Basic landing characteristics and their application in artistic gymnastics

Abstract

Landings are extremely important in gymnastics to improve athlete performances as well as to reduce injuries. Studies on landings therefore provide an interesting field of research in which numerous studies have been conducted. This article gives an overview of the results from these studies that can be used by coaches to improve teaching on landing techniques. The biomechanical characteristics and motor control of landings is reviewed.

Full text

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
59
BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR
APPLICATION IN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS
Miha Marinšek
University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Slovenia
Review article
Abstract
Landings are extremely important in gymnastics to improve athlete performances as well as to
reduce injuries. Studies on landings therefore provide an interesting field of research in which
numerous studies have been conducted. This article gives an overview of the results from these
studies that can be used by coaches to improve teaching on landing techniques. The
biomechanical characteristics and motor control of landings is reviewed.
Keywords: gymnastics, landings, kinematics, dynamics, motor control.
INTRODUCTION
Landing is the final phase in aerial
routines (take off phase, flight phase, and
landing). Landing is important for success
in gymnastics and is therefore of interest to
researchers and coaches who want to
improve landing performances.
Landing success depends on the
physical fitness (preparation) and motor
control of the gymnast. Physical preparation
refers to the gymnast's ability to cope with
the load to which they are exposed during
the landing. Motor control refers to the
control the gymnast has over the skill they
perform. Both of these factors enable
successful and safe landings.
Results from various studies show a
low success rate of landings in competition
(McNitt Gray, Requejo, Costa, and
Mathiyakom, 2001; Prassas and Gianikellis,
2002). During the Olympic games 1996 in
Atlanta McNitt Gray et. al. (1998)
investigated landings from the high bar and
parallel bars. Competitors performed twenty
landings. Only one was performed without a
mistake. At the European Championships in
2004, of all the saltos performed on the
floor, 30 % were performed without error
and 70 % were performed with errors
(Marinšek, 2009).
KINEMATIC AND DYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDING
Landings in gymnastics are
performed with first contact of the lateral
part of the foot followed by the medial part
(25 ms to 32 ms). The heel touches the
ground between 27 ms and 52 ms later than
the toes (Janshen, 1998). The ankle joint
angle change (250 to 300) during the landing
is less than that of the knee joint (790 to
890). Depending on the angle of the knee
joint, landings are categorised as either stiff
or soft. Landings where the knee angle is
smaller than 630 are classed as stiff
landings, and those where the knee angle is
greater than 630 are classed as soft landings
(Devita and Skelly, 1992). For soft landings
there must be a contraction of at least 1170
at the knee joint.
Depending on the height and type of
landing, different force magnitudes are
developed. A higher flight phase results in a
higher vertical ground reaction force.
Vertical ground reaction force represents
external force which the gymnasts have to

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
60
overcome with their muscle force and has
an impact on the gymnast’s linear and
angular momentum. A variable that also
affects linear and angular momentum is the
time that the landing takes to perform.
Impulse of force is the product of force and
time; this is represented by the area below
the curve in Figure 1. The impulse of the
force is a consequence of the gymnast’s
weight and velocity, so its quantity cannot
be changed at landing. The goal of landing
is to change the shape of the area below the
curve. Gymnasts can alter the shape of the
area by increasing the time taken to perform
the landing. Gymnasts can achieve this by
increasing hip, knee, and ankle amplitude.
Figure 1. Landing shown as the force – time relationship.
As the height from which a landing
is performed increases, muscles are required
to respond more quickly, however, bodily
movements maintain the same course
(Devita and Skelly, 1992; Arampatzis,
Brügemann and Klapsing, 2002;
Arampatzis, Morey Klapsing and
Brügemann, 2003). With the increase of
height the amplitude in ankles, knees and
hips rises. During stiff landings the ankles
and knees are the most loaded joints and
during soft landings hips are the most
loaded joints (Zhang, Bates and Dufek,
2000).
Top level gymnasts use different
landing techniques compared to recreational
gymnasts (McNitt Gray, 1993). Recreational
gymnasts use a higher range of motion in
the knees and hips compared to top level
gymnasts. Top level gymnasts use less
motion in the knees and hips. One of the
reasons for higher forces at landings of top
level gymnasts is higher pre-activation of
muscles (Metral and Cassar, 1981; Devita
and Skelly, 1992; McNitt Gray, 1993;
Janshen, 1998, 2000). Higher pre-activation
is the activation of the muscles prior to
touchdown and enables gymnasts to actively
absorb energy and lower the loading on the
heel (Nigg and Herzog, 1998). This results
in improved stability of the ankle during the
support phase (Janshen and Brüggemann,
2001).
Drop landings differentiate between
gymnasts and non-gymnasts. It has been
shown that drop landings performed by
female collegiate gymnasts result in higher
vertical ground reaction forces than drop
landings performed by non-gymnasts
(Sabick, Goetz, Pfeiffer, Debeliso and Shea,
2006). Collegiate gymnasts display greater
symmetry in peak vertical force distribution
in landings compared to non-gymnasts. The
improved symmetry in gymnasts is,
according to researchers, an adaptation to

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
61
the large ground reaction forces experienced
during landings in their sport.
Forces experienced during take-offs
and landings in artistic gymnastics can be
very high. Forces measured at landings can
range from 3.9 to 14.4 times the gymnast's
body weight (Panzer, 1987; McNitt Gray,
1993). The highest forces measured when
performing double back somersaults ranged
from 8.8 to 14.4 times the gymnast's body
weight. This was 6.7 times more body
weight compared to back somersault.
Karacsony and Cuk (2005) found that forces
at take off at different somersaults can be up
to 13.9 times the participant's body weight.
At landing, two peaks of vertical
ground reaction force are formed. The first
peak indicates toe contact and the second
peak the contact of the sole of the foot with
the surface. The first peak is usually small
and is seen as a declination in curve (Figure
1). The second peak is normally greater than
the first one and represents the maximal
force.
Foot position is an important aspect
of gymnastics landings. Different
techniques show significant differences in
several kinematic and dynamic parameters
(Cortes et al., 2006; Kovacs et al., 1999).
The 'heels first' technique results in higher
vertical ground reaction force, smaller
contraction in knees and knee valgus
compared to the “toes first” technique.
When landing with higher forces, knee
valgus forces tend to transmit to the knees
and spine which may cause serious injuries.
Increased forces on the knee valgus during
landings has been identified as a risk factor
for anterior cruicate ligament injury
(Chappell, Creighton, Giuliani, Yu and
Garrett, 2007; Sell et al., 2007; Withrow,
Huston, Wojtys, and Ashton Miller, 2006;
Blackburn and Padua, 2008). The most
loaded joints during landing with the heels
first are the knees and hips. When a heel
first landing is performed, the shape of the
force-time curve changes significantly
(Figure 2). The maximal force is achieved
more quickly and is also greater in
magnitude. When a toes first landing is
performed, the highest forces are developed
in the achilles tendon (Self and Paine,
2001). Higher activation of ankle muscles
enables gymnasts to lower the loading on
the heel (Nigg and Herzog, 1998). Cadaver
study (Self and Paine, 2001) showed that
sportsmen don't use all of their potential to
actively absorb forces at landings. In light of
these findings gymnasts should try to land
using the toes first technique. This is highly
connected to the take-off phase in the sense
of gaining adequate momentum to allow
sufficient time to prepare for contact with
the landing surface.
Different researchers (Tant,
Wilkerson and Browder, 1989; McNair and
Prapavessis, 1999; Prapavessis and McNair,
1999; Onate, Guskiewicz and Sullivan,
2001; Zivcic Markovic and Omrcen, 2009)
found that systematical teaching of landings
decreases the loadings at landings. Proper
landing techniques can help prevent injuries.
To perform safe landings gymnasts
must be physically prepared to overcome
the loadings at landings. During training it is
important to develop upper leg and lower
leg strength. Treatment with only isometric
contraction of the upper leg results in
increased activation of the upper leg
muscles and decreased activation of the
lower leg muscles. This results in a more
rapid heel-ground contact with increased
force (Janshen, 1998). Treatment with
isometric contraction of the calf muscles
results in increased foot stabilization via
dorsal extension and pronation leading to
reduced ground reaction force under the
heel.
When planning conditioning,
coaches must consider the development of
upper body strength. Aerial skills that
involve twisting around gymnast's
longitudinal axis tend to load not only the
legs but also the spine at landings. Leg
joints and spine are especially loaded when
gymnasts use contact twist technique. When
using the contact twist technique the
gymnast will be twisting during the landing,
which can result in spine and leg injuries
(Yeadon, 1999). Therefore it is important
for gymnasts to improve their core stability.

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
62
Figure 2. Two differente type of landings.
HOW DO GYMNASTS CONTROL
LANDINGS?
Magnitude of impact forces during
landings tend to increase not only with the
increase of falling height, and therefore
increase in impact velocity, but also with the
skill complexity (Panzer, 1987; McNitt
Gray, Munkasy, Welch and Heino, 1994;
Karacsony and Čuk, 2005; Marinšek and
Čuk, 2007; Marinšek, 2009).
Gymnasts begin to prepare for
landing during the flight phase. In order to
increase stability during contact with the
landing surface they have to distribute
momentum among body segments and
prepare muscles for loading.
Gymnasts can distribute momentum
among body segments through
flexion/extension in different joints. The
aim of these movements is to achieve
conditions at contact consistant with those
of a successful landing. The movements
depend on aerial skill characteristics and
momentum acquired at the take off phase
(Marinšek and Čuk, 2007). Modifications of
one subsystem may be sufficient to achieve
the task objectives of landing (Requejo,
McNitt Grey and Flashner, 2002; Requejo,
McNitt Grey and Flashner, 2004).
Modifications in the trunk-arm subsystem
may be an effective mechanism for
controlling total body movement of inertia,
and enables gymnasts to maintain lower
extremity kinematics after contact.
Gymnasts should try to put their arms in an
upward position before the landing, as the
fewest number of errors was found during
landings when gymnasts had their arms in
an upward position (Marinšek and Čuk,
2008). Gymnasts can also use their arms to
control the landing after the contact. They
can circle their arms in the same or the
opposite direction to the direction of
movement. Modifications with hands help
them to preserve and transfer total body
movement of inertia (Prassas and
Gianikellis, 2002).
The landing and take off phase of
aerial skills are programmed independently
(McKinley in Pedotti, 1992). The goal of
take-off movements is to produce as much
energy as possible at the end of the take-off.
On the other hand the goal of landing is to
absorb energy. Take off movements are
normaly eccentric – concentric contractions
and landings eccentric contractions
(concentric contraction exists but can not be
connected to eccentric in the sense of
muscle control). For this reason it is
important to distinguish these two
movements in teaching methods. During
landing a special mechanism must make it
possible to contract the muscles and at the

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
63
same time keep the muscle stiffness low
(Dyhre-Poulsen, Simonsen and Voigt,
1991).
Motor programme for landing is
always pre-programmed (Dyhre Poulsen,
Simonsen and Voigt, 1991). Preparation of
muscles on loading starts from 150 to 170
ms before first contact and is seen as
electrical activity in muscles. Motor control
system predicts fall time and initiates
muscle activity at a time appropriate to
expected impact (Duncan and McDonagh,
2000). The pattern of motor programme for
landings is always the same and does not
change with the falling height. What
changes is muscle activity that adapts to the
height of the flight phase (Dyhre-Poulsen,
Simonsen and Voigt, 1991). As falling
height increases, muscle activity (and
therefore muscle stiffness) of the lower
limbs increases during the pre-activation
phase, and during the landing itself
(Arampatzis, Morey Klapsing and
Brügemann, 2003). In order to regulate
reaction forces during landings, feedforward
and feedback control is being used by the
nervous system (Munaretti, J., McNitt Gray
and Flashner, 2006). The feedforward
system defines muscle excitability, and the
feedback system controls the movement.
For landings it is important that excitability
of α motor neurons is low, and the gymnast
receives as much internal and external
information during the landing phase as
possible.
One of the most important pieces of
information that contributes to landing
success is visual information. Visual
guidance during falls in which
environmental cues are known is not
necessary in order to adopt a softer landing
strategy (Liebermann and Goodman, 1991)
but does improve precision of control (Lee,
Young and Rewt, 1992). Visual control
helps gymnasts to distribute momentum
among body segments (e.g. moving their
arms) at the right moment and create the
best position for landing.
When performing back tuck
somersaults visual feedback enhances
landing stability and yields better landing
scores (Luis and Tremblay, 2008). Optimal
feedback occurs when the retina is stable.
Different visual conditions affect some of
the execution parameters. Narrowing
peripheral vision does not affect the
kinematic characteristics of landing and
landing balance. However, the absence of
vision causes less stable landings compared
to the full and narrowed vision field
(Davlin, Sands and Shultz, 2001a).
Gymnasts are more stable at landing under
conditions that allow vision during either
the entire somersault or the last half of the
somersault. However, different vision
conditions do not affect trunk and lower
body kinematics (Davlin, Sands and Shultz,
2001b).
When gymnasts perform a more
difficult skill (double back somersault), and
when visual feedback during the
performance is possible, they slow their
heads prior to touchdown in time to process
optical flow information and prepare for
landing (Hondzinski and Darling, 2001).
There is not always enough time to process
vision associated with object identification
and prepare for touchdown. Therefore it can
be concluded that gymnasts do not need to
identify objects for their best double back
somersault performance.
In view of the research findings,
gymnasts should try to gain visual
information during the entire aerial skill,
and in the last half of the aerial skill
stabilize their head in order to get the best
quality visual information.
DO SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
AFFECT LANDING?
When talking about landings, it is
also important to consider the stiffness of
the surface gymnasts are landing on.
Surfaces vibrate and deform when exposed
to loads. Vibration of the surface depends
on the magnitude and direction of the force
applied, and the stiffness of the surface.
Stiffer surfaces tend to vibrate with higher
frequency and smaller amplitude compared
to compliant surfaces (Figure 3).

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
64
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
time (s)
amplitude (m)
compliant
surface
stiff surface
Figure 3. Amplitudes and frequencies of surfaces of different stiffnesses.
The aim of landing is to dampen the
vibrations of the surface. The surface
deforms because of the impulse of the force
that is produced by the gymnast's falling
body. To dampen the vibrations it is
important to harmonize muscle activity with
the surface vibrations i.e. modulate body
stiffness in response to changes in surface
conditions.
Different surface conditions affect
landing strategies. If landing on a mat, peak
vertical forces are lower, landing phase
times are longer, and knee and hip flexions
are greater compared to landing without a
mat (McNitt Gray, Takashi and Millward,
1994). When comparing landings on stiff or
soft mat, knee flexion and peak knee flexion
velocities tend to be greater for landings on
the stiff mat than on the soft mat. Gymnasts
modulate total body stiffness in response to
different landing conditions. Mat landings
tend to be softer than landings without a
mat. However, the presence of a mat may
reduce the need for joint flexion and may
alter the vertical impulse characteristics
experienced during landing. Therefore
coaches should pay attention to landing
executions during training regardless of the
surface conditions gymnasts are landing on.
One of the factors that influences
landings is the construction of the mat.
Coaches should ensure that they obtain good
quality mats. Mat construction influences
the motion of the foot. The mechanical
advantages of a soft mat (higher energy
absorption) include a decrease in foot
stability (Arampatzis, Brüggemann and
Klapsing, 2002). The eversion at the
calcaneocuboid joint increases with the
height (Arampatzis, Morey Klapsing and
Brügemann, 2003). On the other hand the
falling height does not show any influence
on the tibiotalar and talonavicular joints
during landing. With the special stabilising
interface inserted in the mat it is possible to
reduce the influence of the mat deformation
on the maximal eversion between forefoot
and rearfoot (Arampatzis, Morey Klapsing
and Brügemann, 2005).
CONCLUSION
Landings in gymnastics, because of
their importance in competitive gymnastics
and number of injuries that result from
them, are a very interesting area of research.
Injuries sustained during landings result in
time lost in training and competitions.
Therefore coaches should ensure correct
landing techniques are being taught.
Coaches must be aware that when gymnasts
land they use special mechanisms to control
their movement. In this sense landings are
different from other gymnastics movements,
and need to be practiced thoroghly.
Mechanisms used to absorb the external
loading at landings are modified according
to the stiffness of the landing surface. When
soft mats are used the absorption of energy
is increased, but also leads to a decrease in

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
65
foot stability. In some cases the presence of
the mat may even reduce the need for joint
flexion and result in higher forces. It is
therefore important to practice landing on
different surfaces during training sessions.
Coaches also have to be aware of the high
loadings their gymnasts are exposed to
during landings. Repeated landings, and the
forces experienced during these landings
contribute to the serious injuries
experienced by many gymnasts. For these
reasons emphasis must be placed on
learning and practicing correct landing
techniques.
REFERENCES
Arampatzis, A., Brügemann, G. P.
and Klapsing, G. (2002). A three –
dimensional shank – foot model to
determine the foot motion during landings.
Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 34(1), 130-138.
Arampatzis, A., Morey – Klapsing,
G. and Brüggemann, G. P. (2003). The
effect of falling height on muscle activity
and foot motion during landings. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 13(6),
533 – 544.
Arampatzis, A., Morey – Klapsing,
G. and Brüggemann, G. P. (2005). Orthotic
effect of a stabilising mechanism in the
surface of gymnastic mats on foot motion
during landings. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 15(5),
507 – 515.
Blackburn, J.T. and Padua, D.A.
(2008). Influence of trunk flexion on hip
and knee joint kinematics during a
controlled drop landing. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon), 23(3), 313 – 319.
Chappell, J.D., Creighton, R.A.,
Giuliani, C., Yu, B. and Garrett, W.E.
(2007). Kinematics and electromyography
of landing preparation in vertical stop-jump:
risk for noncontact anterior cruciate
ligament injury. The American Journal of
Sports Medicine, 35(2), 235 – 241.
Cortes, N., Onate, J., Abrantes, J.,
Gagen, L., Van Lunen, B., Dowling, E. and
Swain, D. (2006). Kinematic analysis of
jump – landing technique during various
foot – landing styles. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise. 38(5) Supplement:
S392.
Davlin, C.D., Sands, W.A. and
Shultz, B.B. (2001a). Peripherial vision and
back tuck somersaults. Percept Mot Skills,
93 (2), 465 - 471.
Davlin, C.D., Sands, W.A. and
Shultz, B.B. (2001b). The role of vision in
control of orientation in a back tuck
somersault. Motor Control, 5 (4), 337 - 346.
Devita, P. and Skelly, W. A. (1992).
Effect of landing stiffness on joint kinetics
and energetics in the lower extremity.
Medicine and science in sports and
exercise, 24(1), 108 – 115.
Duncan, A. and McDounagh, M.J.N.
(2000). Stretch reflex distinguished from
pre-programmed muscle activations
following landing impacts in man. Journal
of physiology 526 (2), 457 – 468.
Dyhre-Poulsen, P., Simonsen, E.B.
and Voigt, M. (1991). Dynamic control of
muscle stiffness and H reflex modulation
during hopping and jumping in man.
Journal of physiology 437, 287 – 304.
Hondzinski, J.M. in Darling, W.G.
(2001). Aerial somersault performance
under three visual conditions. Motor
Control, 5 (3), 281 - 300.
Janshen, L. (1998). Neuromuscular
control during gymnastic landings. V
Arsenault, B., McKinley, P. in McFadyen,
B. (Ed.): Proceedings of the Twelfth
Congress of the International Society of
Electromyography and Kinesiology (ISEK)
(str. 136 – 137). Montreal, Kanada.
Janshen, L. (2000). Neuromuscular
control during gymnastic landings II. In:
Hong, Y. and Johns, D.P. (Ed.): Proceedings
of XVIII International Symposium on
Biomechanics in Sports. Hong Kong, China.
Janshen, L. and Brüggemann, G.P.
(2001). Neuromuscular control during
expected and unexpected landings. In
Gerber, H. in Müller, R. (Ed.). Proceedings
of the XVIIIth Congress of the International
Society of Biomechanics. Zurich,
Switzerland

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
66
Karacsony, I. and Cuk, I. (2005).
Floor exercises – Methods, Ideas,
Curiosities, History. Ljubljana: STD
Sangvincki.
Kovacs, I., Tihanyi, J., Devita, P.,
Racz, L., Barrier, J. and Hortobagyi, T.
(1999). Foot placement modifies kinematics
and kinetics during drop jumping. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(5),
708 – 716.
Lee, D.N., Young, D.S. and Rewt,
D. (1992). How do somersaulters land on
their feet? Journal of Exp Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 18
(4), 1195 - 1202.
Liebermann, D.G. and Goodman, D.
(1991). Effects of visual guidance on the
reduction of impacts during landings.
Ergonomics, 34(11), 1399 – 1406.
Luis, M. in Tremblay, L. (2008).
Visula feedback use during a back tuck
somersault: evidence for optimal visual
feedback utilization. Motor Control, 12 (3),
210 - 218.
Marinšek, M. (2009). Landing
characteristics in men's floor exercise on
European Championship 2004. Science of
Gymnastics Journal, 1(1), 31 – 39.
Marinšek, M. and Čuk, I. (2007).
Theoretical model for the evaluation of salto
landings in floor exercise. In N. Smajlovic
(Eds.), International Symposium New
Technologies in the sport (p. 63-68).
Sarajevo: Univerzitet, Fakultet sporta i
tjelesnog odgoja.
Marinšek, M. and Čuk, I. (2008).
Landing errors in men's floor exercise. Acta
Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Gymn., 38(3), 29 –
36.
McKinley, P. and Pedotti, A. (1992).
Motor strategies in landing from a jump: the
role of skill in task execution. Experimental
brain research 90 (2), 427 – 440.
McNair, P.J. and Prapavessis H.
(1999). Normative data of vertical ground
reaction forces during landing from a jump.
Journal of science and medicine in sport /
Sports Medicine Australia, 2(1), 86 – 88.
McNitt – Grey, J. (1993). Kinetics of
the lower extremities during drop landings
from three heights. Journal of
Biomechanics, 26(9), 1037 – 1046.
McNitt Gray, J. L., Munkasy, B. A.,
Welch, M. and Heino, J. (1994). External
reaction forces experienced by the lower
extremities during the take-off and landing
of tumbling skills. Technique, 14, 10 – 16.
McNitt Gray, J. L, Munkasy, B. A.,
Costa, K., Mathiyakom, D., Eagle, J., and
Ryan, M. M. (1998). Invariant features o
multijoint control strategies used by
gymnasts during landings performed in
Olympic competition. In North American
Congress of Biomechanic (p. 441-442).
Canada – Ontario: University of Waterloo.
McNitt Gray, J. L., Requejo, P.,
Costa, K. and Mathiyakom W. (2001).
Gender Differences in Vault
LandingLocation During the Artistic
Gymnastics Competition of the 2000
Olympic Games: Implications for Improved
Gymnast/Mat Interaction. Retrieved
28.6.2006, from
http://coachesinfo.com/category/gymnastics
/74/
McNitt Gray, J., Takashi Y., and
Millward, C. (1994). Landing strategies
used by gymnasts on different surfaces.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 10, 237 –
252.
Metral, S. and Cassar, G. (1981).
Relationship between force and integrated
EMG activity during voluntary isometric
anisotonic contaraction. European Journal
of Applied Physiology, 41(2), 185 – 198.
Munaretti, J., McNitt Gray, J.L. and
Flashner, H. (2006). Modeling control and
dynamics of activities involving impact.
Annual ASB meeting. Virginia Tech, VA.
Retrieved 18.2.2008, from
www.asbweb.org/conferences/2006/
2006.html
Nigg, B.M. and Herzog, W. (1998).
Biomechanics of the musculo – skeletal
system. Second Edition. Wiley, Chichester.
Onate, J.A., Guskiewicz, K.M. and
Sullivan, R.J. (2001). Augmented feedback
reduces jump landing forces. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther., 31(9), 511 – 517.
Panzer, V. P. (1987). Lower
Extremity Loads in Landings of Elite

Marinšek M. BASIC LANDING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATION … Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-67
67
Gymnasts. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon:
University of Oregon.
Prapavessis, H. and McNair, P.J.
(1999). Effects of instruction in jumping
technique and experience jumping on
ground reaction forces. The Journal of
orthopaedic and sports physical therapy,
29(6), 352 – 556.
Prassas, S. and Gianikellis, K.
(2002). Vaulting Mechanics. In Applied
Proceedings of the XX International
Symposimu on Biomechanics in Sport –
Gymnastics. Caceres, Spain: University of
Extremadura, Department of Sport Science.
Requejo, P.S., McNitt – Grey, J.L.
and Flashner, H. (2002). Flight phase joint
control required for successful gymnastics
landings. Medicine and Science in Sport and
Exercise, 34(5), Supplement 1, 99.
Requejo, P.S., McNitt – Grey, J.L.
and Flashner, H. (2004). Modification of
landing conditions at contact via flight.
Biological Cybernetics, 90(5), 327 – 336.
Sabick, M. B., Goetz, R. K., Pfeiffer,
R. P., Debeliso, M. and Shea, K.G. (2006).
Symmetry in ground reaction forces during
landing in gymnasts and non – gymnasts.
Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 38(5) Supplement: S23.
Self, B. P. and Paine, D. (2001).
Ankle biomechanics during four landing
techniques. Medicine and Science in Sport
and Exercise, 33(8), 1338 – 1344.
Sell, T.C., Ferris, C.M., Abt, J.P.,
Tsai, Y.S., Myers, J.B., Fu, F.H. and
Lephart, S.M. (2007). Predictors of
proximal tibia anterior shear force during a
vertical stop-jump. J Orthop Res, 25(2),
1589 – 1597.
Tant, C.L., Wilkerson, J.D. and
Browder, K.D. (1989). Technique
comparisons between hard and soft landings
of young female gymnasts. In: Gregor RJ,
Zernicke RF, Whiting WC, editors.
Proceedings of the XIIth International
Congress of Biomechanics. Los Angeles,
CA: Pergamon Press.
Withrow, T.J., Huston, L.J., Wojtys,
E.M. and Ashton – Miller, J.A. (2006). The
effect of an impulsive knee valgus moment
on in vitro relative ACL strain during a
simulated jump landing. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon), 21(9), 977 – 983.
Yeadon, M.R. (1999). ''Learning
how to twist fast.'' In Sanders, R. H. and
Gibb, B. J. (Ed.) Applied Proceedings of the
XVII International Symposium on
Biomechanics in Sports – Acrobatics (p. 37
– 47). Perth, Western Australia: School of
Biomedical and Sport Sciences, Edith
Cowan University.
Zivcic Markovic, K. and Omrcen, D.
(2009). The analysis of the influence of
teaching methods on the acquisition of the
landing phase in forward handspring.
Science of Gymnastics Journal, 1(1), 21 -
30.