## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Delta\)X} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\% CI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s d**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{6-9}  & & & & & & **Lower** & & **Upper** \\ \hline Height (H) & IT & \(-0.916\) & \(0.186\) & \(-2.270\) & \(-7.474\) & \(2.934\) & \(-0.410\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Body mass (BM)} & IT & \(-0.637\) & \(0.266\) & \(-1.700\) & \(-7.304\) & \(3.904\) & \(-0.285\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & FT & \(-0.326\) & \(0.374\) & \(-0.950\) & \(-7.064\) & \(5.164\) & \(-0.146\) \\ \hline Body fat & IT & \(1.444\) & \(0.083\) & \(1.540\) & \(-0.700\) & \(3.780\) & \(0.646\) \\ \cline{2-9} percentage (BFP) & FT & \(2.252\) & \(0.019\) & \(1.670\) & \(0.111\) & \(3.228\) & \(1.007\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Statistical analysis of body composition parameters—independent Student’s test between groups of study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Min.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Max.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Skewness**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Kurtosis**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Shapiro–Wilk \(p\)**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{6-9}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{One-repetition maximum bench press test (BP 1 RM)} & \multirow{3}{*}{IT} & \(59.50\) & \(85.00\) & \(71.050\) & \(7.41\) & \(0.070\) & \(0.640\) & \(0.300\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & G2 & & \(70.00\) & \(85.00\) & \(77.150\) & \(4.824\) & \(0.731\) & \(-0.137\) & \(0.189\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & G1 & & \(85.50\) & \(110.00\) & \(95.410\) & \(7.477\) & \(0.443\) & \(0.279\) & \(0.550\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & G2 & & \(80.00\) & \(95.00\) & \(87.750\) & \(5.706\) & \(0.268\) & \(-1.550\) & \(0.151\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Maximum punching velocity (PVmax) — Rear arm (RA)} & \multirow{3}{*}{IF} & \(4.12\) & \(6.20\) & \(5.258\) & \(0.685\) & \(-0.593\) & \(-0.491\) & \(0.507\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & G2 & & \(4.10\) & \(5.50\) & \(4.853\) & \(0.552\) & \(-0.289\) & \(-2.022\) & \(0.052\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & G1 & & \(7.10\) & \(9.30\) & \(7.828\) & \(0.620\) & \(1.482\) & \(3.256\) & \(0.113\) \\ \cline{2-9}  & G2 & & \(5.28\) & \(7.89\) & \(6.939\) & \(0.7199\) & \(-1.213\) & \(2.859\) & \(0.176\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of motor and functional fitness parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(\Delta\)X**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**95\% CI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**t**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(P\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s d**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{6-9}  & & & & & **Lower** & & **Upper** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Body mass (BM)} & G1 & \(-8.200\) & \(3. In Table 8, we have highlighted the differences between the tests for each study group. Analyzing the results, we find that Group 1--Plyometric Stair Jump group recorded superior progress compared to Group 2--Plyometric Reaction Box Jump group, in the parameters of physical fitness: one-repetition maximum bench press test (BP 1 RM) (\(\Delta\)X = 24.360), maximum punching velocity (PVmax)--rear arm (RA)(\(\Delta\)X = 2.570), Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Tests--Distance (\(\Delta\)X = 0.705), Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Tests--VO2 max (\(\Delta\)X = 5.920), and maximal heart rate (HR max) (\(\Delta\)X = 25.700). All the average differences recorded were statistically significant, with \(p<0.001\) for both groups. The progress recorded between the tests fell between the two limits of the 95% CI. The [PERSON]'s d values of Group 1--Plyometric Stair Jump fell between 1.895 and 0.973, which reflected very large effect sizes; it can be considered that the experimental program implemented in the study was efficient.