Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1999, 13(3), 230–235
q 1999 National Strength & Conditioning Association
The Relation Between Running Speed and
Measures of Strength and Power in Professional
Rugby League Players
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/12/2023
DANIEL BAKER1 AND STEVEN NANCE2
1
Brisbane Broncos Rugby League Club, Paddington, Queensland, Australia;
2
Australian Rugby Union, Queensland, Australia.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation be-
tween running speed and a number of common strength and
power tests, in absolute terms and relative to body mass.
Twenty professional rugby league players were assessed for
10- and 40-m running speed, maximum strength in a 3 rep-
etition maximum (RM) squat and 3RM power clean from the
hang, and leg power. Power was assessed by the Plyometric
Power System (PPS) during barbell jump squats with loads
of 40, 60, 80, and 100 kg. The results indicated that, while
10- and 40-m sprint performances are highly related (r 5
0.72, p # 0.05), there still remains considerable variation in
the factors that contribute to performance over each sprint
distance. Although no absolute strength or power score was
significantly related to either sprint performance, almost all
the scores relative to body mass were significantly related to
sprint performance. For the 10-m sprint, the significant re-
lations ranged from r 5 20.52 to r 5 20.61 (p # 0.05). For
the 40-m sprint, the significant relations ranged from r 5
20.65 to r 5 20.76 (p # 0.05). On the basis of this research,
professional rugby players may need to be trained differ-
ently to a certain extent for 10- and 40-m sprint capabilities,
as the longer distances appear more reliant on stretch-short-
ening cycle performance.
Key words: sprinting, squat, jump squat, concentric,
stretch-shortening cycle
Reference Data: Baker, D., and S. Nance. The relation
between running speed and measures of strength and
power in professional rugby league players. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 13(3):230–235. 1999.
Introduction
R unning speed over short distances would appear
fundamental to success in a number of field and
court sports. In sports such as rugby league, the av-
erage sprint distance performed by players performing
at the national league level may be 10–20 m (9). This
distance would be indicative of the acceleration capa-
230
bilities of field sport athletes, who it has been postu-
lated (18) complete their acceleration phases earlier
than the 30–50 m required by elite sprinters (11). How-
ever, speed over longer distances of 40–60 m or more
is still of considerable importance to players in certain
positions in a number of sports. Therefore, speed may
need to be analyzed over 2 disparate distances, such
as 10–20 m and 40–50 m, for field sport athletes par-
ticipating in sports such as rugby, soccer, field hockey,
Australian football, and American football. Conceiva-
bly these distances would indicate both the accelera-
tion and maximum speed capabilities of the athletes
(5, 6, 17).
Sprinting requires high force production (11–13).
On the basis of this knowledge, strength and power
training methods are almost universally advocated as
a form of training to improve running speed (6). Thus
the relation between strength and power and running
speed are of considerable interest for researchers and
coaches attempting to identify possible mechanisms of
performance enhancement (6, 7, 17, 18).
Several researchers have investigated the relation
between different measures of tests of muscular force
and power and sprinting ability with differing results
(1, 3, 7, 12, 13, 17). These differing results could be
due to the differing level of the subjects, the methods
of strength assessment, and the sprint distances in-
volved. In response to these findings, Young et al. (18)
investigated the relation between 27 measures of
strength and power and sprint performance across
distances ranging from 2.5 to 50 m in young track and
field athletes. Young et al. (18) found that the initial
acceleration phase (2.5 m) is most highly correlated (r
5 20.86) to the force applied in a concentric-only
jump squat, relative to body mass. They postulated
that this could be due to the similarities in the knee
angle, time for force production, and the predomi-
nantly concentric nature of both activities.
However, the fastest 10-m interval (maximum
speed) was almost equally highly correlated (r 5
 Running Speed, Strength, and Power in Professional Rugby Players 231
20.77–0.79) to concentric, stretch-shortening cycle
(SSC), and isometric measures of force or power. Fur-
thermore, some measures of force, relative to body
mass, measured during barbell jump squats (both con-
centric only and SSC) were highly related to maximum
speed performance. In apparent opposition to this
finding, absolute isometric strength, irrespective of
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
body mass, was also correlated to performance. Iso-
metric strength relative to body mass was not signifi-
cantly related to maximum speed performance. Thus
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/12/2023
a discrepancy existed as to whether relative or abso-
lute measures of strength and power were better pre-
dictors of maximum speed sprinting performance.
These results pose a number of questions for the
researcher and strength and conditioning coach alike
with regard to sprint start and maximum speed ca-
pabilities. Although sprint start ability over a very
short distance of 2.5 m appears strongly related to
concentric muscle force parameters (relative to body
mass), does the relation between SSC measures in-
crease when the distances increase to the 10–20 m typ-
ical of needs of field sport athletes? Does loading be-
yond the 9- and 19-kg barbell loads used for jump
squats by Young et al. (18) increase the relation be-
tween strength and power measures and running
speed? Is the relation between strength and power
measures different between 10–20 m and 40–50 m? Is
there a significant relation between various simple
measures of strength and power and sprinting ability?
Do field sport athletes, such as rugby players, who
may use a different running technique from track ath-
letes, exhibit different relations between strength and
power measures and running speed?
The purpose of this paper is to report on the re-
lation between various simple measures of strength
and power (in absolute terms and relative to body
mass) and sprinting ability over 10 and 40 m in elite
field sport athletes. It is thought that this information
will be of importance to strength and conditioning
coaches in analyzing and planning the sprint and re-
sistance training of field sport athletes.
Methods
Subjects
Twenty professional rugby league players gave in-
formed consent and were tested as part of their athletic
training program at the completion of their preseason
training program. Their mean body mass, height, and
age (6SD) were 93.4 6 11.7 kg, 181.9 6 7.0 cm, and
24.2 6 3.8 years, respectively. All the subjects had
been involved in intensive resistance and sprint train-
ing for a minimum of 4 years and were considered to
be in peak condition at the time of testing.
Testing
Testing was carried out over 1 week, at the completion
of preseason training. All the subjects were familiar
with the testing procedures and exercises, which they
had been performing as part of their training routine.
The 3 repetition maximum (RM) tests and loaded
jump squat tests were separated by a 3-day period,
with the 3RM tests performed on the first day. Sprint-
ing speed tests were carried out on the same day as
the jump squat tests. Because of minor injuries, 3 ath-
letes had to perform their sprint tests at a later date,
which did not allow for the measurement of the 10-m
sprint data.
Sprint Speed Testing. The testing of sprinting speed
entailed measuring speed over 10 m and 40 m. These
2 distances are thought to be indicative of the inital
acceleration and maximum sprinting speed capabili-
tes, respectively, of the athlete (5, 6, 15, 18). After their
usual warm-up routine, the athletes performed 2 trials
of maximum effort, sprinting over 40 m upon their
usual turf training surface. Light gates integrated to
the timing system (DDHE, Bungendore, Australia)
were placed at the 0, 10, and 40-m marks. This pro-
vided data pertaining to the time for the 10-m and 40-
m sprint times. The trial with the best 40-m sprint time
was chosen for analysis of both the 10-m and 40-m
sprint times. The intratrial reliability of the above pro-
cedures has been established at r 5 0.86 and r 5 0.98
for the 10-m and 40-m sprint, respectively.
3RM Testing. A 3RM measure of maximal strength
was assessed in the full squat and power clean from
the hang exercises. A 3RM was used in this instance,
as this was the standard test for the subjects at this
stage of their athletic program (14).
For all 3RM tests, the following procedures were
observed. Warm-up consisted of stretching and then
the performance of 4–5 submaximal sets of 5–1 repe-
titions with progressively larger loads, finishing 10–15
kg less than the individually prescribed goal 3RM. The
athletes then attempted a 3RM load that had been pre-
determined by their strength coach, based upon recent
training history and previous maximum test results. If
the athletes were successful with this load, they were
allowed to attempt another load(s) until both the ath-
lete and the strength coach were confident that a 3RM
had been attained, usually within 1 extra attempt.
For the full squat, the athlete descended until the
top of the thigh was below parallel with the floor. This
depth was visually assessed by the strength coach, a
national level powerlifting coach. During the squat lift,
a powerlifting belt was worn, but no knee wraps or
other supportive garments were allowed.
For the 3RM power clean from the hang, the athlete
stood straight with the barbell, then lowered the bar-
bell to the hang position, approximating knee level.
From this hang position, the athletes immediately
thrust upwards, finishing with the barbell in the catch
position for the power clean. The athletes were al-
lowed to wear a lifting belt and wrist straps if so de-
sired.
 232 Baker and Nance

Power Testing. Maximal power was assessed during Table 1. Measures of strength and power in absolute
a loaded barbell jump squat. Jump squats with loaded terms.
barbells have been extensively used to assess lower-
body power (2, 17, 18). The jump squat power tests 3RM tests (kg)
were performed using the Plyometric Power System 3RM full squat 157.9 6 18.8
(PPS), which has been described elsewhere (2, 16). 3RM power clean (hang) 102.2 6 13.4
Briefly, the PPS is a device whereby the displacement Jump squat power output (W)
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

of the barbell is limited to the vertical plane, as in a Maximal power 1,894 6 226
Smith weight-training machine. The linear bearings Power 40 kg 1,626 6 238
that are attached to each end of the barbell allow the Power 60 kg 1,739 6 209
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/12/2023

barbell to slide about 2 hardened steel shafts with a Power 80 kg 1,842 6 221
minimum of friction. A rotary encoder attached to the Power 100 kg 1,856 6 252
machine produces pulses indicating the displacement
of the barbell. The number of pulses (denoting barbell
displacement) and the time of the barbell movement Table 2. The relationship between various measures of
were measured by a counter timer board installed in strength and power and 10-m sprint performance.
the computer. From this data, the PPS software cal-
culated the power output during the jump squats. Relationship to
10-m sprint
For the jump squat power test, the athlete per-
formed 3 consecutive SSC movements against absolute Strength/power measure R R2
loads of 40, 60, 80, and 100 kg (2). The average me-
chanical power output for the concentric flight phase Absolute scores
of each jump squat for each load was determined by 3RM squat 20.06 0.0036 NS*
the software of the PPS, and the highest score for each 3RM power clean (hang) 20.36 0.13 NS
load was recorded. Maximal power 20.07 0.0049 NS
Power 40 kg 20.02 0.0003 NS
Training State Power 60 kg 20.03 0.0009 NS
Power 80 kg 20.07 0.005 NS
Before testing, the athletes performed their prescribed Power 100 kg 20.08 0.006 NS
preseason training program. This entailed resistance
Relative to bodymass
training 4 times per week (2 3 upper and lower body)
and sprint training twice per week. Conditioning ses- 3RM squat/kg 20.39 0.16 NS
3RM power clean (hang)/
sions were also carried out a minimum of twice per
kg 20.56 0.31 p , 0.05
week. Consequently all the athletes were in their peak Maximal power/kg 20.56 0.31 p , 0.05
condition at the time of testing. Power 40 kg/kg 20.52 0.27 p , 0.05
Power 60 kg/kg 20.57 0.32 p , 0.05
Statistical Analysis
Power 80 kg/kg 20.53 0.28 p , 0.05
The relation between the sprinting speed and the var- Power 100 kg/kg 20.61 0.37 p , 0.05
ious tests of strength and power was determined using
a Pearson’s product moment correlation. The coeffi- * NS 5 nonsignificant.
cient of determination, used for interpreting the mean-
ingfulness of the relation, was developed by squaring
the correlation, multiplying by 100, and expressing as Discussion
a percentage. Statistical significance was set at p # 0.05 The sprint times exhibited by the current subject
for all measured variables. group were faster than those previously reported for
professional rugby league players (14). The pooled
Results data, reanalyzed from O’Connor (14), indicated mean
times of 1.87 and 5.45 seconds, respectively, for the 10-
The results for 10- and 40-m sprint times were 1.71 6 and 40-m sprint. The differences of 9.3 and 2.4% for
0.09 and 5.32 6 0.26 seconds, respectively. The relation the 10- and 40-m sprint, respectively, exhibited by the
between these 2 measures of sprint performance was current group (as opposed to the subjects from the
significant (r 5 0.72). The results for the various mea- O’Connor [14] study) may be due to differences in the
sures of strength and power are outlined in Table 1. quality of the athletes involved or differences in the
The relation between the 10-m sprint start and the var- training methodologies or philosophies between rugby
ious measures of absolute and relative strength and league teams.
power are outlined in Table 2. The relation between The results of this investigation reveal that sprint
the 40-m sprint and the various measures of absolute ability over 10 m, indicating start and acceleration ca-
and relative strength and power are outlined in Table 3. pabilities, and 40 m, indicating maximum speed ca-
 Running Speed, Strength, and Power in Professional Rugby Players 233

Table 3. The relationship between various measures of For the 10-m sprint, no absolute measure of
strength and power and 40-m sprint performance. strength or power was significantly correlated to per-
formance. However, all measures of power (assessed
Relationship to during SSC barbell jump squats) and the power clean
40-m sprint from the hang, relative to body mass, were signifi-
Strength/power measure R R2 cantly related to sprint start performance. This is not
unexpected, as sprinting involves high force produc-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Absolute scores tion during support of the body mass. In support of

3RM squat 20.19 0.036 NS* this finding, Young et al. (18) reported that measures
3RM power clean (hang) 20.24 0.06 NS of force or power relative to body mass were most
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/12/2023

Maximal power 20.1 0.01 NS likely to correlate to sprint performance, irrespective

Power 40 kg 20.02 0.0004 NS of the distance.
Power 60 kg 20.07 0.003 NS
For the 10-m sprint, maximum strength, as as-
Power 80 kg 20.17 0.03 NS
Power 100 kg 20.09 0.008 NS
sessed by the full squat, was not significantly related
to performance either in absolute terms or relative to
Relative to body mass body mass. It was thought that maximum strength
3RM squat/kg 20.66 0.43 p , 0.05 would correlate highly to 10-m sprint performance be-
3RM power clean (hang)/ cause of the inverse of Newton’s second law (i.e., ac-
kg 20.72 0.52 p , 0.05
celeration 5 force/mass). Thus athletes who are strong
Maximal power/kg 20.76 0.58 p , 0.05
Power 40 kg/kg 20.52 0.27 p , 0.05
per kilogram of body mass should theoretically per-
Power 60 kg/kg 20.68 0.46 p , 0.05 form well in a 10-m sprint. However, the force capa-
Power 80 kg/kg 20.75 0.57 p , 0.05 bilities should most probably be measured by concen-
Power 100 kg/kg 20.65 0.42 p , 0.05 tric-only methods (18), not during SSC maximal
strength exercises such as the full squat, as the sprint
* NS 5 nonsignificant. start is heavily reliant on concentric force production.
Future research may focus on the relation between
concentric-only maximal full squat performance (for
pabilities, share only 52% of variance, as determined example, performed in a Smith machine) and a 10-m
by the coefficient of determination. Although the re- sprint start to more fully determine the effect that a
lation is significant, it also suggests that many of the simple test of strength has upon sprint start capabili-
factors that contribute to performance over these 2 dis- ties.
tances may be quite different. Thus training to im- The fact that the 3RM power clean from the hang,
prove speed over both distances may involve different relative to body mass, was significantly related to the
training methods to some extent (5, 6, 18). 10-m sprint may be due to the fact that this resistance
It should be noted that the nature of the testing exercise is typically performed as a predominantly
could conceivably have influenced this result. As the concentric activity with a similar knee angle to that of
best 40-m sprint was to be chosen for analysis, it is the sprint start. Thus the high force and power outputs
possible that the athletes adopted a sprinting strategy typically associated with this type of lift (4) and its
or initial body positioning that could have favored 40- highly concentric nature indicate that it is a better pre-
m times to the detriment of the 10-m sprint times. No dictor of 10-m sprint performance than the full squat.
data has been found that compares 10-m sprint times However, based upon the extent of the coeffecient of
performed specifically over that distance with the ini- determination, only 31% of the sprint performance
tial 10-m sprint times recorded during a 40-m sprint. could be predicted by the power clean from the hang.
However, Delecluse et al. (5, 6) have established 3 dis- All the measures of jump squat power, relative to
tinct phases for the sprint, which includes the 10-m body mass, exhibited a similar relation to 10-m sprint
and 40-m phases, as being separate components or performance (r 5 20.52–0.61). Young et al. (17) also
skills. These differences between the 10-m and 40-m reported correlations of similar magnitude between
phases were identified even when athletes sprint over 20-m sprint performance, a countermovement jump
100 m. Thus it should not be unexpected that the pres- with no extra load (r 5 20.66), and an SSC jump squat
ent study found a significant, though not necessarily with a barbell load of 50% of bodymass (r 5 20.47)
high, relation between sprint times over the 2 distanc- in young Australian Rules football players. In the pres-
es. Nonetheless, future research may care to investi- ent investigation, the highest correlation was exhibited
gate if athletes adopt different strategies for sprinting between a jump squat with 100 kg and the 10-m sprint
10 m as a separate entity or as part of a longer sprint start. It is unclear why heavier loading, such as the
(40–50 m). If this were the case, then appropriate sprint 100 kg used by the current subject group, may exhibit
as well as resistance training strategies may need to a stronger relation as compared with the lighter load
be developed. of 50% body mass exhibited by the subjects in Young
 234 Baker and Nance
et al. (17). It may be due to the current subjects most
likely possessing increased maximal strength; there-
fore a load of 100 kg for this group may have provided
less relative resistance in comparison with the 50% of
body mass used by the subjects from Young et al. (17).
However, although these relations were significant,
they also indicate that only 27–37% of the 10-m sprint
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
performance could be predicted by such jump squat
tests. The highly concentric nature of the sprint start
precludes many of the current popular tests of
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/12/2023
strength and power from being acceptable predictors
of 10-m sprint performance. Consequently these tests
would not appear sensitive enough to predict either
10-m sprint performance or, more importantly, train-
ing-induced changes in performance. A concentric-
only jump squat test with high loading (e.g., 80–100
kg) or a maximum concentric squat may prove to be
a better predictor of start speed.
For the 40-m sprint, no absolute measure of
strength or power was significantly correlated to per-
formance. However, all measures of strength and pow-
er relative to body mass were significantly related to
sprint performance and exhibited much stronger re-
lations compared with the 10-m sprint. This may in
part be due to the increased use of the SSC during the
40-m sprint, and, as a result, tests that involve high-
force SSC movements could be expected to exhibit a
strong relation (13, 18).
The fact that the 3RM full squat, relative to body
mass, correlated more highly with the 40-m sprint
rather than the 10-m sprint, was initially surprising.
Given that foot contact time for elite sprinters is in the
order of 0.1 seconds (10), compared with 1–2 seconds
for heavy squatting (8), this would indicate that a large
portion of low-velocity strength is accessible for high-
velocity sprinting. This finding would indicate that
maximum SSC strength/kilogram is of importance to
athletes who need to sprint over longer distances (40–
50 m).
Given that strength is therefore related to 40-m
sprint performance and that strength performance un-
derlies power performance to a large extent (2), it was
not surprising to find increasingly strong relations as
jump squat loads increased. The relative power pro-
duced against a 40-kg load exhibited the lowest cor-
relation, whereas the maximal power, which could oc-
cur at different loads for different athletes, exhibited
the highest correlation to 40-m sprint performance.
The power produced with 80 kg also exhibited a
strong relation to 40-m sprint, as this load is similar
to both the maximal power load and the body mass
of the subjects. Furthermore, the power clean from the
hang, with a mean load of 102.25 kg, and a jump squat
with 100 kg also exhibited a similar relation to 40-m
sprint performance. This could be ascribed to the sim-
ilar biomechanics involved in the thrust portion of
both exercises (4) and the similarity in the external
resistance.
With regard to 40-m sprint performance, it would
appear that there is a trend for increased resistances
involved in the strength and power tests to increase
the strength of the relation. However, when the resis-
tances become too great (perhaps over 90–100 kg for
the current group), the relation starts to decrease
slightly, conceivably due to the decrease in lifting ve-
locity associated with the increased loads. Thus faster,
lighter loading and heavier, slower loading, while both
being significantly related to performance in the 40-m
sprint, are not as suitable as the maximal or optimal
power load (10). This finding tends to partially sup-
port the notion that there may be optimal power train-
ing loads for different stages of the periodized training
cycle. In this study, jump squats with 80 kg were the
best single predictor of sprint performance over either
distance, followed by 60-kg and 100-kg jump squats,
which exhibited relations of similar magnitude. These
loads would be in the range of 35–60% of the 1RM
squat for the current subject group.
It should be noted that athletes in different stages
of their training cycle or those who would be unfa-
miliar with some of the resistance exercises (e.g., pow-
er clean from hang) may not exhibit relations of sim-
ilar magnitude. Thus the results of this study would
appear limited in application to elite athletes who reg-
ularly perform the above resistance training exercises
as well as sprint training.
Practical Applications
The results of this study indicate that while there is a
strong and significant relation between 10-m and 40-
m sprint, there is also a considerable variation within
the factors that contribute to performance over the 2
distances. This may indicate that, to a certain extent,
there may need to be separate training strategies im-
plemented to improve running speed over these 2 dis-
tances.
No absolute measure of strength or power is sig-
nificantly related to sprint performance over 10 or 40
m. However, as almost all the measures, relative to
body mass, were related to sprint performance, it is
recommended when attempting to increase running
speed that special attention be paid to the strength and
power per kilogram of body mass of the athlete.
On the basis of the current and previous research,
the first 10 m of a sprint appear to be more dependent
on predominantly concentric force and power produc-
tion. Resistance exercises that are typified by a highly
concentric nature or have a pause between repetitions
(such as power cleans and pulls from the floor, hang,
or boxes, paused squats, and paused jump squats) may
be beneficial in training the athlete to accelerate from
the stationary position.
 Running Speed, Strength, and Power in Professional Rugby Players 235
The 40-m sprint performance would appear more
dependent upon high force and power produced dur-
ing an SSC exercise. Therefore the popular lower-body
exercises of squat, power clean from the hang (no
pause in the hang position), and particularly jump
squats are all significantly related to and recommend-
ed for improving 40-m sprint performance. In partic-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
ular, the maximal power/kg produced during jump
squats exhibits a strong relation with 40-m sprint per-
formance and may prove a sensitive test to training-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/12/2023
induced adaptations.
Strength and conditioning coaches may need to im-
plement a concentric only and an SSC jump squat test-
ing battery to better analyze and plan the sprint and
resistance training of field sport athletes.
References
1. ALEXANDER, M. The relationship between muscle strength and
sprint kinematics in elite sprinters. Can. J. Sports Sci. 14:148–157.
1989.
2. BAKER, D., AND S. NANCE. The relationship between strength
and power in professional rugby league players. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 13:224–229. 1999.
3. BERG, K., M. MILLER, AND L. STEPHENS. Determinants of 30 m
sprint time in pubescent males. J. Sports Med. 26:225–230. 1986.
4. CANAVAN, P., G. GARRETT, AND L. ARMSTRONG. Kinematic and
kinetic relationships between an Olympic-style lift and the ver-
tical jump. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:127–130. 1996.
5. DELECLUSE, C.H., H. VAN COPPENOLLE, E. WILLEMS, R. DILES,
M. GORIS, M. VAN LEEMPUTTE, AND M. VUYLSTEKE. Analysis of
100 meter sprint performance as a multi-dimensional skill. J.
Hum. Mov. Stud. 28:87–101. 1995.
6. DELECLUSE, C.H., H. VAN COPPENOLLE, E. WILLEMS, M. VAN
LEEMPUTTE, R. DILES, AND M. GORIS. Influence of high-resistance
and high-velocity training on sprint performance. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 27:1–7. 1995.
7. FARRAR, M, AND W. THORLAND. Relationship between isokinetic
strength and sprint times in college-age males. J. Sports Med. 27:
368–372. 1987.
8. MCLAUGHLIN, T., T. LARDNER, AND C. DILLMAN. Kinetics of the
parallel squat. Res. Q. 2:175–189. 1978.
9. MEIR, R., D. ARTHUR, AND M. FORREST. Time and motion anal-
ysis of professional rugby league. Strength Cond. Coach. 1:24–29.
1993.
10. MERO, A, AND P.V. KOMI. Force-, EMG-, and elasticity-velocity
relationships at submaximal, maximal and supramaximal run-
ning speeds in sprinters. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 55:553–561. 1986.
11. MERO, A., P.V. KOMI, AND R. GREGOR. Biomechanics of sprint
running. Sports Med. 6:376–392. 1992.
12. MERO, A., P. LUHTANEN, AND P.V. KOMI. A biomechanical study
of the sprint start. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 5:20–28. 1983.
13. MERO, A., P. LUHTANEN, J. VIITSALO, AND P.V. KOMI. Relation-
ship between the maximal running velocity, muscle fibre char-
acteristics, force production and force relaxation of sprinters.
Scand. J. Sports Sci. 3:16–22. 1981.
14. O’CONNOR, D. Physiological characteristics of professional rug-
by league players. Strength Cond. Coach. 4:21–26. 1996.
15. VOLKOV, N.I., AND V.I. LAPPIN. Analysis of the velocity curve in
sprint running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 11:332–337. 1979.
16. WILSON, G.J., R.U. NEWTON, A.J. MURPHY, AND B.J. HUMPHRIES.
The optimal training load for the development of dynamic ath-
letic performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 23:1279–1286. 1993
17. YOUNG, W., M. HAWKEN, AND L. MCDONALD. Relationship be-
tween speed, agility and strength qualities in Australian Rules
football. Strength Cond. Coach. 4:3–6. 1996.
18. YOUNG, W., B. MCCLEAN, AND J. ARDAGNA. Relationship be-
tween strength qualities and sprinting performance. J. Sports
Med. Phys. Fit. 35:13–19. 1995.