of the first segment. At site 2, foam
markers were fixed at 2.44 m and 3.66 m up the wave breaker from
the start of the first segment (Figure 2).
Participants undertook a standard warm-up protocol including
200-m freestyle, 200-m individual medley swim, and 3 TS dives
from the block. At both sites, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
camera sampling at 200 frames per second (Panasonic Corp,
Osaka, Japan) was mounted on the poolside on a rigid tripod
0.75 m off the floor perpendicular to the sagittal plane of the body’s
displacement during the dive start.
3
The tripod was placed 3.12 m
up from the start end of the pool and 3.23 m from the pool edge in
the sagittal plane. Each participant was told that they could adjust
the backboard wedge of the FINA-approved Olympic standard
starting blocks (which were 0.75 m higher than the water’s surface)
to their preferred position. Participants were then told to have their
preferred leg forward as they would in a competition TS racing
dive, to dive out as far as possible, do no underwater work, and
glide up to the surface in a streamline position. Each participant
completed 3 diving trials with a 2- to 3-minute rest interval in
between each dive to allow swimmers time to exit the pool ready
for the next trial. DD was measured from the front of the diving
block to the first contact with the water. Recorded trials were input
into Quintic Biomechanics version 26 (Coventry, London, UK)
video software for analysis, and calibrations were synchronized
with each trial to ensure output DDs were accurate. Markers were
inputted at the front of the diving block (determining the start) and
the first point of contact with the water (fingertips) to establish
the DD.
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed for pooled data, females,
and males. Means (SDs) were calculated for all tests and
trials. Using SPSS (version 23; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL), a test
of normality was conducted using a Shapiro–Wilks test. All data
were normally distributed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC;
2-way mixed effects, average measures, and absolute agreement)
with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine reli-
ability, with ≥0.8 considered reliable.
21
Percentage coefficient of
variation (%CV) was calculated to determine the variability of the
trials for each test using “SD/mean ×100”and an average was
then calculated (acceptable CV was set to CV <10%). A series of
Pearson correlation coefficients were conducted with significance
set to P≤.05. The Pvalues were multiplied by 6 to Bonferroni
correct the level of significance and reduce the risk of a family-wise
error. The Rvalues were interpreted as <.10, .10 to .29, .30 to .49,
.50 to .69, .7 to .89, and ≥0.90 as trivial, small, moderate, large,
very large, and nearly perfect, respectively.
24
Results
All variables for pooled data demonstrated high reliability (ICC ≥
.965) and low variability (%CV ≤4.22) (Table 1). Pooled mean
DD was 2.77 (0.51) m with all variables showing large to very large
correlations. The strongest association was between DD-CMBJ
(r= .853, P<.001), which was very large and significant.
All variables for female data demonstrated high reliability
(ICC ≥.927) and low variability (%CV ≤3.76) (Table 2). Mean
DD for females was 2.49 (0.34) m with all variables showing
moderate to small correlations. The strongest correlation for
females was DD-IMTP, which was moderate but not significant
(r= .379, P<.125).
All variables for male data demonstrated high reliability
(ICC ≥.941) and low variability (%CV ≤4.44) (Table 3). Mean
DD for males was 3.08 (0.35) m with all variables showing small to
very large correlations. The strongest correlation for males was
DD-CMJ, which was very large and significant (r= .761, P<.001).
Scatter plots displaying Pearson correlation coefficients for all
variables can be seen in Figure 3.
Discussion
To the authors’knowledge, previous researchers have failed to
isolate the parameter DD from the whole SS performance
6,10–19
or
determine associations of DD with horizontally-oriented jump
performance, TS-footed VJs, and both IMTP PF and IMTP PF
Rel
.
The pooled CMBJ demonstrated a very large correlation to DD, as
hypothesized, accounting for 70% of the performance. In general,
our findings show that jump height and jump distance are related to
DD, agreeing with previous research findings.
6,10,12,14,15,17,25
Figure 2 —Illustration of calibration frame foam markers on wave
breaker lane ropes.
(Ahead of Print)
Associations With Dive Distance 3
Pooled horizontal jump correlations in the current study agree
with findings by Arellano et al,
11
who identified that horizontal
forces during CMJ performance improve SS performance.
12,15
The
correlation between pooled DD and CMBJ is likely explained by the
CMBJ sharing similar kinetic and kinematic attributes to the SS. It
could be suggested that the correlation is due to the similar forward
action of the arm swing and the direction of force application into the
ground in an attempt to direct the body horizontally. This is
supported by Benjanuvatra et al,
10
who stated that coaches/athletes
should implement horizontal jumps (with arm swing) into training
programs to improve the ability to produce a powerful SS. Although
this was the case, when looking at isolated data, female correlations
for this variable displayed only a moderate, yet nonsignificant,
relationship, whereas males demonstrated a very large significant
correlation. This is likely due to the differences in strength and
phenotype between the 2 groups as males were much stronger than
females, suggesting that relative strength should be improved to
perform tasks optimally and create a positive transfer to DD.
The lower correlation of DD with TSBJ compared with that
seen with CMBJ may have been due to differences in participant
Table 1 Descriptive and Reliability Statistics, Reliability Measures for DD, IMTP, and All Jumping Tests
and Correlation Coefficients of All Testing Variables With DD
Variables Mean SD ICC 95% LB 95% UB %CV 95% LB 95% UB RP
DD, m 2.77 0.51 .988 .976 .994 2.88 2.19 3.57
IMTP peak force, N 2006.40 636.7 .988 .977 .994 4.08 2.54 5.62 .659 <.001
Relative IMTP peak force, N·kg
−1
28.43 5.52 .965 .934 .983 4.08 2.54 5.62 .554 .008
CMJ height, m 0.32 0.07 .984 .969 .992 4.22 3.16 5.28 .769 <.001
TSCMJ height, m 0.30 0.07 .986 .973 .993 3.83 2.94 4.72 .776 <.001
CMBJ distance, m 2.04 0.27 .978 .954 .990 2.75 2.01 3.50 .853 <.001
TSBJ distance, m 1.89 0.25 .980 .955 .991 2.81 2.23 3.38 .782 <.001
Abbreviations: %CV, percentage coefficient of variation; CMBJ, countermovement broad jump; CMJ, countermovement jump; DD, dive distance; ICC, intraclass
correlation coefficient; IMTP, isometric midthigh pull; LB, lower bound confidence interval; TSBJ, track start broad jump; TSCMJ, track start countermovement jump; UB,
upper bound confidence interval.
Table 2 Descriptive and Reliability Statistics, Reliability Measures for DD, IMTP, and All Jumping Tests
and Correlation Coefficients of All Testing Variables With DD for Female Participants Only
Variables Mean SD ICC 95% LB 95% UB %CV 95% LB 95% UB RP
DD, m 2.49 0.34 .987 .965 .996 2.82 1.90 3.75
IMTP peak force, N 1654.96 302.0 .984 .955 .995 3.76 2.56 4.97 .379 1.375
Relative IMTP peak force, N·kg
−1
25.76 3.80 .972 .924 .992 3.76 2.56 4.97 .186 3.212
CMJ height, m 0.28 0.03 .927 .773 .982 3.37 2.07 4.67 −.207 2.981
TSCMJ height, m 0.26 0.03 .955 .861 .987 3.38 2.27 4.50 −.172 3.366
CMBJ distance, m 1.87 0.13 .931 .761 .981 2.94 1.92 3.96 .352 1.595
TSBJ distance, m 1.73 0.12 .964 .899 .990 2.80 2.27 3.33 .315 1.903
Abbreviations: %CV, percentage coefficient of variation; CMBJ, countermovement broad jump; CMJ, countermovement jump; DD, dive distance; ICC, intraclass
correlation coefficient; IMTP, isometric midthigh pull; LB, lower bound confidence interval; TSBJ, track start broad jump; TSCMJ, track start countermovement jump; UB,
upper bound confidence interval.
Table 3 Descriptive and Reliability Statistics, Reliability Measures for DD, IMTP, and All Jumping Tests
and Correlation Coefficients of All Testing Variables With DD for Male Participants Only
Variables Mean SD ICC 95% LB 95% UB %CV 95% LB 95% UB RP
DD, m 3.08 0.35 .963 .916 .986 2.98 1.98 3.98
IMTP peak force, N 2361.30 558.71 .989 .975 .966 4.44 1.95 6.92 .335 1.504
Relative IMTP peak force, N·kg
−1
31.09 4.96 .980 .953 .992 4.44 1.95 6.92 .272 2.320
CMJ height, m 0.36 0.05 .971 .932 .989 4.08 2.87 5.30 .761 <.001
TSCMJ height, m 0.34 0.05 .959 .905 .984 4.20 2.91 5.49 .691 .016
CMBJ distance, m 2.21 0.20 .952 .887 .982 2.61 1.54 3.67 .534 .224
TSBJ distance, m 2.05 0.17 .941 .835 .979 3.24 2.40 4.08 .377 1.088
Abbreviations: %CV, percentage coefficient of variation; CMBJ, countermovement broad jump; CMJ, countermovement jump; DD, dive distance; ICC, intraclass
correlation coefficient; IMTP, isometric midthigh pull; LB, lower bound confidence interval; TSBJ, track start broad jump; TSCMJ, track start countermovement jump; UB,
upper bound confidence interval.
(Ahead of Print)
4Calderbank, Comfort, and McMahon
Figure 3 —Relationships (Pearson correlation coefficient and 95% confidence intervals) between DD and all testing variables. (A) DD-IMTP, (B) DD-
RIMTP, (C) DD-CMJ, (D) DD-TSCMJ, (E) DD-CMBJ, and (F) DD-TSBJ. DD indicates dive distance; DD-CMBJ, dive distance–countermovement
broad jump; DD-CMJ, dive distance–countermovement jump; DD-IMTP, dive distance–isometric midthigh pull; DD-TSBJ, dive distance–track start
broad jump; DD-TSCMJ, dive distance–track start countermovement jump.
(Ahead of Print) 5
familiarity with the former jumping task. This was evident in all
categories of data. Alternatively, the differences in the jumping/
diving surface may be another factor. The diving block sits
0.75 m off the surface of the water (Figure 4) with a slight
decline toward the pool. The additional height of the swimmer
on top of the block and the use of a backboard wedge (where the
rear foot is elevated) is likely to cause a predominant shift of
weight distribution toward the front leg. This weight distribution
difference between front and back legs is not as profound on a flat
surface during the TSBJ, which may contribute to why these
factors do not correlate more closely. However, 61% of the
variance in DD is still explained by TSBJ for pooled data.
Although both kinetic/kinematic attributes and the application
of arm swing could give valid suggestions as to why the BJs gave
the highest correlation in pooled data, this cannot be concluded as
specific attributes were not tested for.
When looking at VJ results, the TS-footed VJ (TSCMJ) had a
higher correlation with DD than the parallel footed jump (CMJ) for
pooled data. But when looking at isolated data, both males and
females displayed higher correlations between DD-CMJ compared
with DD-TSCMJ. In the male category, the DD-CMJ gave the
highest correlation (very large). The higher levels of strength in
males compared with females meant that males were able to
achieve longer flight times and perform the task to a greater
standard and achieve greater jump heights/distances.
The VJs may have correlated more strongly than BJs in pooled
data due to participants finding them “easier”to perform. BJs are
more complex movements than VJs and involve an arm swing,
which requires a higher level of coordination. Contrasting this,
females showed only a small correlation, likely due to their lower
strength levels, meaning the task could not be performed optimally
for a stronger correlation to be evident.
The pooled VJ and male VJ correlations in the current study are
supported by Zatsiorsky and Kraemer,
25
who found that superior
jump height results in an increased ability to propel the center of
mass within many different sporting tasks. These results were also
found by Breed and Young,
12
who established a positive correlation
between VJs and DD (P= .63, P<.05). However, in the study by
Breed and Young,
12
the swimmers were not trained and had been
taught the dive for the study, therefore meaning the enhancement in
DD was likely due to improvements in technique/neuromuscular
coordination and not jumping power. In contrast, participants in the
current study who could jump higher/further had better DD results,
which stresses the importance of jump training for improved diving
performance.
It should be noted that squat jump/track squat jump (static
start with no countermovement)
26
may correlate more strongly to
DD. During the swimming dive, there is very minimal (if any)
countermovement when leaving the blocks, meaning there is no/
very little use of the stretch shortening cycle (SSC). Research
shows that squat jumps show a negated use of the SSC; therefore,
training the ability to produce concentric power with no “pre-
stretch of active muscles”could likely cause an improvement in
DD.
27
Future research could consider investigating relationships
between DD and alternative jump assessments.
Although IMTP PF and IMTP PF
Rel
revealed the lowest
correlations in the current study for pooled data, these correlations
were still large. The IMTP PF demonstrated the strongest correla-
tion (moderate) in females but not in males. Strength parameters
have been shown to have a significant meaningful relationship with
performance in power and speed-based tasks across many sports.
28
It was clear that swimmers who produced a larger PF during the
IMTP test had greater DDs, which emphasizes the importance of
creating a “solid foundation of strength”to allow the transfer of
strength gains into power and velocity-based tasks
2
such as the
swim diving start. IMTP PF
Rel
displayed small correlations in both
females and males. It has been made clear that pooled data in the
current study amplified correlations. When isolating data, the
reduced ratio of females to males produced a smaller range of
within-subgroup scores, suggesting a reason for lack of associa-
tions across all variables. However, isolating the data into males
and females may have allowed for truer findings.
The “precision skills”involved in diving
12
could counteract
strength and power needed for the SS. During testing, an observa-
tion was made wherein swimmers implemented different techni-
ques. Some swimmers adopted a countermovement arm swing
(throwing the arms backward) on the “drive phase”when leaving
the block. Alternatively, other swimmers drove straight into a
streamline position when leaving the block (Figures 5and 6).
Although the chosen technique a swimmer implements is due to
personal preference, it has not been studied which technique
produces optimal DD. It could be proposed that horizontal jumps
with an arm swing correlate more strongly to DD for athletes who
adopt a countermovement arm swing during the dive, whereas
horizontal jumps with no arm swing may correlate more strongly
for athletes who do not adopt an arm swing during the dive.
After assessing dive technique, it may be beneficial if the
correlation of squat jump variations were carried out against DD
due to their similar limited use of the SSC with little/no counter-
movement. A test of correlation between rear leg elevated jumps on
a declined surface may also be beneficial to make the weight
distribution of the jump and dive even more similar.
Future research could also consider assessing the association of
TSBJ with arm swing against DD for “arm-swing divers”and the
association ofa TSBJ with no arm swing for “non-arm-swing divers.”
Practical Application
Assessing CMBJ distance may be a tool to monitor changes in
performance relating to DD; however, future research is needed to
Figure 4 —Illustration of the height of the swim starting blocks from
the surface of the pool water.
(Ahead of Print)
6Calderbank, Comfort, and McMahon
determine whether training affects CMBJ and DD. VJ assessments
using a force platform may provide greater insight into changes
in jump strategy and forcetime characteristics. From a practical
standpoint, the CMBJ is easy to implement and does not require
specialized technology. Therefore, it is a convenient method of
training for coaches. However, it is a more technical skill for
athletes to execute and, therefore, may require some training.
Athletes may achieve greater improvements in the SS if a
variety of strength and jumping tasks are included in training
programs. A positive transfer is only likely to occur if athletes
are familiar with the exercises, can perform them optimally, and
have a solid baseline of strength, particularly in female athletes.
Conclusions
The results of the current study displayed significant relationships
between DD and all variables tested in pooled data. For pooled
data, a very large relationship was revealed between DD-CMBJ,
DD-TSBJ, DD-TSCMJ, and DD-CMJ. Large correlations were
exhibited between DD-IMTP PF and DD-IMTP PF
Rel
with the
highest correlating variable being CMBJ. For females, the highest
correlation was between DD-IMTP PF (moderate). For males, the
strongest relationship was exhibited between DD-CMJ (very
large). Stronger participants displayed further DDs and greater
jump performances compared with weaker participants, which
signifies the importance of strength and power training for optimal
DDs. Based on results, strength and conditioning coaches should
consider implementing the CMBJ with arm swing into training
programs to produce the best SS performances. However, a posi-
tive transfer would still occur if CMJ, TSCMJ, or TSBJ were
implemented. VJs may be convenient for some coaches if there is
limited space in training facilities, for example, and would still
allow a positive transfer to start performance.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the participants at Oldham Aquatics Swim
Team and City of Manchester Aquatics Swim Team who took part in the
testing process.
References
1. Fukunaga T, Ichinose Y, Masamitsu I, Kawakami Y, Fukashiro S.
Determination of fascicle length and pennation. J Appl Physiol.
2008;82(1):354–358. doi:10.1152/jappl.1997.82.1.354
2. Beretic I, Durovic M, Okicic T, Dopsaj M. Relations between lower
body isometric muscle force characteristics and start performance in
elite male sprint swimmers. J Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(4):639–645.
3. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports
speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(2):349–357. PubMed ID:
15903374 doi:10.1519/14323.1
4. Slawson S. A Novel Monitoring System for the Training of Elite
Swimmers. [PhD thesis]. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough Uni-
versity, Institution of Repository; 2010.
Figure 6 —Swimmer driving arms forward on initiation of the dive with no countermovement backward arm swing.
Figure 5 —Swimmer adopting a countermovement backward arm swing on initiation of the dive.
(Ahead of Print)
Associations With Dive Distance 7
5. Ruschel C, Gassenferth A, Pereira SM, Roesler H. Kinematical
analysis of the swimming start: block, flight, and underwater phases.
Proceedings in: XXV ISBS Symposium; April 28–May 2, 2007.
Canberra, Australia. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa. Accessed
January 1, 2018.
6. Benjanuvatra N, Edmunds K, Blanksby B. Jumping abilities and
swimming grab-start performances in elite and recreational swimmers.
Int J Aquatic Res Educ. 2007;1(3):231–241. doi:10.25035/ijare.01.03.06
7. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2005;20(5):135–145.
8. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Influence of strength on
magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1566–1581. PubMed ID: 20639724 doi:10.
1249/MSS.0b013e3181cf818d
9. Suchomel TJ, Comfort P, Lake JP. Enhancing the force-velocity
profile of athletes using weightlifting derivatives. Strength Cond J.
2017;39(1):10–20. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000275
10. Benjanuvatra N, Lyttle A, Blanksby B, Larkin D. Force development
profile of the lower limbs in the grab and track start in swimming.
Proceedings in: ISBS Conference Proceedings Archive; April 21,
2008. Ottawa, CA. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa. Accessed Jan-
uary 1, 2018.
11. Arellano R, Llana S, Tella V, Morales E, Mercade J. A comparison
CMJ, simulated and swimming grab start force recordings and their
relationship with the start performance. Proceedings in: ISBS-
Conference Proceedings Archive; 2005. Beijing, China. https://ojs.
ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa. Accessed January 1, 2018.
12. Breed RV, Young WB. The effect of a resistance training programme
on the grab, track and swing starts in swimming. J Sports Sci. 2003;
21(3):213–220. PubMed ID: 12703850 doi:10.1080/026404103
1000071047
13. De La Fuente B, Garcia F, Arellano R. Are the forces applied in the
vertical countermovement jump related to the forces applied during
the swimming start? Proceedings in: IX BSM; 2003. Granada, ES.
https://www.iat.uni-leipzig.de/datenbanken/iks/bms/. Accessed on
January 1, 2018.
14. Durovic M, Beretic I, Zrnzevic J, Okicic T, Jorgic B, Milanov M. The
relations between power and force variables realized during the squat
jump with start performance in national level male sprint swimmers.
Facta Univ Ser Phys Educ Sport. 2015;13(1):89–96.
15. Garcia-Ramos A, Feriche B, de la Fuente B, et al. Relationship
between different push-off variables and start performance in experi-
enced swimmers. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015;15(8):687–695. PubMed ID:
26305175 doi:10.1080/17461391.2015.1063699
16. Miyashita M, Takahashi S, Troup J, Wakayoshi K. Leg extension
power of elite swimmers. In: MacLaren D, Reilly T, Lees A, eds.
Proceedings in: VI BMS. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1992;
295–300. https://www.iat.uni-leipzig.de/datenbanken/iks/bms/Record/
4019137. Accessed January 1, 2018.
17. Morouco P, Neiva H, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Garrido N, Marinho DA,
Marques MC. Associations between dry land strength and power
measurements with swimming performance in elite athletes: a pilot
study. J Hum Kinet. 2011;29A(29):105–112. PubMed ID: 23486734
doi:10.2478/v10078-011-0065-2
18. Pearson C, McElroy G, Blitvich J, Subic A, Blanksby B. A compari-
son of the swimming start using traditional and modified starting
blocks. J Hum Mov Stud. 1998;34(1):49–66.
19. West D, Owen N, Cunningham D, Cook C, Kilduff L. Strength and
power predictors of swimming starts in international sprint swim-
mers. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(4):950–955. PubMed ID:
20664366 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c8656f
20. McMahon J, Jones PA, Dos Santos T, Comfort P. Influence of
dynamic strength index on countermovement jump force-, power-,
velocity-, and displacement-time curves. Sports. 2017;5(72):1–11.
doi:10.3390/sports5040072
21. McMahon J, Murphey S, Rej S, Comfort P. Countermovement-jump-
phase characteristics of senior and academy rugby league players. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(6):803–811. doi:10.1123/ijspp.
2016-0467
22. Dos’Santos T, Lake J, Jones PA, Comfort P. Effect of low-pass
filtering on isometric midthigh pull kinetics. J Strength Cond Res.
2018;32(4):983–989. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002473
23. Comfort P, Dos’Santos T, Beckham GK, Stone MH, Guppy SN,
Haff GG. Standardization and methodological considerations for the
isometric midthigh pull. Strength Cond J. 2019;41(2):57–79. doi:10.
1519/SSC.0000000000000433
24. Hopkins WG. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. A new view
of statistics. August 7, 2006. https://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/
effectmag.html. Accessed January 1, 2018.
25. Zatsiorsky V, Kraemer W. Goal specific strength training. In: Bahrke
M, Schwarzentraub M, Eckstein M, Alisha J, eds. Science and
Practice of Strength Training (pp. 156–161). 2nd ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics; 2006.
26. Bobbert M, Gerritsen K, Litjens M, Van Soest A. Why is counter-
movement jump height greater than squat jump height? Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1996;28(11):1402–1412. doi:10.1097/00005768-
199611000-00009
27. Jeffreys I, Turner AN. The stretch-shortening cycle: proposed
mechanisms and methods for enhancement. Strength Cond J. 2010;
32(4):87–99. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181e928f9
28. Speranza MJ, Gabbett T, Johnston RD, Sheppard J. Muscular
strength and power correlators of tackling ability in semiprofessional
rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(8):2071–2078.
PubMed ID: 26200016 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000897
(Ahead of Print)
8Calderbank, Comfort, and McMahon
