## 3 Results
### Analysis of Peak Angular Velocity of the Hip, Knee, and Ankle  
The peak angular velocities of the lower limb joints are shown in Figures 4-6. Peak hip flexion and extension angular velocities were both significantly influenced by leg preference, with medium effect sizes (flexion: H = 11.019, \(p\) = 0.001, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\SIUnitSymbolMicro^{2}}\) = 0.007; extension: F = 7.933, \(p\) = 0.006, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\SIUnitSymbolMicro^{2}}\) = 0.061). Post-hoc analysis revealed that within the MalePro, the preferred leg kicks exhibited significantly higher peak angular velocities compared to the non-preferred leg kicks in both flexion (\(p\) = 0.019) and extension (\(p\) = 0.009). No significant effects were found for peak hip abduction angular velocity. Peak hip abduction angular velocity was significantly influenced by leg preference, with a medium effect size (H = 17.886, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\SIUnitSymbolMicro^{2}}\) = 0.123). Post-hoc analysis revealed that in both the EliteU19 (\(p\) = 0.048) and FemalePro (\(p\) < 0.001), the preferred leg kicks exhibited significantly higher peak abduction angular velocity compared to the non-preferred leg kicks. Peak hip internal rotation angular velocity was significantly influenced by both leg preference and group, with a medium effect size for leg preference (H = 8.351, \(p\) = 0.004, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\SIUnitSymbolMicro^{2}}\) = 0.050) and a large effect size for group (H = 10.822, \(p\) = 0.013, \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\SIUnitSymbolMicro^{2}}\) = 0.195). Post-hoc analysis showed no significant differences among groups for the preferred leg kicks. However, for the non-preferred leg kicks, the MalePro exhibited the lowest peak internal rotation angular velocity, with no significant differences among the other three groups. Additionally, within the MalePro, the preferred leg kicks demonstrated  
Figure 3: Hip, knee, and ankle ROM. (**a**) Hip adduction-abduction ROM; (**b**) hip flexion-extension ROM; (**c**) hip internal-external rotation ROM; (**d**) knee flexion-extension ROM; (**e**) ankle plantar flexion-dorsiflexion ROM. The upper and lower edges of the box represent the 75 th and 25 th percentiles, respectively. The whiskers extend to the most extreme values within 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR), while values beyond this range are considered outliers. The solid line within the box indicates the median. The asterisk symbol (*) indicates a significant difference between competitive level groups. *: \(p\) < 0.05, **: \(p\) < 0.01, ***: \(p\) < 0.001. The hash symbol (#) indicates a significant difference in leg preference between preferred and non-preferred leg kicks. ##: \(p\) < 0.01.  
a significantly higher peak internal rotation angular velocity than the non-preferred leg kicks. Peak hip external rotation angular velocity was significantly influenced by group, with a large effect size (H = 14.977, \(p\) = 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.265). Post-hoc analysis revealed that for the preferred leg kicks, the MalePro had the lowest peak external rotation angular velocity, while no significant differences were found among the other three groups (all \(p\) < 0.05). For the non-preferred leg kicks, the MalePro exhibited significantly lower peak external rotation angular velocity than EliteU19 (\(p\) < 0.001) and MaleU19 (\(p\) = 0.004), but showed no significant difference compared to FemalePro. Additionally, the FemalePro group had significantly lower peak external rotation angular velocity than EliteU19 (\(p\) = 0.033). Figure 4: Peak angular velocity of the hip. (**a**) Peak hip induction angular velocity; (**b**) peak hip abduction angular velocity; (**c**) peak hip flexion angular velocity; (**d**) peak hip extension angular velocity; (**e**) peak hip internal rotation angular velocity; (**f**) peak hip external rotation angular velocity. Positive values indicate adduction, flexion, and internal rotation, while negative values indicate abduction, extension, and external rotation.