kinetics, kinematics, reaction forces, gymnasts, different structure

This study examined variations in vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and lower limb kinematics during landings on three different mat structures (TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3) compared to FIG mat in young unskilled (pupils) and gymnast’s female. Significant effects of mat type were observed for VGRFmax, time to VGRFmax, peak ankle and knee angles, and peak knee angular velocity. TYPE1 mats exhibited the highest VGRF and shortest time to peak, indicating inadequate force attenuation and potential injury risk. Gymnasts demonstrated lower VGRFmax and lower ankle flexion, likely due to landing technique. No significant differences between TYPE2, TYPE3, and FIG-certified mats suggest a trend toward optimal impact force reduction. These findings highlight the importance of biomechanical analysis in landing mat development to enhance safety across skill levels.

This study examined variations in vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and lower limb kinematics during landings on three different mat structures (TYPE1, TYPE2, TYPE3) compared to FIG mat in young unskilled (pupils) and gymnast’s female. Significant effects of mat type were observed for VGRFmax, time to VGRFmax, peak ankle and knee angles, and peak knee angular velocity. TYPE1 mats exhibited the highest VGRF and shortest time to peak, indicating inadequate force attenuation and potential injury risk. Gymnasts demonstrated lower VGRFmax and lower ankle flexion, likely due to landing technique. No significant differences between TYPE2, TYPE3, and FIG-certified mats suggest a trend toward optimal impact force reduction. These findings highlight the importance of biomechanical analysis in landing mat development to enhance safety across skill levels.