# Kinetic Comparison between Drop Jumps and Horizontal Drop Jumps in Elite Jumps and Sprinters
## 3 Results  
Data are presented as the mean \(\pm\) SD (Table 1), significance level (p), effect size (ES) (Table 2), and Z-value. Figure 1 shows the typical GRF graph for both exercises. In group A's analysis, the PE revealed significantly lower results (\(p\leq 0.006\)) in the DJ than the HDJ, with medium to large ES. Pw was significantly lower in DJ30 vs. HDJ40v (\(p=0.002\)), with medium ES, and in DJ30 vs. HDJ40v (\(p=0.001\)), but the ES here was small. The RFDe was also significantly lower in DJ30 vs. HDJ40v (\(p=0.002\)), with a small ES. The remaining variables (PC, GRFE, and GRFC) were significantly higher (\(p\leq 0.009\)) in the DJ than in the HDJ, with medium to large ES, whatever the FH.  
ANOVA comparisons of the DJs' PE showed that it was significantly lower in DJ30 vs. DJ50 (\(p\leq\) 0.001; Z = 3.802; ES = 1.34), and in the HDJs, DJ30 vs. DJ50 (\(p\leq\) 0.026; Z = 2.615; ES = 0.92). Also, GRFE was significantly lower in DJ30 vs. DJ50 (\(p\leq\) 0.035; Z = 2.513; ES = 0.68), in HDJ DJ30 vs. DJ40 (\(p=0.015\); Z = 2.791; ES = 0.98), and in DJ30 vs. DJ50 (\(p\leq\) 0.035; Z = 2.514; ES = 1.01). The Pw of the DJs was significantly lower in DJ30 vs. DJ40 (\(p=0.024\); Z = 2.722; ES = 1.91) and in DJ30 vs. DJ50 (\(p=0.019\); Z = 2.369; ES = 1.93), and for the HDJs, it was significantly lower in DJ30 vs. DJ40 (\(p\leq\) 0.042; Z = 3.238; ES = 1.33). The RFDe of the DJs was significantly higher in DJ30 vs. DJ40 (\(p=0.032\); Z = 2.692; ES = 0.39) and DJ30 vs. DJ50 (\(p=0.008\); Z = 2.369; ES = 0.38), and for the HDJs, DJ30 vs. DJ40 (\(p\leq\) 0.036; Z = 2.276; ES = 1.08) and DJ40 vs. DJ50 (\(p\leq\) 0.032; Z = 2.254; ES = 1.17). Finally, PC and GRFC revealed significantly higher results (\(p\leq\) 0.002) in the DJs over the HDJs, with large ESs in groups B and C. In contrast, ANOVA comparisons no showed significant differences (\(p\leq\) 0.05) between different FHs for the anteroposterior projection.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **DJ9** & **HDJ9** & **DJ9** & **HDJ9** & **DJ9** & **HDJ9** & **HDJ9** & **HDJ9** & **HDJ9** & **HDJ9** & **HDJ9** \\ \hline PE (N=) & 2364.57 \(\pm\) 27.31 & 2968.00 \(\pm\) 34.34 & 2051.77 \(\pm\) 29.299 & 3260.00 \(\pm\) 47.71 & 3315.78 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 3943.22 \(\pm\) 35.580 & & \\ PC (N=) & 264.56 \(\pm\) 27.31 & 307.23 \(\pm\) 27.31 & 2958.24 \(\pm\) 62.42 & 2928.45 \(\pm\) 62.52 & 3948.88 \(\pm\) 60.56 & 3762.55 \(\pm\) 35.59 & 106.09 \(\pm\) 36.00 & 102.03 \(\pm\) 35.09 & 134.21 \(\pm\) 65.63 \\ GRFC (N=) & 461.55 \(\pm\) 102.31 & 307.43 \(\pm\) 63.71 & 5281.14 \(\pm\) 61.050 & 301.14 \(\pm\) 61.84 & 5764.06 \(\pm\) 60.57 & 3462.3 \(\pm\) 63.59 & & \\ GFPC (N=) & 2898.73 \(\pm\) 27.12 & 2384.44 \(\pm\) 67.58 & 3621.41 \(\pm\) 64.835 & 2074.18 \(\pm\) 49.80 & 3069.60 \(\pm\) 60.034 & 2703.23 \(\pm\) 75.32 & 677.22 \(\pm\) 23.06 & 400.05 \(\pm\) 394.64 & 1078.45 \(\pm\) 453.60 \\ Pw (J=) & 2759.89 \(\pm\) 200.3 & 615.08 \(\pm\) 12.42 & 1084.06 \(\pm\) 10.80 & 871.5 \(\pm\) 69.55 & 105.87 \(\pm\) 12.53 & 7966.06 \(\pm\) 14.04 & - & - & - \\ RFDe (N=)/a & 18,584.5 \(\pm\) 7.800 & 13,278.1 \(\pm\) 423 & 2472.23 \(\pm\) 70.81 & 21,166.6 \(\pm\) 27.465 & 22,992.34 \(\pm\) 9408 & 13,153.53 \(\pm\) 436 & - & - & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Mean (\(\pm\) SD) of each of the variables related between the drop jump and the horizontal drop jump.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{*\(\rightarrow\)} & **Groups** & **PE** & **ES** & **PC** & **ES** & **GRFE** & **ES** & **GRFC** & **ES** & **Pw** & **ES** & **RFDe** & **ES** \\ \hline DJ30 vs. HDJ30v & & \(\downarrow\)Y*** & \(>\)1.0 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & \(>\)1.0 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & \(>\)1.0 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & \(>\)1.0 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & 0.27 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & \(>\)1.0 \\ DJ40 vs. HDJ40v & & \(\downarrow\)Y*** & 0.77 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & 0.82 & \(\uparrow\)Y*** & \(>\)