This article was downloaded by: [171.67.34.

69]
On: 05 May 2013, At: 13:53
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Which drop jump technique is most effective

at enhancing countermovement jump ability,
“countermovement” drop jump or“bounce” drop
jump?
a a
Brendan Michael Marshall & Kieran Andrew Moran
a
Dublin City University, Health and Human Performance , Collins Avenue , Dublin 9 , Ireland
Published online: 30 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Brendan Michael Marshall & Kieran Andrew Moran (2013): Which drop jump technique is most effective
at enhancing countermovement jump ability, “countermovement” drop jump or“bounce” drop jump?, Journal of Sports
Sciences, DOI:10.1080/02640414.2013.789921

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.789921

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Sports Sciences, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.789921

Which drop jump technique is most effective at enhancing

countermovement jump ability, “countermovement” drop jump
or “bounce” drop jump?

BRENDAN MICHAEL MARSHALL & KIERAN ANDREW MORAN

Dublin City University, Health and Human Performance, Collins Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland

(Accepted 18 March 2013)

Abstract
The drop jump is a popular form of plyometric exercise often undertaken to enhance countermovement jump ability (jump
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013

height). Despite its popularity the effects of drop jump training on countermovement jump height are often inconsistent.
Such inconsistencies may be as a result of differences in the drop jump technique being employed. Two recognised forms of
drop jump are the “countermovement” drop jump and the “bounce” drop jump and the current study examined the effects
of eight weeks of training with these drop jump techniques on countermovement jump height. Methods: A kinetic and
kinematic analysis of each participant’s countermovement jump, bounce- and countermovement drop jumps was under-
taken prior to training. Participants were then randomly assigned to a bounce drop jump training group (n = 34), a
countermovement drop jump training group (n = 35) or a control group (n = 34). Changes in jump height were examined
following training. Results: The countermovement drop jump training group increased their countermovement jump height
by 2.9 cm (6%), which was a significant change (P < 0.05) in comparison to that experienced by the bounce drop jump (-0.2
cm, -0.4%) and the control group (-0.1 cm, 0.2%). Conclusion: The countermovement drop jump may be more effective
than the bounce drop jump at enhancing countermovement jump height.

Keywords: drop jump, countermovement jump, training specificity, training overload

Introduction enhance jumping ability we require training exercises

Vertical jumping ability is an important contributor
to successful performance in many sports. A popular
form of vertical jump in sport is the countermove-
ment jump (CMJ) which involves a preparatory
movement downwards before a vigorous extension
of the hip, knee and ankle propels the body upwards
(Bobbert, Gerritsen, Litjens, & Van Soest, 1996).
Coaches typically seek to enhance their athletes’
maximal CMJ jump height by prescribing neuro-
muscular training exercises like the plyometric drop
jump (Fowler & Lees, 1998). The drop jump
involves stepping from a height and, upon landing,
jumping vertically as explosively as possible. Drop
jumps exhibit a larger magnitude and rate of
eccentric loading than the CMJ, which stimulates a
more effective utilisation of the stretch-shortening
cycle, and in turn, greater force production in the
concentric phase (Bobbert, Huijing, & Van Ingen
Schenau, 1987a; Moran & Wallace, 2007). This
appears advantageous for prescribing drop jumps to
enhance CMJ jump height, as it is suggested that to
that produce a greater mechanical output than CMJs
(Bobbert, 1990).
Reviews of drop jump training studies by Markovic
(2007) and Bobbert (1990) have found that the drop
jump can provide a significant improvement in CMJ
jump height. In addition, Wilson, Newton, Murphy,
and Humphries (1993) found that the drop jump was
as effective as the squat and jump squat exercises at
enhancing CMJ jump height. However, in spite of
this, the effects of drop jump training on CMJ jump
height can be inconsistent. Some training studies have
found that drop jump training did not significantly
enhance jump height (Brown, Mayhew, & Boleach,
1986; Young, Wilson, & Byrne, 1999), while others
report a large variability in the magnitude of the
enhancement (Bobbert, 1990). In a review of fifteen
drop jump training studies, Bobbert (1990) found that
changes in jump height following training ranged from
1.8–10.2 cm between studies, with no evidence sug-
gesting that differences in participant characteristics,

Correspondence: Brendan Michael Marshall, Dublin City University, Health and Human Performance, Collins Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland. E-mail:brendan.
marshall2@mail.dcu.ie

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 2 B. M. Marshall & K. A. Moran
training intensity, frequency or volume could explain
the inconsistent outcomes observed. Instead, the
author speculated that the inconsistent effects of
drop jump training may be as a result of differences
in the drop jump technique employed.
Bobbert, Mackay, Schinkelshoek, Huijing, and
Van Ingen Schenau (1986) noticed that when parti-
cipants were drop jumping there appeared to be a
technique continuum between fast, small amplitude
“bounce” drop jumps, and slower, larger amplitude
“countermovement” drop jumps. Bobbert et al.
(1987a) compared the kinetics and kinematics of
the CMJ with those of the bounce- and counter-
movement drop jump and found that while both
drop jump variants exhibited a greater mechanical
loading and output (force and power) than the CMJ,
these differences were more pronounced in the
bounce drop jump. In accordance with the theory
of training overload, and as suggested by Bobbert
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013
(1990), training exercises that exhibit a greater
mechanical loading or output than those produced
during the action being trained (i.e. CMJ) induce a
training overload. In light of this, the findings of
Bobbert et al. (1987a) suggest that both the bounce-
and countermovement drop jump provide an over-
load training stimulus when training to improve
CMJ jump height but that this stimulus may be
greater in the bounce drop jump. While this may
initially suggest that the bounce drop jump is better
at enhancing CMJ jump height than the counter-
movement drop jump, it is also important to con-
sider training exercise specificity. The theory of
training exercise specificity states that for training
improvements to transfer from a training exercise
to a task of interest the exercise must be as close as
possible to the task in terms of: range of motion,
velocity of contraction and coordination (Fowler &
Lees, 1998; Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006). By com-
paring the kinematics of the CMJ, the countermove-
ment drop jump and the bounce drop jump
presented by Bobbert et al. (1987a), it is apparent
that the countermovement drop jump has a greater
specificity to the CMJ than the bounce drop jump.
For example, differences in knee angle at joint rever-
sal were much greater between the bounce drop
jump and countermovement drop jump (30.4
degrees) than between the countermovement drop
jump and CMJ (6.3 degrees). It could thus be
argued that if sufficient overload is achieved in the
countermovement drop jump, relative to the CMJ,
this form of drop jump may in fact be better at
enhancing CMJ ability due to its greater specificity
to the CMJ.
It appears that only Young et al. (1999) have
compared the effects of countermovement- and
bounce drop jump training on CMJ jump height.
In that study neither the countermovement nor the
bounce drop jump training group experienced a sig-
nificant change in CMJ jump height which, the
authors suggested, was due to too short a training
period (six weeks) employed. Therefore, despite
Bobbert et al. (1987a) suggesting that the counter-
movement drop jump and the bounce drop jump
may illicit different training effects, athletes and coa-
ches are still no closer to knowing which drop jump
technique is better at enhancing CMJ jump height.
The primary aim of the current study is to exam-
ine the effects of eight weeks of either bounce- or
countermovement drop jump training on CMJ jump
height. In addition, the pre-training kinetics and
kinematics of the CMJ, bounce drop jump and
countermovement drop jump will be compared. It
is hypothesised that both drop jump groups will
enhance CMJ jump height as a result of training
but that improvements will be greater in the counter-
movement drop jump group. This is based on the
assumption that both drop jump variants will provide
an overload stimulus to enhance CMJ jump height
but that the countermovement drop jump will do so
in a more CMJ specific manner.
Methods
Participants
One hundred and five male adult students (mean ± s:
age, 22 ± 4 years; height, 178.2 ± 5.4 cm; mass, 77.8
± 9.8 kg) were recruited from Dublin City University.
Study participants had to: (a) be competitively active
at varsity level in a sport with a jump, and (b) have not
undertaken structured drop jump training or had a
lower extremity injury in the previous six months.
The majority of participants played Gaelic football
(45%), soccer (32%) and basketball (10%). Each
participant provided a written informed consent as
required by the University Ethics Committee.
Experimental protocol
Participants attended a familiarisation session three
days prior to initial testing where the execution of
the CMJ, bounce drop jump and countermovement
drop jump was practised. Participants were instructed
to begin the CMJ in an upright position, counter-
move to a self-selected depth and then jump vertically
with maximum effort. For the bounce drop jump,
participants were instructed to step from a platform
(30 cm) and as quickly as possible after touching the
ground, jump for maximal height (Bobbert et al.,
1987a). For the countermovement drop jump, parti-
cipants again stepped from 30cm but were instructed
to make a larger countermovement after touching the
ground (more similar to the CMJ than the bounce

drop jump) before jumping for maximal height
(Bobbert et al., 1987a).
Following demonstration, participants performed
four sets of five repetitions of each jump type. The
eccentric phase durations of drop jumps were mon-
itored to ensure that they were within typical ranges
[countermovement = 150–230 ms; bounce = 110–
150 ms, Bobbert et al. (1987a)]. Eccentric phase
duration was obtained using the synchronised collec-
tion (at 200 Hz) of ground reaction force and knee
angle data using an AMTI force platform
(BP600900 AMTI, USA) and an electrogoniometer
(XM110, Biometrics Ltd, UK), respectively. The
instant of knee joint reversal was used to identify
the end of the eccentric phase. Each participant
was deemed able to carry out each jump type con-
sistently when three out of five consecutive jumps
were within 1.3 cm of each other (1.3 cm is the
typical intra-subject variability observed in vertical
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013
jumps [Aragon-Vargas & Gross, 1997]), and
eccentric phase durations for drop jumps were
within the ranges outlined above. Jump heights
were calculated using the flight-time method as
described by Linthorne (2001). Following the famil-
iarisation session, each participant could perform
each of the three forms of jump consistently.
An analysis of each participant’s CMJ, bounce
drop jump and countermovement drop jump was
carried out before the eight week training period.
Prior to testing each participant undertook a stan-
dardised warm-up consisting of a three minute
treadmill jog at 7 km · h-1 and five sub-maximal
(approximately 50% of maximal intensity) CMJ
repetitions. Testing consisted of five trials of each
of the CMJ, bounce- and countermovement drop
jumps. Participants wore their own athletic shoes
and placed their hands on their hips for all trials.
Jump order was randomised and a rest period of
forty seconds was permitted between all repetitions
(Read & Cisar, 2001).
To determine the effects of drop jump training on
CMJ jump height five trials of each participant’s
CMJ were also analysed directly after the eight
week training period. Each participant followed the
same standardised warm-up prior to testing.
To examine the reliability of measures used in the
current study, fifteen participants from the control
group repeated the pre-training testing session pro-
tocol on four separate occasions (at three day inter-
vals) following completion of the main study.
Data acquisition
Spherical reflective markers were placed bi-laterally
at the fifth metatarsal joint, lateral malleolus, lateral
femoral epicondyle, greater trochanter and the gle-
nohumeral joint. A twelve-camera VICON 512M
The effect of drop jump type on training outcome 3
motion analysis system (VICON, UK) in conjunc-
tion with an AMTI force platform was used to col-
lect data. VICON software (Workstation Version
5.1) controlled simultaneous collection of motion
and force data at 250 Hz. Both the VICON system
and AMTI force platform were calibrated according
to operator’s instructions before each testing session.
Raw co-ordinate and force data were exported to
Microsoft Office Excel 2007 (Microsoft, USA) and
subsequently applied to a number of specially
designed in-house computer programs developed
by the authors. The data was filtered using a recur-
sive second-order low-pass Butterworth filter
(Winter, 1990). Force plate data was filtered at
70 Hz and marker position data at different values:
toe 6.62 Hz, heel 6.62 Hz, ankle 7.52 Hz, knee 9.21
Hz, hip 8.50 Hz and shoulder 6.64 Hz (Moran &
Wallace, 2007).
Data analysis
From the three-dimensional marker data, a two-
dimensional (sagittal plane) four-segment model,
linked by frictionless hinge joints, was defined. Bi-
lateral marker data were combined in the formation
of the model. The four segments were the foot,
shank, thigh and head-arms-trunk separated by the
ankle, knee and hip joints, respectively. Relative joint
angles (the angle between adjacent segments) were
calculated, with smaller joint angles indicating a
more flexed joint. Segmental data provided by
Winter (1990) were used to calculate segment and
whole-body centre of mass locations. Jump height
was calculated according to Vanrenterghem, De
Clerq, and Van Cleven (2001) as the difference
between the body’s centre of mass position when
standing and at the apex of the jump. Vertical velo-
city of the body’s centre of mass and angular velo-
cities of the hip, knee and ankle joints were obtained
by differentiating centre of mass and joint angular
displacement respectively (Moran & Wallace, 2007).
Whole-body power was calculated as the product of
vertical velocity of the body’s centre of mass and
vertical ground reaction force (Cormie, McBride, &
McCaulley, 2009). Joint and segment kinetics were
calculated using standard inverse dynamics (Winter,
1990). Net joint power was calculated as the dot
product of net joint moment and joint angular velo-
city (Moran & Wallace, 2007). Jump eccentric and
concentric phases were defined with respect to
power production with negative power being pro-
duced during the eccentric phase and positive
power being produced during the concentric phase.
The following kinetic variables were calculated at
the whole body and joint level: eccentric peak power,
force at the start of the concentric phase, concentric
peak force and concentric peak power. All kinetic
 4 B. M. Marshall & K. A. Moran
variables were normalised with respect to body mass.
The following kinematic variables were calculated:
whole body concentric and eccentric phase duration,
whole body countermovement amplitude and joint
angle at joint reversal (for the hip, knee and ankle).
Training protocol
Participants were randomly assigned to a control
group, a bounce drop jump training group or a
countermovement drop jump training group.
Training consisted of four sets of eight jumps, from
a 30 cm height, three times a week for eight weeks.
Participants warmed up at the start of every training
session with a three minute treadmill jog at 7 km · h-
1
. A minimum of one rest day was allocated between
training days while the recovery time between repeti-
tions and sets was fifteen seconds and two minutes,
respectively (Read & Cisar, 2001). Each training
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013
session was supervised to ensure all sets and repeti-
tions were completed and that drop jumps were
carried out as per instructions outlined previously.
While drop heights in training studies have varied
from 25 cm to 100 cm there is no evidence to
suggest that larger drop heights lead to greater
improvements in CMJ jump height (Bobbert,
1990). In addition, Lees and Fahmi (1994) suggest
that if optimal drop heights were to exist they would
be at lower (< 36 cm) rather than greater drop
heights. A 30 cm drop height was therefore deemed
suitable for the current study.
No control was administered for other physical
activities or sporting participation, in either the training
or control groups, with the exception that no other
lower body plyometric or resistance training exercises
were to be performed. Participant training diaries
were maintained to ensure that no activities that
could be considered as additional jump training were
undertaken. Two individuals withdrew from the study
leaving 34 participants in both the control group and
the bounce drop jump training group and 35 partici-
pants in the countermovement drop jump training
group.
Statistical analysis
All variables in the CMJ, bounce- and countermove-
ment drop jump were checked for normality of dis-
tribution using Shapiro-Wilks tests. The
repeatability of variables was assessed using techni-
ques described in detail by Nevill and Atkinson
(1997) and Nevill and Atkinson (1998). A repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested for
bias between testing sessions, while the level of
agreement between testing sessions was examined
by calculating the “ratio limits of agreement” which
contains 95% of the observed ratios (measurement
one divided by the repeat measurement). The
repeatability analysis described herein was underta-
ken with log transformed data to account for the fact
that the variables displayed heteroscedastic errors;
such errors are common in human performance
variables (Nevill & Atkinson, 1997).
Changes in jump height were assessed using a
repeated measures ANOVA with “group” (control,
countermovement, bounce) as the between-subjects
factor and “time” (pre- to post-training) as the
within-subjects factor. If a significant result was
obtained (P < 0.05), Bonferroni post-hoc tests were
used to identify differences between the three
groups. To examine if there were differences in
pre-training variable magnitudes, between the CMJ,
countermovement- and bounce drop jumps, another
repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-
hoc analysis was employed. Statistical significance
was set at P < 0.05. All statistical analysis was carried
out using SPSS for Windows (version 15.0, SPSS
Inc., USA).
Results
All variables exhibited normal distribution as evi-
denced by non-significant (P > 0.05) Shapiro-Wilk
tests in the CMJ, countermovement- and bounce
drop jumps (mean [95% confidence intervals
(CIs)]: 0.968 [0.963, 0.973], 0.964 [0.958,
0.969] and 0.968 [0.962, 0.973], respectively). In
the repeatability analysis no significant bias was
found between repeat trials for variables in the
CMJ (F = 1.16, P = 0.39), countermovement
drop jump (F = 1.48, P = 0.41) and bounce
drop jump (F = 1.79, P = 0.38), respectively.
The mean upper and lower 95% “ratio limits of
agreement” for all variables examined in the CMJ,
countermovement drop jump and bounce drop
jump were 0.84–1.18, 0.86–1.18 and 0.81–1.32,
respectively. These ranges are comparable to
those reported by Nevill and Atkinson (1997)
who examined the repeatability of several sport
science specific variables.
There was a significant main effect of time (pre- to
post-training) on CMJ jump height [F (1, 109) =
10.09, P = 0.002] and a significant group x time
interaction effect [F (2, 109) = 12.81, P < 0.001].
The interaction effect indicated a significant differ-
ence in changes from pre- to post-training among
groups. Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that, fol-
lowing training, the countermovement drop jump
group increased their CMJ jump height significantly
(P < 0.05) compared to both the control group and
bounce drop jump group (Table I). Neither the
control group nor the bounce drop jump group
experienced a significant change in CMJ jump height
following training (Table I).
 The effect of drop jump type on training outcome 5

Table I. Countermovement jump (CMJ) height changes following training.

Pre CMJ jump Post CMJ jump CMJ jump height

height (cm) height (cm) change (cm)

Control group 47.3 ± 4.9 47.2 ± 5.4 -0.1 ± 2.7

CDJ training group 48.8 ± 5.0 51.7 ± 5.3 2.9 ± 2.6*
BDJ training group 49.7 ± 5.8 49.5 ± 4.4 -0.2 ± 2.6

Note: Values are means ± s. CDJ = countermovement drop jump; BDJ = bounce drop jump. *Significant change (P < 0.05) compared to
the control group and the BDJ training group.

A comparison of the pre-training whole body
kinetics and kinematics of the CMJ, bounce- and
countermovement drop jump is provided in
Table II, while a comparison of the joint level
kinetics and kinematics is provided in Table III.
Countermovement amplitude and concentric
phase duration were significantly less/shorter (P <
0.05) in both drop jumps compared to the CMJ,
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013
peak moment and knee and ankle peak power
(Table III). None of the hip joint kinetic variables
analysed were significantly greater in the bounce
drop jump in comparison to the CMJ (P > 0.05).
Conversely, the countermovement drop jump did
produce larger magnitudes than the CMJ in the
following hip kinetic variables: moment at joint
reversal, peak moment and eccentric peak power (P

and in the bounce drop jump compared to the coun-
termovement drop jump (Table II). Regarding the
whole body kinetic variables, force at the start of the
concentric phase, peak force and eccentric peak
power were all significantly greater (P < 0.05) in
the drop jumps than in the CMJ but were also sig-
nificantly greater in the bounce drop jump than in
the countermovement drop jump (P < 0.05). In
addition, whole body concentric peak power was
significantly greater in the bounce drop jump in
comparison to the CMJ (P < 0.05) while there was
no difference in this same variable in the counter-
movement drop jump and CMJ (P > 0.05).
At the knee and ankle, moment at joint reversal,
peak moment and concentric peak power, were all
significantly greater (P < 0.05) in the bounce drop
jump in comparison to the countermovement drop
jump and CMJ (Table III). However, several of
these variables were not significantly different
between the countermovement drop jump and the
CMJ, including: knee moment at joint reversal, knee
< 0.05).
Discussion
While Bobbert et al. (1986) identified two distinct
drop jump techniques, namely a countermovement
drop jump and a bounce drop jump, few studies
have investigated whether one of these techniques
is more effective at enhancing CMJ jump height.
The current study examined this issue by comparing
the effects of eight weeks of bounce- and counter-
movement drop jump training on CMJ jump height.
Following training the countermovement drop jump
group increased their CMJ jump height significantly
(by 2.9 cm (6%), P < 0.05) compared with both the
bounce drop jump and control group. This indicates
that the countermovement drop jump may be more
effective than the bounce drop jump at enhancing CMJ
jump height. The current study appears to be the first
to find a statistically significant difference regarding the
superiority of one of these forms of drop jump at

Table II. A comparison of pre-training whole body kinetics and kinematics in the countermovement jump (CMJ), countermovement drop
jump (CDJ) and bounce drop jump (BDJ).

CMJ CDJ BDJ Significance F value (P value) Summary

Jump height (cm) 49.2 ± 4.9 48.0 ± 4.8 46.3 ± 5.0* 4.0 (0.02) CMJ>BDJ
Countermovement amplitude (cm) 33.0 ± 5.4 28.5 ± 4.1* 15.5 ± 4.3*† 154.5 (< 0.001) CMJ>CDJ>BDJ
Eccentric phase duration (ms) 490.5 ± 81.1 211.9 ± 39.8* 132.2 ± 28.9* 129.8 (< 0.001) CMJ>(CDJ,BDJ)
Concentric phase duration (ms) 290.0 ± 45.0 236.7 ± 40.4* 144.1 ± 27.4*† 156.5 (< 0.001) CMJ>CDJ>BDJ
Force at the start of the concentric 21.6 ± 3.3 27.0 ± 5.6* 41.0 ± 7.8*† 167.5 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
phase (N · kg-1)
Concentric peak force (N · kg-1) 23.0 ± 2.5 32.0 ± 5.5* 43.9 ± 7.7*† 210.6 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Eccentric peak power (W · kg-1) 14.1 ± 4.3 65.8 ± 13.0* 78.7 ± 15.7*† 578.4 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Concentric peak power (W · kg-1) 49.4 ± 4.7 50.9 ± 6.1 65.4 ± 9.2*† 78.6 (< 0.001) BDJ>(CDJ,CMJ)

Note: Values are means ± s. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) compared to the CMJ. †Significantly different (P < 0.05) compared to the CDJ.
 6 B. M. Marshall & K. A. Moran

Table III. A comparison of pre-training joint kinetics and kinematics in the countermovement jump (CMJ), countermovement drop jump
(CDJ) and bounce drop jump (BDJ).

Significance F value
CMJ CDJ BDJ (P value) Summary

Angle at joint reversal (deg) ¥ Hip 59.5 ± 16.5 77.1 ± 15.1* 119.1 ± 13.4*† 180.5 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Knee 83.6 ± 11.4 90.4 ± 7.2* 100.9 ± 7.5*† 37.7 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Ankle 57.1 ± 6.1 58.9 ± 5.5 57.7 ± 5.1 2.7 (0.07)
Moment at joint reversal (Nm · kg-1) Hip 4.1 ± 0.9 4.9 ± 0.9* 3.9 ± 1.3† 17.4 (< 0.001) CDJ>(CMJ,BDJ)
Knee 2.2 ± 0.7 2.5 ± 0.7 5.6 ± 1.4*† 168.7 (< 0.001) BDJ>(CMJ,CDJ)
Ankle 3.0 ± 0.6 3.7 ± 0.9* 5.6 ± 1.2*† 115.5 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Concentric peak moment (Nm · kg-1) Hip 4.3 ± 0.8 5.2 ± 1.0* 3.7 ± 1.2*† 30.5 (< 0.001) CDJ>CMJ>BDJ
Knee 2.5 ± 0.6 2.8 ± 0.6 5.1 ± 0.9*† 192.8 (< 0.001) BDJ>(CMJ,CDJ)
Ankle 3.4 ± 0.4 4.0 ± 0.7* 5.4 ± 0.9*† 118.4 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Eccentric peak power (W · kg-1) Hip 10.3 ± 4.0 27.1 ± 8.9* 12.4 ± 5.4† 74.3 (< 0.001) CDJ>(CMJ,BDJ)
Knee 3.9 ± 1.6 17.3 ± 4.4* 31.6 ± 7.9*† 260.2 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Ankle 2.4 ± 1.3 29.4 ± 10.5* 42.1 ± 6.8*† 222.1 (< 0.001) BDJ>CDJ>CMJ
Concentric peak power (W · kg-1) Hip 19.8 ± 4.3 20.4 ± 4.1 15.9 ± 5.2*† 11.8 (< 0.001) (CMJ,CDJ)>BDJ
Knee 16.5 ± 4.0 14.8 ± 3.9 27.0 ± 6.0*† 85.3 (< 0.001) BDJ>(CMJ,CDJ)
Ankle 25.7 ± 4.8 26.4 ± 6.2 35.8 ± 8.2*† 34.7 (< 0.001) BDJ>(CMJ,CDJ)

Note: Values are means ± s. *Significantly different (P < 0.05) compared to the CMJ. †Significantly different (P < 0.05) compared to the
CDJ. ¥Larger joint angles indicate a more extended joint.
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013

enhancing CMJ jump height. Young et al. (1999) also
compared the effects of countermovement- and
bounce drop jump training on CMJ jump height but
found no between group differences in jump height
change following training (1.8% and 0% improvement
respectively). The Young et al. (1999) study differed
from the current study, however, in that it contained
far fewer participants (n = 25 compared to n = 102)
and had a much smaller overall training volume (468
repetitions compared to 768 repetitions).
For a component of the neuromuscular system to
be enhanced it must be challenged by a training
stress (overload) at a level beyond which it is accus-
tomed (Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006). Some authors
have established the acute training stress imposed by
a given training exercise by comparing the magni-
tude of kinetic variables produced in the training
exercise with those produced in the task being
trained (Bobbert et al., 1987a, Bobbert, Huijing, &
Van Ingen Schenau, 1987b; Holcomb, Lander,
Rutland, & Wilson, 1996). By applying this method
in the current study one finds that the degree of
acute training overload imposed by the bounce
drop jump relative to the CMJ was, in general,
greater than that imposed by the countermovement
drop jump. For example, all of the whole body and
lower extremity joint kinetic variables examined in
this study (save those at the hip), were significantly
greater in the bounce drop jump than in the counter-
movement drop jump (Table II). This greater acute
training overload in the bounce drop jump, however,
did not translate into greater CMJ jump height gains,
indeed the bounce drop jump did not improve CMJ
jump height at all (Table I).
The absence of an increase in CMJ jump height
following bounce drop jump training (Table I) may
be explained by the apparent lack of training exercise
specificity between this exercise and the CMJ
(Tables II and III). When undertaking specific con-
ditioning to enhance performance outcome in a
given task, compared with general conditioning to
improve underlying neuromuscular ability, it is
important to utilise exercises that provide a neuro-
muscular overload in a manner that is task specific
(Fowler & Lees, 1998; Zatsiorsky & Kraemer, 2006).
A comparison of the kinematic variables presented in
Tables II and III shows that while countermovement
amplitude, concentric phase duration and hip and
knee angle at joint reversal were different in both
forms of drop jump compared to the CMJ, the mag-
nitude of this difference was much greater in the
bounce drop jump. For example, the difference
between countermovement amplitude in the CMJ
and countermovement drop jump was 4.5 cm,
while the respective difference between the CMJ
and bounce drop jump was almost four times greater
at 17.5 cm. Such findings show that the counter-
movement drop jump exhibits a greater specificity
to the CMJ. In addition, the countermovement drop
jump also appeared to provide an overload stimulus
relative to the CMJ. This is evidenced by the signifi-
cantly greater magnitudes (P < 0.05) of several
kinetic variables in the countermovement drop
jump compared to the CMJ, including peak con-
centric force and peak eccentric power at the whole
body, hip and ankle (Tables II and III). It appears
therefore that the countermovement drop jump
enhanced CMJ jump height while the bounce drop

jump did not as it (the countermovement drop
jump) overloaded neuromuscular capacity in a man-
ner that was more specific to the CMJ.
The increase in CMJ jump height following coun-
termovement drop jump training in this study (2.9
cm) is relatively modest compared to other drop jump
training studies. For example, Wilson, Murphy, and
Giorgi (1996) found a significant 10.4 cm increase
(P < 0.05) in jump height following eight weeks of
training. A lack of progression in training intensity
(drop height) over the training period, a limitation of
the current study, may partly explain this finding.
Drop height was not altered in the current study as
there is no evidence-based research regarding the
optimal increments by which to increase drop height
during training. The authors also acknowledge that
changes in other programme design parameters (e.g.
optimal drop height, number of repetitions, training
duration) may also affect the drop jump’s ability to
Downloaded by [171.67.34.69] at 13:53 05 May 2013
improve CMJ jump height. Further studies are
required to examine the effects of the countermove-
ment- and bounce drop jump (and indeed of other
potential drop jump variants) on different forms of
vertical jump commonly utilised in sport.
Conclusions
The present study found that eight weeks of counter-
movement drop jump training enhanced CMJ jump
height significantly (P < 0.05) while a similar regime
of bounce drop jump training did not. It was argued
that due to the lack of training specificity between
the bounce drop jump and CMJ there was no resul-
tant transfer of bounce drop jump training effects to
the CMJ. In contrast, the countermovement drop
jump enhanced CMJ jump height as it overloaded
neuromuscular capacity in a manner that facilitated a
transfer of training effects to the CMJ. The results of
the current study indicate that coaches should take
care to control their athletes’ drop jump technique
when prescribing drop jump training to improve
CMJ jump height. It would appear that a “counter-
movement” style drop jump is more effective than a
“bounce” style drop jump at enhancing CMJ jump
height.
References
Aragon-Vargas, L. F., & Gross, M. M. (1997). Kinesiological
factors in vertical jump performance: Differences within indi-
viduals. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 13, 24–44.
Bobbert, M. F. (1990). Drop jumping as a training method for
jumping ability. Sports Medicine, 9, 7–22.
Bobbert, M. F., Gerritsen, K. G. M., Litjens, M. C. A., & Van
Soest, A. J. (1996). Why is countermovement jump height
greater than squat jump height? Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 28, 1402–1412.
The effect of drop jump type on training outcome 7
Bobbert, M. F., Huijing, P. A., & Van Ingen Schenau, G. J.
(1987a). Drop jumping. I. The influence of jumping technique
on the biomechanics of jumping. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 19, 332–338.
Bobbert, M. F., Huijing, P. A., & Van Ingen Schenau, G. J.
(1987b). Drop jumping. II. The influence of dropping height
on the biomechanics of drop jumping. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 19, 339–346.
Bobbert, M. F., Mackay, M., Schinkelshoek, D., Huijing, P. A., &
Van Ingen Schenau, G. J. (1986). Biomechanical analysis of
drop and countermovement jumps. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 54, 566–573.
Brown, M. E., Mayhew, J. L., & Boleach, L. W. (1986). Effect of
plyometric training on vertical jump performance in high
school basketball players. The Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 26, 1–4.
Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2009). Power-
time, force-time, and velocity-time curve analysis of the coun-
termovement jump: Impact of training. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 23, 177–186.
Fowler, N. E., & Lees, A. (1998). A comparison of the kinetic and
kinematic characteristics of plyometric drop-jump and pendu-
lum exercises. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14, 260–275.
Holcomb, W. R., Lander, J. E., Rutland, R. M., & Wilson, G. D.
(1996). A biomechanical analysis of the vertical jump and three
modified plyometric depth jumps. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 10, 83–88.
Lees, A., & Fahmi, E. (1994). Optimal drop heights for plyo-
metric training. Ergonomics, 37, 141–148.
Linthorne, N. P., (2001). Analysis of standing vertical jumps using
a force platform. American Journal of Physics, 69, 1198–1204.
Markovic, G. (2007). Does plyometric training improve vertical
jump height? A meta-analytical review. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 41, 349–355.
Moran, K. A., & Wallace, E. S. (2007). Eccentric loading and
range of knee joint motion effects on performance enhancement
in vertical jumping. Human Movement Science, 26, 824–840.
Nevill, A. M., & Atkinson, G. (1997). Assessing agreement
between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports
medicine and sports science. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
31, 314–318.
Nevill, A. M., & Atkinson, G. (1998). Assessing measurement
agreement (repeatability) between three or more trials. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 16, 29.
Read, M. M., & Cisar, C. (2001). The influence of varied rest
interval lengths on depth jump performance. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 15, 279–283.
Vanrenterghem, J., De Clerq, D., & Van Cleven, P. (2001).
Necessary precautions in measuring correct vertical jumping
height by means of force plate measurements. Ergonomics, 44,
814–818.
Wilson, G. J., Murphy, A. J., & Giorgi, A. (1996). Weight and
plyometric training: Effects on eccentric and concentric force
production. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 21, 301–315.
Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., & Humphries, B. J.
(1993). The optimal training load for the development of
dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 25, 1279–1286.
Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human
movement. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Young, W. B., Wilson, G. J., & Byrne, C. (1999). A comparison
of drop jump training methods: Effects on leg extensor strength
qualities and jumping performance. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 20, 295–303.
Zatsiorsky, V. M., & Kraemer, W. J. (2006). Science and practise of
strength training. Leeds: Human Kinetics.