THE RELATIOHSHIP OP STATIC AMD DYNAMIC

STRENGTH TO POWER

by

JOE MACK HENDERSON, B.S. in Ed.

A THESIS

IN

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Technological College
in Pertial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF SDXATION

Approved

TEXAS TECHNOLOCSCAL COLLEQE

LUBBOCK, TEXAS
LIBRARY
 905

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Richard A. Berger for his direction

of this thesis and to the other members of ny conmittee. Dr. Ramon W.

Kireilis and Dr. John W. Cobb, Jr., for their helpful criticism.

Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Hersian B. Segrest for his

helpful suggestions and to the subjects who were very cooperative.

Special appreciation is given to the author's wife, Jamie, who typed

the thesis.

Joe Mack Henderson

Texas Technological College

Lubbock, Texas

August, 1963

11
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS H

I. INTIODUCTION 1

Purpose of the Study 2

Oefiniticm of Terms 2

Static Strength 2

Dynamic Strength 2

Power 2

Review of the Literature 2

Comparison Between the Effects of

Static and Dynamic Strength Training
on Dynamic Physical Performance 2

Relationship Between Static and

Dynamic Strength 4
Relationship Between Static Strength
and Dynamic Physical Performance 5
Comparison Between Relationships of Static
and Dynasiic Strength to Performance 6
II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 8

Procedure 8

Static Leg Strength Test 9

Dynamic Leg Strength Test 9

Leg Power Test 10

Statistical Analysis 11

III. PRESENTATION AMD ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 12

Analysla of results . . . . . 12

ill
 Iv

IV. SIMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS 16

Summary 16

Conclusions 16

LIST OF REFERENCES 17

APPENDIX 19
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Physical educators and coaches have been aware for many years^of

the importance of muscular strength for good motor performance.

Knowledge of the value of strength for improving performance in athletic

events and tests of neuromuscular skill has led to intensive research

to detensine the most effective method to improve strength. It was

believed for many years that progressive resistance exercise or dynamic

weight training was the most effective method for iaproving atrength.

Even the ancient Greeks subscribed to this idea. Mllo of Crotona, In

the Sixth Century before Christ, reputedly developed sufficient strength

to carry a full grown bull twice around the stadium at the Olyoqpic

GasMM (7). He Increased in strength by carrying a bull every dey from

its birth to maturity. As the bull became heavier Mllo became stronger.

The scientific principle o*f increasing the load or resistance against

which the muscles work as strength Increases has been employed exten-

sively in m o d e m times by individuals Interested in improving athletic

performance.

In the last decade, attention has been focused on a different method

for increasing strength which involves static muscle contractions. A

study by Hettinger and Muller (12) in 1953 gave impetus to the use of

static training for Increasing strength. Since that time, numerous

studies have been done comparing static and dynamic training on strength

improvement and physical performance. However, no study was done that

Investigated the relationship of both static and dynamic strength to

power in order to determine which one was more highly related to power.
 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was two-fold.

1. To determine the relationship of both static and dynamic leg

strength to leg power.

2. To determine which relationship was more highly related to

power.

Definition of Terms

Static Strength. The force a muscle can apply to an Immovable object

without appreciably shortening the length of the muscle. Isometric

and static strength are synonymous terms.

Dynamic Strength* The force a contracting muscle can apply in moving

an object a prescribed distance. The length of the contracting muscle

shortens while moving the load. Dy^namic strength and Isotonic strength

are synonymous terms.

Power. Rate of doing work, or work done in unit time.

Review of the Literature

Comparison Between The Effects of Static and Dynamic Strength Training

on Dynasilc Physical Performance.

Baer at al. (1) coopared the differential effects of static and

dynamic training on static strength, work capacity, and reaction time.

Sixty-three aubjects participated in static and dynamic training

programs designed to increase the strength of the wrist flexors. The

subjects participated in one of six programs for either a four- or a

six-week period. Five of the groups trained dynamically and one group

trained statically. A strain gauge was xised to measure Isometric tension

while work capacity was determined with an ergograph. An electronic

device waa used to sMSSure reaction time. No significant differences

were found between the effects of static training and dynamic training

in work capacity, reaction time, or static strength.

Meadows (16) compared the effects of static and dynamic training

on the apeed and force of the offensive football charge. Eighty-four

subjects were equated into three groups of twenty eight each. One

group trained statically, another group dynamically and the third group

was a control. Meadows found that both the static and dynaadc exercise

groups improved significantly in speed and forca of the offensive foot-

ball charge. However, the groups did not differ significantly from each

other. The control group did not change significantly In any of the

tests.

Dennison et al. (5) examined the effects of static and dynamic

exercise programs upon nn«scular endurance. Ten subjects In each of two

groups participated in static and dynamic training programs twice e week

for eight weeks. One group performed the Commander Set of static exercises

while the other group participated in a weight training program. Chinning

and dipping were used to measure muscular endurance. Endurance was

determined before and after the eight-week training program. Both groups

showed statistically significant improvement in chinning and dipping

ability; however, the groups were not signifleantly different in muscular

endurance.

The effects of static and dynamic strength improvement on vertical

jump ability were studied by Berger (4). Eighty-nine subjects were

divided into four groups. One group trained with the squat exercise for

10 repetitions each session, another group trained with fifty to sixty

per cent of the 10-RM for ten repetitions of jumping squats, a third

group trained statically at two positions of the squat exercise.

Training took place three times weekly for seven weeks. The two groups

that trained d3mamically improved significantly more in vertical jump

than the group that trained statically.

Three of the studies reported that no significant difference existed

between static and dynamic training in improving performance. Only one

study reported that dynamic training improved performance significantly

more than did static training. The evid&nce that dynasdc training was

more effective for improving physical performance was not conclusive.

Relationship Between Static and Dynamic Strength

Richards (20) studied the relationship between static and dynasdc

strength using 187 subjects. Kaee extension strength was determined

both statically and dynamically. Static leg strength was measured with

the angle of the leg at eighty degrees. Dynamic leg strength was measured

by the amount of load that could be raised once using maximum muscular

exertion. A correlation of .67 was found between static strength and

dynamic strength. A similar correlation of .68 was found by Berger (2)

when 15 subjects were tested in the same manner and dynamic strength

was related to static strength.

The relatively low correlations found between static and dynamic

strength indicated that an improvement in either static or dynamic

strength would not lead to a corresponding increase in the other. Also,

the low correlations indicated that static and dynamic strength may not

be of equal value for predicting performance on motor skills.

Belation^hip Between Static Strength §0^ Dynamic Physical Performance

Rarick (17) analysed a battery of athletic and physiologic tests

by means of factor analysis to determine whether comonDn elements

associated with speed of muscular movement odght be isolated. Six

connon factors were isolated and identified. One of the factors was

strength which was determined from static tests of the back lift and

leg lift. These static strength tests all related significantly to the

factor of speed of movement.

A study was done by Harris (10) to determine the relationship that

exists between force and velocity in athletic events of various kinds

for 163 junior high school girls. Intercorrelations were determined for

13 different physical tests. AsKMig these were two tests %rhich measured

static leg strength and static back strength. Significant correlation

coefficients were found between the static str«igth tests and seven

physical perforsHUice tests consisting of the Sargent Jump, 40 yard dash,

broad jump, basketball throw for distance, three pound shot for distance,

twelve pound shot distance, and obstacle relay time.

Sasch (18) studied the relationship of static arm strength to speed

of arm movement. The strength of the arm was measured and correlated

with the maximum speed of the arm. Speed of movement was measured by a

contact ehronoseope which was specially designed for this purpose. The

strength of the arm was measured by the pull exerted againat a Chatilllons

Improved Spring Balance. An insignificant correlation coefficient was

found between static strength and speed of movement.

The relationship between static strength and speed of arm movement

was studied by Henry et al. (11). A spring scale was used to measure arm

strength. The speed of lateral arm adduction was determined and related
to static strength of the arm. No significant correlation coefficient

was found between static strength and speed of arm movement.

Smith (21) measured the l«g strength of seventy male subjects with

a conventional leg dynamometer and related the scores to a modified

Sargent Juap Test. The arms were not used to assist in the vertical

jump. The vertical jitmp in inches was related to both strength and a

strength/mass ratio. The correlation coefficients were .19 and .16,

respectively, both insignificant. The author concluded that static leg

strength and vertical jump were not related.

No general conclusions can be drawn which state emphatically that

static strength is related to muscular performance. The presence or

absence of significant relationships appeared to be dependent on the

criterion to which static strength was related. However, the studies

have shown that relating static strength to two similar criteria may not

produce the same results. This was shown in the studies by Smith (21)

and Harris (10) who both related leg strength to vertical jump but

obtained different results.

Comparison Between Relationships of Static an^ Dynasilc Strength

to Performance

Larson (14) related static and dynamic strength variables to a

criterion measure of motor ability. The conponents which influenced

performance on certain selected motor skills were determined and compared.

Dynamic atrength was found to be more closely related to dynasdc physical

performance (r«.84) than was simple static strength (r-.49). Larson

concluded that dynasdc strength was more closely related to motor ability

than was static dynamoiMtrical strength.

 By means of factor analysis and intercorrelations, Larson (15)

found insignificant correlation coefficients between a factor he called

gross body coordination and static strength tests of right grip, left

grip and back and legs. Significant correlation coefficients were found

betwecm a factor of motor ability and static strength tests of arm

pushing, legs, left and right grip and back. ^Jhen dynamic strength was

related to gross body coordination significant but negative correlation

coefficients were found with dips, chinning, and Roger's Arm Strength.

Positive correlation coefficients were found between the factor of motor

ability and dynamic strength tests of dips, chinning, and floor push ups.

The author conclxided that the motor ability tests correlated highly

with dynasdc strength and comparatively low with static strength.

No study was found which determined whether static strength was

related more to power than dynamic strength. The purpose of this

study was to determine the relationship of static and dynamic strength

to power and then determine whether these relationships were significantly

different.
 CHAPTER II

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In the last decade great interest has been shown in the use of

static training for the improvement of muscular strength. Prior to this,

the emphasis had been solely on the use of progressive resistance exercise

for improving strength. Interest in static training was kindled by

research studies which showed that strength can be greatly increased by

static muscular contractions. The presence of two effective methods for

increasing strength has naturally led to more research studies comparing

the two. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of

both static and dynasdc strength to power and to determine which relation-

ship was more highly related to power.

Procedure

Sixty-six male students enrolled in physical education weight lifting

classes at Texas Technological College were used as subjects. They ranged

in age from eighteen to twenty-one years and in weight from 122 to 240

pounds. The average weight was 163 pounds and the standard deviation was

thirty pounds. The subjects were given three different tests: a dynamic

leg strength test, a static leg strength test, and a leg power test. The

tests were administered in four different sequences in order to control for

the improvement in strength expected from taking the tests. Subjects were

tested in one of the following sequences: static strength, dynamic strength,

and power; power, static strength, and dynamic strength; power, dynamic

strength, and static strength; or dynasdc strength, power, and static

strength. Each sequence of tests was followed by approximately one>fourth

of the subjects. The tests were adsdnistared during a fifteen-day period.

8
 L£iS. hSSk Strength Test

A standard (6. Tiemann and Go.) leg dynasiometer was used to measure

static leg atrength. The starting position for the test was in a sitting

position with the back in a vertical position and against a wall. The

upper legs were in a position parallel to the floor. The feet were spaced

about twelve inches apart and flat on the floor. While in this position,

a leather strap was placed behind the subject's neck and secured to the

handle of the dynamooieter. The length of the dynamometer chain was

adjusted so that the proper testing position could be maintained. The

subject attempted to rise vertically keeping the back and shoulders against

the wall. The subject was instructed not to begin with a sudden jerk but

to exert a steady even force.

The subjects warmed-up by performing about twelve squats without

weights before taking the test. Two trials were given, with a thirty-

second rest between trials. The best score was recorded. To acquaint

subjects with the correct performance of the tests, two practice trials

were given two days prior to actual testing*

Dynamic Leg Strength Test

The starting position for the dynamic strength test was similar to

the starting position of the static strength test. The subject assusMd

a squatting position with the upper legs parallel to the floor and the

feet shoulder-width apart. A barbell was held behind the head, resting

on the shoulders. From this position the subject attempted to extend

the legs and attain a standing position..

Prior to actual testing, the subjects were instructed in the proper

iMthod of performing squats. The subjects were asked to determine as

 10

closely as possible the greatest amount of weight they could lift one

tisM from a squatting position. Two-thirds of that amount was used as the

starting poundage for actual testing. After each successful lift, weight

was added usually in ten-pound increments. As the subject approached his

maximum lift, only five pounds were added to the bar. The subjects

rested at least two minutes between trials.

The test used to measure leg power was a modification of a leg power

test devised by Gray, Start, and Glencross (8). These investigators

determined leg power in terms of the physical principle power » work/time.

This leg power test had a test-retest correlation coefficient of 0.985

and a coefficient of objectivity of 0.981. The authors concluded that

the test was valid for measuring the power of the legs developed in a

vertical jump. A modified leg power test was used in the present study

because of the difficulty in enploying the leg power test as originally

developed by Gray et al. The modified leg power test was found by Gray

et al. (9) in a later study to correlate 0.989 with the original

criterion sieasure of power. For this reason the modified leg power test

was considered acceptable for use in the present study.

The sK>dlfied leg power test was administered in the following manner.

The subject stood sideways to a jump board with the preferred arm extended

above the head and next to the bcMrd. The other arm was placed behind

the back. The height of the extended hand was marked on the board while

standing on tiptoe. Maintaining a straight back and the position of the

arms, the subject adopted a full squat position. When stationary and

balanced in this position, the subject sprang upwards and marked the
 11

maximum height of the jump on the jump board by means of chalked finger-

tips. Kach jump was scored to the nearest one-quarter inch.

Two days prior to the scheduled test all subjects practiced the jump

test. Each subject was required to jump several tisies in order to warm-

up the leg muscles before being tested. Three attempts were made. The

best score was recorded.

Statistical Analysis

Static leg strength and dynamic leg strength were both related to

leg power by the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (6) in

order to determine whether significant relationships existed. Significant

correlation coefficients would show that static leg power and dynasdc

leg power were truly related to leg power. The degree of this relationship

would depend on the size of the coefficients. The two correlation

coefficients were then cosqjared to determine whether they differed signif1-

eantly from each other (6). A significant difference between correlation

coefficients would show that one kind of leg strength was more related

to leg power than another kind.

The coefficient of reliability for the static leg strength test was

0.95 as determined by the test-retest method based on twenty-five subjects.

At least one day intervened between test days. The coefficient of

reliability for dynaodc leg strength was not determined. However, previous

studies have shown that the coefficients of reliability for dynamic

strength tests are usually above 0.95 (3, 13, 19).

 CHAPTER 1X1

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

This study was designed: first, to determine the relationship

between leg power and both static and dynamic leg strength; second, to

determine whether static and dynamic leg strength are similarly related

to leg power. Data were collected from sixty-six male college students

who were tested for leg power, static leg strength, and dynamic leg

strength. Correlation coefficients were then determined between leg

power and both static strength and dynamic leg strength. These two

correlation coefficients were then cosfiared to determine whether they

were significantly different.

i^S£iZiJ£ o£ Results.

The correlation coefficient found in the present study between

static leg strength and leg power was .64 which was significant at the

.01 level of confidence. This relationship between static strength

and performance was in agreement with the results obtained by Harris (10).

Harris found a significant relationship between back and leg dynamometrlcal

strength and Sargent Jump, 40 yard dash, broad jump, basketball throw

for distance, three pound shot distance, twelve poimd shot distance, and

obstacle relay time. Larson (15) also found significant correlation

coefficients between four static strength tests of leg strength, left

grip strength, right grip strength, back strength and a composite motor

ability score. However, in the same study Larson found that the same

strength tests did not correlate significantly to gross body coordination.

12
 13

Inalgnlfleant relationships were found by Reach (18), Henry

and Whitley (11), and Smith (21) between static strength and physical

performance tests which involved speed of movement in the first two

studies and vertical jump in the last study. Henry and Whitley and

Smith concluded that an insignificant relationship resulted because

atrength exerted against a dynamometer involves a different neuromotor

pattern from that controlling the muscles during a movement. The

results of the present study do not support this conclusion since static
vi-
strength was related significantly to power. A significant correlation
«

coefficient may have been obtained by Smith if he had converted the

vertical jump score in inches to power and then correlated this with

static leg strength such as was done in the present study. To investigate

this possibility, the static strength scores of subjects in this study

were related to inches junped. The correlation coefficient obtained

in this relationship was .35 which was significant at the .01 level of

confidence. This coefficient was considerably less than the .64 found

when strength was related to power and lends credence to the supposition

examined.

With the exception of the results found by Smith (21), tests that

required substantial strength to perform appeared to relate higher to

static strength than tests which required little strength to perform.

When gross body coordination (15) and speed of oiovement (11) were related

to strength, insignificant eorrelations were found. However, when

strength was related to a composite motor ability test, which required

substantially more strength to perform, the relationship was significant.

 14

A correlation coefficient of .71, which was significant at the

.01 level, was found between dynodc leg strength and leg power. This

relationship was in agreement with the results obtained in previous

studies by Lerson (14, 15) who found significant correlation coefficients

between dynamic strength tests of dips, chinning, and vertical jump and

a composite siotor ability test.

The eorrelation coefficients of ,64 and .71 found between leg

power and static leg strength and dynamic leg strength, respectively,

were analysed to determine whether they were significantly different (6).

Although dynamic strength appeared to be more highly related to power

than static strength, the two coefficients of .64 and .71 were not

found to be signifleantly different. Static leg strength was considered

to be as highly related to leg power as was dynamic leg strength. These

results were not supported by Larson (14) who found by factor analysis

techniques that dynamic strength was more related to motor ability

than was static strength.

The difference between results obtained in this study and Larson's

study may have been due to the criterion to which static strength was

related. In the present study both measures of strength were related

to a single power test whereas Larson related strength to a conposlte

motor ability score. This score consisted of not only power but several

other components cooprising oiotor ability such as agility, coordination,

strength, speed, and endurance. It may be assumed that strength related

signifleantly more to power than most of these components of motor

ability since an Increase in strength or force will theoretically result

in an Increase in power provided other factors are held constant. This

 15

will not necessarily occxir with motor ability components of agility,

coordination, speed, and endurance.

Although there was not significant difference In the relaticrshlp

of static and dynamic strength to power, this would not indicate that

static strength can be predicted with high accuracy from dynamic

strength or vice versa. This was shown by the correlation coefficient

of .60 found between static leg strength and dynamic leg strength

which meant that the accuracy of prediction was only thirty-five per

cent. This correlation coefficient was similar to the coefficients

obtained by Richards (20) and Berger (2) which were .67 and .70,

respectively.
 CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Sumsmry

The purpose of this study wass first, to determine whether leg

power was significantly related to static leg strength and also to

dynamic leg strength; and second, to determine if static leg strength

or dynamic leg strength was more related to leg power than the other.

Data were obtained from sixty-six male college students at Texas

Technological College. Each subject was measured for leg power, static

leg strength and dynamic leg strength. The strength tests were

measured with the subject in a sqtiat position. Correlation coefficients

were detersdned between leg power and both static and dynasdc leg

strength. The two correlation coefficients were then compared to

detersdne whether they were significantly different from each other.

The correlation coefficients obtained between leg power and static leg

strength and dynasdc leg strength were .64 and .71, respectively, both

significant at the .01 level. The two coefficients were not significantly

different from each other.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study the following conclusions were

drawnt

1. There is a significantly high relationship between leg power

and static and dynamic leg strength.

2. Neither static leg strength nor dynamic leg strength is more

related to leg power than the other.

16
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Baer, Adrian D., et al. "Effect of Various Exercise Progrsms on

Isometric Tension, Endurance and Reaction Time in the Human."
ArchlYJg al Physical Medicine QJ^^ Rehabilitation 36:445-502
August, 1955.

2. Berger, Richard A. "The Effects of Selected Progressive Resistance

Exercise Programs on Strength, Hypertrophy and Strength Decrement."
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1956.

3. Berger, Richard A. "Determination of the Resistance Load for 1-RM

and 10-MI." Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental
Rehabilltatien 15:108-10; July-August, 1961.

4. Berger, Richard A. "The Effects of Dynamic and Static Training

on Vertical Jumping Ability." Material to be Published in the
MfifiA££il Q^ay<i«r^Y 35, 1964.

5. Dennison, J. D., Howell, M. L., and Hereford, W. R. "Effects

of Isometric and Isotonic Exercise Programs upon Muscular Endurance.'
%s^yf^ll QWfyt;^ylY 32:348-52; October, 1961.

6. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences.

New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1956.

7. Gardiner, Norman E. Athletes oi^ th^ Ancient World. London: Oxford

Press, 1930, p. 54.

8. Gray, E. K., Start, K. B., and Glencross, D. J. "A Test of Leg

Power." Research Quarterly 33:44-50; March, 1962.

9. Cray, R. K,, Start, K. B., and Glencross, D. J. "A Useful Modifi-

cation of the Vertical Power Jump." Research Quarterly 33:230-35;
May, 1962.

10. Harris, Jane E. "The Differential Measurement of Force and Velocity

for Junior High School Girls." Research Quarterly 8:114-21;
December, 1937.

11. Henry, F. M., and Whitley, J. D. Relationships Between Individual

Differences in Strength, Speed, and Mass in an Arm Movement."
lasfiRiah iilUUCtfilJLX 31:24-33; March, 1960.

12. Hettinger, T., and Muller, E. A. "Muskelletstung and Muskeltrainung,"

ArbeitBPhvBi^olqgli^ 15:2 October, 1953.

17
 18

13. Jones, Robert E. "Reliability of the Ten Repetition Maximum for

Assessing Progressive Resistance Exercise." Journal of the American
EtoAsal a££flBX Affyftgftt^Q^ 42:661-62; October, 1962.

14. Larson, L. A. "A Factor and Validity Analysis of Strength Variables

and Tests with a lest Combination of Chinning, Dipping, and Vertical
Jump." Research Quarterly 11:82-96, December, 1940.

15. Larson, L, A. "A Factor Analysis of Motor Ability Variables and

Tests, with Tests for College Men." Research Quarterly 12:49^-517^
October, 1941.

16. Meadows, Paul. The Effects of Isotonic and Isometric Muscle Contraction
Training on Speed. Force. and Strenf^tt^. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
The University of Illinois, Urbane, 1959.

17. Rarick, Lawrence. "An Analysis of the Speed Factor in Simple Athletic
Activities." Research Quarterly 8:89-105; December, 1937.

18. Rasch, Philip J. "Reletioxiship of Arm Strength, Weight, and Length

to Speed of Arm Movement." Research Quarterly 25:328-32; October,
1954.

19. Reuter, Edward Richard. The Relationship of Weight Lifting Performance

tff Certain Measures of Body Structure. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis,
The University of Illinois, Urbana, 1957.

20. Richards, Bertram Donald. A Comparison o^ Cable Tenslometer Strength.

llM* 5E^ lO-RM Values Obtained la Knee Extension. Unpublished
Master^s Thesis, Michigan State University, 1955.

21. Smith, Leon R. "Relationship Between Explosive Leg Strength and

Performance in the Vertical Jump." Research Quarterly 32.405-8,
October, 1961.
 APPENDIX

Raw Test Scores

Subject Dynasdc Test Static Test Power Vertical Jump Body Wt.
Number Pounds Pounds Foot Pounds Inches Pounds

1 239 230 206,3 16 1/2 150

2 205 310 196.8 12 1/2 189
3 255 235 233.7 15 187
4 275 390 263.2 17 3/4 178
S 185 250 123.7 11 135
6 185 215 151,8 13 1/2 135
7 255 200 173.7 15 139
8 225 230 180.0 11 1/4 192
9 205 210 176,5 13 163
10 215 350 225.5 16 1/2 164
11 275 330 252.0 18 168
12 215 250 150.0 12 1/2 144
13 205 280 181.2 12 1/2 174
14 235 255 174.1 11 190
15 255 255 193.5 18 129
16 275 330 217.5 14 1/2 180
17 335 310 237.8 16 1/2 173
18 240 230 213.3 16 160
19 185 135 152.3 13 1/4 138
20 250 190 180.2 12 1/2 173
21 240 265 234.8 13 3/4 205
22 220 200 170.5 15 1/2 132
23 280 355 198.0 12 1/4 194
24 215 190 164.3 12 1/4 161
25 205 240 150.8 12 3/4 142
26 185 195 235.0 13 217
27 265 345 202.9 12 3/4 191
28 205 230 190.0 14 3/4 160
29 195 240 150.5 10 1/2 172
30 175 155 160.1 13 1/4 145
31 300 330 276.7 20 1/2 162
32 245 240 192.8 13 178
33 235 345 237.5 15 190
34 285 375 160.3 13 148
35 245 245 129.8 10 3/4 145
36 135 185 132.1 13 122
37 205 200 163.5 13 151
38 195 230 202.8 13 3/4 177
39 190 235 210.8 13 1/4 191
40 305 295 165.0 8 1/4 240

19
 20

Subject Dynasdc Test Static Test Power Vertical Jtnqp Body Wt

Number Pounds Pounds Foot Pounds Inches Pounds

41 195 265 170.0 13 157

42 235 185 198.1 14 1/2 164
43 175 250 152.3 13 1/4 138
44 185 250 156.7 13 1/4 142
45 145 265 189.1 12 3/4 178
46 195 190 166.2 10 1/2 190
47 205 220 143.7 12 1/2 138
48 170 250 122.7 10 3/4 137
49 215 210 159.5 11 174
50 175 150 157.1 11 1/2 164
51 205 280 135.0 10 162
52 170 285 226.5 18 3/4 145
53 140 225 165.0 11 180
54 145 195 140.0 12 140
55 185 265 197.1 14 1/4 166
56 155 150 111.0 10 3/4 124
57 235 270 227.3 14 3/4 185
58 205 235 199.5 14 1/4 168
59 145 250 122.6 11 1/2 128
60 160 220 193.3 12 3/4 182
61 195 255 158.7 15 127
62 295 310 225.2 11 1/2 235
63 215 250 202.5 15 162
64 135 190 154.3 14 1/4 130
65 135 230 126.4 10 1/4 148
66 235 260 175.0 12 1/2 168