Blog

Before you dive in further, I want you to envision a collision sport athlete who personifies speed. That athlete who leaves opponents in their rearview mirror. Who came to mind? As my background is rugby, my brain goes directly to Smokin’ Joe Rokocoko.

Next, I want you to envision a bruising ball carrier or defender—someone who more likely than not has sent someone to hospital. Who you got this time? I think of the late, great Jerry Collins.

Now, think of an athlete who has both traits, who if required could easily run around their opposition, or conversely run right over them. Who comes to mind? In rugby there is no going past Jonah Lomu.

As an S&C coach working in a collision sport my goal is to try and create powerful athletes. Athletes who can use their speed, strength, or both to win the collision zone. One way that I do this is with the 1080 Sprint.

I have been working with the 1080 Sprint since 2019, and in that time I have been able to learn from coaches who have shared their experiences with the technology, including Cameron Josse, Chris Korfist, Matt Tometz, Jacob Cohen, and Kyle Davey. I also wrote an article for Simplifaster on how I use the 1080 Sprint to perform resisted sprints and profile athletes using the software tools.

One thing missing in all this, however, is benchmark data relating to sprint times, velocities, and momentum. There is a plethora of data on sprint times and velocity measured using speed gates and GPS, yet there is a lack of data out there from coaches using the 1080 Sprint. Regarding sprint momentum and rugby union, there are two published papers: one conducted on amateur athletes¹ and the other on professional junior and senior rugby athletes². In this article, I will share insights into sprint momentum, velocity, and split times recorded using the 1080 Sprint.

*This article shares general benchmarks and insights into sprint performance using the 1080 Sprint, which are intended to support the broader coaching community and cannot be directly applied in a way that would compromise my team’s competitive advantage.

Athlete Data & Methods

I analysed sprint performance data from 38 of my professional rugby players over a 20m distance, collecting split times, average velocity, and peak velocity data for each 5m split. I then calculated the momentum using the athlete’s body weight (both average and peak momentum).

The athletes completed 20m sprints indoors on a synthetic surface while wearing running shoes. This data was collected during the first testing session of each year over the past two seasons, with the best result from each athlete’s two 20m sprints used for analysis. Although I considered extending the distance by an additional 5m, I kept it at 20m to ensure the athletes had sufficient space to decelerate safely and could focus on giving maximal effort without hesitation.

All analysis was done using JASP³ and finding JASP in 2024 has been a godsend. I am by no means a whiz with stats, but using JASP has been a walk in the park compared to R and Python. Simply upload your data (in CSV format) into JASP, and the user-friendly software will help make the analysis of your data a breeze.

Rugby Union 101

For those of you not familiar with Rugby Union and the playing positions, here is a quick rundown.

Rugby union is a collision sport played over two 40-minute halves (80 minutes total). There are 15 players on the field (100m x 70m) for each team, and eight reserves on the bench. In international rugby, once a player is substituted, they cannot go back onto the field of play unless for an injury. All players play on attack and defence, and play continues until a stoppage is called by the referee due to an error such as a knock on (player dropping the ball forward), a forward pass, a penalty, or the ball goes out of bounds. The aim is to score points via a try (5 points) which is where you ground the ball in the opponent’s goal, or kicking the ball through the posts via a conversion (2 points) after a try is scored, or a penalty (3 points), or drop kick (3 points).

The Forward’s Group

These players are typically larger and stronger than the Back’s group. One of the main differences between the groups is that Forwards perform in the scrum and lineout and try to gain and maintain possession through tackles, rucks, and mauls. They engage in more collisions than the Backs throughout the match² and work in smaller spaces. Backs, on the other hand, are generally faster, more agile, and more responsible for passing, running, and kicking the ball to create scoring opportunities, often operating in larger open spaces.

• Front Row comprised of #1, #2, and #3. These guys pack down in the front row of a scrum and lift the jumpers in the lineout. We colloquially call them “Piggies” because they are big dudes with no necks and you certainly don’t offer to take them out for lunch.
• #1 and #3 are Props and #2 is called the Hooker, who is responsible for throwing the ball in during the lineout. For my American readers, the Props are the physical equivalent of your Offensive Linemen, and in some teams the Hooker can be like a third Prop, or a smaller and more mobile athlete like a Back Row athlete.

The Second Row

Here you have #4 and #5. Their most important role is jumping in the line out. Diving a little deeper you have different roles for the Second Row depending on teams. #4 is generally lighter and a better jumper as he is quicker in the air. #5 is the bigger of the two and packs down in the scrum behind #3.

The Back Row

#6, #7, and #8—these guys are not as big as #1-5, but offer a blend of size and mobility. They can carry the ball, tackle, and have what we refer to as “hands” in that they are good at passing and can work in with the Backs. Physically, these guys are the equivalent of Linebackers in American football.

In the Backs group you have the Halves, with #9 the Halfback and #10 the Flyhalf. These guys are the like the Quarterbacks, driving the team around the pitch and deciding when to run, pass, or kick. Physically, these guys tend to be the smallest players on the field.

You then have #12 and #13 and together they form the Centres. These guys can have multiple roles depending on the team. They can be big ball carriers and hard hitters on defence or act as a backup Flyhalf in that they can pass and kick. Generally, you would have one of each type on the field at the same time. Physically, these guys are the biggest of the Backs and would be like tackle-breaking running backs in the NFL.

The last Backs group are the Outside Backs (or Back Three), with #11 and #14 (Wingers) and #15 (Fullback). Your Wingers are your fastest players on the field, much like Wide Receivers, and your Fullback is a player who can do it all: run, kick, pass, and tackle, as often he is the last line of defence when the opposing team makes a break.

Sprint Momentum Values by Playing Group and Position

Sprint momentum is an important metric in collision sports, as it is a combination of an athlete’s velocity and mass. An athlete with the higher momentum should have a better chance of winning collisions (not taking into consideration technique).

Sprint momentum is an important metric in collision sports, as it is a combination of an athlete’s velocity and mass. An athlete with the higher momentum should have a better chance of winning collisions, says @jonobward. Share on X

Monitoring momentum gives us coaches a better understanding on an athlete’s physical development, as it tells us if the changes in velocity and body mass are beneficial.  For example, if my athlete improved his speed from 9.2m/s to 9.3 m/s, yet dropped 3kg in doing so, is this beneficial? Is he still robust enough to win the collision zone and withstand the repeated hits? Conversely, imagine another athlete gained 5kg over the year, but his max velocity dropped from 8.9 m/s to 8.6m/s. Has this increase in body mass made them less explosive and mobile around the field? Whilst they may be more dominant in the collisions, has there been a cost in terms of number of ball carries and tackles? This is what makes monitoring momentum better than just monitoring velocity or body mass—it can add a little more context to the athlete’s development.

Has an increase in body mass made the athlete less explosive and mobile around the field? While they may be more dominant in the collisions, has there been a cost in terms of number of ball carries and tackles? Share on X

Regarding my data below, I calculated momentum using both average and peak velocity over each 5m split to allow comparisons with systems like speed gates, which typically use average velocity over a given split to calculate momentum. You will find the mean weight (95% CI) for each position in Table 1. Table 2 shows the data for the Forwards and Backs, and Table 3 shows the data for each playing positions. When calculating momentum for each playing position I took the peak velocity.

When comparing my data to the research of Barr et al ², who examined momentum of professional rugby players over 40m, my findings mirrored what they found, with the forwards having significantly higher momentum than the backs (p=<0.001).

From above you can see that Front Row and Second Row have a higher momentum than other positions. For the Front Row, this is due to their increased body mass, and for the Second Row a mixture of their heavier body mass, and velocity, which you will see later in the article where I provide their velocities. They are followed by the Back Row and Centres, with the Outside Backs and Halves bringing up the rear.

Research by Mann et al ⁵ in college football athletes stated that momentum is a better metric to track than velocity alone, since velocity improvements are shown to stagnate in college football athletes ^6,7 yet body mass consistently increased. However, working in Rugby, and specifically in France, I have found that improvements in velocity can made in senior professional rugby. Speaking on my current situation here in France, one of the biggest reasons I believe this is due to the culture.

The culture of strength and conditioning, and long-term athlete development (LTAD) here in France is different compared to the anglophone countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Young athletes don’t have high schools that are kitted-out with state-of-the-art equipment, nor is there inter-collegiate sport like in the USA (NCAA). The majority don’t have access to the same level of coaching when they are younger. Whilst the S&C (and lifting) culture in France is on the up, France is still 10-15 years behind. I believe I am able to make significant improvements when working with my French athletes in part because many were not exposed to a structured speed program when younger.

To that end, below are some examples of the year-on-year change I have seen with my athletes.

The first example is an Outside Back, who increased his velocity and body mass (+2.7kg). As we can see in Graph 1, there is a nice vertical shift in the line graph between 2023 and 2024—this is what I would call a good responder and a job well done. On the field, we have also seen greater confidence in his ball carrying abilities (leading to a nice highlight reel of him putting opposing players on their ass).

In this second example I have a Centre/Outside Back who lost body mass (-3.1kg), but increased their velocity. Their loss in body mass was mostly due to fat loss, as observed in his lower sum of skin folds. He also increased his total body strength and fitness score (the 1.2km Bronco). So, whilst we saw a decrease in 5m momentum and 20m momentum, as a coach I am happy as physically he became a better athlete and we saw his production and involvement on the field increase too. This is why context is key, and a reason why momentum should not be viewed in isolation.

This last example is a Hooker who plays in the style of a Back Row. He lost weight (-1.6kg) and increased his velocity. Due to this, we saw his 5m momentum decrease, but his momentum in the 5-10m and 10-15m split increase. This athlete was in the similar boat to the athlete above, in that he lost fat mass but kept his strength levels and has seen more involvements in the match. Initially there were concerns about his loss in body mass affecting his ability to win the collision zone, but already this year he has scored four tries in close quarters, two of which he had multiple defenders trying to bring him down.

A final note regarding sprint momentum, I did have a handful of athletes who did not improve their momentum due to a loss in velocity or changes in body mass that were not beneficial. This presents a new challenge for me as I work to address this and help them return to their previous performance levels and ideally surpass them. When training to improve sprint momentum, I want to put in place a program that targets sprint velocity (acceleration and max velocity), in addition to gym programs that focus on strength, power, and lean muscle mass. For some players it can even be switching out gym (or half-a-session of gym) for off-feet conditioning sessions. I’m looking at my Polynesian athletes here, who were born as strong as an ox but take one look at fast food and pile on the kilos.

When training to improve sprint momentum, I want to put in place a program that targets sprint velocity (acceleration and max velocity), in addition to gym programs that focus on strength, power, and lean muscle mass, says @jonobward. Share on X

Average Velocity Values by Position

In Table 7 below you will find average velocity values—I know coaches using speed gates may want to make comparisons, as you may not have the capability to extrapolate peak velocity values.

Peak Velocity Values by Position

The peak velocity values are shown below in Table 8, and I conducted a statistical analysis to determine if there was a significant difference between the positions, and if so the effect size (Cohen’s d).

0–5m Peak Velocity Analysis

• Centres were faster than the Second Row (p = 0.045, d = 2.083), the Front Row (p = 0.001, d = 2.548), and the Halves (p = 0.033, d = 1.602).
• Outside Backs were faster than the Front Row (p = 0.003, d = 2.334).

5–10m Peak Velocity Analysis

• Centres were faster than the Front Row (p = 0.004, d = 2.294), and the Halves (p = 0.048, d = 1.521).
• Outside Backs were faster than the Front Row (p = 0.002, d = 2.486) and the Halves (p = 0.019, d = 1.713).

10–15m Peak Velocity Analysis

• Centres were faster than the Front Row (p = 0.014, d = 2.033).
• Outside Backs were faster than the Back Row (p = 0.037, d = 1.705), Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 2.716), and the Halves (p = 0.004, d = 1.998).

15–20m Peak Velocity Analysis

• Centres were faster than the Front Row (p = 0.004, d = 2.300).
• Outside Backs were faster than the Back Row (p = 0.004, d = 2.172), the Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.225), and the Halves (p = 0.015, d = 1.759).

The statistics show that the Centres and Outside Backs were significantly faster than other positions, depending on the split being examined. The Centres hit the highest velocity on average over the first 5m, then the Outside Backs took the cake from the from the 5m to the 20m mark. Whilst the Centres were able to stay with the Outside Backs over the first 10m, the Outside Backs accelerate faster over the second 10m split. What impressed me the most is the Second-Row group. These guys range from 195-200cm and are on average 117kg (258lbs), so to see them hit over 8.0 m/s in the last 5 metre split, and run faster than the Halves, was impressive. I would not want to be the one tackling them in full flight.

Split Times by Position

In Table 9 are the split times, and I also conducted a statistical analysis to determine if there was a significant difference between the positions, and if so the effect size (Cohen’s d).

0–5m Split:

• Outside Backs faster than Second Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.239) and Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.292).
• Centres faster than Second Row (p = 0.009, d = 2.510) and Front Row (p = 0.001, d = 2.562).
• Halves faster than Front Row (p = 0.019, d = 1.951).
• Back Row faster than Front Row (p = 0.040, d = 1.892).

5–10m Split:

• Outside Backs faster than Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.413).
• Centres faster than Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.168).
• Halves faster than Front Row (p = 0.009, d = 2.124).
• Back Row faster than Front Row (p = 0.039, d = 1.899).

10–15m Split:

• Outside Backs faster than Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.372).
• Centres faster than Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 2.794).
• Halves faster than Front Row (p = 0.010, d = 2.111).
• Back Row faster than Front Row (p = 0.036, d = 1.919).

15–20m Split:

• Outside Backs faster than Front Row (p < 0.001, d = 3.236).
• Centres faster than Front Row (p = 0.006, d = 2.203).
• Halves faster than Front Row (p = 0.023, d = 1.908).

Across all 5m splits, the Backs were significantly faster compared to the Front Row, with the Back Row also significantly faster than the Front Row over the first 15m. The Second Row were significantly slower than the Centres and Outside Backs over the first 5m. However, from the 5 to 20 metres, there was no significant difference, and they even managed to run a faster 15-20m split than the Halves, and the same time as the Centres. Wow!

Additionally, sprint timing comparisons between the speed gates and the 1080 Sprint is ill-advised. In my last article (near the end), I provided a research paper, and my own data, showing that it is not possible. There needs to be consistency in timing methods when tracking performance over time, so pick one and stick to it.

Conclusion

Sprint momentum is beneficial in collision sports like rugby union, where both velocity and mass contribute to an athlete’s effectiveness in the collision zone, and monitoring sprint momentum provides more context than monitoring velocity or mass alone.

In rugby there are significant differences in momentum across positions, with forwards, particularly the Front Row and Second Row, having higher momentum due to their larger body mass. Share on X

In rugby there are significant differences in momentum across positions, with forwards, particularly the Front Row and Second Row, having higher momentum due to their larger body mass. In contrast, the Backs, especially Outside Backs and Centres, hit significantly higher velocities. The individual athlete data (Graph 1-3) shows the nuanced nature of momentum, where changes in body mass and velocity need be contextualised to determine their impact on performance.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Zabaloy, Santiago & Giráldez, Julián & Gazzo, Federico & Villaseca-Vicuña, Rodrigo & González, Javier. (2021). In-Season Assessment of Sprint Speed and Sprint Momentum in Rugby Players According To the Age Category and Playing Position. Journal of Human Kinetics. 77. 10.2478/hukin-2021-0025.

2. Barr, Matthew & Sheppard, Jeremy & Gabbett, Tim & Newton, Robert. (2014). Long-Term Training-Induced Changes in Sprinting Speed and Sprint Momentum in Elite Rugby Union Players. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. 28. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000364.

3. JASP Team. (2024). JASP (Version 0.19.2) [Computer software].

4. Paul, Lara & Naughton, Mitchell & Jones, Ben & Davidow, Demi & Patel, Amir & Lambert, Mike & Hendricks, Sharief. (2022). Quantifying Collision Frequency and Intensity in Rugby Union and Rugby Sevens: A Systematic Review. Sports Medicine – Open. 8. 10.1186/s40798-021-00398-4.

5. Mann, Bryan & Mayhew, Jerry & Lopes dos Santos, Marcel & Dawes, Jay & Signorile, Joseph. (2022). Momentum, Rather Than Velocity, Is a More Effective Measure of Improvements in Division IA Football Player Performance. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Publish Ahead of Print. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004206.

6. Jacobson, Bert & Conchola, Eric & Glass, Rob & Thompson, Brennan. (2012). Longitudinal Morphological and Performance Profiles for American, NCAA Division I Football Players. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. 27. 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31827fcc7d.

7. Miller, Todd & White, Tony & Kinley, Keith & Congleton, Jerome & Clark, Michael. (2002). The Effects of Training History, Player Position, and Body Composition on Exercise Performance in Collegiate Football Players. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. 16. 44-9. 10.1519/1533-4287(2002)016<0044:TEOTHP>2.0.CO;2.

Parents and coaches of child athletes are in a relentless search for the holy grail of maximizing sport performance. Often, this leads to early sport specialization, neglecting to see the value of a long-term athletic development approach. As a coach to athletes of all ages (5-18), I frequently see the lack of general fitness (strength, power, endurance) in today’s youth.

Considering that general fitness is the foundation on which sport skills are built, children (ages 6-9) who participate long-term in a strength and conditioning program (S&C) will realize a lifelong performance advantage. A few of those key advantages are:

• There is a developmental Window of Opportunity you can tap into for children between the ages of 6-9 years old.
• Establish a lifelong neurological advantage through consistent strength, power, and plyometric training.
• S&C programs condition athletes for the physical demands of competition in a controlled environment and make them more resilient to injury.
• General fitness is the foundation on which sport skills are built.

Video 1. Jumping and solving movement challenges in a range of patterns and planes takes advantage of the early window of opportunity to learn movement skills.

Neuroplasticity

Child development experts have established that children display a high degree of neuroplasticity—the ability of the brain to change and learn. Oftentimes, this is brought up when discussing childrens’ ability to acquire language more quickly than older people. Less understood is the key role the brain plays in athleticism, strength, and power performance.

Every movement we make is controlled by the brain. When a person begins strength training, the initial gains are a product of the nervous system becoming more coordinated and efficient. Increasing muscle size is a much slower process—typically taking at least 8-10 weeks of consistent training and nutrition—and is less significant in children. When we see Usain Bolt sprint the 100-meter dash or Michael Jordan dunk from the free throw line, we are seeing the expression of a supercharged nervous system.

As with language acquisition, children can increase strength and power at a remarkable rate and develop a physical potential that would not be possible if training is delayed until adolescence. This critical age range between the ages of six and nine is known as a Window of Opportunity.³

As with language acquisition, children can increase strength and power at a remarkable rate and develop a physical potential that would not be possible if training is delayed until adolescence, says @PinneyStrength. Share on X

Misconception

A popular misconception that has been thoroughly debunked is that S&C will stunt a child’s growth.¹ I find it interesting that nobody thinks twice about children competing in sports, but weightlifting is deemed dangerous.

Video 2. Introducing medicine balls, kettle-bells, bar-based movements, and other movement patterns.

In reality, attacking sports are actually far more dangerous than strength training because of the dynamic, intense, and unpredictable nature of competition. In contrast, S&C conditions athletes for the physical demands of competition in a controlled environment and makes them more resilient to injury.

Benefits

The benefits of S&C for children are profound, including physical, academic, and social-emotional growth. Physical benefits are the most obvious:

• Improved speed, power, strength, and coordination.
• Enhanced sport performance.
• Better conditioned for demands of sport/injury prevention.
• Increased bone mineral density.^2,5,8

Less obvious are the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional benefits. Children who are more physically active perform better academically, including better grades, attendance, and classroom behavior.⁷ Moreover, consider the social and psychological benefits of being a competent athlete, such as strong social connections, improved communication skills, and boosted self-confidence.⁴ All of these are advantages when navigating through adolescence, and support the development of a well-rounded individual.

Ground Rules

Guidelines for training children include focusing on quality over quantity, being positive and encouraging, and not forcing them to work out. The goal is to create positive associations with training to promote a lifelong passion for fitness. Children are ready to train when they have the desire and ability to practice skills attentively. When a child loses interest in a training session, simply suspend the session and tell them what a great job they did.

The goal is to create positive associations with training to promote a lifelong passion for fitness. Children are ready to train when they have the desire and ability to practice skills attentively, says @PinneyStrength. Share on X

A few things I do with my kids to make training more engaging are setting a 10-minute timer (so they know the session will be short and sweet), playing upbeat music to enhance the environment, and celebrating when they hit personal records. There are times when I can tell my kids are not interested in a structured workout in the garage gym—in these cases, we’ll go to the backyard and work on sports skills and I’ll attempt to sprinkle in exercises as well.

Secret Sauce

When I think of an athlete, I think of someone who is coordinated and explosive. To this end, strength, power, and plyometric work are essential. This is the low hanging fruit that can separate young athletes from their peers and establish a lifelong neurological advantage.

The good news is that this type of program is extremely practical, focusing on the things that really move the needle, and require minimal equipment and time. I do these workouts with my kids out of my garage gym with medicine balls, a squat rack, and a dip bar. The power-packed exercises are sprints, broad jumps, hops, modified push-ups, inverted rows, pull-ups, squats, and leg lifts. Exercises are performed for 5-15 reps in a circuit fashion—cycling through exercises with minimal rest time—with an emphasis on quality technique. Two-to-three workouts a week is ideal, but in reality, some weeks you will only get one or none. Stay the course!

Video 3. Measuring broad jumps to boost intent and track progress over time.

Sprints and broad jumps are timed and measured as Key Performance Indicators to track progress and encourage maximum intent. Keep in mind, like strength and power gains, children’s growth is not linear. They grow in spurts. If a child is in a growth spurt, you can expect that it will impact their coordination and performance. It will take time for them to grow into their new bodies. Be patient and understand that consistent training will help accelerate them through the awkward stages.

If a child is in a growth spurt, you can expect that it will impact their coordination and performance. It will take time for them to grow into their new bodies, says @PinneyStrength. Share on X

Sport participation is vital to developing sports-specific skills and learning to compete. Children need to become accustomed to game speed and intensity, and the mental aspects of competitions (e.g., dealing with nerves, being a team player, learning to fail, etc.). I am an advocate for kids playing multiple sports to develop a variety of skills. Early sport specialization will lead to improved performance in the short run, but the long-term dangers are burnout and overuse injuries.⁶

The truth is, many youth athletes over-compete and under-train. General fitness (strength, power, endurance) is the foundation on which sport skills are built. Therefore, developing greater strength and power will result in an athletic advantage. Keep in mind that sport contests are often decided by just a few explosive plays. Impact athletes are stronger and more explosive than the competition. These athletes are game changers.

Sample Workout

Set a timer for 10-minutes and cycle through as many rounds as possible:

1. Pogo Hops x 20
2. Modified Push-up x 10-15 (I use an elevated bar on a squat rack)
3. Inverted Rows x 10-15 (using the same bar)
4. Leg lifts x 5-10 (using dip bars)
5. Squats with 5-10 lb. medicine ball x 5-10
6. Broad Jumps x 3

Test broad jump and sprint time frequently to track progress.

References

1. Barbieri, D., Zaccagni, L. (2011). Strength Training for Children and Adolescents: Benefits and Risks. Collegium Antropologicum. 37(2): 219-22.

2. Behringer, M., Vom Heede, A., Matthews, M., & Mester, J. (2011). Effects of strength training on motor performance skills in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Pediatric exercise science. 23(2), 186-206.

3. Caulfield, S. P., Smith, W. S. (2019). Windows of Opportunity. Developing Agility and Quickness. Second Edition: pp. 68 – 70.

4. Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 10(98).

5. Faigenbaum, A. D. (2000). Strength Training for Children and Adolescents. Clinics in Sports Medicine. 19(4).

6. Jayanthi, N., Pinkham, C., Dugas, L., Patrick, B., & Labella, C. (2013). Sports specialization in young athletes: evidence-based recommendations. Sports health, 5(3), 251–257.

7. Michael, S. L., Merlo, C. L., Basch, C. E., Wentzel, K. R., & Wechsler, H. (2015). Critical connections: health and academics. Journal of School health. 85(11), 740-758.

8. Sortwell, A. (2020). Effects of Plyometric-Based Program on Motor Performance Skills in Primary School Children Aged Seven and Eight.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

A couple years ago, I wrote about the most unconventional thing we do in our track and field program here at Kalamazoo Central High School: the fly-by exchange in the 4×200 meter relay.

If you’ve ever seen this handoff in action, you know that it’s a bit…odd. The fly-by exchange inverts the traditional order of operations in which the outgoing runner takes off while the incoming runner chases him down to pass the stick, instead allowing the incoming runner to overtake his teammate. This places the onus to chase on the fresher, outgoing runner, who retrieves—rather than receives—the baton at full speed. It’s pretty slick—not only because it induces double-takes from those who haven’t seen it before, but also because it remedies several issues any 4×200 meter relay coach will be all too familiar with.

See, over the years, I’ve noticed that how a runner feels and looks at the end of a 200 can vary significantly from race to race. The most common symptom of this variability is that the outgoing runner, who is ready and raring to go, begins to run away from his tired teammate and then has to slow down in order to get the stick inside the zone. Other variations on this theme are that the outgoing runner, remembering having run away the last time, takes off turtle-slow from the jump; or that the incoming runner, being visited by the Ghost of Relays Past, has a vision of being left flailing, unable to catch his teammate, and panics, shouting “Slow! Slow,” destroying the relay time thusly.

The fly-by exchange inverts the traditional order of operations in which the outgoing runner takes off while the incoming runner chases him down to pass the stick, instead allowing the incoming runner to overtake his teammate. Share on X

When the incoming runner is allowed to overtake his teammate, he has only one job: keep running as hard as he possibly can. As a result, the outgoing runner has only one choice: sprint as fast as possible to catch him. The outcome is that both athletes are giving maximal effort at all times and the exchange doesn’t grind to a halt due to a missed connection. Anything we can do to minimize the deceleration of the baton through the zone will ultimately benefit the success of the relay. Since implementing this handoff with our boys’ team, our times have improved every year. This past season we broke a decade-old school record and finished fifth at the MHSAA State Finals.

For a more complete introduction to the fly-by exchange, feel free to check out my original article from 2022.

For the first three years of my tenure at Kalamazoo Central, we had an assistant coach overseeing the girls’ sprints, but due to staff turnover I started coaching our girls last season as well. In 2024, the first season implementing the fly-by exchange with our girls’ relay team, we ran almost a full second faster than the previous season, posting a best time of 1:46.99. We return several of our top sprinters to the team for 2025, and I anticipate an even better result this spring.

Before we go any further, now seems like a good time for some visuals, so you can see what this monstrosity looks like in action.

Video 1. The third and fourth leg of our 4×200 meter relay team practicing the fly-by exchange.

Since sharing my original article back in 2022, I’ve had countless conversations with other coaches about this method. Some are skeptical, most are curious, and more than a handful have begun to implement the fly-by exchange in their programs as well. Throughout the rest of this article, I’m going to sprinkle in some testimonials I’ve received from coaches who were brave enough to try the fly-by exchange, and kind enough to share their success with me. Across the board, those coaches who have adopted the handoff have been thrilled with the results.

Questions, of course, have come along with these success stories. And in addition to some of those questions others have asked, we’ve made some small modifications over the last couple of years to try to make this handoff as squeaky-clean as possible. The truth? Nothing is perfect. And as much as I would love to be able to tell you that this handoff is entirely foolproof, I just can’t do it. In fact, in 2023, we entered the state finals having run 1:28.00, which was the fastest time in Michigan up to that point in the season. On paper, we were favored to win…but as every coach knows, what it says on paper doesn’t always play out on the track.

We were sitting around third place heading into the final exchange, and we bobbled the handoff. Next thing I knew, the stick was rolling around on the track and the rest of the pack was headed into the homestretch while we could do nothing but watch the finish. We felt like we let one get away. It was a reminder that no matter what we do, the relays are volatile events and no matter what handoff method you employ, it always comes down to execution.

With that in mind, what comes next are some tips, cues, and considerations I hope will help to execute the fly-by handoff with as much consistency as possible and reduce the likelihood of heartache.

Video 2. Our 4×200 meter relay team at the 2024 MHSAA State Finals. We are in lane 4. Final time 1:27.38. As an additional viewing point, notice the team in lane 5 suffering the exact issue the fly-by exchange aims to address. Lane 8 also drops the stick due to an end-of-zone collision.

No matter what we do, the relays are volatile events and no matter what handoff method you employ, it always comes down to execution, says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

Coaching Cues for a Better Fly-By Exchange

In its simplest form, the fly-by exchange is fairly easy to coach: every athlete should be running as fast as they are able at all times. But, timing always matters for a good exchange—so, we really try to make sure the outgoing runner’s takeoff is on point.

One way we have done this is by creating a bigger visual target to use as a go-mark. In my original piece, I recommended starting with marks at five and seven feet before the start of the zone and adjusting from there, depending on your athletes. We have expanded the box on both ends, making marks at four and eight feet for most of our runners. In Michigan we are only allowed to mark with chalk , and this makes the box easier for our athletes to see.

In addition to expanding the box of our go-mark, we have placed additional emphasis on anticipating the moment at which the incoming runner hits the box, rather than reacting to it. Relays give us a unique opportunity to cheat acceleration by beginning with a knee bend into a forward lean, and then taking off with a rolling two-point start. This, plus the visual cue of an approaching teammate—rather than the auditory cue of a starter’s pistol—gives us an acceleratory advantage we want to maximize.

Therefore, I coach our outgoing athletes to prepare for takeoff while their teammate is around 20 meters away. This means they bend their knees and get into an athletic position. As the athlete gets closer to the go-mark, they start their forward lean, transferring weight to their front foot. They anticipate their teammate hitting the mark, just like a quarterback anticipates where his receiver will be by the time the ball arrives. If executed with perfection, when the incoming athlete’s foot hits the mark, the outgoing runner is already into his first stride. If this sounds familiar, it must mean that you’ve read this article about the Bang Step for the 4×100 meter relay. Our concept is very similar, and it’s easy to verify on video to show athletes whether they’ve left on time.

Another adjustment I’ve made is coaching how the incoming runner presents the stick to his teammate. For whatever reason, our guys were holding the stick at shoulder height. Probably my fault. If there’s any height discrepancy between the two runners, the outgoing runner sometimes looked like he was reaching up to grab the baton, which was pretty awkward. I now coach our athletes to hold the baton out in front at around belly-button height, so that no matter the size of the athletes, the stick is easier to grab.

A common question among coaches I’ve talked to is “are you sure there’s enough room for two athletes to be side-by-side in the lane?” In short, yes, I am. But, we still have to be intentional. One of the things we work on a lot is the concept of lane ownership. The incoming runner must stay to the inside half of the lane with the stick in his right hand. The outgoing runner must stay to the outside half of the lane, grab the stick with his left hand, and then transfer the stick to his right hand upon exiting the zone.

I’ve drawn a line with chalk to divide the lane in two in order to teach this concept, and it’s something we drill every time we practice the handoff. As you can see in the image below, both athletes are inside the lane even when side by side. We have never been disqualified for running out of the lane lines in four years of running this race with a fly-by exchange.

If you’re teaching this handoff for the first time and you need to convince your athletes there’s room for both of them, just have them stand next to each other inside of a lane. You will find, more often than not, that there’s enough space.

Of course, there are rare occasions where there may not be enough room for two very specific athletes. For example, what if you have a 6’3” linebacker handing off to a 5’9” running back and both of them are wide-shouldered athletes? We had this exact situation last year. The solution? We simply made sure that those two athletes were not on back-to-back legs. One of them ran first, the other ran third, and our two narrower athletes ran second and fourth. But in most situations with most athletes, with appropriate attention to lane ownership, it’s no problem. And with our female athletes, this is a complete non-issue.

Relay Order Considerations

The distance of legs of the 4×200 varies:

• The first leg will run up to 210 total meters, from starting block through the end of the first exchange.
• The second runner, who will run from the beginning of Zone One all the way to the end of Zone Two, will end up sprinting 230 meters.
• The same is true for your third runner.
• Your anchor leg will sprint 220 meters from the start of their exchange zone through the finish line.

My preference is to maximize my fastest athletes and those who may have a bit better speed endurance on the longer legs of the race, which means I’m not having those kids run first. So, who does run first? Remember all that stuff I said about outgoing runners anticipating their teammate’s arrival and leaving at the appropriate time? Whichever athlete is the worst at anticipating is probably your safest bet to lead off. Now, all he has to do is give the baton. But what if your fastest kid is also your worst anticipator? Look, there are a million variables. You are the expert on your own personnel.

For me, the things I’m most concerned with when it comes to relay order are the length of each leg, each athlete’s ability to anticipate their incoming teammate hitting the mark, each athlete’s 200 PR, their race-finishing abilities, and how much they hate to lose. Know your kids, experiment with your relay order, and decide what works best for you. We typically experiment until a week before our conference championship meet, then lock our relay order in for the rest of the season.

I can’t say for sure what this year’s relays will hold for us, but I will say this: if you see us at a meet, when the 4×200 relay comes around, keep your eye on Kalamazoo Central. We’ll be the ones doing the goofiest handoff you’ve ever seen, and if all goes according to plan, we’ll be celebrating in June. I hope you will, too, which is why I’m sharing the method behind my madness. Track is a beautiful sport: my team’s success does not depend on your team’s failure. When kids succeed, we all win. I’d encourage you to give this method a chance. After all, as numerous coaches have pointed out, it’s just crazy enough to work.

I’m not writing this article to introduce a novel assessment—the countermovement jump (CMJ) has been used for longer than I’ve been a coach and numerous practitioners have been applying it as an assessment for much longer than me! I do, however, find it interesting when I speak to other coaches about some of the nuances of measures I take and they are curious about and surprised by things I assumed were common knowledge. This is not to boast—the same thing happens in reverse with almost every coach I speak to—but I wanted to take this opportunity to share how I approach one of the most common assessment measures in all of performance.

Some of the “precautions” I take might seem trivial, but the consistency and reliability of data is of the utmost importance IF we want to assume any actionable insight from the data. On a recent episode of the podcast I co-host with Mike Sullivan, Move The Needle: The Human Performance Podcast, we had a conversation with Adam Virgile of the Los Angeles Clippers that included a fairly long discussion on “clean data.”

This helped to reinforce that I am correct in thinking that the way you collect data is as important as the way you interpret it. You cannot have accurate interpretation without clean collection. This is not to say that we in the performance field can expect to collect data in the same way as in a research setting; however, I think we can appreciate the rigidity of that model and attempt to collect our data in a similar fashion, even while being in a much more chaotic environment.

The way you collect data is as important as the way you interpret it—you cannot have accurate interpretation without clean collection, says @Huntereis_sc . Share on X

If there is not a level of consistency within your testing procedure, you may be better off not even wasting athletes time in performing CMJs on a force plate, because you will be unable to glean any information from the data. Instead of trying to tease out adaptation or fatigue, these outcomes have to compete with variations that could come from jumping at different times of day, participating in different warm-ups, being given different cues on how to jump, or even simply being awarded feedback or not.

Beyond collection protocols, I believe there are some misconceptions about the use of the information. In a recent post I put out on Twitter and Instagram—showing pregame CMJs I do with my athletes—there were a host of questions, some of which centered around the CMJ potentially predicting injury or dictating game availability/playing time. The data we glean from force plate assessments are one ingredient in the elusive mystery of “readiness.” There are a host of other factors that have to be considered, like sleep, nutrition, arousal, etc., and any taken in isolation only illuminate a small portion of the overall picture.

Throughout this article, I will touch on how I try to create as close to ‘research-grade’ testing procedures as possible to generate actionable pieces of information. We’ll dig into interpreting data, from the raw Force Time curves to some of the most important metrics. We’ll also look at certain types of curves and the information you’re able to collect from these. I hope this article does what countless individuals have done for me: expedite the learning process with force plate assessments and allow you to be an even greater asset to the coaches and athletes you work with.

Consistency

As I alluded to already, coaches may not appreciate consistency as much as they should, since it is an imperative piece to this equation. I could just dig right into the fun stuff, dissecting curves and watching metrics change over time; if, however, we miss the execution of testing, those other things don’t even matter.

Some of what I talk about may have you saying “Alright, that seems like overkill”…and some of it may be! However, if you have the opportunity to create consistency within your testing procedure, regardless of how nominal it seems, do it. Consistency needs to begin the minute athletes come under your instruction. There are multiple factors that we need to consider when preparing to administer a test of any sort, but especially on force plates.

The first? Arousal level.

The energy you bring to the room can affect the way your athletes perform on a test.

If you are quiet, speaking in a monotone, and have no energy throughout an entire training session, your athletes will feed off that. If you have the opposite—energy, “juice” as some may call it—that will immediately add to your athletes’ energy levels. As a personal philosophy, I try to be as consistent as possible with my energy, regardless of day, regardless of jumps on the force plate or not.

Consistency needs to begin the minute athletes come under your instruction. There are multiple factors that we need to consider when preparing to administer a test of any sort, but especially on force plates, says @Huntereis_sc. Share on X

The next piece to think about from an arousal perspective is the environment in the room. Is Waka Flocka blasting? Or is Drake playing at a Waiting Room volume? Do you invite and incite teammates to talk crap to each other as they’re jumping, or do you make it more of a 1-on-1 environment, while teammates are distracted doing something else? All of these pieces may not be 100% controllable, but your energy and the environment you create in your weight room on days that you know you are planning to collect jumps, is.

The next consideration is what type of preparation your athletes do before they jump. For example, I’ve found that comparing jumps during a fairly traditional lift—with limited jumping or running beforehand—to jumps after 20-30 minutes of plyometrics and speed development  is like comparing apples to oranges. And what if you also jump pre-game? The jumps from these three scenarios will not even be within the same realm. Now, this is not to say DON’T jump in different scenarios; you just have to be mindful that you should compare jumps of like scenarios to one another.

As an example, we perform “Speed Development” sessions year-round (throughout the off-season and in-season). The off-season sessions may end up being slightly higher volume, but they consist of similar components and last anywhere from 30-35 minutes. Therefore, we will perform jumps after those sessions year-round in an attempt to have a measure throughout the entire year that I know is coming after the same scenario. We also will jump pregame during warm-ups.

Do I compare pregame jumps to post-speed jumps?

No. I can confidently say that pre-game jumps will result in improved metrics across the board. Is that to say athletes had magical adaptation overnight? Obviously not—they are in a new environment, with a new preparation scenario, and heightened arousal levels. Therefore, performance is altered.

Anybody reading this who has ever worked with me knows how much of a stickler I am about the next facet of consistency. The way in which we cue our athletes before their jump and the way we report the information from their jumps may be the most important piece to this entire equation. When my athletes step on the plates, I repeat the same exact information every time.

• First, I tell them to hold still until the ‘quiet period’ on the Hawkin Dynamic plates is registered.
• Then I simply say “fast and high.” That is the athlete’s cue to jump.

During an athlete’s initial times jumping with me, they may be confused by the cue fast and high, because up until this point, most vertical jumps they’ve performed in any capacity were for height, without any regard to “fast.” So, a slight explanation may be needed on the “fast” portion.

I believe the consistency of what you say is ultimately more important than what you say, but if you want to make observations from rate-dependent metrics and output-driven metrics, you should cue some element of both. To eliminate the importance of cueing consistency and to show why both elements of rate and output cueing should be used, I ran an experiment on two individuals.

The way in which we cue our athletes before their jump and the way we report the information from their jumps may be the most important piece to this entire equation, says @Huntereis_sc. Share on X

The results from the first experiment are above. I included the Force Time Curve and a metric associated with output (Jump Height), rate-dependent metrics (Time to Takeoff & Braking Phase Duration), a ratio metric (mRSI) and finally a strategy based metric, Countermovement Depth. This experiment is to show the relevance of being intentional with your cueing! The first jump on top the cue was purely focused on jump height, as the athlete was instructed to “Jump as high as you can!” We can see the associated Force Time Curve and metrics with this cue.

The next jump, depicted by the graph below, was performed after the cue “Jump as fast as you can!” We can see the difference in the metrics between the two jumps. Did physical qualities magically change between jumps? Obviously, no. However, the focus, intent—and therefore the strategy that was chosen—were drastically different.

The results from my second experiment are above. For the first jump I gave the cue “Jump as high as you can.” The associated results are seen on top. Before the second jump, the athlete was told “Jump as fast as you can.” The results from this are shown on the bottom graph—as you can see, we are able to manipulate athletes’ strategies by the words we choose.

From this portion of the assessment, I’ve wrestled with what to report to the athletes. Again, the consistency probably provides more value than the specific report, but there is obvious significance in both. After each jump (typically we perform two), I report jump height. Now, you may say, well if you just report jump height, won’t that skew athletes to the “High” portion of the jump and draw them away from “Fast”? I wouldn’t disagree. But I’ve found that reporting, for example, both Jump Height and Time to Takeoff, creates an information overload with too much for athletes to comprehend, leading to over analysis.

I feel comfortable that hearing their jump height will help drive intent with the athlete and the cue of “fast and high” will continually remind them to get off the plates fast. After years of collection, I am even more comfortable with this method because I continuously see my athletes’ Time to Takeoff decrease over time with a gradual increase in Jump Height.

I understand this was an extensive explanation on the considerations that I believe create the most consistent and reliable data, and I hope it drives home the point that the way we collect data is as important as the way we interpret it, if not more. Interpretation is fuzzy if collection is inconsistent.

Interpreting Data

Most of you probably got to this section and thought “I wonder what metrics he is going to discuss?” If you thought about the metrics when I mentioned “data,” you may be disappointed in what the next portion of this article is going to entail. As opposed to digging directly into metrics, first we are going to start with looking at Force Time Curves. There was recently a question posted by @mtn_perform on social media asking “If you only could use one aspect of information from a CMJ on Force Plates, the metrics or the Force Time Curve, what would you choose?”

While I believe it would be tough to only rely on one or the other, I believe so much information would be lost in only focusing on the metrics. Before we begin to dig into how to interpret Force Time Curves, I would be remiss to not thank Jesse Green for introducing me to the power of looking at the curves. I would probably be like most, clicking past the weird, curved line that shows up after a jump and immediately start looking for the numbers. Before we talk about aspects of Force Time Curves, let’s break down each portion of a Force Time curve from a CMJ.

If you use Hawkin plates, they make it very easy to understand what the Force Time Curve is telling you. As you can see below, there are colors to depict the unweighting, braking, and propulsive phase of the jump. We’ll use their help so you can understand what is happening.

The video below also does a great job of showing the formation of a Force Time Curve in real time. I’ll allow these two examples to demonstrate the aspects of Force Time Curves before we take a deeper dive into the components.

Video 1. This video shows in real-time the formation of a Force Time Curve with an actual jump.

Before we start talking about each phase of the CMJ in isolation, it’s important to note that I’m a firm believer that each portion of a CMJ may not predict, but feeds, the next. A good ability to unweight feeds the ability to produce high amounts of force in the braking portion of the jump, and that force, if repurposed appropriately, adds to the propulsive phase.

Unweighting

If we look at the two pictures below, showing the unweighting phase of two different athletes, what do we notice?

On the right, the unweighting portion is what I’d consider incomplete. This is shown as the athlete is unable to unweight 100% of their bodyweight, with the curve not completely to the bottom of the graph. The picture on the left shows what I consider complete unweighting, where the athlete is able to almost completely reduce their bodyweight, seen by the lines being at the bottom portion of the graph.

If we think about why an incomplete unweighting phase is detrimental to the performance of a CMJ, my first consideration is that the athlete is missing out on potential energy. By completely unweighting, we have the ability to produce more force in the braking portion of the movement. One important note here is to determine if your athlete is unfamiliar with the intent of the movement or if they don’t have the capacity to completely unweight. This can be determined through simple instruction. I only recommend doing this during an athlete’s initial test (or two), if you notice an incomplete unweight.

This question of intent vs. capacity can be answered by simply explaining to the athlete what a complete unweight feels like: the rapid “pull” toward the ground, a free fall where the athlete has no “braking” tension until later in the downward portion of the movement. After a brief explanation and potential demonstration, allow the athlete to perform another CMJ with this new model to focus on. If the athlete now has an improved unweighting phase and the rate- and output-dependent metrics are the same as before, or even a little improved, we know that this was an intent and/or strategy issue. If the new strategy is utilized and the athlete’s other metrics are severely reduced, we know that they must not have the capacity to perform this dramatic of an unweight and physical development, specifically in the braking phase, must be addressed.

This braking phase improvement needs to happen from a physical and psychological perspective. If the athlete’s brain knows it does not have the capacity to slam on the brakes at the bottom of a complete unweight—and therefore handle the associated force associated—the unweight will be limited.

When dealing with an individual that has incomplete unweighting, exercises within the High Force portion of The Force System can be used (you can find more complete information about the Force System here). These are the same exercises that can and should be used to develop braking capacity; the emphasis behind the movements, however, can slightly change. When working to develop their physical ability and psychological confidence to completely unweight, the use of Drop Catches can have significant relevance. However, the focus here should not necessarily be on the intensity or Ground Reaction Forces (GRF’s), but on the intent with the movement.

This fits well in the progression of High Force movements as well—I’ve mentioned in previous articles that an athlete must first understand the importance of this rapid free fall, or pull toward the ground, to later have the ability to be exposed to higher GRFs. This initial emphasis contributes perfectly to the goal of unweighting improvement. Early on, you can use an exercise like a Trap Bar Drop Catch, with minimal additional load, with the sole focus of a complete unweight. This will not only contribute to an improved unweight in a CMJ, but set you up well to better develop the braking and GRF emphasis of the movement with Drop Catches later on as we increase intensity of the movement (and therefore expose athletes to higher GRFs).

Braking Phase

As we begin to look at the next portion of the Force Time Curve, we notice the braking phase. What I typically will assess first is the slope of the curve in this section—as you can see below, the two curves show athletes with two drastically different braking abilities.

The steep slope on the left depicts the ability of an athlete to be driving full speed and slam on the brakes—or even pull the “e-brake.” The gradual slope on the right shows an athlete that is driving full speed, slowly reducing speed by gradually taking their foot of the gas pedal, and slowly applying pressure to the brake.

The next portion of the braking phase that I assess is the magnitude, or absolute peak, of the braking/propulsive curve. This peak represents the force that the athlete is able to generate during the braking portion of the movement. I believe this magnitude offers the potential of high propulsive forces, leading to high outputs and impressive rate metrics (depending on the athlete’s ability to store and reproduce these braking forces effectively and efficiently). While it may not be completely necessary for athletes to produce the highest of braking forces in order for impressive outputs, I do believe it often contributes.

To build off of our training prescription for an athlete’s ability to unweight, the training prescription for improved braking follows a similar pattern. Allow the intent developed during the early implementation of Drop Catches to expose athletes to higher GRFs when the goal shifts to braking development. As we maintain the acceleration portion of the force equation, we can add mass to our drop catches to elicit higher GRFs—this will help to expedite the development of braking ability. As we follow the natural High Force progression, we can move into Depth Drops, where athletes can experience more than 10x bodyweight forces and deliver the most potent dose of braking or deceleration stimulus possible.

As we maintain the acceleration portion of the force equation, we can add mass to our drop catches to elicit higher GRFs—this will help to expedite the development of braking ability, says @Huntereis_sc. Share on X

At this point, we still haven’t even gotten close to leaving the ground! As I’ve said, each portion of a CMJ is built from the previous and right now we are at the bottom of the countermovement. The development that has occurred to this point will assuredly amplify the part of the movement that often gets the most attention: propulsion.

Propulsion

An important point to make with propulsion: if there are no constraints placed on the movement, then don’t worry about anything to this point. If you’re in a vertical jump competition, with no time constraints, load at whatever rate and depth produces the highest output. But sport is not a vertical jump competition and athletes almost always have a time constraint, therefore making our previous two sections vital.

As we begin to look at propulsion, I tend to examine the slope of this downward portion of the graph, depicted below.

As you can see from the graph above, this individual does a good job of unweighting, plus adds an impressive braking phase…but does not have a propulsive phase that matches, which is shown by the difference in slope of line from braking to propulsion (braking being almost completely vertical, with propulsion being much more rounded). This may be the case after training an individual with Drop Catches and Depth Drops, and now we can focus on training more concentric-based movements, like a Trap Bar Pull, or Overcoming Isometric, shown below.

Video 2. Both a Trap Bar Pull and Overcoming Isometric are more concentrically-oriented movements, compared to movements discussed earlier such as Drop Catches and Depth Drops. Once the foundation has been laid, with a focus on unweighting and braking, a shift to more concentric-type exercises can begin to orient the slope of the propulsive portion of the curve more vertically.

Types of Curves

Before we begin discussing specifics surrounding metrics, I wanted to take some time to discuss different archetypes of curves that you’ll typically see and what they mean. In most situations, you’ll see curves that resemble three shapes, which I classify as:

1. Unimodal
2. Bimodal Primary
3. Bimodal Secondary

An important note: while Unimodal and Bimodal Secondary curves are the two ends of a spectrum, it is not an all-or-nothing situation. For example, I will talk about Bimodal Secondary jumpers’ inability to fully leverage connective tissue to contribute to movement. That is not to say they don’t receive any contribution to their jump from connective tissue, I just believe it to be much less than a Unimodal Jumper. In the same regard, Unimodal jumpers are still going to utilize musculature to jump, but the percentage will be much lower than their Bimodal counterparts.

Let’s dig into each archetype of curve and what they mean.

Unimodal

This curve is best represented by one peak during the braking and subsequent propulsive phase. Elastic-driven athletes typically produce this Force Time Curve—these athletes typically utilize short countermovement depths to elicit a rapid stretch of connective tissue (i.e., tendons). Their connective tissue not only stretches rapidly, but has the capacity to store and repurpose all of that energy throughout the propulsive portion of the movement.

This movement strategy allows these athletes to not only leverage their elastic structures more effectively, but also removes the need to rely on bigger musculature to produce the majority of movement (like somebody that may demonstrate a deeper countermovement). P3, a performance group with facilities in Santa Barbara and Atlanta (and, in my opinion, one of the best—if not the best—performance facility in the world) released a research paper a few years ago relating to the three categories of jumpers that they have seen from their CMJ Force Plate assessments. From a kinematic standpoint, what they saw were three categories:

1. “Stiff Flexors”
2. “Hyper Flexors”
3. “Hip Flexors”

From my subjective evaluation, I’ve determined that most unimodal jumpers resemble the Stiff Flexor strategy (as seen below).

Figure 8. Picture of Stiff Flexor from P3’s “Different Movement Strategies in the Countermovement Jump Amongst a Large Cohort of NBA Players.” Open Access, Creative Commons License here.

So, what are the pros to this movement strategy?

Typically, these athletes’ rate-dependent metrics are good. They will get off the ground fast due to their shallow countermovement and reflexive nature of relying on connective tissue to be more of a driver of movement than musculature. I also believe this to be the most efficient way to produce movement. As we see from the Stiff Flexor picture, joints are stacked and loaded almost symmetrically, whereas the Hip Flexor is utilizing extreme hip flexion and minimal knee or ankle flexion.

As with anything, there are cons to this movement strategy (not a lot, though). Unimodal jumpers typically do not have as impressive of output-based metrics in a CMJ when specifically focused on Jump Height. I believe this is because a standstill CMJ, when height is the goal and time is not a constraint, will be best accomplished with a more muscular-driven strategy. Throw the time constraint back into play, however, and this ‘con’ goes out the window. When you see elastically-driven athletes, typically with narrow ISA, limited muscle mass, short muscle bellies, and long tendons, you likely have a Unimodal jumper.

When you see elastically-driven athletes, typically with narrow ISA, limited muscle mass, short muscle bellies and long tendons, you likely have a Unimodal jumper, says @Huntereis_sc. Share on X

Bimodal Primary

This curve occurs when there are two peaks during the braking and propulsive phase, with the first peak being higher. I believe this curve is representative of what I would consider a more ‘hybrid’ athlete. They are able to access and utilize connective tissue to help contribute to movement—seen by the first peak—but there is a ‘leak’ of energy present to where they then harness some of the force-generation capacity of larger musculature at deeper ranges of motion, which then provides a portion of propulsion as seen with the second peak.

Looking at P3’s model of CMJ jump strategy, I would say that most Bimodal Primary jumpers would resemble the Hyper Flexor strategy. I do, however, believe that a select few Hyper Flexors could potentially be Unimodal jumpers, if they possess elite braking and propulsive ability.

Figure 9. Picture of Hyper Flexor from P3’s “Different Movement Strategies in the Countermovement Jump Amongst a Large Cohort of NBA Players.” Open Access, Creative Commons License here.

The pros for a Bimodal Primary jumper are that they can take the best of both worlds from a movement strategy perspective. They are able to utilize connective tissue more than their Bimodal Secondary counterparts and also access and rely on the big musculature that Unimodal jumpers shy away from. Now this is not to say it is an ideal strategy, but it allows for access to various tissues which could help to accomplish a range of tasks within sport more effectively than other athletes.

The cons? Athletes using this strategy will often struggle with the rate-dependent nature that is often present in sport, especially compared with their Unimodal counterparts. This may be most evident in highly explosive situations in sports, such as a one-on-one between a wide receiver and a defensive back or a guard staying in front of another guard defensively on the perimeter in basketball. I believe the hybrid, Bimodal Primary jumpers are the hardest to distinguish by the ‘naked eye.’ Some may look slightly more elastically-driven, whereas some may have the ability to develop musculature more easily. Jayson Tatum, Jimmy Butler, Lebron James are all examples of what I’d consider Hybrid athletes.

Bimodal Secondary

This curve looks similar to Bimodal Primary with two peaks; a Secondary, however, will have a higher second peak. I believe this shows an extreme inability to unweight (and therefore brake) effectively, leverage almost any energy within connective tissue, and therefore repurpose it propulsively. These athletes want to ‘deal with,’ not utilize, the forces that are created during unweight and braking—and then in almost a separate movement, create propulsion.

If we look at something like an Eccentric Utilization Ratio (Ratio between CMJ and Non-CMJ), these individuals may be at or below 1.0—meaning their Non-Countermovement Jump is as good and in rare cases actually better than their Countermovement Jump (whereas a Unimodal jumper may be 1.2 or even 1.3). In relation to P3’s study, these could be the poor Hyper Flexors and oftentimes your Hip Flexors.

Figure 10. Picture of Hip Flexor from P3’s “Different Movement Strategies in the Countermovement Jump Amongst a Large Cohort of NBA Players.” Open Access, Creative Commons License here.

To be honest, for most sports, I don’t believe there to be many pros to this movement strategy. However, in select situations, like a lineman in American football, you may benefit with this more muscular-driven strategy because of the nature of the position and because of the movement occurring, typically, without a countermovement.

The cons to this movement strategy are probably pretty obvious—the athlete’s rate-dependent metrics are down and typically output metrics are also lower than other strategies. To distinguish your Bimodal Secondary and most muscular-driven movers in a sport like American football, just take a look at the offensive and defensive lines. It is much harder to find them in a sport like basketball, but they do exist!

Metrics

5000 words in and I’m finally getting to what a lot of you probably clicked on the link to read about. I hope that you have taken the time to read everything beforehand and didn’t just skip to this section, because I think there is crucial information in the first sections.

With metrics, coaches need to understand that you can’t just focus on one or even two metrics in order to paint the clearest picture of an athlete’s strategies, strengths, and weaknesses. This is because so many metrics have important relationships to other metrics—and if we don’t explore those other metrics, we can be clouded by the meaning of the metric of choice.

Let’s take at a couple examples:

1. Your athlete’s Modified Reactive Strength (mRSI) is improving!

• In this situation, be sure to look at the two metrics that are within a ratio to summate to mRSI, Jump Height, and Time to Takeoff (in Hawkin terms). Now, what if this increase is because the athlete is getting off the ground much faster but sacrificing jump height to do so? That may not always be a favorable adaptation or manipulation of strategy, but if we just look at mRSI and don’t understand how it can be broken down, we could be misled.

2. What if Time to Takeoff is not changing at all?

• We may be disappointed because we want our athletes to get off the ground faster. Well, by assessing countermovement depth, you may see that your athlete is actually moving through a greater ROM and achieving that new ROM at the same rate in which they previously achieved a shorter ROM. This therefore probably shows an increase in braking ability, with a more rapid unweight. To me, all of this equates as favorable adaptation—but if just looking at TTT, we could be disappointed.

Understand the relationship amongst metrics to better tease out adaptation, readiness, and fatigue amongst your athletes.

1^st Layer

I approach examining metrics in two layers. The first I believe to be the most relevant and easily digestible. My first layer of metrics include:

1. Jump Height – This will always be a staple metric. It is easy for everybody to understand and shows overall output. As mentioned, this is the one number I report to my athletes after each jump. (Small note: I do report everything in centimeters. Thank you to Cory Kennedy, a former boss of mine, for telling me real sport scientists speak in centimeters not inches!)
2. Time to Takeoff + Countermovement Depth – As stated above, the importance of looking at not just TTT but ‘qualifying’ it with Countermovement Depth.
3. mRSI – Once we know the components, we can assess mRSI to know if the changes in both of the above metrics equate to move mRSI in the right direction. Hopefully, Jump Height always goes up and TTT always goes down, but oftentimes you may see a subtle drop in one and a small improvement in the other and mRSI ‘qualifies’ that as a productive change or detrimental change.
4. Bodyweight – This is important to track for many reasons, but from a force plate perspective, it can be used for a qualifier for all change in metrics that occur. An individual could look like they’ve improved in every single metric, but if they’re 5 pounds lighter today, that may not be ideal and mean favorable adaptation has occurred. (With the one small caveat, that if we are attempting to improve body composition by losing fat mass and then we see an improvement in metrics, then this is a win-win!)

Jump Height will always be a staple metric. It is easy for everybody to understand and shows overall output—this is the one number I report to my athletes after each jump, says @Huntereis_sc. Share on X

2^nd Layer

My second layer of metrics include:

1. Peak Relative Propulsive Power – This is a metric talked about in a lot of sports and the correlation to sporting action. Therefore, I believe there to be relevance across multiple domains and within the 2^nd layer of metrics.
2. Peak Relative Braking Force – I like assessing this metric for overall braking ability. I have also often ranked teams that I work with in terms of highest to lowest in this specific metric and compared to subjective evaluation of on-court athleticism—there seems to be a fairly reliable correlation.
3. Peak Relative Propulsive Force – This allows me to see the whole picture, as it is the ‘other side of the curve’ from Peak Relative Braking Force.
4. Braking Phase – This really could be included in the first layer with TTT & CM Depth but for simplicity’s sake, I decided to add it by itself in the 2^nd layer. I believe this can help to tease out fatigue better than most, because now we are examining the time spent in just the eccentric portion of the movement, where we know that fatigue is typically more easily depicted when compared to the propulsive or concentric portion of the movement.

Conclusion

There you have it. If you would have told me 5 years ago that I’d be able to write a 6000+ word article on just the CMJ on force plates, I would have called you crazy. I say this not to point to my own knowledge, but to the fact that I truly am standing on the shoulders of giants. I am forever indebted to the individuals who have invested in me and continue to invest in me…even when I send them CMJ questions at 2am. They could easily ignore me, or not take the time to have discussions with me, but they do and I truly cannot thank them enough. Because of these people I am where I am today and am lucky that most of them have gone from “boss” or “coworker” to friend. So, thank you Jesse Green, Cory Kennedy, Kyle Sammons, Drake Berberet, and many more.

Force plate assessments may not determine who’s going to be the best at sport, or who’s going to get injured at your next practice, but allow this tool to help paint the picture you are trying to curate with the use of other pieces of technology, conversations you have, and evaluations you run.

As you can tell, I am very passionate about this topic and it feeds directly into my system, The Force System. If you have interest in hearing more about it and/or joining the waitlist for the next Force System Mentorship you can do so HERE. Also be on the lookout for a Force Plate course coming out in 2025 that will put a microscope on the things I spoke about here, training interventions based on force plate assessments, other meaningful tests to run on force plates and much more!

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Look, I’m going to say something relatively taboo in the field of Strength and Conditioning: many coaches just aren’t programming intelligently.

I’m not saying it’s their fault, I’m not saying they’re bad at their job, and I’m not saying they don’t deserve to be where they are. What I’m referring to is the lack of validation of different philosophies and their derivatives. It’s not the role of the practitioner to validate their methods—it’s their role to interpret research and land on best practices in order to develop the best athletes within the constraints of their organization. As a field, however, we cannot afford to stagnate by simply relying on tradition or anecdotal evidence. To grow in our individual careers, we need to be willing to audit our methods and improve our breadth of knowledge. Strength and Conditioning is a dynamic discipline, one that exists at the intersection of sports science, human performance, and organizational demands. To truly push the field forward, we must prioritize a culture of critical evaluation, open-mindedness, and continuous learning.

To truly push the S&C field forward, we must prioritize a culture of critical evaluation, open-mindedness, and continuous learning, says @connor_ryder30. Share on X

This means going beyond the surface-level application of ‘what works‘ and digging deeper into the why and how (see Image 1). Are we aligning our methods with the most recent advancements in physiology, biomechanics, and motor learning? Are we questioning outdated paradigms that no longer hold water? Are we, as coaches, willing to challenge our own biases and explore innovative approaches, even if it means stepping outside our comfort zone?

I think a lot of current S&C coaches are made uncomfortable when made to face these questions head-on. Formal education and standards are way too lax to prevent situations where someone who lacks a true, deep understanding of research application is put in a position to program training for athletes. I think that’s where I break away from the need for years of experience, in exchange for quality of experience. To remind myself of this concept, I always come back to this quote:

“Do you have 10 years of experience, or 1 year of experience 10 times?”

I have coached in a “long-term athletic development” (LTAD) environment at the collegiate level and in a “perform-now” environment in professional baseball. In the world of professional sports, I learned that I had to audit my process fairly frequently to check my own biases and give my athletes their best chance to win a job. Returning to the collegiate environment, I’ve realized there is a significant gap to bridge between the LTAD mindset and the continuous auditing of principles and methods, all in the ultimate pursuit of best practices within strength and conditioning.

In the world of professional sports, I learned that I had to audit my process fairly frequently to check my own biases and give my athletes their best chance to win a job, says @connor_ryder30. Share on X

I think everyone reading can agree that the athletes in our care deserve programming that is:

• Rooted in evidence-based practices.
• Adapted to their individual needs.
• Designed to maximize both their immediate performance and long-term development.

To achieve this, we need to collectively shift from interpreting research to actively contributing to it; and, admittedly, without expecting changes in compensation in the short-term. However, in an evidence-based field, compensation hasn’t historically been evidence-based; by contributing to growing the field, you’ll have much stronger leverage in negotiations against other job candidates or your organization. It’s hard to argue against hiring or giving a raise to a practitioner who has proven their worth in writing. There are different levels to contributions, but I’ll follow with three proposed solutions that cover the most common practitioner scenarios.

Image 1. Both when putting principles into practice and when conducting new research, validity and reliability are concerns that we need to take into account. There’s no way of knowing your training interventions and coaching are working without being heavily influenced by validated methods and creating reliability with your own implementation! (Image via “Validity and Reliability,” by Martyn Shuttleworth. Creative Commons License.)

Solution #1: Collaborate with the Campus Exercise Science or Data Analytics Program

If your school has an exercise science or data analytics program, you have a valuable resource for bridging the gap between academia and practice. This partnership can be mutually beneficial, combining your practical insights with their research expertise and access to equipment, software, and academic networks.

This is the solution that takes the most front-end work to establish, with support needed from many different disciplines to get it off the ground. However, it can also be the most beneficial, due to the amount of attention you can garner from stakeholders. For example, I once off-handedly mentioned the time it takes to analyze data to one of our athletic administrators, and they were immediately interested in getting our department connected to the statistics department to create a learning opportunity for their undergraduate students. In return, by taking analysis completely off the practitioner’s plate, some big projects could come to fruition, and it would be a massive step forward for our staff’s productivity.

Action Steps

• Collaborate with faculty to design applied research projects that align with your program’s needs (e.g., evaluating training interventions, load management, or athlete well-being).
• Engage students in hands-on research opportunities, using your program as a real-world lab for their coursework or theses.
• Use campus resources, such as labs or student workers, for testing variables like VO2 max, force output, or biomechanics analysis.
• Share findings with both academic and professional audiences through conferences, journal articles, or case studies.

Benefits

• By utilizing the people around you to design and execute the study according to your needs, you can manage the scope while still creating valid and reliable research.
• Leverage cutting-edge research tools without incurring extra costs.
• Contribute to academic publications that validate your methods.
• Strengthen the pipeline of future professionals by providing exercise science students with practical experience.

Solution #2: Maximize In-House Data Collection and Analysis

If your school lacks a dedicated exercise science program but you actively collect and analyze data in-house, you can still contribute to advancing the field by developing a systematic approach to research. Your internal data can be an invaluable resource for both the Strength and Conditioning community and academic researchers. This solution is best if you have a sport scientist on staff, or the ability to hire one!

Action Steps

• Develop a consistent framework for collecting and analyzing key performance metrics (e.g., GPS tracking, strength benchmarks, recovery data) (see Image 2).
• Partner with external researchers or organizations to validate and publish your findings, offering them access to your data in exchange for their expertise in study design.
• Present your in-house research at conferences or through professional organizations, even if it’s not formally published.
• Standardize your data collection process to ensure it’s replicable and robust, which increases its credibility for future collaborations.

Benefits

• Turn everyday performance monitoring into meaningful research contributions that can inform new practitioners.
• Build a reputation within your organization and outside as a leader in applied sports science.
• Strengthen your program’s data-driven approach, enhancing athlete outcomes, and your own personal credibility.

I constantly show my athletes the data I collect, which ensures they know that I’m still actively using the data and that my efforts to improve their performance are always evidence-based. Additionally, I open myself to new learning opportunities by sharing my practice, which helps me guide my future research by adding the perspective of my athletes and peers.

I constantly show my athletes the data I collect, which ensures they know that I’m still actively using the data and that my efforts to improve their performance are always evidence-based, says @connor_ryder30. Share on X

Solution 3: Lean on Interns and Personal Expertise to Conduct Research with Limited Resources

If your school has minimal resources, you can still make significant research contributions by using your expertise and tapping into the enthusiasm and manpower of interns. Focus on manageable, impactful projects that don’t require extensive funding or equipment. This solution is the direction where most S&C practitioners will be able to realistically go right away, but it shouldn’t discourage you from working towards Solutions 1 or 2!

If your school has minimal resources, you can still make significant research contributions by using your expertise and tapping into the enthusiasm and manpower of interns. Share on X

Action Steps

• Use your research background to guide interns in designing and executing small-scale studies that align with your programming goals (e.g., comparative analysis of different exercise selections).
• Focus on practical, low-cost research methods such as surveys, observational studies, or basic statistical analysis of existing performance data. Make sure your research group follows best practices for conducting research to avoid poor study design!
• Encourage interns to present findings at regional or national Strength and Conditioning conferences or submit them for publication in practitioner-oriented journals.
• Build a repository of case studies or research briefs that can be shared with the broader community.

Benefits

• Use your own expertise to overcome the limitations of funding or infrastructure.
• Keep interns engaged in the important, but less glamorous, side of S&C.
• Provide your staff with meaningful, resume-building research experience while auditing your own processes.
• Guide innovation and boost credibility despite resource constraints.

Pushing the field forward requires an honest assessment of what’s holding us back. I feel we’re too focused on utilizing established methods that may be outdated, we’re too dependent on the experiences of those who came before us, and at times, ignorant of what we can do to go beyond what is required of us now to get the things we want in the end.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with all of us to raise the standards within the field of Strength and Conditioning. By committing to validated practices and making ourselves vulnerable to the scrutiny of others, we can collectively elevate the profession, and—more importantly—better develop the athletes who rely on us to help them succeed.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

During the 2023-2024 school year, our small private gym embarked on a “test run” with Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wisconsin to supply strength and conditioning staff to facilitate and write weight training programs for all their athletes. This was meant for us to get established, build relationships with teams, and establish a strength and conditioning program. The performance culture we walked into was one of very few team lifts; instead, there was a “lift on your own” mentality, which created spotty attendance, lack of coaching, and limited adherence to programs (if at all).

That first year we had instant success in creating team lifts for softball and baseball, and now other coaches are wanting in after seeing the culture that was created with high energy, motivation, accountability, and overall gains in strength, power, and speed.

Starting this school year (2024/2025), the Men’s Basketball coach wanted to change his program and, in July, enlisted our services to run the strength and conditioning program in a team lift setting. This was the time to build a program, and realistically, one chance to do it right and do it well to ensure buy-in from all parties involved. During basketball training camp in July, we established five baseline tests:

1. Vertical Jump
2. 4x Reactive Jumps
3. BB Back Squat
4. BB Bench Press
5. Chin-ups for reps

What We Did: Concept of Program

With the baselines set, we began to create a program to start in August. If you read any of my other articles, you know I’m a big supporter of the APRE program by Bryan Mann during off-season training (you can learn about APRE in my article here). Essentially, my strength and conditioning program through the off-season, pre-season, and in-season goes as:

• Off-Season: APRE 10, 6, 3. 3-4 weeks devoted to each phase.
• Pre-Season: 2-6 weeks spent in each phase.
• In-Season: Oscillatory/High speed or undulated training. 4-8 weeks devoted to each phase.

We had 8 weeks to get the basketball team ready, and many didn’t really train that much between testing in July and August. So, we did a second round of testing the first week in late August, when school started, to see who had been training and establish accurate data.

Normally, with 6-8 weeks left before beginning a season, it would be ideal to start pre-season training and go right into Triphasic; however, as mentioned, most of the team hadn’t done a lot of training over the summer and many were undersized. I decided to stick with APRE and do 3 weeks of APRE 10 and APRE 6, then focus on the Concentric Phase of Triphasic once the season started. The feedback I received from the athletes was positive in terms of the concept of APRE going for max effort on the last two sets and giving it their all every session, so the buy-in occurred quickly.

The feedback I received from the athletes was positive in terms of the concept of APRE going for max effort on the last two sets and giving it their all every session, so the buy-in occurred quickly, says @Mccharles187. Share on X

I still wanted to include plyometric training to help work on vertical jumps and ground contact time, so after warming up/core work, we did variations of jumps, hops, bounds, and medball throws before going into the main lifts. This allowed dedicated time to work on power/explosiveness and avoid getting fatigued by doing it ahead of APRE training rather than after.

The general structure of the workouts looked like this:

1. Warm-up (we call it a RAMP)
2. Core work
3. Power/explosiveness work

• Lower body plyometrics
• Upper body med ball throws

4. APRE

• Day 1: Back Squats
• Day 2: Bench Press
• Day 3: Hex Bar Deadlift

5. Accessory work
6. Stretching/Breathing drills

This structure allowed us to complete the workouts in 60-minutes or less, making the sessions efficient and focused.

How it Worked

The Results? You can check out the data for yourself. These are taken using the Bridge Athletic app where the athletes’ workouts are housed, and data is stored. These are team averages.

1. Average 4x Reactive Jump Test: .365s –> .344s (-.021s faster on average)


2. Average 1RM BB Back Squat: 293lbs –> 317lbs (+24lbs increase on average)


3. Average 1RM BB Bench Press: 193lbs –> 202lbs (+9lbs increase on average)

4. Average Chin-ups for reps: ~12 reps –> (14 reps ~2 reps increase on average)


5. Average Vertical Jump: 27.85in –> 29.54in (+1.69in increase on average)

Discussion

The data presented promising results that I’m really happy with. I was honestly surprised how much the average vertical jump increased. The strength exercises were about where I expected to see, except the chin-ups—I thought we’d be gaining about 5 reps more on average, but it’s still an improvement and on the right track.

The data point I was least excited about was the 4x vertical jump results. Granted, this still improved overall and we had lower ground contact time by the end; but, it was a pretty small improvement on average. If there’s anything I’d go back and change, it would be more time spent on reducing ground contact time—at the end of the day, speed is the name of the game. It may sound like I’m being hard on myself, but I’m always looking back how to make programs even better.

With the increase in vertical jump, force production, and reaction time, these results will allow the players to reach higher for jump balls, better react to explosive movements, and be able to hold their ground on the floor. Share on X

With the increase in vertical jump, force production, and slightly better reaction time, these results will allow these guys to reach higher for jump balls, better react to explosive movements, and be able to hold their ground on the floor for both offense and defense to avoid hard falls. The increase in strength and power translates to stronger muscles and tendons, allowing the athletes to handle higher workloads in games and practice to avoid overuse injuries and get more out of each game and practice. The ankles, knees, and back tend to be common sites for injuries or ailments with basketball players, and this program focused on that from an injury prevention standpoint with the combination of plyometrics and strength training.

Lesson Learned and How to Replicate for Your Situation

The head coach was really impressed with the results, loved the higher energy in the team lift environment, and we’re looking to carry that culture into practices as we go into the season. There’s still work to do with the team, as they are a young group, so we will continue to push high energy, accountability, and high effort with everything they do.

If you are a small private facility and looking to add value to a high school or college athletic program and provide a similar service, here’s what I’d recommend.

1. Have 2 staff members dividing mornings and nights: We had two primary staff members working part time in a split-shift setting for Viterbo: myself in the morning sessions and my co-worker, working evenings. This allowed us to provide 8+ hours of coaching/availability for Viterbo but maintain a healthy work balance as we needed to maintain staffing hours at our gym without having to hire a separate coach and increase payroll. For me, my schedule would be 6:00am-9:00am at Viterbo, then our gym from 9:30am to 2-4pm with my coworker starting her day between 8:30am-10:00am until 1:00pm or 2:00pm at the gym then finishing her day from 3:00pm-7:00pm at Viterbo.
2. Have a Director/Manager that’s organized and supportive: Having a director/manager ensures everyone is scheduled where they are supposed to be, ensuring we are organized, and provides support.
3. Have administration from both parties on your side: Our athletic director at Viterbo has been very supportive of us and encourages each of the head coaches to utilize our services. Having both parties on the same page about: the culture we want to create, acquiring equipment we need, and setting policies and procedures for the weight room schedule has been paramount to our success.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

In the realm of professional sports, the pursuit of peak performance and injury prevention is relentless. As a seasoned athletic trainer and strength and conditioning coach, I’ve worked with athletes across high-impact sports including NBA basketball, XFL football, and Slamball, and witnessed firsthand the transformative impact data-driven decision-making can have.

By leveraging advanced tools like motion capture, force plates, strength testing, and GPS technology, we’ve revolutionized how we approach athlete assessments, offering precise insights that optimize performance and mitigate injury risks. Among these, motion capture and movement analysis stand out as critical tools for understanding the biomechanics of athletic performance, allowing us to objectively pinpoint deficiencies, compensations, and injury risks.

This article will explore how these insights can be applied to enhance athletic output and resilience through practical strategies.

By leveraging advanced tools like motion capture, force plates, strength testing, and GPS, we’ve revolutionized how we approach athlete assessments, offering precise insights that optimize performance and mitigate injury risks. Share on X

Understanding the Challenges of Training Athletes

Athletes in attacking sports need an exceptional combination of speed, agility, and explosiveness. They must navigate rapid changes of direction, absorb intense collisions and landings, and execute high-powered movements—all while minimizing injury risks. Accurately assessing these demands is critical, yet it presents unique challenges for clinicians and performance staffs.

Through my experience working with professional basketball, football, and Slamball players, I’ve observed these challenges firsthand:

• NBA players contend with the demands of high acceleration and deceleration
• XFL athletes face frequent high-impact collisions.
• Slamball players contend with aerial attacks and force absorption during landings.

Across all sports, the added challenge for a performance staff is completing the necessary assessments in a timely manner without compromising quality. These sport-specific demands often lead to significant issues in two key areas:

1. Elevated Injury Risks: Frequent sprinting, cutting, jumping, and landing mechanics place undue stress on the foot-ankle complex, knees, lumbar spine, hips, and shoulders. Athletes in professional sports frequently experience:
   • Soft Tissue injuries from high-intensity sprinting and acceleration/deceleration cycles.
   • Patellar tendonitis and Achilles tendonitis from repetitive loading during sprints, jumps, and landings.
   • Ankle and Knee Injuries due to high-force deceleration and cutting movements.
   • Shoulder instability from repetitive overhead actions and impacts.

2. Barriers in Athlete Assessment Strategies: Clinicians and performance staff often deal with limited bandwidth to assess large rosters comprehensively. Manual assessments, while effective, are time-consuming and may lack the objectivity needed to guide modern interventions.

Traditional, subjective methods also rely heavily on visual observation and practitioner experience, which can lead to inconsistencies and missed nuances in movement patterns. This lack of precision often results in interventions that fail to address the root causes of inefficiencies or injury risks. In my experience, overcoming these barriers requires a shift from traditional methods to objective, data-driven technologies for movement analysis.

Traditional, subjective methods also rely heavily on visual observation and practitioner experience, which can lead to inconsistencies and missed nuances in movement patterns. Share on X

Training Challenges Observed in Professional Sports

Through my work, I’ve identified several recurring issues in professional athletes. These include:

• Movement Asymmetries: Imbalances between limbs often lead to compensatory patterns that increase injury risk.
• Poor Hip and Ankle Mobility: Restricted mobility compromises an athlete’s ability to generate power and maintain stability.
• Lack of Trunk Control: Insufficient core stability and control can disrupt movement efficiency, compromise force transfer, and increase the risk of injuries during dynamic actions.
• Weak Proprioception: Diminished body awareness hinders coordination and balance during complex movements.
• Inconsistent Explosive Power: Variability in force production directly impacts performance in jumping, sprinting, and cutting.

For example, in the XFL, I frequently observed knee instability during deceleration movements, which is a critical factor in non-contact injuries. Similarly, in the NBA, explosive jumping and landing mechanics were often compromised, leading to recurrent ankle injuries, tendonitis, and low back issues. In Slamball—where athletes face unique demands from continuous jumping and aerial collisions—shoulder instability and posterior chain weaknesses were prevalent.

Soft tissue injuries, particularly hamstring strains, also presented a consistent challenge in the XFL, driven by repetitive, high-speed sprints. Addressing these issues required targeted solutions that were both efficient and scalable.

Steps Taken to Address These Challenges

To effectively manage the complex needs of these athletes, I needed a tool that was robust, repeatable, reliable, and could seamlessly integrate into our workflow while providing precise, actionable insights. The Demotu app, an advanced movement analysis tool, proved to be the ideal solution. Its ability to provide real-time, 3D biomechanical insights made it a cornerstone for addressing mobility and stability deficiencies.

Why Demotu?

I needed a solution that was both reliable and scalable to efficiently assess movement patterns, identify deficiencies, and prioritize interventions. Demotu quickly became an invaluable tool, offering several distinct advantages. Its automated assessments streamlined key movement screens, including the Overhead Squat, Single Leg Balance, Lateral Lunge, Overhead Press, Single Leg Hinge, and Countermovement Jump.

By automating these evaluations, Demotu significantly reduced the time and resources typically required, allowing for faster and more efficient assessments. The app’s clear, actionable insights also improved player attention and compliance, keeping athletes engaged and motivated throughout the process.

Additionally, Demotu’s ability to capture precise 3D keypoints eliminated subjective biases, enabling accurate tracking of joint angles, compensations, and asymmetries. Whether evaluating an entire roster or focusing on individual athletes, the platform seamlessly accommodated both team-wide and personalized approaches, making it an indispensable tool in optimizing athlete performance.

Demotu’s ability to capture precise 3D keypoints eliminated subjective biases, enabling accurate tracking of joint angles, compensations, and asymmetries. Share on X

Implementation Process

1. Preseason Evaluations: During preseason, we conducted comprehensive movement screenings for all athletes. Demotu analyzed each athlete’s movement strategies and identified compensations, providing a detailed baseline of their biomechanics and actionable insights for targeted improvements.
2. Regular Check-Ins: Throughout the season, we used Demotu for periodic re-assessments, conducted in 4-6 week increments, to track progress and adapt programs as needed. These regular evaluations allowed us to ensure athletes were meeting benchmarks and addressing any emerging deficiencies.
3. Targeted Interventions: Based on assessment data, we developed targeted interventions by prescribing individualized corrective exercises tailored to each athlete’s needs. For example, we focused on improving hip stability and reducing knee valgus through targeted glute activation and core stability exercises. To address landing mechanics and ankle dorsiflexion limitations, we implemented strengthening exercises, dynamic balance work, and plyometric training. Emphasizing posterior chain activation also proved critical in enhancing overall movement efficiency. In Slamball, our findings guided us to address specific needs by enhancing controlled body positioning during aerial techniques, which helped alleviate shoulder issues and optimize force absorption during landings.

Results Observed: Data and Anecdotes

The impact of integrating Demotu into our training programs was both measurable and transformative:
Data

• A 25% reduction in non-contact lower extremity injuries during an XFL season.
• A 10% increase in vertical jump height among players following targeted programs.
• A 20% improvement in shoulder stability metrics.

Anecdotes

• Improved Athlete Buy-In: Athletes were more engaged and motivated when they could see visual representations of their movement patterns and track their progress.
• Return to Play Scenarios: Targeted interventions led to improved return-to-play outcomes for injured athletes. Comparisons to baseline data and the ability to track progress throughout the RTP process provided improved decision-making and guided progressions.

Personal Insights: The Journey to Data-Driven Biomechanics

As an athletic trainer and strength and conditioning coach, transitioning to a data-driven approach has been a game-changer. Tools like Demotu allow us to move beyond traditional methods, empowering both practitioners and athletes. The ability to visualize movement patterns fosters collaboration and accountability, while objective data ensures precision in program design.

Athletes have described the process as eye-opening. One XFL player shared: “Seeing my knee instability on the app made me realize why I was struggling with certain drills. Fixing it wasn’t just about getting better—it made me faster and more confident on the field.”

Embracing the Future of Sports Performance

The integration of advanced movement analysis tools like Demotu represents the future of athletic performance and injury prevention. By embracing data-driven biomechanics, we can enhance efficiency, drive performance, and safeguard athlete health across all levels of sport.

When profiling athletes, we often consider kinematics, kinetic forces, internal and external load as a blueprint. Demotu serves as a tool to help tie these elements together. Share on X

Demotu can also be a great addition to player profiling. When profiling athletes, we often consider kinematics, kinetic forces, internal and external load as a blueprint. Demotu serves as a tool to help tie these elements together, enabling a holistic approach to understanding and optimizing athlete performance and mitigating injury.

For professionals in the field, the takeaway is clear: adopting technologies that provide actionable insights into biomechanics is essential. Whether working with professional, collegiate, or recreational athletes, movement analysis holds the key to unlocking untapped potential and continue to push the limits of human performance.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF