A biomechanical analysis of straight and hexagonal barbell deadlifts using submaximal loads

The purpose of the investigation was to compare the kinematics and kinetics of the deadlift performed with 2 distinct barbells across a range of submaximal loads. Nineteen male powerlifters performed the deadlift with a conventional straight barbell and a hexagonal barbell that allowed the lifter to stand within its frame. Subjects performed trials at maximum speed with loads of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify kinematic and kinetic variables. Subjects were able to lift a heavier 1RM load in the hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) than the straight barbell deadlift (SBD) (265 ± 41 kg vs. 245 ± 39 kg, p < 0.05). The design of the hexagonal barbell significantly altered the resistance moment at the joints analyzed (p < 0.05), resulting in lower peak moments at the lumbar spine, hip, and ankle (p < 0.05) and an increased peak moment at the knee (p < 0.05). Maximum peak power values of 4,388 ± 713 and 4,872 ± 636 W were obtained for the SBD and HBD, respectively (p < 0.05). Across the submaximal loads, significantly greater peak force, peak velocity and peak power values were produced during the HBD compared to during the SBD (p < 0.05). The results demonstrate that the choice of barbell used to perform the deadlift has a significant effect on a range of kinematic and kinetic variables. The enhanced mechanical stimulus obtained with the hexagonal barbell suggests that in general the HBD is a more effective exercise than the SBD.     

Peak power, force, and velocity during jump squats in professional rugby players

Training at the optimal load for peak power output (PPO) has been proposed as a method for enhancing power output, although others argue that the force, velocity, and PPO are of interest across the full range of loads. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of load on PPO, peak barbell velocity (BV), and peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) during the jump squat (JS) in a group of professional rugby players. Eleven male professional rugby players (age, 26 ± 3 years; height, 1.83 ± 6.12 m; mass, 97.3 ± 11.6 kg) performed loaded JS at loads of 20-100% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) JS. A force plate and linear position transducer, with a mechanical braking unit, were used to measure PPO, VGRF, and BV. Load had very large significant effects on PPO (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.915); peak VGRF (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.854); and peak BV (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.973). The PPO and peak BV were the highest at 20% 1RM, though PPO was not significantly greater than that at 30% 1RM. The peak VGRF was significantly greater at 1RM than all other loads, with no significant difference between 20 and 60% 1RM. In resistance trained professional rugby players, the optimal load for eliciting PPO during the loaded JS in the range measured occurs at 20% 1RM JS, with decreases in PPO and BV, and increases in VGRF, as the load is increased, although greater PPO likely occurs without any additional load.     

Assessing lower-body peak power in elite rugby-union players

Resistance training at the load that maximizes peak power (Pmax) may produce greater increases in peak power than other loads. Pmax for lower-body lifts can occur with no loading but whether Pmax can be increased further with negative loading is unclear. The purpose of this investigation was therefore to determine lower-body Pmax (jump squat) using a spectrum of loads. Box squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was measured in 18 elite rugby-union players. Pmax was then determined using loads of -28 to 60%1RM. Elastic bands were used to unload body weight for negative loads. Jump squat Pmax occurred with no loading (body weight: 8,880 ± 2,186 W) in all but 2 subjects. There was a discontinuity in the power-load relationship for the jump squat, possibly because of the increased countermovement in the body weight jump. The self-selected depth (dip) before the propulsive phase of the jump was greater by 24 ± 11 to 40 ± 16% (moderate to large effect size) than all positive loads. These findings highlight methodological issues that need to be taken into consideration when comparing power outputs of loaded and unloaded jumps.     

Kinetic and training comparisons between assisted, resisted, and free countermovement jumps

Elastic band assisted and resisted jump training may be a novel way to develop lower-body power. The purpose of this investigation was to (a) determine the kinetic differences between assisted, free, and resisted countermovement jumps and (b), investigate the effects of contrast training using either assisted, free, or resisted countermovement jump training on vertical jump performance in well-trained athletes. In part 1, 8 recreationally trained men were assessed for force output, relative peak power (PP·kg(-1)) and peak velocity during the 3 types of jump. The highest peak force was achieved in the resisted jump method, while PP·kg(-1) and peak velocity were greatest in the assisted jump. Each type of jump produced a different pattern of maximal values of the variables measured, which may have implications for developing separate components of muscular power. In part 2, 28 professional rugby players were assessed for vertical jump height before and after 4 weeks of either assisted (n = 9), resisted (n = 11), or free (n = 8) countermovement jump training. Relative to changes in the control group (1.3 ± 9.2%, mean ± SD), there were clear small improvements in jump height in the assisted (6.7 ± 9.6%) and the resisted jump training group (4.0 ± 8.8%). Elastic band assisted and resisted jump training are both effective methods for improving jump height and can be easily implemented into current training programs via contrast training methods or as a part of plyometric training sessions. Assisted and resisted jump training is recommended for athletes in whom explosive lower-body movements such as jumping and sprinting are performed as part of competition.     

The contribution of maximal force production to explosive movement among young collegiate athletes

Critical to multidimensional sport conditioning is a systematic knowledge of the interactions between fitness components, as well as the transference relationships to performance. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationships between lower body muscular strength and several fundamental explosive performance measures. Fifty-four men and women collegiate athletes were tested to determine (a) lower-body muscular strength (1 repetition maximum barbell back squat), (b) countermovement vertical jump height and peak power output, (c) standing broad jump distance, (d) agility (cone T-test time), (e) sprint acceleration (m.s(-2)), and (f) sprint velocity (m.s(-1)). Analyses were performed using Pearson r correlations to examine these relationships. Partial correlations tested for relationships between performance measures while controlling for muscular strength. T-tests were performed to assess the difference between men and women. Correlation data demonstrated that significant (p < 0.01) strong linear relationships were indicated between muscular strength and power, as well as every sport-performance field tests. However, when controlling for strength with partial correlation, each of these relationships appreciably diminished. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between men and women for each of the performance tests. Muscular strength, peak power output, vertical jumping ability, standing broad jump, agility, sprint acceleration, and sprint velocity were all shown to be very highly related. Further examination demonstrated that body mass-adjusted muscular strength is more highly related to performance measures than is absolute muscular strength. Current correlation data provide a quantified look at the interaction between muscular fitness components, as well as the transfer relationship to several athletic-specific performance measures.     

Relative net vertical impulse determines jumping performance

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the relationship between relative net vertical impulse and jump height in a countermovement jump and static jump performed to varying squat depths. Ten college-aged males with 2 years of jumping experience participated in this investigation (age: 23.3 ± 1.5 years; height: 176.7 ± 4.5 cm; body mass: 84.4 ± 10.1 kg). Subjects performed a series of static jumps and countermovement jumps in a randomized fashion to a depth of 0.15, 0.30, 0.45, 0.60, and 0.75 m and a self-selected depth (static jump depth = 0.38 ± 0.08 m, countermovement jump depth = 0.49 ± 0.06 m). During the concentric phase of each jump, peak force, peak velocity, peak power, jump height, and net vertical impulse were recorded and analyzed. Net vertical impulse was divided by body mass to produce relative net vertical impulse. Increasing squat depth corresponded to a decrease in peak force and an increase in jump height and relative net vertical impulse for both static jump and countermovement jump. Across all depths, relative net vertical impulse was statistically significantly correlated to jump height in the static jump (r = .9337, p < .0001, power = 1.000) and countermovement jump (r = .925, p < .0001, power = 1.000). Across all depths, peak force was negatively correlated to jump height in the static jump (r = -0.3947, p = .0018, power = 0.8831) and countermovement jump (r = -0.4080, p = .0012, power = 0.9050). These results indicate that relative net vertical impulse can be used to assess vertical jump performance, regardless of initial squat depth, and that peak force may not be the best measure to assess vertical jump performance.     

A comparison of ballistic and nonballistic lower-body resistance exercise and the methods used to identify their positive lifting phases

This study compared differences between ballistic jump squat (B) and nonballistic back squat (NB) force, velocity, power, and relative acceleration duration, and the effect that the method used to identify the positive lifting phase had on these parameters. Ground reaction force and barbell kinematics were recorded from 30 resistance trained men during B and NB performance with 45% 1RM. Force, velocity, and power was averaged over positive lifting phases identified using the traditional peak barbell displacement (PD) and positive impulse method. No significant differences were found between B and NB mean force, and mean power, but B mean velocity was 14% greater than the NB equivalent. Positive impulse mean force was 24% greater than PD mean force, and B relative acceleration duration was 8.6% greater than the NB equivalent when PD was used to identify the end of the positive lifting phase. These results challenge common perceptions of B superiority for power development.     

The effect of loading on kinematic and kinetic variables during the midthigh clean pull

The ability to develop high levels of muscular power is considered a fundamental component for many different sporting activities; however, the load that elicits peak power still remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine at which load peak power output occurs during the midthigh clean pull. Sixteen participants (age 21.5 ± 2.4 years; height 173.86 ± 7.98 cm; body mass 70.85 ± 11.67 kg) performed midthigh clean pulls at intensities of 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, and 140% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) power clean in a randomized and balanced order using a force plate and linear position transducer to assess velocity, displacement, peak power, peak force (Fz), impulse, and rate of force development (RFD). Significantly greater Fz occurred at a load of 140% (2,778.65 ± 151.58 N, p < 0.001), impulse within 100, 200, and 300 milliseconds at a load of 140% 1RM (196.85 ± 76.56, 415.75 ± 157.56, and 647.86 ± 252.43 N·s, p < 0.023, respectively), RFD at a load of 120% (26,224.23 ± 2,461.61 N·s, p = 0.004), whereas peak velocity (1.693 ± 0.042 m·s, p < 0.001) and peak power (3,712.82 ± 254.38 W, p < 0.001) occurred at 40% 1RM. Greatest total impulse (1,129.86 ± 534.86 N·s) was achieved at 140% 1RM, which was significantly greater (p < 0.03) than at all loads except the 120% 1RM condition. Results indicate that increased loading results in significant (p < 0.001) decreases in peak power and peak velocity during the midthigh clean pull. Moreover, if maximizing force production is the goal, then training at a higher load may be advantageous, with peak Fz occurring at 140% 1RM.     

The influence of body mass on calculation of power during lower-body resistance exercises

The objective of this investigation was to examine the influence of body mass in the calculation of power and the subsequent effect on the load-power relationship in the jump squat, squat, and power clean. Twelve Division I male athletes were evaluated on their performance across various intensities in all the 3 lifts. Power output was calculated using 3 separate techniques: (a) including the contribution of body mass in force output (IBM), (b) including the contribution of the mass of body less the mass of the shanks and feet in force output (IBMS), and (c) excluding the contribution of body mass in force output (EBM). Peak power, peak power relative to body mass, and peak force calculated using EBM were significantly (p < or = 0.05) lower than outputs calculated with IBM and IBMS. The load that maximized power output was unchanged between the 3 techniques in the jump squat (0% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and power clean (80% 1RM) but was shifted from 56% (IBM and IBMS) to 71% 1RM (EBM) in the squat. Across all 3 movements, the shape of the load-power curve was affected when derived via the EBM method as a result of the underrepresentation of power output at light loads. This was due to the majority of the load being neglected when the mass of the body was removed from the system mass used in the calculation of force. This study indicates that not only is the actual power output significantly lower when body mass is excluded from the force output of a lower body movement, but the load-power relationship is altered as well. Therefore, it is imperative that the mass of the individual being tested is incorporated into the calculation of force used to determine power output during lower-body movements.     

The influence of familiarization on the reliability of force variables measured during unloaded and loaded vertical jumps

The purpose of this study was to determine the number of familiarization sessions required to obtain an accurate measure of reliability associated with force variables recorded during unloaded and loaded (30 and 60% of 1 repetition maximum squat [1RM]) static vertical jumps (SJ). Nine physically active men attended 4 separate testing sessions over a 2-week period. Force platform recordings of peak force, peak rate of force development (pRFD), average rate of force development, takeoff velocity, average power, and peak power were obtained for each jump. During each of the 4 testing sessions, 3 jumps were performed under each of the load conditions. The average of the force variables were used in the analysis. Familiarization was assessed using the scores obtained during the 4 separate testing sessions. Reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficient of variation (CV) associated with the force variables. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were obtained between the testing sessions for any of the force variables. With the exception of pRFD, the force variables showed reasonably good levels of test-retest reliability (ICC range: 0.75-0.99; CV range: 1.2-7.6%). High levels of reliability can be achieved in a variety of force variables without the need for familiarization sessions when performing SJ under unloaded conditions and with loads of 30 and 60% of 1RM squat with physically active men.     

Barbell kinematics should not be used to estimate power output applied to the Barbell-and-body system center of mass during lower-body resistance exercise

The aim of this study was to compare measures of power output applied to the center of mass of the barbell and body system (CM) obtained by multiplying ground reaction force (GRF) by (a) the velocity of the barbell; (b) the velocity of the CM derived from three-dimensional (3D) whole-body motion analysis, and (c) the velocity of the CM derived from GRF during lower-body resistance exercise. Ten resistance-trained men performed 3 maximal-effort single back squats with 60% 1 repetition maximum while GRF and whole-body motion were captured using synchronized Kistler force platforms and a Vicon Motus motion analysis system. Repeated measures analysis of variance of time-normalized kinematic and kinetic data obtained using the different methods showed that the barbell was displaced 13.4% (p < 0.05) more than the CM, the velocity of the barbell was 16.1% (p < 0.05) greater than the velocity of the CM, and power applied to the CM obtained by multiplying GRF by the velocity of the barbell was 18.7% (p < 0.05) greater than power applied to the CM obtained by multiplying the force applied to the CM by its resultant velocity. Further, the velocity of the barbell was significantly greater than the velocity of the trunk, upper leg, lower leg, and foot (p < 0.05), indicating that a failure to consider the kinematics of body segments during lower-body resistance exercise can lead to a significant overestimation of power applied to the CM. Strength and conditioning coaches and investigators are urged to obtain measures of power from the force applied to and the velocity of either the barbell (using inverse dynamics) or CM (GRF or 3D motion analysis). Failure to apply these suggestions could result in continued overestimation of CM power, compromising methodological integrity.     

Peak force and rate of force development during isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed at various intensities

Eight male collegiate weightlifters (age: 21.2 +/- 0.9 years; height: 177.6 +/- 2.3 cm; and body mass: 85.1 +/- 3.3 kg) participated in this study to compare isometric to dynamic force-time dependent variables. Subjects performed the isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls at 30-120% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean (118.4 +/- 5.5 kg) on a 61 x 121.9-cm AMTI forceplate. Variables such as peak force (PF) and peak rate of force development (PRFD) were calculated and were compared between isometric and dynamic conditions. The relationships between force-time dependent variables and vertical jump performances also were examined. The data indicate that the isometric PF had no significant correlations with the dynamic PF against light loads. On the one hand, there was a general trend toward stronger relationships between the isometric and dynamic PF as the external load increased for dynamic muscle actions. On the other hand, the isometric and dynamic PRFD had no significant correlations regardless of the external load used for dynamic testing. In addition, the isometric PF and dynamic PRFD were shown to be strongly correlated with vertical jump performances, whereas the isometric PRFD and dynamic PF had no significant correlations with vertical jump performances. In conclusion, it appears that the isometric and dynamic measures of force-time curve characteristics represent relatively specific qualities, especially when dynamic testing involves small external loads. Additionally, the results suggest that athletes who possess greater isometric maximum strength and dynamic explosive strength tend to be able to jump higher.     

Occurrence of fatigue during sets of static squat jumps performed at a variety of loads

Research has identified that the optimal power load for static squat jumps (with no countermovement) is lower than the loads usually recommended for power training. Lower loads may permit the performance of additional repetitions before the onset of fatigue compared with heavier loads; therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the point of fatigue during squat jumps at various loads (0, 20, 40, 60% 1-repetition maximum [1RM]). Seventeen professional rugby league players performed sets of 6 squat jumps (with no countermovement), using 4 loading conditions (0, 20, 40, and 60% of 1RM back squat). Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in force, velocity, power, and displacement between repetitions, for the 0, 20, and 40% loading conditions. The 60% condition showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in peak force between repetitions; however, velocity (1.12 + 0.10 and 1.18 + 0.11 m·s(-1)), power (3,385 + 343 and 3,617 + 396 W) and displacement (11.13 + 2.31 and 11.85 + 2.16 cm) were significantly (p < 0.02) lower during repetition 6 compared with repetition 2. These findings indicate that when performing squat jumps (with no countermovement) with a load <40% 1RM back squat, up to >6 repetitions can be completed without inducing fatigue and a minimum of 4-6 repetitions should be performed to achieve peak power output. When performing squat jumps (with no countermovement) with a load equal to the 60% 1RM only, 5 repetitions should be performed to minimize fatigue and ensure maintenance of velocity and power.     

Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral power snatch lifts

Biomechanical characteristics of the one-handed dumbbell power snatch (DBPS) were examined to determine whether significant differences existed between unilateral and bilateral weightlifting movements. Kinetic and kinematic movement data were recorded from 10 male weightlifters (mean +/- SD: age: 30.2 +/- 10.2 years; height: 174.2 +/- 4.4 cm; body mass: 81.5 +/- 14.6 kg) during one-handed dumbbell (DB) and traditional barbell (BBPS) power snatch performance with loads of approximately 80% of respective lift one repetition maximums (1RM) with the use of 2 synchronized Kistler force plates and high-speed 3-dimensional video. Results highlighted asymmetry in the ground reaction force and kinematic profile of the DBPS, which deviated from the observed patterns of the bilateral movement. This study found that the nonlifting side (the side corresponding with the hand that did not hold the DB) tended to generate a greater pull phase peak vertical ground reaction forces significantly faster (p = 0.001) than the lifting side (the side corresponding with the hand that held the DB) during the DBPS. In addition, the DBPS nonlifting side catch phase loading rate was approximately double that of the lifting side loading rate (p < 0.05). These results quantify symmetrical deviations in the movement patterns of the unilateral power snatch movement both during the concentric muscular contraction of load vertical displacement, and the loading implications of unilateral landing. This asymmetry supports the contention that unilateral variations of weightlifting movements may provide a different training stimulus to athletes.     

Closed-kinetic chain upper-body training improves throwing performance of NCAA Division I softball players

Closed-kinetic chain resistance training (CKCRT) of the lower body is superior to open-kinetic chain resistance training (OKCRT) to improve performance parameters (e.g., vertical jump), but the effects of upper-body CKCRT on throwing performance remain unknown. This study compared shoulder strength, power, and throwing velocity changes in athletes training the upper body exclusively with either CKCRT (using a system of ropes and slings) or OKCRT. Fourteen female National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I softball player volunteers were blocked and randomly placed into two groups: CKCRT and OKCRT. Blocking ensured the same number of veteran players and rookies in each training group. Training occurred three times weekly for 12 weeks during the team's supervised off-season program. Olympic, lower-body, core training, and upper-body intensity and volume in OKCRT and CKCRT were equalized between groups. Criterion variables pre- and posttraining included throwing velocity, bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM), dynamic single-leg balance, and isokinetic peak torque and power (PWR) (at 180 degrees x s(-1)) for shoulder flexion, extension, internal rotation, and external rotation (ER). The CKCRT group significantly improved throwing velocity by 2.0 mph (3.4%, p < 0.05), and the OKCRT group improved 0.3 mph (0.5%, NS). A significant interaction was observed (p < 0.05). The CKCRT group improved its 1RM bench press to the same degree (1.9 kg) as the OKCRT group (p < 0.05 within each group). The CKCRT group improved all measures of shoulder strength and power, whereas OKCRT conferred little change in shoulder torque and power scores. Although throwing is an open-chain movement, adaptations from CKCRT may confer benefits to subsequent performance. Strength coaches can incorporate upper-body CKCRT without sacrificing gains in maximal strength or performance criteria associated with an athletic open-chain movement such as throwing.     

Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat to power output during countermovement and static weighted vertical squat jumps. The training experience of subjects (N = 22, 87.0 +/- 15.3 kg, 14.1 +/- 7.1% fat, 22.2 +/- 3.8 years) ranged from 7 weeks to 15+ years. Based on the 1RM squat, subjects were further divided into the 5 strongest and 5 weakest subjects (p 相似文献   

Maximal power at different percentages of one repetition maximum: influence of resistance and gender

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes were tested to determine the load at which maximal mechanical output is achieved. Athletes performed power testing at 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70% of individual 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the squat jump, bench press, and hang pull exercises. Additionally, hang pull power testing was performed using free-form (i.e., barbell) and fixed-form (i.e., Smith machine) techniques. There were differences between genders in optimal power output during the squat jump (30-40% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) and bench throw (30% of 1RM for men; 30-50% of 1RM for women) exercises. There were no gender or form interactions during the hang pull exercise; maximal power output during the hang pull occurred at 30-60% of 1RM. In conclusion, these results indicate that (a) gender differences exist in the load at which maximal power output occurs during the squat jump and bench throw; and (b) although no gender or form interactions occurred during the hang pull exercise, greater power could be generated during fixed-form exercise. In general, 30% of 1RM will elicit peak power outputs for both genders and all exercises used in this study, allowing this standard percentage to be used as a starting point in order to train maximal mechanical power output capabilities in these lifts in strength trained athletes.     

Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of Australian junior national, state, and novice volleyball players

The purpose of this study was to investigate the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of junior volleyball players competing at the elite, semi-elite, and novice levels and to establish performance standards for these athletes. One hundred and fifty-three junior national (N = 14 males; N = 20 females), state (N = 16 males; N = 42 females), and novice (N = 27 males; N = 34 females) volleyball players participated in this study. Subjects underwent measurements of standard anthropometry (body mass, height, standing reach height, and sum of 7 skinfolds), lower-body muscular power (vertical jump and spike jump), upper-body muscular power (overhead medicine ball throw), speed (5-m and 10-m sprint), agility (T-test), and estimated maximal aerobic power (multistage fitness test) during the competitive phase of the season, after obtaining a degree of match fitness. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were detected among junior national, state, and novice volleyball players for height, standing reach height, skinfold thickness, lower-body muscular power, agility, and estimated maximal aerobic power, with the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of players typically improving with increases in playing level. Male players were taller, heavier, leaner, and had greater standing reach height, speed, agility, muscular power, and estimated maximal aerobic power than female players. These findings provide normative data and performance standards for junior volleyball players competing at the elite, semi-elite, and novice levels. Given the improvements in lower-body muscular power, agility, and estimated maximal aerobic power with increased playing level, and given the importance of these qualities to competitive performances, conditioning coaches should train these qualities to improve the playing performances of junior volleyball players.     

Contributing factors to performance of a medicine ball explosive power test: a comparison between jump and nonjump athletes

The present study examined the factors contributing to performance of a backward overhead medicine ball throw (B-MBT) across 2 types of athletes. Twenty male volleyball players (jump athletes) and 20 wrestlers (nonjump athletes) were evaluated on 4 measures of power, including B-MBT, chest medicine ball throw (C-MBT), countermovement vertical jump (CMJ), and power index (PI). The athletes also completed 3 measures of strength: a 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) bench press (BP), a 1RM leg press (LP), and combined BP + LP strength. Jump athletes demonstrated greater absolute scores for CMJ, C-MBT, and B-MBT (p < 0.05), whereas nonjump athletes demonstrated greater strength scores for BP and for BP + LP (p < 0.05). When performances were examined on a relative basis, jump athletes achieved superior scores for C-MBT (p < 0.05), whereas nonjump athletes had greater scores for BP, LP, and BP + LP (p < 0.05). For both groups, B-MBT had strong correlations with PI (r = 0.817 [jump] and 0.917 [nonjump]), whereas for C-MBT, only nonjump athletes demonstrated a strong correlation (r = 0.842). When expressed in relative terms, B-MBT was strongly correlated with C-MBT (r = 0.762 [jump] and 0.835 [nonjump]) and CMJ (r = 0.899 [jump] and 0.945 [nonjump]). Only nonjump athletes demonstrated strong correlations with strength for absolute LP (r = 0.801) and BP + LP (r = 0.810) strength. The interaction of upper- and lower-body strength and power in the performance of a B-MBT appears complex, with the contributing factors differing for athletes with divergent skill sets and performance demands.