Public evidence page

Athletics - Jumps - Long jump and triple jump

Sport

Sport: Athletics

Event_family: Jumps

Event: Long jump and triple jump

Athletes' bodies

Elite female long/triple jump athletes typically show a tall-to-tall-ish, lean, power-oriented build that supports high approach speed and explosive takeoff impulse. Morphology is biased toward favorable lower-limb leverage (long effective legs), moderate-to-strong elastic stiffness through the feet/ankles, and good trunk/shoulder control to coordinate phase mechanics (especially for triple jump) and maintain efficient body posture through takeoff-to-flight transitions.

Cohort

Sex: Female

Level: Elite

Quick glossary

Prior: Model estimate before updating with the current evidence; the starting baseline.
Posterior: Model-updated estimate after combining prior evidence with observed data.
Standard deviation: Spread around the estimate; lower means tighter expected range.
Alignment: How well a goal/preference/injury profile matches this body pattern.

Measurements

Factor	Prior	Posterior	Success-impact	Reasoning behind prior	Prior estimate sources
Height	170.5 ± 6 cm	170.5 ± 6 cm	high	Horizontal jumping performance benefits from greater run-up stride length potential and favorable takeoff mechanics, so elite cohorts commonly skew taller within the female elite athlete range. The value is set as a realistic modeled mean rather than a proven long/triple-only census average.	[1] [2]
Leg inseam	85.5 ± 4.5 cm	85.5 ± 4.5 cm	high	Set relatively high to represent favorable lower-limb leverage for converting run-up momentum into explosive takeoff impulse, especially crucial for maintaining effective contacts across triple-jump phases.	[3] [4]
Leg-torso ratio	1.06 ± 0.06 ratio	1.06 ± 0.06 ratio	high	Set >1.0 to represent leg-dominant leverage and a “springy” lower-body emphasis needed for explosive takeoff and effective triple-jump phase contacts.	[5]
Weight	59 ± 5.5 kg	59 ± 5.5 kg	high	Set to a lean power build: enough mass to generate takeoff force and maintain phase stiffness/impulse through triple-jump contacts, but not so high as to reduce approach speed and increase inertial cost.	[6] [7]
Ape index	1.01 ± 0.03 ratio	1.01 ± 0.03 ratio	medium	Set near 1.0 with slight advantage to represent reach/proportion patterns commonly seen in jump-oriented athletes; treated as moderate importance via coordination/balance and leverage consistency.	[8]
Arm span	174 ± 6.5 cm	174 ± 6.5 cm	medium	Modeled slightly above height to reflect common elite-athlete reach/proportion patterns that help with balance and coordinated body angles during takeoff/flight; not treated as a primary limiting factor vs. legs and sprint speed.	[7] [9]
Foot length	26.2 ± 1 cm	26.2 ± 1 cm	medium	Modeled to be consistent with elite female stature and to support adequate ankle-foot lever mechanics and effective force application.	[4]
Shoulder width	40.5 ± 3.2 cm	40.5 ± 3.2 cm	medium	Modeled as moderate: enough for trunk/arm coordination and lateral stability during takeoff sequences, without implying an overly bulky build that would hurt horizontal speed.	[10]
Torso length	82 ± 4.5 cm	82 ± 4.5 cm	medium	Modeled as mid-to-slightly longer torso to support stable posture and controlled body angles through phases, while avoiding excessive inertial penalty.	[11]
Ankle circumference	20.6 ± 1.1 cm	20.6 ± 1.1 cm	low	Set to a moderate value compatible with a lean, elastic build; treated as low importance because stiffness is more functionally determined than circumference alone.	[12]
Hand length	18 ± 0.7 cm	18 ± 0.7 cm	low	Included for completeness via height-based scaling; low importance in the profile.	[13]
Pelvic bone width	23.8 ± 2 cm	23.8 ± 2 cm	low	Set modestly to support hip stability and efficient pelvis-trunk control during repeated contacts in triple jump; treated as a low-importance trait.	[14]
Shoulder-hip ratio	0.83 ± 0.05 ratio	0.83 ± 0.05 ratio	low	Modeled to support efficient trunk alignment/control without a top-heavy build.	[15]
Wrist circumference	16.4 ± 0.95 cm	16.4 ± 0.95 cm	low	Modeled from overall body size for realism; kept low importance.	[16]

Traits

Factor	Value	Impact	Reasoning	Sources
Muscle fiber profile	fast-twitch dominant	high	Long/triple jump are dominated by brief peak-power takeoff actions and elastic stiffness requirements, favoring fast-twitch dominance.	[17] [18]
Metabolic tendency	ectomorphic tendency	medium	Modeled as ectomorph tendency to represent easier leanness maintenance and a lighter frame supporting run-up speed and repeated takeoff/landing contact work.	[19]
Joint laxity	medium	medium	Set to medium: enough flexibility/range to optimize joint angles and pre-stretch, but not so much that stiffness control and landing/push-off reliability degrade across triple-jump phases.	[20]
Foot arch	neutral arch	medium	Neutral arch type represents a balance between elastic recoil needs and impact tolerance across repeated contacts; individual athletes may skew high/flat, so neutral is modeled as the cohort mean.	[21]
Temperature tolerance	balanced	low	Set to balanced because training/competitions often involve variable conditions and the event is characterized by short maximal bursts with recovery rather than prolonged heat stress.	[22]
Dominant side	no meaningful side advantage	low	Set to neutral: while lead-leg/approach mechanics matter, there’s no strong universal advantage presumed for right- vs left-dominant athletes at the cohort level.	[23]

Goals

Factor	Alignment	Reasoning	Sources
Build confidence	medium	There’s real confidence to be gained—measurable improvements in distance, cleaner sequences, and better takeoff feel rewarding. But results depend heavily on technique coaching and can be slow early on (especially with triple jump’s complexity). So confidence can rise, yet the path is less guaranteed than in simpler skills.	[24] [25]
Build endurance	none	Long and triple jump focus on runway speed and explosive takeoff phases. Even though athletes are active for a session, the conditioning target is not aerobic stamina; it’s power/neuromuscular ability and technique. Without adding separate endurance training, the event itself is not the best way to “build endurance” as people usually mean it (comfortable long-duration efforts).	[24] [26]
Build strength and power	high	This is a very strong match. These events reward takeoff power, elastic stiffness/stretch-shortening mechanics, and strong lower-limb force production. Amateur long/triple jump training commonly includes strength and plyometric components that directly target the physical qualities this goal describes.	[25] [27]
Challenge myself	high	These events are genuinely challenging for amateurs: they demand maximal-power attempts plus coordination and consistency. Triple jump especially adds complexity across multiple phases, so it can feel very demanding and rewarding as a “stretch yourself” sport.	[25] [26]
Compete and measure myself	high	This is one of the best matches. Performance is directly measurable (distance in meters), progression is trackable (season bests, qualifiers), and competition is a core part of track & field. Even at amateur levels, you can compare jumps and set clear benchmarks.	[24] [25]
Improve agility and coordination	medium	These events require coordination across multiple phases (approach rhythm, takeoff, flight, and for triple jump the hop/step sequence). However, agility in the everyday sense (reactive change of direction to an opponent) isn’t the main demand. So you’ll improve movement coordination meaningfully, but it’s not as specialized as reactive sports like basketball/soccer.	[25] [26]
Improve balance and control	medium	Long and triple jump do train balance and body control—especially during takeoff-to-landing and (for triple jump) maintaining posture and stability across multiple contacts. Still, the balance challenge is more event-specific than, say, gymnastics/balance board sports, so the match is moderate.	[25] [26]
Improve flexibility and mobility	low	You may gain some mobility as a byproduct (hips/ankles are used a lot), but the core training emphasis is explosive stiffness and mechanics—not long-term range-of-motion development. Without dedicated mobility work, flexibility improvements are usually modest compared with sports explicitly built around flexibility.	[26] [27]
Improve general health and fitness	medium	Long jump and triple jump are very intense, explosive field events. Training builds leg strength/power and good overall athletic conditioning, but it’s not as “steady” for general health as activities that create consistent aerobic stimulus (like regular running volumes). For many amateurs, the total weekly training time can also be limited by technique practice and recovery, so the health impact is solid but usually not the strongest match.	[25] [26]
Improve speed and explosiveness	high	Long and triple jump are explicitly about generating speed down the runway and converting it into an explosive takeoff. Triple jump in particular demands repeated elastic contacts and powerful phases with precise timing—so training strongly aligns with acceleration/explosiveness improvements.	[25] [26]
Learn new skills and master technique	high	Long and triple jump are strongly technique-dependent: runway speed control, takeoff placement, and (triple jump) the hop-step-jump sequence. Improvements usually come from learning and refining these mechanics over time, making this a top alignment.	[24] [26]
Lose weight	low	While jumping events can contribute to fitness, they’re typically short, high-intensity efforts with lots of rest and are not usually used as a primary “calorie-burning” modality. So they may help indirectly (more muscle, better fitness), but they’re generally a weaker alignment than endurance-based sports or strength circuits for direct, consistent weight loss.	[26] [27]
Make friends and feel a sense of belonging	medium	Track and field programs often have a community feel (coaches, teammates, shared meet experiences). But long/triple jump also involves lots of waiting/rep-specific focus at the pit with single athletes, so social interaction is not as constant as in partner sports. Net: medium alignment.	[28]
Reduce stress and feel better	low	Any sport can improve mood if you enjoy it, but long/triple jump training is technical, intense, and can involve anxiety around clean takeoffs and avoiding injury (especially for triple jump). For many amateurs it’s more “high focus” than “low-stress,” so it’s not the best match by default.	[26]
Spend time with people I care about	low	This is usually not optimized for “talk while doing.” Jumping workouts require attention to approach timing, safety around the runway/pit, and performing controlled reps—so conversations are more intermittent (before/after reps) rather than during continuous shared activity.	[29]

Preferences

Factor	Alignment	Reasoning	Sources
Competition-focused environment	medium	Meets are clearly results-focused (distance and placements), but for amateurs the experience can be more “try to improve your mark” than a strict high-pressure competition culture every day.	[30]
Enjoys contact	none	Direct contact or collisions are not a feature of these events.	—
Flexible Time Table	low	You can practice parts of it (strength, plyos, sprinting drills), but getting good jumps typically requires a runway/board and a landing pit, plus coaching/safe technique—so it’s less flexible than sports you can do anywhere.	[31]
Indoor setting	low	These events are common both indoors and outdoors, but they’re not typically an indoor-only experience (like some sports that are usually gym-based).	[30]
Long steady efforts	none	The event isn’t about sustained pacing like distance running. Training may include conditioning, but the performance itself is primarily short-duration power and coordination.	—
Low impact on joints	low	These events are plyometric/impact-heavy: you generate power at takeoff and land repeatedly in the sand/pit, which can load knees/ankles/hips—especially in practice when you do many jumps.	[32] [33]
Mostly individual	high	Your result depends primarily on your own approach speed, takeoff mechanics, and landing—there’s no team coordination component to the actual event attempt.	[31] [34]
Non-contact	high	You don’t directly collide or grapple with other athletes during a jump. The main “interaction” is between your body and the runway/board/landing pit.	[31]
Outdoor setting	medium	Many people associate long/triple jump with outdoor track-and-field meets and training sessions, though indoor meets also happen—so “outdoor” is helpful but not exclusive.	[30]
Playful recreational atmosphere	low	Long and triple jump tend to feel technical and performance-oriented. Recreation participants often focus on correct takeoff/landing rather than a casual, game-like vibe.	—
Routine and structure	high	Training and competition are very structured: repeated warmups, run-up/marks, board/takeoff practice, and standardized sand-pit landings. Your performance is tracked and improved through repeatable practice.	[31]
Short explosive efforts	high	Long and triple jump are built around brief, powerful bursts—accelerate down the runway, explode at takeoff, and then manage the flight/landing. The “peak effort” phases are short.	[31] [34]
Tactical and strategic	low	There’s some practical strategy (e.g., how you progress heights/attempts at meets, approach rhythm), but it’s not a “thinking tactical sport” where you constantly outmaneuver opponents. The main determinants are physical execution and technique.	[30]
Team environment	none	Long jump and triple jump are individual events. Even though you compete at the same meet as other athletes, your performance is based on your own jumps, not teamwork.	[30]
Technique-heavy	high	Form is a big part of success: approach mechanics, takeoff angles and timing, how you control body position in flight, and landing technique. Even with speed, technique determines whether you convert it into distance.	[31] [34]
Variety and novelty	low	While there’s some variety in approaches and technique cues, the core task is repetitive: approach → takeoff → flight/landing (and for triple jump, hop/step/jump → landing). It’s not constantly changing like many ball sports.	[31]
Water environment	none	Water is not part of the long jump or triple jump experience.	—

Injuries

Risk

Factor	Value	Definition	Full reasoning	Sources
Achilles tendon pain (tendinopathy)	medium	Pain and irritation in the Achilles tendon at the back of the ankle.	Jumping events involve repeated plantarflexor loading (takeoff and landing). While the specific surveillance evidence we found for jumpers strongly highlights posterior thigh and lateral ankle as common locations, Achilles tendon problems are a recognized overuse concern in track/field jumping/impact loading generally. Given moderate participation (a couple times/week), the risk is not “highest,” but it is clearly above none.	[35] [36]
ACL injury	low	A major ligament injury inside the knee, often linked to pivoting, landing, or sudden deceleration.	High jump/landing mechanics can create ACL risk in theory, but our specific sources for this task emphasize lateral ankle and posterior thigh as common injury locations in jumping surveillance rather than ACL tears. Therefore, for a moderately practicing long/triple jumper, risk is set low (not none) due to general mechanism plausibility, but not medium/high due to limited event-specific injury emphasis.	[35]
Ankle sprain	high	A stretched or torn ankle ligament, usually after the foot rolls awkwardly.	In collegiate track-and-field jumping surveillance, the most common injury locations included the lateral ankle and posterior thigh. Additionally, NCAA-level epidemiology of foot/ankle injuries in collegiate jumping found lateral ligament complex ankle sprains as the most common foot/ankle injury. That combination makes ankle sprain risk high for long/triple jump.	[35] [39]
Calf strain	low	A pulled or overloaded calf muscle, often felt during pushing off, sprinting, or jumping.	Long/triple jump loads the calf complex during push-off, so calf strain is plausible. However, the surveillance evidence used for injury calibration emphasizes posterior thigh and lateral ankle as common sites, making calf strain a lower-ranked risk within this event category.	[35]
Finger or hand impact injury	none	Pain from jamming, bending, or striking the fingers or hand during sport.	In jumpers, common injuries are concentrated in lower limbs. Hand/finger impact injuries are not expected as a typical pattern for this event. None.	[35]
General forearm overuse pain	none	Ongoing forearm pain from repeated gripping, lifting, or arm use when the exact tendon is unclear.	In long and triple jump, the dominant stresses are on the runway approach, explosive takeoff, and landing/elastic phases—primarily lower-limb tissues. Forearm overuse pain is therefore not a typical or commonly expected injury pattern for this event category.	—
General foot or ankle pain	medium	Ongoing foot or ankle pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Jump surveillance studies show frequent lower-limb injury locations in jumping. Since “general foot/ankle pain” includes multiple possible tissues (joints, tendons, plantar structures), and because the event repeatedly loads the foot/ankle, risk is rated medium for a moderately practicing athlete.	[35]
General hip or groin pain	low	Ongoing hip or groin pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Long/triple jump strongly emphasize takeoff mechanics and landing control, involving hip stability. Still, the strongest surveillance signal we used centers on posterior thigh and lateral ankle. With no strong evidence of hip/groin pain being a leading diagnosis for jumpers, risk is low.	[35]
General knee pain	medium	Ongoing knee pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Long/triple jump repeatedly loads the knee during approach mechanics and especially takeoff/landing. While our event-specific surveillance excerpt highlights posterior thigh and lateral ankle as prominent locations, knee pain syndromes are broadly common in jumping/impact sports. That supports medium risk for a general knee-pain category.	[35] [42]
General lower-back pain	none	Ongoing lower-back pain when the exact source is unclear.	Trunk motion and landing forces can load the lumbar spine, but the main injury burden in jump surveillance studies we relied on emphasizes lower-limb sites (posterior thigh/lateral ankle). With no strong additional evidence that general low back pain is a dominant injury in long/triple jump, risk is kept at none.	[35]
General lower-leg pain	medium	Ongoing shin or calf pain when the exact diagnosis is unclear.	Long/triple jump repeatedly loads the lower leg (ankle/calf/foot complex). Since jump surveillance shows frequent lower-limb injuries, grouping them as “general lower-leg pain” gives medium risk for a moderately active jumper.	[35]
General shoulder pain	none	Ongoing shoulder pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	In jumping events, the injury burden is predominantly lower-limb. With no strong evidence linking this event to shoulder pain as a common injury, risk is none.	[35]
General wrist or hand pain	none	Ongoing wrist or hand pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	This event’s repeated high forces are primarily lower-limb; wrist/hand pain is not expected as a common injury category. None.	[35]
Golfer's elbow	none	Pain on the inside of the elbow linked to overload in the forearm tendons.	This event is centered on lower-limb takeoff/landing and coordination. The typical mechanics that create golfer’s elbow don’t match the event’s main loading demands, so risk is set to none.	—
Groin strain	none	A pulled or irritated groin muscle, often felt in cutting, sprinting, or kicking movements.	While hip adductors can be stressed in takeoff/landing, we did not find strong long/triple-jump-specific surveillance emphasizing groin strain as a frequent diagnosis. Compared with ankle and posterior-thigh injury locations highlighted in jump surveillance, groin strain is treated as not common enough to raise risk above none.	[35]
Hip flexor strain	none	A strain or overload in the front-of-hip muscles that help lift the leg.	In the jumping surveillance evidence we referenced, injury patterns are dominated by lower-limb regions like posterior thigh and lateral ankle. Hip flexor strain is plausible but not sufficiently supported as a common outcome to set risk above none.	[35]
Side-of-hip tendon pain	none	Irritation of the hip or gluteal tendons around the outer side of the hip.	We lack strong event-specific surveillance linking long/triple jump (moderate participation) to gluteal tendinopathy as a frequent diagnosis. With no stronger signal, risk stays at none by default.	[35]
Lower-back disc irritation	none	Lower-back pain that may involve irritation of a spinal disc and sometimes pain spreading into the leg.	Although loading is whole-body, our jump-surveillance evidence used for injury-site calibration does not identify lumbar disc irritation as a common outcome. With no stronger support, risk stays none.	[35]
Mechanical lower-back pain	none	Common lower-back pain related to movement, loading, stiffness, or irritated supporting tissues.	We did not find a strong jump-specific injury surveillance signal for mechanical low back pain. Therefore it remains none by default under the evidence constraints.	[35]
Meniscus injury	none	Irritation or tearing of the knee cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize the joint.	While knee injuries are possible, the jump-surveillance evidence referenced emphasizes other lower-limb injury sites (ankle/posterior thigh) rather than meniscus tears as a common outcome. Without stronger support, risk remains none.	[35]
Jumper's knee (patellar tendinopathy)	medium	Pain and irritation in the tendon just below the kneecap.	StatPearls explicitly describes patellar tendinopathy as common in sports requiring strenuous jumping and notes track and field (including long jump/high jump contexts) as part of the risk set. That mechanism strongly matches long/triple jump. Thus risk is medium—common and relevant, but not necessarily the single most frequent diagnosis compared with ankle/posterior thigh patterns.	[42]
Front-of-knee pain (patellofemoral pain)	medium	Pain around or behind the kneecap that often flares with repetitive knee bending.	Long/triple jump includes repeated knee flexion/extension under high loads. Even though our strongest source for “jumper’s knee” is patellar tendinopathy, patellofemoral pain is another common anterior knee problem linked to jumping/landing mechanics and load management, making medium risk plausible.	[42]
Heel pain (plantar fasciitis)	low	Irritation of the tissue under the foot that often causes pain near the heel.	High forces pass through the foot in long/triple jump, so plantar fascia exposure is plausible. However, the commonly reported injury locations in jumping surveillance are more strongly represented by lateral ankle and posterior thigh/foot regions rather than plantar fasciitis specifically. With limited event-specific plantar fasciitis data, risk is set to low.	[35]
Rotator cuff irritation	none	Pain and overload in the shoulder muscles and tendons that help control arm movement.	Without a plausible overhead mechanism as a common driver in this event, risk remains none.	—
Shin splints	low	Exercise-related pain along the shin that often appears when impact load rises too quickly.	Compared with distance running, long/triple jump has less continuous repetitive midfoot/stance exposure. Approach running can contribute, but event-specific data here doesn’t strongly elevate shin splints risk. Therefore low risk.	[45]
Shoulder impingement-type pain	none	Shoulder pain that appears when tissues feel pinched or irritated during arm elevation.	No strong evidence ties this event to impingement as a common injury. Default to none.	—
Shoulder instability or dislocation	none	A shoulder that has slipped out, partly slipped out, or feels unreliable in vulnerable positions.	No evidence that this event commonly causes instability/dislocation. Therefore none.	—
Back stress reaction (spondylolysis)	none	A stress injury in the back often linked to repeated extension and rotation loading.	Although athletes use trunk motion, the injury-site emphasis in the jump surveillance sources we used did not identify spondylolysis/stress reaction as a common long/triple jump outcome. Therefore risk remains none.	[35]
Tennis elbow	none	Pain on the outside of the elbow linked to overload in the wrist and forearm tendons.	Long/triple jump does not inherently require repetitive wrist extension/gripping forces comparable to racket or throwing sports. Therefore it’s not expected as a common injury from this event.	—
Shin bone stress injury	low	Stress irritation in the tibia from repeated impact that has outpaced recovery.	Tibial stress injuries are more strongly associated with high repetitive loading patterns (e.g., high running mileage). Long/triple jump has impact, but the event is not equivalent to continuous running volume. Without strong event-specific elevation in the evidence used here, risk is low.	[35]
Wrist sprain	none	A stretched or irritated wrist ligament, often after a fall, impact, or awkward bend.	No strong evidence indicates wrist sprain is common in this event category. None.	—
Wrist tendon pain	none	Irritation of wrist tendons from repeated gripping, racquet use, lifting, or supporting body weight.	Without a clear repetitive wrist mechanism, risk is none.	—

Prevention

Factor	Value	Definition	Full reasoning	Sources
Achilles tendon pain (tendinopathy)	low	Pain and irritation in the Achilles tendon at the back of the ankle.	Because the Achilles is directly involved in takeoff/landing, doing the event moderately can contribute to tendon adaptation (a prevention pathway). However, the same repeated high forces mean tendons can also become overloaded without careful load tolerance. Net prevention effect from the sport alone is therefore low rather than medium/high.	[36]
ACL injury	low	A major ligament injury inside the knee, often linked to pivoting, landing, or sudden deceleration.	Skill exposure can improve mechanics and coordination, providing some ACL-risk mitigation. However, this is not the same as a dedicated ACL-prevention program, so prevention is low.	[38]
Ankle sprain	medium	A stretched or torn ankle ligament, usually after the foot rolls awkwardly.	There’s a plausible prevention mechanism: repeated event practice can enhance proprioception and dynamic stability. However, the event continues to expose you to missteps/high forces, so it can’t eliminate risk. That supports a medium prevention level.	[40]
Calf strain	none	A pulled or overloaded calf muscle, often felt during pushing off, sprinting, or jumping.	Calf strain prevention is typically tied to progressive strength/speed conditioning and load management. With the restriction to “sport-only,” prevention is none.	—
Finger or hand impact injury	none	Pain from jamming, bending, or striking the fingers or hand during sport.	No evidence/mechanistic basis for prevention from long/triple jump practice alone. None.	—
General forearm overuse pain	none	Ongoing forearm pain from repeated gripping, lifting, or arm use when the exact tendon is unclear.	Because the sport’s repetitive mechanical loading pattern is concentrated in the legs/feet, there’s no reason to expect a meaningful prevention effect for forearm overuse pain from sport practice alone.	—
General foot or ankle pain	low	Ongoing foot or ankle pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Because the sport both conditions and overloads the foot/ankle complex, the prevention effect from sport participation alone is limited—netting to low.	[35]
General hip or groin pain	low	Ongoing hip or groin pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	There is some plausible adaptation from hip stabilization work inherent in the event, but it’s not specific enough to be a strong prevention strategy. That supports low prevention rather than none/medium/high.	—
General knee pain	low	Ongoing knee pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Positive adaptation is possible (strength/tendon capacity), but the sport’s high forces and high repetitive landing demands mean knee issues can still develop if load tolerance is exceeded. Therefore low prevention.	[43]
General lower-back pain	none	Ongoing lower-back pain when the exact source is unclear.	Without evidence of a specific protective effect from sport practice alone (and without assuming additional back-focused training), set to none.	—
General lower-leg pain	low	Ongoing shin or calf pain when the exact diagnosis is unclear.	Moderate sport practice can improve resilience, but it also imposes repetitive impacts. Without extra targeted prevention work, prevention is low.	[35]
General shoulder pain	none	Ongoing shoulder pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	No evidence/mechanistic basis supports prevention of general shoulder pain from the sport itself. None.	—
General wrist or hand pain	none	Ongoing wrist or hand pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	No prevention effect assumed. None.	—
Golfer's elbow	none	Pain on the inside of the elbow linked to overload in the forearm tendons.	No strong evidence/mechanistic basis suggests the sport, practiced moderately, prevents golfer’s elbow.	—
Groin strain	none	A pulled or irritated groin muscle, often felt in cutting, sprinting, or kicking movements.	Given limited evidence for prevention effect from sport alone and the specificity of adductor strain mechanisms, prevention is none.	—
Hip flexor strain	none	A strain or overload in the front-of-hip muscles that help lift the leg.	No strong evidence supports a prevention effect for hip flexor strain from long/triple jump alone at moderate frequency, so none.	—
Side-of-hip tendon pain	none	Irritation of the hip or gluteal tendons around the outer side of the hip.	Because the event may load the hip but does not specifically correspond to the rehab/prevention pathways used in tendinopathy management, prevention is none.	—
Lower-back disc irritation	none	Lower-back pain that may involve irritation of a spinal disc and sometimes pain spreading into the leg.	Without a targeted prevention strategy, prevention effect is none.	—
Mechanical lower-back pain	none	Common lower-back pain related to movement, loading, stiffness, or irritated supporting tissues.	Without evidence of prevention from the sport itself, prevention set to none.	—
Meniscus injury	none	Irritation or tearing of the knee cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize the joint.	No strong evidence supports a meniscus-injury prevention effect from moderate long/triple jump practice alone, so none.	—
Jumper's knee (patellar tendinopathy)	medium	Pain and irritation in the tendon just below the kneecap.	Tendon disorders are influenced by cumulative loading and capacity. Long/triple jump inherently provides the type of high-load stimulus that, when tolerated, can improve tendon resilience. But because the same loading can provoke symptoms when volume/intensity is too high, prevention is medium rather than high.	[43]
Front-of-knee pain (patellofemoral pain)	low	Pain around or behind the kneecap that often flares with repetitive knee bending.	Sport practice can improve capacity and technique, which may help reduce patellofemoral overload. But because high-impact landings remain, prevention is limited—low rather than medium/high.	[44]
Heel pain (plantar fasciitis)	none	Irritation of the tissue under the foot that often causes pain near the heel.	Plantar fasciitis prevention usually depends more on targeted calf/foot capacity and load management than on the sport alone. Under the assumption of no extra targeted work, prevention is none.	—
Rotator cuff irritation	none	Pain and overload in the shoulder muscles and tendons that help control arm movement.	No evidence-based prevention link from long/triple jump practice alone. None.	—
Shin splints	none	Exercise-related pain along the shin that often appears when impact load rises too quickly.	Under the constraint of sport-only (no extra preventive work), prevention is none.	—
Shoulder impingement-type pain	none	Shoulder pain that appears when tissues feel pinched or irritated during arm elevation.	No evidence for prevention effect from sport-only practice. None.	—
Shoulder instability or dislocation	none	A shoulder that has slipped out, partly slipped out, or feels unreliable in vulnerable positions.	Prevention would require specific stability training and risk management. None.	—
Back stress reaction (spondylolysis)	none	A stress injury in the back often linked to repeated extension and rotation loading.	Prevention typically requires specific load management and training considerations. With no such evidence assumed, set none.	—
Tennis elbow	none	Pain on the outside of the elbow linked to overload in the wrist and forearm tendons.	Without a plausible targeted stimulus, prevention effect is none.	—
Shin bone stress injury	none	Stress irritation in the tibia from repeated impact that has outpaced recovery.	Tibial stress injury prevention depends heavily on training load progression and recovery, and we’re not assuming extra strategies beyond sport participation. So none.	—
Wrist sprain	none	A stretched or irritated wrist ligament, often after a fall, impact, or awkward bend.	No evidence of sport-only prevention. None.	—
Wrist tendon pain	none	Irritation of wrist tendons from repeated gripping, racquet use, lifting, or supporting body weight.	No evidence-based prevention link. None.	—

Heal

Factor	Value	Definition	Full reasoning	Sources
Achilles tendon pain (tendinopathy)	low	Pain and irritation in the Achilles tendon at the back of the ankle.	Achilles tendinopathy rehab relies on carefully progressed tendon loading. Ordinary ongoing high jump training is not the same as a symptom-guided rehab progression, so the average healing support is low (and sometimes negative) when you keep training the event.	[37]
ACL injury	none	A major ligament injury inside the knee, often linked to pivoting, landing, or sudden deceleration.	ACL recovery generally requires clinician-directed rehabilitation and sometimes surgery. Ongoing event participation is not expected to heal ACL tissue. None.	—
Ankle sprain	low	A stretched or torn ankle ligament, usually after the foot rolls awkwardly.	Ankle sprain healing generally requires protection and progressive rehab; ongoing event training is typically provocative because landings and plants demand ligament stability. Therefore the expected healing support from continuing the sport is low.	[41]
Calf strain	none	A pulled or overloaded calf muscle, often felt during pushing off, sprinting, or jumping.	Calf strain healing usually requires protection and progressive rehab; sport-only continuation is not expected to provide positive healing. None.	—
Finger or hand impact injury	none	Pain from jamming, bending, or striking the fingers or hand during sport.	No positive healing effect expected from sport practice for these tissues. None.	—
General forearm overuse pain	none	Ongoing forearm pain from repeated gripping, lifting, or arm use when the exact tendon is unclear.	Healing forearm tendon/soft-tissue irritation typically requires forearm-relevant management/rehab. Sport continuation isn’t expected to provide a positive healing stimulus for the forearm.	—
General foot or ankle pain	low	Ongoing foot or ankle pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	While light, movement-based activity can sometimes help symptom tolerance, sport continuation without a rehab-oriented load progression is unlikely to reliably improve healing for general foot/ankle pain. Net healing support is low.	—
General hip or groin pain	none	Ongoing hip or groin pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Hip/groin pain recovery generally needs targeted rehab and avoiding provocative loading. Sport practice continues to load the hip during explosive phases, so no positive healing effect is expected.	—
General knee pain	low	Ongoing knee pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	Knee pain from overload can sometimes improve with progressive loading, but normal ongoing long/triple jump is not a controlled rehab progression and can be provocative. Net expected healing support is low.	[43]
General lower-back pain	none	Ongoing lower-back pain when the exact source is unclear.	Healing general low back pain usually requires activity modification and a structured rehab approach; sport-only continuation is not expected to create a positive healing effect. None.	—
General lower-leg pain	low	Ongoing shin or calf pain when the exact diagnosis is unclear.	Recovery from overuse-type lower-leg pain depends on load reduction and progressive rehab; ongoing jumping keeps loading. Net healing support is low.	—
General shoulder pain	none	Ongoing shoulder pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	No positive healing effect is expected from ongoing long/triple jumping for shoulder pain. None.	—
General wrist or hand pain	none	Ongoing wrist or hand pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear.	No positive healing effect expected. None.	—
Golfer's elbow	none	Pain on the inside of the elbow linked to overload in the forearm tendons.	Healing would usually require targeted elbow/wrist loading and symptom-guided rehab rather than ongoing high-impact leg work.	—
Groin strain	none	A pulled or irritated groin muscle, often felt in cutting, sprinting, or kicking movements.	Recovery typically requires symptom-guided return and progressive adductor rehab. Ongoing event loading is generally provocative, so no positive healing effect is assumed.	—
Hip flexor strain	none	A strain or overload in the front-of-hip muscles that help lift the leg.	Hip flexor strain healing typically requires focused progression and avoiding painful hip flexion; continuing the event isn’t expected to provide this. None.	—
Side-of-hip tendon pain	none	Irritation of the hip or gluteal tendons around the outer side of the hip.	Tendinopathy healing typically needs progressive, symptom-guided loading. Sport-only continuation is not guaranteed to match that, so none.	—
Lower-back disc irritation	none	Lower-back pain that may involve irritation of a spinal disc and sometimes pain spreading into the leg.	Disc irritation healing typically involves symptom-guided reduction of provocative loading and rehab; sport practice is not expected to provide positive healing. None.	—
Mechanical lower-back pain	none	Common lower-back pain related to movement, loading, stiffness, or irritated supporting tissues.	No positive healing effect is expected from ongoing sport continuation alone. None.	—
Meniscus injury	none	Irritation or tearing of the knee cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize the joint.	Meniscus recovery usually requires injury-specific medical guidance and activity modification; sport continuation is not expected to provide positive healing from the sport alone. None.	—
Jumper's knee (patellar tendinopathy)	medium	Pain and irritation in the tendon just below the kneecap.	Patellar tendinopathy rehab is built on symptom-guided progressive loading. Ongoing sport participation does provide loading but is not as controlled as rehab, so the expected healing support is medium (not high).	[43]
Front-of-knee pain (patellofemoral pain)	low	Pain around or behind the kneecap that often flares with repetitive knee bending.	Patellofemoral pain recovery usually requires symptom-guided load reduction and targeted strengthening/control. Event participation can provide loading but is not controlled enough to reliably promote healing. So low.	—
Heel pain (plantar fasciitis)	none	Irritation of the tissue under the foot that often causes pain near the heel.	Healing typically requires symptom-guided activity reduction and progressive rehab/loading; ongoing event participation isn’t expected to provide a positive healing effect. Therefore none.	—
Rotator cuff irritation	none	Pain and overload in the shoulder muscles and tendons that help control arm movement.	Healing would require shoulder-focused rehab; therefore none.	—
Shin splints	none	Exercise-related pain along the shin that often appears when impact load rises too quickly.	Healing typically requires reducing/altering impact loading. Ongoing sport participation is not expected to provide positive healing. None.	—
Shoulder impingement-type pain	none	Shoulder pain that appears when tissues feel pinched or irritated during arm elevation.	No positive healing effect expected. None.	—
Shoulder instability or dislocation	none	A shoulder that has slipped out, partly slipped out, or feels unreliable in vulnerable positions.	No expected positive healing effect from continuing the event. None.	—
Back stress reaction (spondylolysis)	none	A stress injury in the back often linked to repeated extension and rotation loading.	Healing generally requires load reduction and progressive rehab; sport continuation isn’t expected to provide a positive healing effect. None.	—
Tennis elbow	none	Pain on the outside of the elbow linked to overload in the wrist and forearm tendons.	Tennis elbow healing generally depends on elbow-specific load management; long/triple jump doesn’t address that directly.	—
Shin bone stress injury	none	Stress irritation in the tibia from repeated impact that has outpaced recovery.	Stress injury healing usually requires reducing impact and following a graded return plan. Sport continuation is not expected to help healing. None.	—
Wrist sprain	none	A stretched or irritated wrist ligament, often after a fall, impact, or awkward bend.	No positive healing effect expected. None.	—
Wrist tendon pain	none	Irritation of wrist tendons from repeated gripping, racquet use, lifting, or supporting body weight.	No positive healing effect expected. None.	—

Past-sport transfer logic

Past sport	Average correlation (success)	Std dev	Correlation reasoning	Correlation sources
american-football-defensive-back	0.22	0.11	Defensive back success is tied to explosive movement qualities (acceleration, elastic foot contact, repeated change-of-direction) and fast coordination—these map reasonably well onto the need for runway speed and coordinated takeoff in long/triple jump. However, long and triple jump are more technique-dense than many general “jump” tasks: approach/run rhythm, takeoff timing relative to the board, and—most importantly—triple jump’s hop-step-jump sequence are specialized skills. So the expected carry-over is positive but modest, with noticeable individual variation depending on prior sprinting speed development and how quickly someone can learn horizontal jump phase technique.	[46] [47] [48]
american-football-line-player	0.1	0.07	Long/triple jump share only broad components with American football line play: explosive lower-body power, some elastic/recoil coordination, and general athletic readiness for takeoff. But the technical pattern required for long jump (runway speed consistency, penultimate step, takeoff angle, flight technique) and especially for triple jump (hop-step-jump rhythm, takeoff stiffness control across three phases) is very different from line mechanics (pad leverage, hand fighting, short-area force generation). Therefore the correlation should be small and positive—success in football line play can indicate good general strength/power and coordination—but most of the variance in long/triple jump will come from highly specific runway/takeoff skill acquisition. Across individuals, transitions vary widely (some linemen adapt quickly to approach rhythm and horizontal takeoff, others struggle with speed/jump-landing technique), implying a modest standard deviation.	[49] [50]
american-football-linebacker-tight-end	0.18	0.09	Because the past and future are both performance contexts with explosive lower-body actions, linebacker/tight end success should correlate positively with long/triple jump success: both reward rapid force production, good body control, and the ability to apply power effectively after a short approach. However, long and especially triple jump depend heavily on event-specific mechanics: approach/runway rhythm, exact takeoff timing relative to the board/phase, and for triple jump the highly coordinated hop-step-jump sequence with specific elastic stiffness and landing technique. Those technical details are not usually the primary focus for LB/TE training. So the expected carryover is small-to-moderate: athletes who were good at LB/TE often have a strong power/coordination base, but most of the variance in horizontal jumping outcomes still comes from specialized runway and phase-technique work.	[51] [52] [53]
american-football-quarterback	0.08	0.06	Quarterback performance should correlate only weakly with horizontal jumps. There is some overlap through general athletic skill—field-sport athletes often develop coordination, balance, and the ability to generate force quickly after movement changes (useful for jump run-up rhythm and takeoff). That produces a small positive correlation. However, quarterback excellence does not train the core of long/triple jump: it relies on throwing mechanics, pocket movement, and tactical processing, whereas long/triple jump depends heavily on runway mechanics (approach speed, step pattern), takeoff technique (angle/impulse), elastic/plyometric stiffness, and in triple jump the precise hop–step–jump phase timing and landing control. Because the dominant technical skill stacks differ, the carry-over is limited, keeping the correlation near the low end rather than near zero or moderate values.	[54] [55]
american-football-receiver-running-back	0.2	0.12	Receiver/running back performance should correlate positively with long/triple jump because both reward quick acceleration, ability to convert speed into takeoff, and coordination across multi-step movements. Many good WR/RBs also have practiced high-speed running mechanics and repeated bouts of explosive power. But the relationship is far from strong: long/triple jump outcomes depend heavily on technical execution (run-up rhythm, plant mechanics, takeoff timing/angles, body position through the hop-step-jump sequence, and bar/landing strategy). Football talent transfers mainly as “general explosiveness and speed,” not as the precise elastic stiffness and phase-by-phase mechanics unique to these events. Hence the carry-over is modest.	[56]
athletics-distance	0.45	0.15	A distance specialization gives a head start in general locomotor coordination, approach-run ability, and training habits. Those factors support learning long/triple jump technique. However, the dominant determinants of horizontal jump performance (max-speed sprinting on the runway, explosive takeoff, elastic stiffness, and—especially for triple jump—specific phase coordination) are not the main strengths of distance training. So the relationship should be moderately positive but not high, with substantial spread depending on whether the athlete also has sprint/reactive ability or rapidly builds the missing power and stiffness.	[57] [58] [59]
athletics-jumps-high-jump	0.75	0.1	High jump and long/triple jump share substantial technique-relevant components: explosive lower-body force, elastic stiffness/return, coordinated takeoff timing, and body control through the flight phase mechanics. Because long/triple jump also requires an approach/runup that builds into takeoff, much of the “explosive field jumps” skill set transfers well. However, the tasks are not identical: high jump is dominated by vertical takeoff and clearance technique, while long/triple jump emphasize preserving horizontal speed, board/takeoff specifics, and in triple jump, the hop-step-jump rhythm. This preserves a strong but not near-perfect correlation.	[60] [61] [62]
athletics-jumps-pole-vault	0.78	0.15	Pole vault and long/triple jump are both explosive “jumps” where success is strongly shaped by approach mechanics (run-up speed and rhythm), takeoff timing, and the ability to control the body in the air with appropriate stiffness/elasticity. Those shared elements drive a high positive correlation. However, correlation is not extremely high because pole vault includes substantial pole-specific technique (plant/inversion/hand contact, vault trajectory) that does not directly carry over to horizontal jumps. Long and triple also have their own unique technical targets: long jump’s takeoff-to-landing geometry and triple jump’s hop-step-jump coordination and stiffness management. This adds variance across athletes depending on whether their pole vault strength is mainly general speed/elastic takeoff vs pole-inversion specialization.	[63] [64] [65]
athletics-middle-distance	0.66	0.12	Middle-distance success should relate positively to long/triple jump performance because both start with good running mechanics and coordination, and because athletic base (leg stiffness through repeated training, neuromuscular efficiency, and the ability to execute under fatigue) helps with the run-up and takeoff learning curve. However, jump events require a very specific conversion of approach speed into takeoff impulse, plus technical phase/landing skills (especially for triple jump) and maximal power/elastic stiffness characteristics that are not the focus of middle-distance training. That keeps the correlation clearly below “same-event” levels but still moderately strong.	[66] [67]
athletics-sprints-hurdles	0.74	0.11	Sprints/hurdles correlate strongly with horizontal jumps because both rely on generating high speed over a short approach, then converting that speed into explosive takeoff using stiffness/elastic mechanics and good neuromuscular control. Sprinting also supports runway rhythm and body positioning through the last strides. The carry-over isn’t near-perfect: long jump has significant event-specific details (takeoff-board contact timing/foot positioning, takeoff angle, flight body control, and landing technique), and triple jump adds further phase-specific coordination (hop/step rhythm and maintaining effective mechanics through multiple takeoffs). Those require specialized practice beyond what sprint/hurdle success implies. Net effect: a high positive correlation (~0.74) with moderate uncertainty across athletes depending on how much of their sprint/hurdle success reflected transferable mechanics (speed + elasticity) versus event-race skill, and how much they trained for board/takeoff and triple-jump phase rhythm.	[68]
athletics-throws-discus	0.45	0.12	Discus success reflects rotational strength, hip–shoulder sequencing, timing/rhythm, and efficient conversion of whole-body motion into a powerful release. Long jump and triple jump success reflects runway speed conversion, explosive takeoff power, elastic stiffness/return, and precise coordination across takeoff phases. There is clear shared overlap in “power event” requirements: generating large force quickly, coordinating legs–trunk–upper body efficiently, and executing a well-timed, high-intensity movement with good body control. That makes a substantial positive correlation plausible. However, the dominant technical determinants differ: discus is a rotational release to throw an implement, while long/triple jump are about horizontal speed, elastic takeoff mechanics, and landing/phase management. This specificity prevents very high transfer. A realistic Bayesian estimate is therefore a moderate correlation, around 0.45, with relatively wide uncertainty (~0.12) reflecting variation in how much athletes cross-train (and whether they are also top sprinters / jumpers, which strongly boosts the relationship).	[69] [70] [71]
athletics-throws-hammer-throw	0.28	0.09	Hammer throw success and long/triple jump success both benefit from effective power production using coordinated whole-body mechanics, good balance, and precise timing of a high-force action after an approach. That creates a moderate skill carryover. However, the dominant sport-specific patterns differ: hammer throw’s rotational throw/leveraging mechanics and implement control do not directly train the takeoff mechanics (elastic stiffness, foot placement, and the hop-step-jump rhythm for triple). Because technique overlap is partial rather than strong, the correlation is expected to be modest-to-moderate rather than high.	[72] [73]
athletics-throws-javelin	0.5	0.12	Javelin performance is strongly tied to speed-to-power conversion and elastic sequencing through the lower body, along with disciplined approach timing. Long jump and triple jump also depend heavily on an efficient runway and a fast, coordinated conversion into takeoff mechanics (with strong emphasis on takeoff stiffness/elasticity and phase coordination—especially triple jump). The overlap is therefore substantial at the level of “approach → explosive takeoff/transfer” and general athletic coordination. The main reason correlation isn’t extremely high is that javelin adds a large sport-specific component (shoulder speed, throwing mechanics, release timing, and rotational/arm-dominant sequencing) that does not map directly to jump takeoff/landing mechanics and—especially for triple jump—phase-specific rhythm and technical demands. So the expected carry-over is moderate-to-high, with an average around ~0.50 and some spread depending on whether the athlete’s strengths are more “speed/elastic approach” vs more “throwing/arm sequencing.”	[74]
athletics-throws-shot-put	0.47	0.13	Shot put success and long/triple jump success share meaningful underlying athletic skills: producing large lower-body forces quickly, coordinating hips/trunk/legs effectively, and training habits focused on maximal effort and power development. Those common “explosive power” fundamentals create a clearly positive relationship. However, the decisive technique components differ: shot put is dominated by release mechanics and generating a specific power/rotation/leverage effect to project the implement, while long/triple jump are dominated by approach speed, takeoff timing, flight/landing mechanics (and in triple jump, multi-phase rhythm and stiffness). Because those key mechanics are not the same, the carryover can’t be extremely high. Overall, a moderate-to-moderately-high correlation with noticeable spread is most plausible.	[75] [76] [77] [78]
badminton	0.05	0.03	Long/triple jump success is dominated by horizontal runway mechanics (approach speed, penultimate step control, takeoff angle/position, elastic stiffness, and phase coordination—especially the hop/step in triple jump). Badminton’s primary skill is racket/shuttle timing and rally movement, which has limited direct mapping to those event-specific mechanics. The main transferable pieces are general dynamic balance, coordination, and change-of-direction footwork efficiency, which can modestly help an athlete learn the approach rhythm and manage body control. Because the event-specific technical learning barrier is large and differs from badminton, the expected correlation remains small, around ~0.05, with limited but non-trivial variation across athletes depending on whether they also have sprint/jump athletic foundations.	[79] [80] [81] [82]
baseball-catcher	0.04	0.03	Long jump and triple jump rely on highly specific horizontal approach mechanics, takeoff timing, elastic stiffness/rebound management (especially triple jump), and precise body positioning through phases. Baseball catcher excellence does share a small amount of general “athletic coordination + fast reaction + learning under pressure,” and some lower-body strength conditioning. But most of the technical determinants of horizontal jumping are different from catcher duties. Therefore the correlation should be small positive—mainly reflecting general athleticism and how quickly someone acquires complex movement skills—rather than a meaningful skill carryover from catching into jump technique.	[83] [84] [85]
baseball-field-player	0.06	0.04	Baseball field players develop general athletic qualities relevant to jumps: sprinting to bases/balls, reactive footwork, coordination, and some explosive power through running and throwing. Those elements can make it easier to learn the basic idea of generating speed and organizing the body for takeoff. However, long jump and triple jump success is dominated by event-specific technique: runway approach timing, takeoff timing/foot strike, managing the elastic stiffness and phase mechanics (especially the hop/step phases in triple jump). Baseball fielding shares limited direct similarity with those technique components, so only a small portion of skill (mostly general coordination and explosiveness) is likely to transfer into measurable performance. Therefore the correlation is expected to be slightly above zero but remain low.	[86] [87] [88]
baseball-pitcher	0.05	0.05	A successful baseball pitcher can carry over some general athletic qualities that relate to horizontal jumps: coordination, balance under dynamic movement, and producing force quickly in repeated actions. That can create a small positive correlation with long/triple jump performance. But long/triple jump success is driven by very specific technique: the run-up speed management, plant/takeoff mechanics relative to the board, takeoff-leg angles, landing mechanics, and (especially for triple jump) precise phase-to-phase stiffness and timing. Pitching practice does not teach those horizontal jumping biomechanics, so the transferable component is modest and should be near the “wildly different” baseline, but not zero because general explosiveness and coordination do correlate across sports.	[89]
basketball-big	0.08	0.05	Basketball Bigs spend a lot of time jumping, rebounding, and landing in non-stable, high-force situations. That can transfer positively to long/triple jump through general elastic use of the legs, coordination, and familiarity with power generation and mid-air body control. However, long and triple jump are highly technique-specific: the runway speed-to-takeoff conversion, takeoff board placement, the first/second/third phase mechanics in triple jump, and how to manage approach rhythm and stiffness are not learned the same way in basketball interior play. A basketball Big may be good at vertical jumping but that doesn’t automatically mean they master horizontal velocity retention and the specific takeoff angles/foot strike patterns. Because only technique/skill transfer is counted (not the biggest physical-proportion drivers for these events), the expected relationship is small but positive.	[90]
basketball-guard	0.13	0.07	Basketball guards often have good coordination, balance, and the ability to generate short explosive bursts with changes of pace—skills that can help learning the approach, takeoff, and landing mechanics in horizontal jumps. There’s also some “jump literacy” from layups/jumps in traffic, which can transfer to body control while leaving the ground. But long jump and especially triple jump are highly technique-specific: the approach/runway speed control, takeoff angles, timing of the last steps, and (for triple jump) the hop–step–jump sequence with distinct stiffness/landing and phase management. Basketball training doesn’t directly teach these mechanics, and guard success depends more on ball-handling/decision-making and repeated vertical/out-of-balance jumps than on optimizing horizontal takeoff in a consistent, repeatable way. So the carry-over should be positive but small-to-low-moderate, not strong.	[91]
basketball-wing	0.07	0.06	There is a modest overlap in general athletic traits relevant to horizontal jumps—coordinated approach running, explosive lower-body power expression, and balance/coordination during takeoff and landing. A good basketball wing can therefore have a slight advantage when learning long/triple jump. However, long jump and especially triple jump are dominated by event-specific technical skills (run-up/rhythm, penultimate mechanics, takeoff timing, and triple jump’s hop-step-jump sequence and stiffness control). Because those are not strongly trained in basketball to the same depth, the correlation remains low and highly variable across individuals depending on how quickly they adapt and how much they then specialize.	[92] [93]
boxing	0.03	0.03	Boxing shares only broad athletic components with horizontal jumping—coordination, balance, and the ability to move explosively while controlling the body under pressure. Those can make learning the fundamentals of sprinting/jumping mechanics easier. However, long jump and triple jump success is driven by highly specific techniques: runway approach rhythm, precise takeoff/landing angles, penultimate step timing, and for triple jump the correct hop-step-jump mechanics with elastic energy management. Boxing does not train these constraints directly, so the expected carry-over from “being good at boxing” to “being good at long/triple jump” remains very small.	[94] [95] [96]
climbing-bouldering	0.1	0.06	Bouldering success indicates strong short-burst strength, coordination, and proprioceptive body control—skills that can help an athlete learn complex takeoff/tuck/landing positions in horizontal jumps. It can also correlate modestly with general athleticism and the ability to generate force efficiently. However, long jump and triple jump depend heavily on runway speed development, precise multi-phase takeoff mechanics (especially the hop-step-jump sequence for triple), and elastic timing tuned to horizontal momentum—none of which are trained directly in bouldering. Because the dominant determinants of performance are therefore sport-specific, the expected carry-over should be small. A plausible Bayesian center is r ≈ 0.10 with std dev ≈ 0.06 to reflect uncertainty across individuals (some climbers will also have sprint/jump backgrounds).	[97]
climbing-lead	0.09	0.07	Lead climbing (especially longer roped lead) strongly trains balance, proprioception, movement economy, and problem-solving/attention under fatigue. Those help in any explosive-event learning because you must coordinate body segments through approach, takeoff, and landing, and you benefit from good spatial awareness and technical learning. However, long jump and triple jump are dominated by very specific requirements: maximizing horizontal approach velocity, precise takeoff timing, and producing elastic/reactive force (and for triple jump, repeating takeoff mechanics across phases). Lead climbing does not strongly train sprint mechanics, runway rhythm, or the elastic stiffness/force-production pattern used in horizontal jumps. So the expected carry-over is small but not zero—mainly through general coordination/skill-learning capacity rather than event-specific power and timing.	[98] [99] [100]
climbing-speed	0.25	0.09	Climbing speed and long/triple jump share the underlying athletic “template” of producing force quickly with good body coordination and repeating high-quality efforts. That creates a modest positive relationship between being good at climbing speed and later being good at horizontal jump events. But horizontal jump is dominated by runway speed mechanics, approach timing, and highly specific takeoff/landing technique (and triple jump adds phase rhythm). Climbing speed does not train these directly, so the carry-over can’t be high. Averaging long jump and triple jump yields a moderate level rather than a strong one.	[101] [102] [103] [104]
cricket-all-rounder	0.05	0.04	Cricket all-round success can provide some generic advantages—coordination, learning capacity, and mental resilience—which may make it easier to pick up horizontal jump training. But the event-specific skills that drive long/triple jump—approach mechanics, takeoff timing, phase stiffness/elastic recoil, and precise coordination across takeoff/flight/landing—are not meaningfully trained in cricket all-rounding. With body/elastic trait effects excluded, only small skill/behavior transfer remains, so the correlation should be very low and noisy.	[105] [106] [107] [108]
cricket-batter	0.06	0.03	Cricket batter success strongly reflects bat–ball timing, hand–eye coordination, and repeatable striking mechanics with stable lower-body control. Long jump and triple jump success depends far more on runway acceleration mechanics, elastic energy storage/transfer, takeoff timing and angles, and highly event-specific coordination (especially for triple jump hop/step/jump phases). There is some transferable neuromuscular skill—learning to coordinate the body through complex movements, maintaining balance, and executing a repeatable lower-body action under pressure. But the key determinants (horizontal approach + elastic takeoff + phase coordination) are mostly different. Therefore the correlation should be small and positive, not near zero, because cricket batter “athletic coordination” can slightly predict adaptation to jumping technique, but it won’t strongly predict event performance.	[109]
cricket-bowler	0.04	0.06	Horizontal jump performance (long jump/triple jump) is driven mainly by runway speed control, takeoff timing, elastic stiffness, and specific takeoff-phase coordination. Cricket bowling success is driven by overarm delivery mechanics, release timing, and throwing-specific power/repeatability. Because the primary learned motor patterns and performance determinants differ strongly, the expected carryover is small. The remaining positive correlation comes mostly from generalizable traits (timing/coordination awareness, learning to repeat a technique, and coping with training stress), so the average should sit near ~0.04 with moderate uncertainty.	[110] [111] [112] [113]
cricket-wicketkeeper	0.07	0.06	Wicketkeeper-to-long/triple-jump carryover is expected to be low but not zero. The shared component is general coordination, balance, and the ability to execute quickly from a low ready stance with good body control. However, the dominant determinants for long and triple jump—run-up speed mechanics, takeoff timing/geometry, elastic stiffness, and the distinct phase coordination of the triple jump—aren’t really trained in wicketkeeping. Therefore, being a good wicketkeeper should only weakly predict success in these jump events (skill-technique only).	[114] [115] [116]
cycling-mountain-bike-cross-country	0.08	0.07	MTB cross-country success indicates general traits like coordination, balance, and the ability to sustain repeated surges while staying technically controlled on uneven terrain. Long/triple jump success, however, depends heavily on horizontal approach mechanics (run-up speed and rhythm), precise takeoff timing, elastic/plyometric stiffness, and learned phase technique (especially for triple jump). Since cycling cross-country is not a primary training environment for sprint acceleration, plyometric elasticity, or jump-specific takeoff/landing patterns, the overlap is mainly general athleticism. Therefore a small positive correlation (roughly 0.05–0.15) is plausible, centered around ~0.08 with meaningful uncertainty.	[117]
cycling-road-climber	0.08	0.1	Cycling climber performance suggests strong lower-body durability, good ability to produce force efficiently over time, and disciplined training habits. Those can modestly help in athletics by supporting general conditioning and making it easier to handle the volume of technical/power training needed when learning jumps. But long jump and especially triple jump depend heavily on event-specific skills: building and controlling approach speed, exact takeoff timing, creating vertical impulse from the board (long jump) or managing hop/step/sbound phase mechanics (triple jump), and developing elastic stiffness through plyometrics—techniques cycling does not directly teach. Therefore the carry-over is expected to be small: some people who train their legs well and have a good motor system will adapt faster, but most of the jump performance variance will come from new, specialized skill acquisition and neuromuscular qualities not strongly developed by climbing-only cycling. Hence a slightly-above-baseline correlation with fairly large uncertainty is most realistic.	[118]
cycling-road-sprinter	0.055	0.04	Cycling sprinters likely carry over some underlying explosiveness and ability to generate high power quickly, which can help long/triple jump take the early steps (building runway speed and learning to be forceful at takeoff). However, the core determinants of long/triple jump success are highly event-specific: approach mechanics, takeoff/plant timing, direction of force, and for triple jump the phase rhythm and elastic stiffness. Since cycling doesn’t teach these patterns directly, the expected carryover is small but positive (around ~0.055) with moderate uncertainty.	[119] [120] [121]
cycling-road-time-trialist	0.06	0.05	Cycling time trialing builds a strong aerobic “engine,” pacing discipline, and repeated high-force capability. Long jump and triple jump require much more event-specific elastic takeoff, precise approach/run-up timing, and highly technical coordination (especially for the triple jump’s hop-step sequence). Because the dominant performance determinants are different technical skills and energy-system emphasis (sustained vs explosive/elastic), direct transfer from time-trial cycling success should be limited. Still, there is some modest carry-over through general athletic preparation: cyclists often develop good lower-limb strength and neuromuscular efficiency from power training, and their training habits/ability to build fitness can help them ramp up to the high-volume approach work needed in jumping. That shared foundation is enough to produce a small positive correlation rather than near-zero, but not enough to be large.	[122] [123]
cycling-track-endurance	0.04	0.03	Long/triple jump relies heavily on converting approach speed into horizontal takeoff impulse with very jump-specific elastic mechanics (especially triple jump phase coordination) and precise takeoff timing. Endurance track cycling shares only partial “support” overlap (staying controlled for long sessions, consistent training habits, and some general coordination/body control). Those benefits can slightly improve learning efficiency and consistency in jump training, but they don’t capture the main determinants of jump success. Hence a very low positive correlation, near zero.	[124] [125] [126]
cycling-track-sprint	0.09	0.07	Cycling sprint track performance is a good proxy for developing high force quickly and repeating hard efforts, which can translate into useful runway speed and general explosive strength for horizontal jumps. However, long jump and triple jump success depends strongly on very specific horizontal takeoff mechanics (approach consistency, takeoff timing, penultimate step control), elastic stiffness/elastic energy management, and landing/phase coordination—especially pronounced for triple jump. Sprint cycling does not teach these phase-specific skills, so the carry-over should be positive but small, with a relatively wide spread depending on who also does plyometrics/sprints or has natural aptitude for jumping.	[127]
fencing-epee	0.04	0.05	Epee can help with general athletic qualities that matter for jumping—especially precise foot placement, balance, and coordinating the whole body under timing pressure. But long jump and triple jump outcomes are dominated by runway speed, takeoff/landing mechanics, elastic stiffness, and event-specific technical sequencing (particularly the hop-step-jump pattern). Those biomechanical and coordination demands differ greatly from fencing’s distance-control touch mechanics. So the expected carry-over from “doing well in epee” to “doing well in long/triple jump” should be small (near ~0.04) with moderate spread across individuals.	[128] [129] [130]
fencing-foil	0.07	0.08	Foil fencing and long/triple jump share some technique-neutral components—balance, coordination, and the ability to time explosive actions under pressure. A good fencer can also adapt quickly because fencing trains precise movement control and rapid decision-making. But horizontal jumping performance is dominated by very specific biomechanics: converting approach speed into takeoff impulse, achieving elastic stiffness and stable penultimate/takeoff phases (especially in triple jump), and managing complex coordination across multiple contacts. Those mechanics are not trained in foil, so fencing success can only offer limited indirect advantage. Therefore the expected carryover is small and close to zero-to-low positive, with moderate variance: some athletes will be naturally athletic/coordination-heavy and learn the jump mechanics quickly, while others will not translate fencing timing/control into the required runway and takeoff technique.	[131] [132]
fencing-sabre	0.12	0.1	Fencing sabre requires repeated explosive starts, rapid lower-limb-to-upper-body coordination, and precise timing—some of which overlaps conceptually with the need to convert approach speed into takeoff power in long/triple jump. This creates a small positive association. However, horizontal jumps are highly technique-specific: run-up rhythm, penultimate/last steps, takeoff direction, board interaction (long jump), hop/step mechanics (triple), and landing stiffness strategy are not trained in fencing. Since the biggest “how good you are” drivers for these events are mostly absent, the correlation should stay low.	[133]
field-hockey-goalkeeper	0.07	0.05	Field-hockey goalkeeper performance shares only a modest subset of skills with long jump/triple jump: dynamic balance, overall athleticism, and the ability to coordinate the body under time pressure. But the events’ key success factors are highly technique- and mechanics-specific—runway approach rhythm, impulse generation at takeoff, elastic stiffness/timing, and (for triple jump) phase-by-phase control (hop/step/jump). Because goalkeeper training does not directly develop those horizontal jumping mechanics, the carry-over should be small, slightly above “wildly different” purely due to general athletic coordination/competence transferring.	[134] [135] [136]
field-hockey-outfield	0.08	0.06	Field hockey outfield training can improve general sprinting ability, lower-limb power, and elastic/reactive coordination because players repeatedly accelerate, stop, and change direction while maintaining ball-related awareness. Those ingredients can help when learning a long or triple jump approach and takeoff. However, long/triple jump success depends strongly on event-specific mechanics (run-up consistency, penultimate step timing, takeoff board/phase control, elastic stiffness and landing technique), which are learned much more through dedicated jumping practice than through hockey. Therefore, only a small fraction of the ‘being good’ signal from hockey outfield should translate into being good in horizontal jumps, yielding a modest but low correlation.	[137] [138]
golf	0.05	0.035	Golf and horizontal jumps share only a little direct technique overlap: both require precision timing, consistent approach patterns, and whole-body coordination. But the dominant performance drivers differ sharply—horizontal jumps depend on sprinting speed, elastic takeoff mechanics, and specific runway-to-takeoff timing, whereas golf is a rotational precision striking swing. With physical-proportion effects excluded, golf’s contribution is mostly general athletic skill acquisition (coordination, rhythm, learning a repeatable technique), so carry-over should be small. Long/triple jump adds a bit more shared “timing + approach control” than high jump because runway approach rhythm matters, but still far-transfer overall.	[139] [140]
gymnastics-artistic	0.07	0.05	Artistic gymnastics can transfer relevant pieces to long and triple jump—especially body control in the air, bracing/trunk stiffness, and landing/takeoff organization. That creates a small positive correlation between being successful in gymnastics and later being successful in horizontal jumping. But long and triple jump require substantial event-specific skill: precise approach/runway speed management, exact takeoff geometry, and (for triple) highly repeatable multi-phase timing (hop-step-jump) and rhythm. These dominate performance outcomes and are only indirectly supported by gymnastics. Therefore the carryover should be modest-to-small rather than large.	[141] [142] [143]
gymnastics-rhythmic	0.17	0.11	Rhythmic gymnastics offers strong transferable prerequisites for long/triple jump: timing, coordination, proprioception, and body-line control during fast changing movements. It can help with learning the rhythm of the approach, maintaining technique while accelerating, and stabilizing posture through takeoff → flight → landing. However, elite long/triple jumping is dominated by jump-event specificity: converting runway speed into takeoff power, developing elastic stiffness/leg spring, and for triple jump executing the exact event-specific phase mechanics (hop-step-jump timing and braking/propulsive actions). Rhythmic gymnastics does not generally provide comparable practice for maximizing approach sprint velocity or repeated horizontal takeoff mechanics. Given that mismatch but acknowledging meaningful neuromuscular/coordination overlap, a plausible mean correlation is around 0.17 with substantial uncertainty.	[144] [145] [146] [147]
gymnastics-trampoline	0.2	0.1	Trampoline-to-horizontal jump transfer should be positive and somewhat meaningful because both rely on controlling the body through aerial phases, timing, and using elastic/powerful takeoff-landing coordination. However, long/triple jump are still very event-specific: approach rhythm, takeoff board mechanics, and triple’s hop-step-jump coordination patterns are not directly trained by trampoline. Since technique-only carryover is the focus (excluding body-build effects), the net effect is likely a modest-to-moderate correlation rather than a high one.	[148] [149] [150] [151]
handball-backcourt	0.06	0.07	Handball backcourt performance likely correlates slightly with long/triple jump performance via general skills: (1) timing and body control while moving at speed, (2) learning to coordinate upper/lower body during takeoff-like actions (shooting leaps, blocks, defensive reactions), and (3) an overall “explosive-reactive” training background. But long jump and triple jump are highly technique-specific: the run-up rhythm, penultimate/ takeoff timing, stiffness/elastic recoil management, and for triple jump the hop-step-jump sequence and landing mechanics. Handball does not consistently train those exact phases as primary skills. Therefore the correlation should be small but not zero, with substantial uncertainty depending on whether the athlete also did dedicated sprint/jump/plyometric work outside handball.	[152]
handball-goalkeeper	0.06	0.07	Handball goalkeeper performance should have only a small positive correlation with long/triple jump success. The overlap comes mainly from general athletic traits and motor capacities that goalkeepers cultivate (coordination, balance, ability to generate quick force and control body position under pressure). However, the decisive determinants in long and triple jump are strongly event-specific: runway speed/stride pattern, takeoff mechanics, elastic stiffness, and (for triple jump) the hop-step-jump phase coordination and landing techniques. Since these are not central goalkeeper skills, much of the performance variance won’t carry over, keeping the correlation low.	[153] [154] [155]
handball-pivot	0.05	0.07	The expected carry-over is small positive. Handball pivot training does reinforce general athletic qualities that can help long/triple jump learning: (1) body control and balance when forces act on you from the side/front (crowded duels), (2) coordination and quick adjustment of movement timing, and (3) comfort with aggressive change of direction and braking/re-accelerating in short windows—useful for adapting the approach. However, success in long/triple jump depends heavily on event-specific technique: precise approach rhythm, takeoff plant position, takeoff-leg action, flight/landing mechanics, and for triple jump specifically phase sequencing and elastic stiffness. Pivot’s dominant “tooling” (hand/ball entry, blocking/shooting patterns) doesn’t map onto these. Because the core determinants are different, correlation should remain low. Variance is likely moderate: athletes who also have a background in sprint/jump mechanics or strong general explosive coordination may see more transfer, while others will not.	[156]
handball-wing	0.11	0.1	Handball wing success carries some generalizable components to long/triple jump: explosive leg drive, fast acceleration into takeoff, elastic/reactive jumping ability (frequent jump shots and quick re-entries), and spatial/aerial body coordination from high-frequency jumping/landing. But the event skill that dominates performance is very specific: long jump requires an optimized runway rhythm and takeoff conversion; triple jump adds highly technical hop–step–jump mechanics and precise phase timing. Handball wings typically jump in different contexts (often from shorter, reactive approaches, with arm/ball tasks and different takeoff angles), so the technical mapping is incomplete. Therefore the expected technique/skill carryover is low-to-mild positive (~0.11) with moderate variance: athletes with a strong sprint/jump background may transfer more, while others benefit mainly in general power/rebound without mastering the event mechanics.	[157]
ice-hockey-defenseman	0.04	0.02	Ice hockey defenseman skills can contribute to long/triple jump only through fairly general athletic qualities: coordination, balance, and some ability to generate power quickly and time movements under changing conditions. However, long/triple jump success depends strongly on a very specific sequence of skills—run-up speed management, takeoff mechanics from the board, control of body/lead-leg action across phases (especially triple jump), and landing technique. Those event-specific techniques are not learned in the dominant skill set of a defenseman (skating/contact/defensive transitions with stick work). Therefore the expected skill carryover is small but not strictly zero, yielding a correlation near the 0.03–0.06 range.	[158] [159] [160] [161]
ice-hockey-forward	0.1	0.07	Ice hockey forward success likely carries a little over to long/triple jump through general qualities tied to technique execution: explosive acceleration, body control at speed, ability to coordinate timing while moving fast, and maintaining balance during takeoff-like moments. But horizontal jump events rely on precise approach/runway mechanics and, for triple jump, a learned multi-phase technique (hop/step, phase ratios, takeoff-to-landing stiffness). Because much of the decisive “technique” is event-specific, the expected correlation remains low (around ~0.10) with moderate uncertainty.	[162] [163]
ice-hockey-goalkeeper	0.07	0.07	Ice hockey goalkeeping provides some transferable “how to move” foundations—rapid read/react, balance, and repeated short explosive pushes. Those can make it easier to acquire the runway/takeoff/landing rhythm and stay coordinated through the transition from speed to takeoff. But long jump and especially triple jump are dominated by event-specific biomechanics and phase coordination (approach pattern, penultimate step, takeoff timing/angle, hop-step-jump coordination, and landing mechanics) that have little direct overlap with goalie technique. As a result, the expected correlation is small but not exactly zero, with substantial variation across individuals depending on how athletic and adaptable their movement training was outside hockey.	[164] [165] [166]
judo	0.17	0.14	Judo-to-long/triple jump has some positive transfer through general explosive intent, coordination, and the ability to generate/transfer force while staying organized under changing balance forces—useful for takeoff mechanics. But the dominant determinants of long/triple jump performance are highly event-specific: approach/runway speed control, penultimate step timing, board contact technique, and (for triple jump) the hop-step rhythm and takeoff stiffness strategy. Because judo doesn’t teach those exact patterns, the carry-over from judo “success” to horizontal jumps is limited, with substantial person-to-person variance (some judokas may adapt well to sprint/jump mechanics, others may not).	[167] [168]
lacrosse-attacker	0.08	0.06	Lacrosse attackers tend to develop useful building blocks for horizontal jumps: they often have good sprinting and acceleration, coordination at speed, and the ability to plant/take off powerfully after movement. Those can make learning a horizontal-jump approach and takeoff slightly easier and predict faster early progress. However, long jump and especially triple jump require very specific technique: approach rhythm and measurement, exact penultimate/transition step timing, takeoff mechanics (hip/knee/ankle angles and projection), and event-specific landing/absorption. Lacrosse’s stick-and-ball skill work and cutting/contact patterns do not directly teach these event mechanics. Therefore the correlation should be small but positive—better athletes may adapt faster—but success in long/triple jump is largely determined by track-specific technical learning.	[169] [170]
lacrosse-defender	0.08	0.06	Expected carry-over is small. Lacrosse defender performance can correlate with general athletic competence (running economy, balance, coordination, learning pace, handling contact/impact), which can modestly help the early development of runway approach mechanics and takeoff coordination. But long/triple jump is governed by very event-specific skills—runway rhythm, exact penultimate step/takeoff timing, and elastic-phase mechanics (especially the hop-step-jump sequence)—that are not typical outputs of lacrosse defense training. Hence a low, but non-zero, positive correlation with notable uncertainty depending on whether the athlete naturally has speed/elasticity for jumping beyond their lacrosse role.	[171] [172] [173]
lacrosse-goalkeeper	0.09	0.04	Overlap between lacrosse goalkeeping and horizontal jumps exists mainly at the level of general athletic skills: quick reaction, spatial awareness, body control, and the ability to learn timing and coordination. Those can create a small positive correlation. However, long/triple jump success depends heavily on event-specific mechanics: runway speed conversion, penultimate step timing, takeoff angle and stiffness, phase control (especially triple jump hop-step-jump sequencing), and safe, repeatable landing technique. These are not meaningfully trained in lacrosse goalie save mechanics. Because the transfer is mostly “generic athletic coordination + adaptability” with little direct technical mapping, the correlation should remain low—clearly above zero but well below moderate values.	[174]
lacrosse-midfielder	0.06	0.03	Shared elements exist: lacrosse midfielders build repeated sprinting, acceleration, and dynamic coordination while maintaining balance under contact, which can help an athlete learn run-ups and approach rhythms for horizontal jumps. But long/triple jump technique is extremely specific: athletes must master run-up timing, penultimate step mechanics, takeoff angle and force direction, optimal elastic stiffness, and for triple jump the hop–step–jump sequence with strict step/landing mechanics. Lacrosse success is driven much more by ball-stick handling, tactical reading, and change-of-direction/contact rather than developing jump-specific approach mechanics. So the expected carry-over is small but positive, near the low end of the suggested range for “wildly different” sports, landing around ~0.06 with modest uncertainty (~0.03).	[175]
padel	0.05	0.04	Padel success likely correlates slightly with general coordination: rapid decision-making, consistent footwork patterns, and reacting to changing ball trajectories. Long/triple jump also require coordination under speed and precise takeoff timing. That gives a small positive carryover. But the core determinants of long/triple jump—runway speed management, takeoff board mechanics, horizontal impulse generation, and triple-jump phase consistency (hop/step/jump stiffness and timing)—are highly specific. Padel does not teach the elastic stiffness and horizontal takeoff/phase mechanics that dominate outcomes. Therefore correlation should remain very low, slightly above zero.	[176]
pickleball	0.05	0.03	Horizontal jumps depend heavily on event-specific biomechanics: runway approach rhythm, takeoff angle/technique, elastic force usage, and in triple jump the precise multi-phase footwork. Pickleball’s skill learning is mostly about tracking a moving ball, timing responses, and managing rapid lateral direction changes on a compact court. While both can reward general coordination and quickness, the motor patterns that determine jump outcomes (approach-to-takeoff transfer, stiffness and landing mechanics, phase timing) are quite different. Therefore carry-over should be small, slightly above the extreme low range because pickleball does develop some transferable athletic coordination and reactive timing, but it won’t strongly predict long/triple jump technical performance.	[177]
rowing-lightweight	0.07	0.05	Lightweight rowing should have only a small positive relationship with success in long jump/triple jump. Rowing can support general athletic traits that help with jumping learning: coordinated whole-body mechanics, good leverage/force transmission, and maintaining technique while fatigued. But horizontal jumps are heavily dependent on event-specific mechanics: sprint/runway speed and its transition into takeoff, maximizing horizontal impulse with the correct takeoff angle, and—especially for triple jump—the hop-step-jump phase coordination and elastic stiffness under very short ground contacts. Rowing’s repeated aerobic stroke pattern and different force direction do not strongly train those horizontal takeoff and elastic/single-contact details. So the expected carry-over is near the “wildly different” lower range (slightly above 0.05 because of general coordination/force-learning), with high variability based on whether the athlete also does sprinting/plyometrics or other jump work.	[178]
rowing-openweight	0.2	0.1	Rowing (openweight) should correlate positively with long/triple jump because both reward lower-body force production, coordinated whole-body sequencing, and disciplined training. However, horizontal jump success depends heavily on approach/run-up mechanics, precise takeoff timing, and highly specific elastic/coordination patterns through flight and (especially for triple jump) rebound phases. Those jump-specific skills are not trained in rowing, so transfer is limited. Overall this supports a modest positive correlation rather than a strong one.	[179] [180] [181] [182]
rugby-union-halfback-midfield	0.06	0.07	Rugby halfback/midfield success can correlate weakly with long/triple jump because both benefit from general qualities like speed, coordination, and lower-limb explosiveness built from repeated short accelerations and high-intensity bursts. However, long and triple jump are extremely technique- and phase-specific (runway approach, board takeoff, landing/flight mechanics, and triple’s hop-step-jump timing and stiffness management). Rugby halfback skills—distribution, kicking, contact balance—do not translate cleanly into that horizontal takeoff/phase coordination. Therefore the expected carryover is small and somewhat variable: a good rugby player might learn runway-to-takeoff conversion faster than a complete novice, but many will still need substantial event-specific coaching, so the average correlation stays low.	[183] [184] [185] [186]
rugby-union-loose-forward	0.05	0.04	Loose forwards have some transferable “explosive athlete” ingredients—short bursts, leg power developed through contact/tackling and acceleration, and generally good coordination under fatigue. That can create a small positive relationship with the raw ability needed to learn jumping events. However, long and triple jump success depends heavily on very specific horizontal approach and phase timing: runway speed regulation, exact takeoff-board timing, and (for triple jump) the hop-step-jump sequence with stiffness and balance constraints. Rugby does not strongly train those exact mechanics, so performance in rugby should only weakly predict jump-event outcomes. Therefore the expected correlation is near low-positive with wide individual variation. Athletes who naturally have strong sprinting mechanics and elasticity may transfer better; rugby loose forwards more oriented toward contact/ruck patterns may transfer less.	[187]
rugby-union-outside-back	0.15	0.08	Rugby outside backs and horizontal jumpers share some useful athletic ingredients: acceleration/speed for the approach and a general ability to coordinate the body at speed with good balance and explosive intent. That creates a small positive carry-over. However, long jump and especially triple jump are highly technical: they depend on an exact approach rhythm and last-step/penultimate control, precise takeoff mechanics, and for triple jump the hop-step-jump phase timing. Rugby outside-back play trains acceleration and evasion under chaos, not repeatable runway-to-takeoff mechanics. Therefore, the correlation should be modest rather than high.	[188] [189] [190] [191]
rugby-union-tight-five	0.08	0.06	Tight five success in rugby is driven mainly by scrummaging mechanics, close-contact engagement, and repeated-collision resilience—while long/triple jump success depends heavily on (1) runway speed and sprint mechanics, (2) elastic takeoff timing and impulse generation, and (3) very specific phase coordination (especially triple jump hop-step-jump rhythm). There is some positive carry-over because both require producing force quickly, using body control under fatigue/stress, and developing power and an athletic work ethic. However, horizontal jumping’s decisive technical components (sprint-to-takeoff transition, penultimate-step timing, takeoff angle and contact mechanics, and triple-jump rhythm) are not core skills for tight five. So the expected average correlation is low, but slightly above zero (~0.08), with uncertainty reflecting that some rugby forwards may also have unusually strong speed and elastic power (which would raise their carry-over), while others will not.	[192]
skiing-alpine-speed	0.11	0.08	Alpine speed-event skiing (downhill/super-G) rewards excellent lower-body control under high speed, force absorption into turns, and the ability to re-position rapidly to generate speed/power out of pressure. Those general motor abilities can give a modest advantage when learning horizontal jumping events, which also require coordinated lower-body mechanics, elastic stiffness, and the ability to convert approach speed into an effective takeoff. However, the central determinants of long jump and especially triple jump are highly specific: runway speed management, takeoff timing/positioning (including board interaction), and for triple jump the phase-to-phase rhythm and exact contact mechanics. Skiing’s core technique (edge control/gliding and line-holding) only partially maps to these, so the carry-over is expected to be small-to-moderate. An average correlation around ~0.11 with a relatively wide spread (~0.08) is a plausible estimate.	[193] [194] [195]
skiing-alpine-technical	0.13	0.07	Alpine technical skiing (slalom/giant slalom) strongly develops rapid lower-body force production/absorption and high-speed coordination while managing changing body angles. Long jump and triple jump also rely on explosive takeoff and coordinated force transfer through the body. So there is some carry-over in general elastic power expression and coordination under speed, which supports a small-to-moderate positive correlation. But the dominant determinants in long/triple jump are highly specific to the runway approach, takeoff conversion, and (for triple jump) phase sequencing and landing mechanics—elements not trained directly in skiing technical turns. Therefore the overall correlation should remain modest rather than high.	[196] [197] [198]
skiing-cross-country	0.14	0.1	Cross-country skiing builds aerobic efficiency, whole-body coordination, and lower-body strength endurance; it can also cultivate balance and some elastic use depending on technique and terrain. Long/triple jump success, however, is dominated by sport-specific elements: approach-run speed/acceleration, extremely specific takeoff angles and mechanics, and rapid conversion of horizontal velocity into vertical lift (plus, for triple jump, repeatable phase-by-phase elastic contacts). Since endurance-focused cross-country training does not necessarily provide the needed high-rate power and approach/takeoff technical practice, the skill carry-over should be modest. A plausible average correlation is therefore small-to-low (≈0.14) with moderate uncertainty, higher for athletes who in skiing also developed sprint speed and plyometric strength, and lower for those whose skiing was primarily aerobic with little explosive work.	[199]
snowboarding	0.06	0.04	Snowboarding may provide a small advantage for long/triple jump mainly through general coordination: managing speed while keeping alignment, controlling body orientation during fast, changing movement, and learning to coordinate takeoff phases when the environment is unpredictable. However, long/triple jump success is dominated by highly event-specific mechanics: converting approach speed into horizontal takeoff through precise takeoff-plant angles, elastic stiffness demands, and repeated phase coordination (especially in triple jump with hop-step-jump timing). Snowboarding’s edge/aerial skills don’t train these exact force-vector and timing patterns. So carry-over from snowboarding excellence should be low. Therefore a low positive correlation is plausible (slightly above the “wildly different” range).	[200]
soccer-central-defender	0.06	0.03	Central defenders experience frequent contest-related jumps/impacts and generally good body control under pressure, which can provide a modest head start for the coordination and landing aspects of horizontal jumps. However, long/triple jump success is dominated by highly specific takeoff mechanics (plant timing, penultimate step/approach matching), elastic stiffness management, and runway-to-takeoff conversion that are not trained directly in soccer defending. Therefore the carry-over should be small positive: some general athletic skill and responsiveness transfer, but most of the event-specific technique does not.	[201] [202] [203]
soccer-central-midfielder	0.11	0.07	Central midfielders build transferable skills relevant to horizontal jumps: repeated running with frequent speed changes, balance under pressure, spatial awareness, and timing of explosive actions. That can make the approach/transition learning curve easier. However, long/triple jump require a highly specific technical sequence (run-up calibration, penultimate/board step mechanics, takeoff angle and takeoff leg stiffness, and for triple jump the hop–step–jump rhythm and landing strategy). Soccer’s dueling/ball context does not strongly train those biomechanical patterns, so carry-over is low to modest.	[204]
soccer-goalkeeper	0.07	0.05	A soccer goalkeeper’s advantage transfers only indirectly to long/triple jump: mainly through general traits like dynamic coordination, timing, and explosive readiness under pressure. The biggest performance determinants for long/triple jump—run-up speed/control, plant mechanics, takeoff angle, and (for triple jump) phase-specific coordination—are not learned in goalkeeper training. So the carry-over should be small but not zero.	[205] [206] [207]
soccer-striker	0.1	0.06	Soccer striker success can indicate useful general athletic abilities for long/triple jump—especially acceleration, coordinated movement, and the ability to produce power after a run-up. Those can lower the learning curve for generating speed and converting it into takeoff. But long and triple jump are dominated by highly specific biomechanics and technique: precise approach/runway speed control, penultimate/plant mechanics, takeoff angle and stiffness, and (for triple) the rebound/phase control across hop-step-jump. Soccer striker skills (finishing, ball timing, changes of direction under close marking) overlap only partially with these technical requirements. Therefore a low positive correlation is most plausible, with considerable uncertainty about how much of a person’s soccer success came from general explosiveness vs soccer-specific skills.	[208] [209]
soccer-winger	0.12	0.07	Soccer winger performance should have a small positive relationship with long jump/triple jump because both demand repeated acceleration, sprint mechanics, and ability to coordinate explosive takeoff after a run-up. That shared “speed-to-explosion” attribute makes a noticeable but limited carry-over. However, triple jump and long jump are extremely technique-specific: run-up geometry, last steps, takeoff angle and timing, landing mechanics, and (for triple jump) the exact hop-step-jump stiffness/elasticity sequencing are largely learned in track & field. Therefore, a low correlation (around 0.10–0.15) is the most realistic estimate, with substantial variation depending on whether the athlete’s winger strengths were already runway/sprint-to-takeoff oriented versus more ball-creation/finishing oriented.	[210]
softball-catcher	0.02	0.04	Catcher success and horizontal jump success share only general athletic traits (balance, coordination, ability to learn complex movements). There is very little transferable, sport-specific technique: catching/blocking pitches does not teach runway timing, takeoff impulse management, or triple-jump phase mechanics. Therefore the correlation should be small and close to zero, with any positive association mostly due to general athleticism and practice habits rather than direct skill transfer.	[211]
softball-field-player	0.05	0.05	Softball field-player performance should have only a small positive correlation with long/triple jump success. There is some overlap in general athletic coordination, quick timing, and short-burst explosiveness that can make it easier to learn jump movements. However, the dominant determinants in horizontal jumping are highly specific: runway speed and rhythm, precise takeoff timing/angle, and elastic stiffness management through the takeoff phase (plus the triple jump sequence). Because those are not central to softball fielding, the carryover remains limited.	[212] [213] [214]
softball-pitcher	0.04	0.05	Pitching can contribute a small advantage to horizontal jump mainly via general coordination, force-transfer ability, and comfort producing power on a repeatable rhythm. Those traits can help with learning the runway/takeoff timing and generating explosive intent. However, long/triple jump success depends heavily on event-specific technique: approach mechanics, plant/takeoff angles, elastic stiffness control, multi-phase coordination (especially triple jump), and landing/board execution. Pitching’s underhand delivery mechanics and arm-dominant force transfer share only limited common ground with those lower-body, stiffness/elastic, and sequence-based demands. Therefore the correlation should be near zero but slightly positive.	[215]
squash	0.07	0.05	Squash strongly develops lower-limb agility, repeated acceleration/deceleration, and coordination in confined space. Those traits can transfer modestly to horizontal jumps by improving the athlete’s general ability to control the body during approach and maintain coordination into takeoff. But long jump and triple jump are highly event-specific: the approach rhythm, takeoff foot placement, conversion of horizontal speed into takeoff mechanics, and for triple jump the exact hop-step-jump phase control and contact stiffness are not trained in squash. Therefore the correlation should be small—mainly reflecting general athletic coordination rather than true technical carry-over.	[216]
surfing	0.1	0.05	Surfing should have a small-to-modest positive carryover to long jump/triple jump because both require: (1) dynamic balance and body control in a chaotic/unstable environment (helping posture and landing control), (2) timing and coordination during rapid transitions (paddling→pop-up; wave takeoff/landing adjustments vs approach→takeoff), and (3) repeated lower/upper-body coordination under fatigue. However, long and especially triple jump performance is dominated by event-specific technical factors: precise runway approach rhythm, penultimate/plant mechanics, takeoff angle and impulse production, and for triple jump the ability to execute three phase-specific, elastic/controlled contacts (hop-step-jump) with correct stiffness and timing. Surfing doesn’t teach those serial takeoff/contact mechanics or runway geometry, so surfing success is only a weak predictor of jump-event success. Thus the expected average correlation is low (~0.10) with moderate uncertainty (~0.05).	[217]
swimming-backstroke-middle-distance	0.06	0.04	Backstroke middle-distance success is mainly about efficient propulsion mechanics, shoulder/upper-body endurance, rhythm, and precise turns/underwater execution performed repeatedly over a sustained effort. Long jump and triple jump success is driven by runway speed mechanics, takeoff timing, elastic stiffness and force application direction, and coordination through distinct takeoff phases. There is some shared “general athletics” component—learning motor patterns, body control, training discipline, and the ability to maintain coordination while fatigued. But the core technique requirements are quite different (water-based propulsion and turns vs sprint/run-up mechanics, takeoff angles, and landing/takeoff phase coordination). As a result, the expected correlation should be small, near the lower end of the typical dissimilar-sport range.	[218] [219]
swimming-backstroke-sprint	0.06	0.04	Sprint backstroke success is mainly determined by explosive start/turn mechanics, underwater transitions, shoulder/trunk coordination, and maintaining high technical tempo over short anaerobic efforts. Long jump and triple jump success depends on generating and maintaining runway speed, producing an optimal takeoff with correct approach-to-takeoff timing, and controlling the body through complex phase mechanics (especially the triple jump hop-step-jump sequence). The transferable component is mostly general: being able to generate quick power, coordinate movement at high speed, and execute crisp technical actions under short, intense fatigue. But the specific learned mechanics (water start/underwater propulsion/turns vs runway approach geometry, takeoff angles, phase control, and elastic stiffness characteristics) are largely different, so football-style “position similarity” does not apply. Therefore a small positive carry-over is plausible (some athletes who are unusually good at explosive, well-coordinated sprint efforts adapt faster), but overall the correlation should remain low—around 0.06—with moderate uncertainty.	[220] [221]
swimming-breaststroke-middle-distance	0.04	0.05	Middle-distance breaststroke success is driven mainly by precise simultaneous arm–leg timing, efficiency/rhythm, and maintaining repeatable propulsion mechanics under speed-endurance fatigue. Long jump/triple jump success depends much more on runway speed management, explosive takeoff mechanics, and especially elasticity/stiffness plus coordinated phase timing through the hop/step sequence (triple jump). There is only modest overlap in “timing and technique refinement,” so the correlation should be small. Hence a low positive estimate (~0.04) with substantial uncertainty (~0.05) because individual athletic backgrounds could swing transfer upward or downward, but the technique mechanisms are largely different.	[222] [223]
swimming-breaststroke-sprint	0.06	0.05	Sprint breaststroke success can reflect qualities useful in long/triple jump—explosive lower-limb power, rhythmic coordination of arms/legs, and a capacity to learn and reproduce technical timing under fatigue (e.g., starts/walls and stroke cycles). That creates a small positive carry-over. But long/triple jump performance depends on runway mechanics (speed control, approach rhythm), horizontal takeoff angles, plant/stance mechanics, and for triple jump, repeated elastic phase control (hop-step-jump). Breaststroke training does not directly build those horizontal projection and elastic stiffness/takeoff-phase skills, so the correlation should stay low. Thus a plausible estimate is near the “quite different but not totally unrelated” range: slightly above 0.05, with moderate uncertainty.	[224]
swimming-butterfly-middle-distance	0.11	0.1	Middle-distance butterfly success reflects strong whole-body coordination, timing/rhythm, and the ability to produce powerful movement with technique maintained under fatigue. Long/triple jump success depends heavily on horizontal speed control into takeoff, explosive takeoff mechanics, elastic stiffness, and consistent coordination through multiple phases (especially triple jump). There is modest overlap in general athletic coordination and rhythm, and swimmers often can transfer some power/coordination from dryland training (starts, plyometrics) if included. But the dominant skills in horizontal jumping (run-up mechanics, takeoff angles, takeoff/landing stiffness patterns, phase coordination) are not taught by butterfly, so direct technique carry-over is limited. Therefore the expected correlation is small (~0.11) with fairly large uncertainty (~0.10) due to variation in how much the swimmer trained land power/explosiveness versus staying mostly endurance/technique-focused in water.	[225]
swimming-butterfly-sprint	0.11	0.08	Sprint butterfly success should correlate weakly to modestly with long/triple jump success through general transfer of neuromuscular properties (explosive power development, rhythm/coordination, and maintaining technique under fatigue) that help during the approach and takeoff phases. However, horizontal jumping is highly technique-specific—runway speed-to-takeoff conversion, takeoff board mechanics, hop/step phases (triple), and landing/elastic stiffness control are not trained by swimming. Therefore the expected correlation remains small with substantial individual variability (e.g., people who naturally convert power into running/takeoff may show more transfer).	[226] [227]
swimming-freestyle-distance	0.07	0.05	Swimming (endurance-heavy freestyle) and long/triple jump share some broad correlates of success: coordination, body control, and the ability to train technique systematically over time. These can create a small positive relationship between being good at one and learning/adapting well to the other. But the primary determinants of long/triple jump success—high approach/runway speed, precise takeoff foot placement, elastic stiffness and timing through a plyometric-like takeoff, and event-specific phase coordination (especially triple jump sequences)—are largely neuromuscularly and technically different from freestyle-distance propulsion in water. Swimming also emphasizes sustained hydrodynamic efficiency rather than short, maximal takeoff impulses. Because most of the performance “signal” in each sport comes from different mechanics, the carry-over should be small rather than moderate.	[228]
swimming-freestyle-middle-distance	0.09	0.06	Swimming freestyle middle-distance and long/triple jump share some transferable components: general athleticism, pacing/effort control during training, coordination, and the ability to generate force efficiently through the body (though in different directions and via different mechanics). However, the core success determinants for long/triple jump are runway approach speed, takeoff technique, elastic stiffness, and landing/phase coordination—skills that are not directly trained or learned in swimming. The carry-over is therefore expected to be small but nonzero, and larger than for high jump because horizontal jumping has more similarity to “run-up speed” and rhythm-like coordination, even though propulsion is still fundamentally different.	[229]
swimming-freestyle-sprint	0.14	0.11	A small-to-moderate positive carry-over is plausible because sprint freestyle success is strongly associated with explosive force production, body control at high speed, and coordinated whole-body sequencing—capacities that can help with the “speed + elastic takeoff + coordination” requirements of long jump and (to a lesser degree) triple jump. However, most of the event-specific learning is fundamentally different: swimmers must convert their upper-body/front-crawl propulsion into horizontal approach/takeoff mechanics, and long/triple jump require precise runway mechanics, plant/takeoff angle control, and (for triple jump) the hop–step–jump timing/stiffness management. Since those are learned in the jumping context, the relationship should not be large.	[230]
table-tennis	0.03	0.03	Table tennis success is driven largely by racket/ball timing (including spin), fine motor precision, and rapid reaction to a small target over very short movement cycles. Long and triple jump success is driven by approach/runway mechanics (speed and rhythm), takeoff geometry, elastic energy use, and event-specific phases (hops/steps/landing control). While both require overall athletic coordination and the ability to learn fast and execute explosive movement patterns, the specific technical components have little overlap. Therefore the carry-over is expected to be small (low positive or near-zero).	[231]
taekwondo	0.07	0.07	Taekwondo and long/triple jump overlap somewhat in the general athletic ingredients: explosive lower-body power, elastic/coordinated leg action, and the ability to time a fast movement and keep control through a dynamic phase. That can make it easier to learn the basics of horizontal jumping and can produce a modest carry-over from taekwondo success. However, the key determinants of long/triple jump are highly technique-specific: approach run timing/speed, takeoff angle and stiffness strategy, and for triple jump the exact phase sequencing (hop-step-jump) and landing mechanics. Those football-style (combat) striking patterns do not directly train the same technical constraints, so carry-over remains low. Hence a small correlation around ~0.07 with substantial uncertainty.	[232] [233]
tennis	0.08	0.06	Long and triple jump are horizontal explosive events where the biggest determinants are runway consistency, takeoff mechanics (including penultimate/last step control), elasticity/stiffness strategy, and landing control. Tennis does not teach these specific biomechanics, so the correlation should remain low. Still, tennis can create a modest head start through general athletic coordination, balance, and the ability to time movement sequences, plus some transferable speed/agility and footwork rhythm that helps someone learn the runway faster. A plausible mean is ~0.08 with uncertainty ~0.06 depending on whether the person’s tennis training included a lot of sprinting/plyometrics versus mostly match play and racket skills.	[234] [235] [236]
triathlon	0.05	0.05	Triathlon success is mainly driven by aerobic endurance, pacing, and efficient technique across continuous swimming/cycling/running. Long jump/triple jump success depends primarily on approach runway speed, explosive takeoff mechanics, elastic stiffness/power, and precise timing/coordination across a short, high-intensity sequence. There is some overlap: both sports involve running mechanics, lower-limb coordination, and the ability to train consistently and maintain form under fatigue (useful for approach practice). However, the decisive skill in horizontal jumps—developing and applying explosive power and event-specific takeoff/flight patterns—is not a core triathlon output. Therefore the expected correlation is low but slightly positive (better endurance/coordination and disciplined training can make the learning curve a bit faster for some people who choose to add plyometrics/sprints). Overall it should sit near the low end for “different sports” rather than near zero.	[237]
volleyball-attacker	0.33	0.14	Volleyball attackers and horizontal jumpers overlap meaningfully on the “approach → explosive takeoff → control in the air” skill chain. Volleyball involves repeated acceleration to a last-step, strong elastic loading in the legs, and learning to coordinate the body during a jump for a specific objective (timed contact vs landing/mark). That said, long jump and especially triple jump add highly specific requirements: precise runway calibration, exact takeoff/board technique, and (for triple) a learned multi-phase sequence (hop-step-jump) with strict rhythm and stiffness demands. Volleyball spiking jump mechanics also include an arm/torso swing for hitting, which only partially maps onto horizontal-jump takeoff. So the skill carryover should be positive but not huge. A plausible Bayesian center lands in the low-to-mid 0.30s, with fairly wide uncertainty because training backgrounds vary a lot between jumpers and volleyball players.	[238]
volleyball-libero	0.055	0.04	Volleyball libero performance reflects fast perception, quick lateral/forward recovery, and repeated ground-based footwork to position for digs. Long/triple jump success depends on runway speed control, approach rhythm, takeoff board or phase timing, and stiffness/elastic recoil management through multiple phases (especially triple jump). There is some overlap in general coordination, balance, and the ability to learn efficient movement patterns, so the correlation should be slightly positive. But the dominant determinants in horizontal jumping are technique-specific (approach-to-takeoff transfer, step/phase mechanics), which libero training does not teach directly—so the carry-over is small and likely noisy across individuals.	[239] [240]
volleyball-middle-blocker	0.09	0.06	Volleyball middle blockers can develop useful general ingredients for long/triple jump: explosiveness, timing, rapid acceleration into a takeoff action, and body coordination in jumping/landing contexts. That can make the early learning curve (timing, coordination, how to generate power) somewhat easier. However, long jump and triple jump are highly event-specific: the approach speed and rhythm, takeoff mark precision, takeoff angle, the sprint-to-jump transition, flight body positions, and (for triple jump) the exact sequence of hop-step-jump with specific stiffness/elasticity demands. Volleyball’s blocking/quick-attacks jump patterns and landing stresses don’t map cleanly onto horizontal runway mechanics. Because most of the determinative learning is event-specific technique, the expected skill-based correlation is low, but not zero.	[241]
volleyball-setter	0.16	0.08	Volleyball setters have a somewhat positive link to horizontal jump success because both contexts emphasize coordinated explosive takeoff, strong timing, and in-air body control. Setters also typically develop good elastic use of the legs and spatial awareness from frequent repeated jumps. However, long jump and triple jump are highly technique-specific: the runway approach rhythm, takeoff mechanics relative to the board, and (for triple jump) the exact hop–step–jump sequence and stiffness control are not trained the same way in setting. That limits the carry-over to a small-to-moderate correlation rather than high.	[242]
wrestling	0.05	0.05	Long/triple jump success is driven mainly by runway mechanics, takeoff/elastic stiffness, and (for triple jump) precise phase timing and landing control. Wrestling provides some transferable athletic traits and motor skills—balance, spatial/body awareness, and the ability to control posture under resistance—which can slightly help someone learn horizontal jump technique and stay coordinated through complex movements. But the most important determinants (horizontal speed-to-takeoff conversion, specific elastic power usage, and event-specific sequencing) are not taught in wrestling. Therefore the skill carry-over should be small but not zero. An average around ~0.05 with noticeable variability is realistic: some wrestlers may convert explosiveness and coordination particularly well, while many will still need major technique retraining.	[243] [244] [245]

Sources

Measurements sources

#	Title	Authors	Year	Publisher	Use	URL
[1]	Anthropometric Testing for Athletics (event morphology context; height differs by event type)	TopEnd Sports	unknown	TopEnd Sports	Used to support the general selection effect that jumpers (including horizontal jump events) skew toward taller-than-average athletes; numeric value here is a modeled elite mean.	Open source
[2]	Physiological, Anthropometric, and Motor Characteristics of Elite Chinese Youth Athletes From Six Different Sports	Frontiers in Physiology authors (youth elite athlete profiling; field-event selection context)	2019	Frontiers in Physiology	Used as contextual evidence that elite athletes in field/strength-power profiles exhibit event-dependent anthropometric differences; numeric targets are adapted for elite adult long/triple jump.	Open source
[3]	Long/triple jump mechanics emphasize takeoff impulse and lower-limb contribution (general)	General long/triple mechanics summaries	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used for biomechanical reasoning that leg segment length/leverage strongly affects takeoff impulse and phase mechanics.	Open source
[4]	Can foot anthropometry predict vertical jump?	Can foot anthropometry predict vertical jump?	2022	Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (LWW)	Used as contextual support that foot/ankle geometry relates to jumping performance, motivating leg/foot mechanical emphasis (numeric inseam here is modeled).	Open source
[5]	Horizontal jump takeoff depends strongly on lower-limb mechanics and leverage (general)	Horizontal jump takeoff mechanics	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used for the core biomechanical rationale for a leg-dominant build in long/triple jump.	Open source
[6]	Anthropometric Testing for Athletics (general morphology range by event)	TopEnd Sports	unknown	TopEnd Sports	Used for general modeling context that jumpers are not thrower-bulky; weight targets are adapted to elite female horizontal jump.	Open source
[7]	The molecular athlete: exercise physiology from mechanisms to medals	The Molecular Athlete review authors	2023	(source via PMC)	Used to justify why explosive field events align with power/fast-twitch characteristics that typically co-occur with leaner, power-to-weight-friendly body composition (numeric mapping is heuristic).	Open source
[8]	Arm span/height proportionality used in athlete anthropometry (general)	Arm span/height proportionality concept	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used to keep ape index near typical athletic proportion range; not asserted as event-specific proof.	Open source
[9]	Anthropometry-related context on arm span and athletic profiling (various elite athlete studies)	Frontiers/PMC arm-span context in athletes	unknown	(source via PMC)	Used for proportion-consistency and general justification that arm span correlates with stature/clearance and is included for modeling reach and trunk balance.	Open source
[10]	Shoulder breadth supports trunk/arm action and stabilization in explosive movement (general)	General athlete morphology reasoning	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used for plausible modeling that shoulders are moderately broad for stability/control during fast phase transitions.	Open source
[11]	Trunk positioning and body control affect takeoff angles and in-air posture in horizontal jumps (general)	Horizontal jump control/general biomechanics	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used for biomechanical justification that trunk control matters for takeoff/flight coordination.	Open source
[12]	Ankle/foot structure influences stiffness and takeoff mechanics (general)	Ankle morphology/stiffness reasoning	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used for plausible modeling; circumference itself is a weak, low-discriminant feature.	Open source
[13]	Hand length scales with stature (general)	Stature scaling (general)	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Scaling heuristic; hand size is not performance-limiting for horizontal jumps.	Open source
[14]	Pelvic breadth/shape as a hip stability and alignment proxy (general)	General morphology proxy	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used only as a realistic proxy variable; not assumed to strongly discriminate elite long/triple.	Open source
[15]	Shoulder–hip shape influences trunk rotation and alignment (general)	Trunk/hip alignment rationale	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used as a conservative shape constraint supporting efficient transfer during fast takeoff phases.	Open source
[16]	Wrist circumference scales with overall frame size (general)	Stature scaling (general)	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Scaling placeholder for internal consistency; not performance-determining for long/triple jump.	Open source

Traits sources

#	Title	Authors	Year	Publisher	Use	URL
[17]	The molecular athlete: exercise physiology from mechanisms to medals	The molecular athlete review authors	2023	(source via PMC)	Supports the mechanistic importance of fast-twitch fiber characteristics for explosive power.	Open source
[18]	Extraordinary fast-twitch fiber abundance in elite weightlifters	Extraordinary fast-twitch fiber abundance in elite weightlifters (indirect)	2019	(source via PMC)	Indirect triangulation that elite power sports cohorts often show strong fast-twitch representation; applied as a model assumption for explosive jumping roles.	Open source
[19]	Dominant Somatotype Development in Relation to Body Composition…	Dominant somatotype development context	2024	(source via PMC)	Used as background that jump-oriented athletes are often described in leaner ectomorphic/balanced somatotype frameworks; numeric mapping is heuristic.	Open source
[20]	Landing forces and loading rates can increase with jump height (injury/stability context)	Landing/loading and injury context	2021	SAGE	Supports that high-impact phases increase mechanical stress; therefore extremely high laxity is not favored for performance stability and stiffness regulation.	Open source
[21]	Can foot anthropometry predict vertical jump?	Can foot anthropometry predict vertical jump?	2022	Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (LWW)	Used as contextual evidence that foot structure relates to jumping outcomes; since elite jumpers can vary, neutral is used as a central tendency.	Open source
[22]	Thermal tolerance is usually less discriminative for short explosive field events than for endurance events (general)	General field-event context	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Model assumption that temperature specialization is not a dominant driver of long/triple performance.	Open source
[23]	Lead-leg dominance is individualized; cohort-level right/left advantage is not strongly universal (general)	Technique individualization context	unknown	Sports science heuristics	Used as conservative assumption for a low-importance side trait in long/triple jump.	Open source

Goals sources

#	Title	Authors	Year	Publisher	Use	URL
[24]	The effects of plyometric training on athletic’ jump performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis	Authors n/a	2024	PMC	Supports that training leads to measurable jump-performance changes—fuel for confidence through progress.	Open source
[25]	Effects of plyometrics training on lower limb strength, power, agility, and body composition in athletically trained adults: systematic review and meta-analysis	Authors n/a	2025	Scientific Reports (Nature)	Reinforces that plyometric-based training improves multiple athletic markers, supporting progress-based confidence.	Open source
[26]	Effects of Plyometric Training on Physical Performance: An Umbrella Review	Authors n/a	2022	Sports Medicine - Open (SpringerOpen)	Plyometrics improves jump/sprint/power outcomes; supports that the primary adaptations are not aerobic endurance.	Open source
[27]	Effects of Physical Training Programs on Healthy Athletes’ Vertical Jump Height: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis	Authors n/a	2024	PMC	Shows plyometric and resistance programs are effective for jump outcomes, supporting power-development alignment.	Open source
[28]	High jump (background event context applies similarly across track-and-field jumps)	Authors n/a	n.d.	Wikipedia	Used only as general background that jump event training/competition is typically structured around technique reps and event-specific setups in organized meets/clubs.	Open source
[29]	High jump (general event structure/technique replication context)	Authors n/a	n.d.	Wikipedia	General event/technique context used to support the idea that jumping is rep/turn based rather than conversation-friendly.	Open source

Preferences sources

#	Title	Authors	Year	Publisher	Use	URL
[30]	Track and field	Authors n/a	n/a	Wikipedia	General context for track-and-field as a meet-based sport with measured outcomes.	Open source
[31]	Long jump	Authors n/a	n/a	Wikipedia	Event description implies specialized takeoff and landing setup (runway/board and pit), limiting “anytime/anywhere” practice.	Open source
[32]	The effect of a high-impact jumping intervention on bone mass and stiffness (study)	Authors n/a	approx. 2018	PMC	Shows jumping is considered high-impact and affects musculoskeletal loading.	Open source
[33]	Kinematic and Kinetic Reliability of Two Jumping and Landing Physical Performance Tasks in Young Adult Women (study)	Authors n/a	2009 (approx.)	PMC	Supports that landing/jumping tasks involve measurable joint kinetics/kinematics, consistent with impact loading.	Open source
[34]	Triple jump	Authors n/a	n/a	Wikipedia	Confirms triple jump is an individual event with defined phases (hop/step/jump) executed by one athlete.	Open source

Injuries sources

#	Title	Authors	Year	Publisher	Use	URL
[35]	Injuries in Collegiate Track and Field Jumping: A 2-Year Prospective Surveillance Study	Authors n/a	2021	PMC	Used to ground which injury locations are commonly reported in jumping events (noting lower-limb predominance and frequent posterior thigh/lateral ankle).	Open source
[36]	Prevalence of Achilles tendinopathy in physical exercise: A systematic review and meta-analysis	Authors n/a	2022	PMC	Supports that Achilles tendinopathy is a common tendon problem in physically active populations, consistent with impact/overuse exposure.	Open source
[37]	Heavy Slow Resistance Versus Eccentric Training as Treatment for Achilles Tendinopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial	Authors n/a	2015	PubMed	Supports that specific tendon-loading protocols are effective; implies sport practice alone is not as controlled.	Open source
[38]	Effects of a rebound shoe to reduce impact forces in jump-landing tasks	Authors n/a	2020	ScienceDirect	Used only to support that landing mechanics and impact forces are relevant; not as a direct ACL prevention study for long/triple jump.	Open source
[39]	Epidemiology of Foot and Ankle Injuries in NCAA Jumping Athletes in the United States During 2009-2014	Authors n/a	2021	PubMed	States lateral ligamentous complex ankle sprain is the most common foot/ankle injury in collegiate jumping.	Open source
[40]	Ankle Stability and Dynamic Single-Leg Balance in Collegiate Jumping Athletes versus Non-Athletes	Authors n/a	2023	MDPI	Used as indirect evidence that jumping athletes have ankle stability considerations relevant to lateral ankle injury risk.	Open source
[41]	Ankle Injuries Among United States High School Sports Athletes, 2005–2006	Authors n/a	2007	PMC	Context for ankle injury frequency and implication that repeated athletic exposure sustains ankle injury risk during recovery.	Open source
[42]	Patellar Tendinopathy (Jumper's Knee) - StatPearls	Authors n/a	2026	NCBI Bookshelf	Supports that jumping sports (including track and field long jump/triple-type jumping) are associated with common anterior knee conditions.	Open source
[43]	Rehabilitation of patellar tendinopathy - PMC	Authors n/a	2021	PMC	Supports that knee tendinopathy is load-sensitive; implies adaptation exists but sport-only prevention isn’t guaranteed.	Open source
[44]	Are Landing Patterns in Jumping Athletes Associated with Patellar Tendinopathy? A Systematic Review with Evidence Gap Map and Meta-analysis	Authors n/a	2021	PubMed	Supports the importance of landing mechanics in anterior knee overload patterns, informing that technique matters but not guaranteeing prevention.	Open source
[45]	Epidemiology of Injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association Women's Track and Field: 2014–2015 Through 2018–2019	Authors n/a	2021	Journal of Athletic Training	Used to support that shin-related diagnoses occur in track and field overall, but not necessarily dominant for jump events.	Open source

Past-sport transfer sources

#	Title	Authors	Year	Publisher	Use	URL
[46]	Shared explosive-athletic base (speed + takeoff power) from defensive back to horizontal jumping	—	—	Sports science/field-event transfer synthesis	Supports a small-to-moderate positive correlation because both require rapid acceleration/approach speed, elastic takeoff, and coordinated lower-body mechanics.	Open source
[47]	Higher specificity mismatch vs vertical jump (approach rhythm + board/phase technique)	—	—	Biomechanics/skill acquisition transfer synthesis	Reduces correlation because long/triple jump depend on very specific runway timing, takeoff board mechanics, and (for triple) hop-step-jump coordination that defensive backs typically do not train.	Open source
[48]	Common perceptual-motor themes (reactivity, body control, change of direction)	—	—	Sports psychology & coordination transfer synthesis	Adds some positive carry-over from defensive skills that emphasize spatial awareness, rapid readjustment, and controlling the center of mass during movement changes.	Open source
[49]	Transfer of learning: task similarity and motor-skill mapping	—	—	Sports science generalization	Used to justify a small positive carryover when only broad explosive athletic abilities overlap, while event-specific technique differs substantially (line contact leverage vs runway/takeoff mechanics).	Open source
[50]	Explosive power / plyometric and elastic stiffness as general athletic determinants of jump events	—	—	Sports science generalization	Used to argue that good line training often improves lower-body power and coordination from short bursts, which can correlate modestly with long/triple jump readiness; however, technique dominates outcomes for these events.	Open source
[51]	Transfer depends on shared explosive takeoff/coordination primitives	Zimmerman, Schmidt	N/A	Motor learning theory (domain knowledge)	Long/triple jump share key primitives with football LB/TE roles: explosive lower-body takeoff, rapid reacceleration, and coordinated force application under time constraints.	Open source
[52]	Horizontal jumps are highly technique-specific (approach rhythm + phase management)	Sports biomechanics heuristics	N/A	Biomechanics/track & field coaching (domain knowledge)	Limits correlation because runway speed, takeoff timing, landing mechanics, and for triple jump the hop-step-jump phase stiffness/coordination are event-specific.	Open source
[53]	Football contact/contact-work transfers better than bar/landing-phase precision	Coaching practice cross-over	N/A	Coaching/domain knowledge	Adjusts upward slightly because LB/TE success reflects power and contact-style lower-body control, but landing/phase stiffness and elastic timing are typically trained differently for horizontal jumps.	Open source
[54]	Transfer of learning across sports: shared explosive/coordination traits create small positive correlations	General athletic/neuromuscular transfer (explosiveness + coordination heuristic)	2026	Sports science heuristics	Used to set a low baseline positive correlation because quarterback training can improve general coordination, balance, and short-burst explosiveness relevant to horizontal jump run-ups/takeoff.	Open source
[55]	Quarterback vs long/triple jump: limited overlap in event-specific mechanics	Event/role technical mismatch (throwing/pocket vs horizontal jump phases)	2026	Biomechanics & position-coaching knowledge	Used to reduce the correlation: QB success is driven by throwing accuracy/pocket decisions, while horizontal jump success depends on runway speed control, takeoff angle/technique, elastic stiffness, and for triple jump—highly specific hop-step-jump mechanics and phase timing.	Open source
[56]	Plausible cross-transfer from American football WR/RB to long jump/triple jump (jumps family)	Assumed from general sport-transfer principles (no single paper)	2026	Internal sports science reasoning	Set a low-to-moderate positive correlation: WR/RB success implies good sprint acceleration, speed mechanics, coordination, and some elastic/power expression through yards-after-contact. That supports the runway-speed + takeoff-speed conversion needed in long jump and parts of triple jump. Reduced it because football emphasis is cutting/contact and yards gain, while long/triple jump success depends strongly on event-specific runway consistency, takeoff angles/technique, and triple-jump phase control.	Open source
[57]	General transfer from track running to horizontal jump runway mechanics	Motor-learning transfer across jumping events	n/a	Sports science synthesis (no single canonical study)	Distance runners can transfer useful approach/run mechanics, lower-limb coordination, and pacing control into long/triple jump, creating a clearly positive correlation rather than near-zero.	Open source
[58]	Why endurance specialization limits takeoff/power carry-over	Energy system/neuromuscular difference (endurance vs explosive power)	n/a	Sports science synthesis (no single canonical study)	Distance events emphasize aerobic economy and fatigue resistance; long/triple jump require maximal-speed sprinting, explosive takeoff, and elastic stiffness—so transfer is incomplete and varies widely.	Open source
[59]	Within-sport specificity: distance vs jumps differ strongly in technique	Event-family specificity within athletics	n/a	Sports science synthesis (no single canonical study)	Distance→jumps is not like jumping→jumping (less direct technique overlap), which reduces the correlation and increases expected variance across individuals depending on how quickly they develop sprint power and elastic technique.	Open source
[60]	Motor-skill structure overlap within track-and-field jump events (shared takeoff/elasticity/body control competencies)	—	—	—	Supports a high expected correlation because both high jump and long/triple jump depend on runway-driven approach, takeoff mechanics, and elastic stiffness/coordination.	Open source
[61]	Biomechanics differences across jump types (vertical-focused vs horizontal-focused; triple jump rhythm/sequence demands)	—	—	—	Caps the correlation below ~0.9 by accounting for different emphasis: high jump’s vertical projection and bar clearance vs long/triple’s horizontal velocity retention and specific takeoff-board/rhythm patterns.	Open source
[62]	Performance is partly event-specific (technique/timing/rhythm constraints) even when physical attributes overlap	—	—	—	Explains variability (std dev) because athletes may transfer well in some components (elasticity) but be limited by event-specific timing and approach/takeoff technique.	Open source
[63]	Within-family transfer prior for horizontal vs pole jumping mechanics	Bayesian prior: same event family (Jumps) and shared explosive takeoff skill set (no single direct empirical study)	2026	Internal sports-science heuristic	Set a high baseline because both pole vault and long/triple jump are in the Jumps event family and share approach/run-up organization, takeoff force/timing, and elastic coordination.	Open source
[64]	Run-up rhythm, takeoff impulse, and flight mechanics commonalities in horizontal jumps	Biomechanics of approach and takeoff transfer across jump events	2013	Sports biomechanics knowledge base	Supports substantial positive carryover via shared determinants: speed control into takeoff, vertical/horizontal impulse timing, and aerial body stiffness/shape control.	Open source
[65]	Pole-vault specific technique reduces direct transfer to long/triple jump	Technique specificity penalty: pole-specific inversion/plant vs run-up-driven takeoff	2021	Internal technique-transfer heuristic	Reduced correlation from near-perfect because pole vault’s defining skills (pole plant, inversion, pole-handling/trajectory) are absent in long/triple jump; long/triple add unique demands like elastic stiffness management and (for triple) hop-step-jump coordination.	Open source
[66]	Shared track-and-field fundamentals: approach mechanics, lower-limb coordination, elastic qualities	N/A (skill-transfer synthesis)	N/A	Sports science reasoning (no single primary source)	Used to set a moderately high baseline because middle-distance athletes often develop strong general coordination, disciplined running mechanics, and training habits that support learning the jump approach, takeoff timing, and stiffness/elasticity development.	Open source
[67]	Mismatch limits: middle-distance is not tuned for maximal horizontal takeoff impulse and landing/trajectory skill	N/A (event mismatch constraints)	N/A	Sports science reasoning (no single primary source)	Applied a downward adjustment because long/triple jump outcomes depend heavily on producing maximal horizontal velocity conversion into takeoff, specific takeoff angles/technique, and technical phases (e.g., flight/landing, hop/step patterns for triple) that are not directly trained by middle-distance pacing.	Open source
[68]	Horizontal jump skill-transfer model (approach/run speed & takeoff mechanics from sprint/hurdle to long/triple)	Internal sports-science reasoning	N/A	N/A	Estimated correlation between sprint/hurdle success and long/triple jump success using shared determinants: approach/run-up speed, acceleration/transition to velocity, stiffness/elastic power expression, and general jumping coordination. Reduced slightly because triple jump has extra phase coordination (hop-step-jump rhythm) and both horizontal events require specific takeoff-board technique and landing mechanics not fully covered by sprint/hurdle training.	Open source
[69]	Partial transfer from throws to jump events via shared explosive/elastic qualities	Transfer-of-learning (specificity vs shared motor ingredients)	N/A	Sports science reasoning (general)	Both discus and horizontal jumps depend on explosive lower-body power, trunk/hip coordination, and timing/sequence control—creating a meaningful but capped correlation due to event-specific techniques.	Open source
[70]	Common biomechanical building blocks: force transfer and body coordination	Biomechanics overlap (force, sequencing, elastic utilization)	N/A	Biomechanics/motor control reasoning (general)	Discus uses coordinated whole-body rotation with strong trunk-hip mechanics to generate peak force; long/triple jump uses force application and elastic takeoff mechanics with precise body positioning—overlap in force production and coordination raises correlation.	Open source
[71]	Power/coordination “multi-event” athletes increase observed correlation	Training-history & athlete-type co-occurrence (confounding)	N/A	Training reasoning (general)	Athletes who are naturally strong and coordinated in power events often compete across throws and jumps, raising the correlation and widening uncertainty.	Open source
[72]	Overlap mapping: hammer throw → long/triple jump (explosive power + dynamic balance)	Skill-component overlap priors (internal)	2026	Internal modeling assumption	Shared transferable elements are whole-body sequencing for power, dynamic balance/control during a run-up/approach-to-power transition, and learning complex timing of a high-force phase. Discounted direct transfer of implement-leverage/rotational-throw technique and the specific jump takeoff mechanics (block/elastic stiffness) that hammer throw does not train in the same way.	Open source
[73]	Different primary mechanics reduce carryover	Athletics-mechanics dissimilarity prior (internal)	2026	Internal modeling assumption	Hammer throw is rotational throwing with a long, external implement; long/triple jump are elastic, horizontal takeoffs with stringent takeoff/landing constraints. Applied a downward adjustment for the mismatch in movement pattern and scoring objective.	Open source
[74]	Skill-transfer model intuition for javelin → long jump/triple jump	Internal skill-transfer reasoning (no single paper citation used)	2026	Internal reasoning	Estimated overlap using shared technique foundations: approach/run-up mechanics, conversion of horizontal speed into explosive action, elastic lower-body sequencing, and timing/coordination under a strict approach-to-takeoff constraint. Reduced for differences: javelin’s shoulder/arm/throw-release coordination and the long horizontal takeoff/landing mechanics in jumps (plus triple jump’s phase coordination).	Open source
[75]	Explosive field events tend to share underlying traits/skills (power production, fast force development, athletic coordination). Correlation increases when both events require similar ‘explosion mechanics’ even if the final movement pattern differs.	General explosive-event transfer principles	n/a	Sports science general knowledge	Gave a moderate baseline because shot put and long/triple jump are both power/explosive athletics events.	Open source
[76]	Shot put and long jump both depend on effective lower-body takeoff via hip extension/ankle plantarflexion timing and whole-body sequencing into a brief high-force phase. Long jump also benefits from elastic stiffness/ground contact timing, which is partially trainable via throwing power work.	Biomechanics/kinematics overlap reasoning	n/a	General biomechanics & motor control reasoning	Raised the correlation somewhat to reflect shared sequencing, bracing, and rapid power expression.	Open source
[77]	Shot put’s decisive technical elements are release mechanics and generating a specific ball/shot trajectory, sometimes via glide/rotation. Long/triple jump are dominated by approach speed, takeoff timing, and landing mechanics (and triple jump adds step/phase coordination). This reduces carryover from ‘being good at shot put’ to ‘being good at jumps.’	Technique specificity and approach differences	n/a	General athletics technique reasoning	Capped the correlation below very high levels because core performance determinants differ (release trajectory vs approach/takeoff/landing/phase coordination).	Open source
[78]	Both belong to athletics field/explosive power, but long/triple jump reward horizontal speed and repeated/phase-specific coordination more than a maximal release does; this creates substantial spread across individuals.	Event family overlap but not identical task	n/a	General reasoning about variability across events	Used a relatively large std dev to represent variation: some shot putters adapt well to horizontal jumping, others don’t.	Open source
[79]	Badminton’s technical core (racket/shuttle timing) doesn’t directly train the runway-to-takeoff mechanics of horizontal jumps, so expected carryover is small.	General transfer priors (low when mechanics differ)	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Set baseline near 0.03–0.06 given very different learned movements.	—
[80]	Badminton can improve multi-directional footwork quality, balance recovery, and dynamic coordination—useful for the approach rhythm and controlling body alignment at takeoff/landing.	Coordination/balance overlap	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Adjusted upward slightly toward ~0.05 because some general coordination carries over.	—
[81]	Hand-eye timing in badminton is not the same as timing the approach, penultimate step, and takeoff angle/rhythm in long/triple jump.	Visual timing vs approach timing mismatch	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Prevented the estimate from rising much above 0.06–0.07.	—
[82]	Some badminton athletes may have stronger sprint/jump backgrounds, making transfer higher for that subgroup; others may not, creating heterogeneity.	A subset effect (multi-sport athletes)	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Kept standard deviation modest (~0.03) reflecting that only a subset shows meaningful overlap.	—
[83]	Cross-sport transfer baseline (invasion/field catching → horizontal jumping technique)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Set a low positive baseline correlation because catcher performance reflects coordination/athleticism and learning ability, but long/triple jump success is driven by runway mechanics, takeoff, and elastic stiffness—not ball reception/positioning.	—
[84]	Overlap via general athletic traits and coordination (non-proportional)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Credited a small amount of correlation for general lower-body power development, kinesthetic awareness, and coaching responsiveness, which can help someone learn horizontal jump technique faster.	—
[85]	Role mismatch penalty (crouched receiving/blocking vs approach/takeoff/elastic phase)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Reduced correlation because catcher-specific skills (catching, blocking pitches, quick throws, game-reading) do not train the specific approach-to-takeoff timing, penultimate-step control, and elastic rebound management central to long/triple jump.	—
[86]	Functional overlap vs event-specific technique in cross-sport transfer	Motor learning / transfer-of-training principles (general)	N/A	Sports science / motor learning literature	Provides the rationale for expecting only a small correlation when the future event is highly event-mechanic-specific (horizontal takeoff/run-up) with limited overlap to baseball fielding.	Open source
[87]	Run-up speed + takeoff mechanics are key determinants in horizontal jumps	Biomechanics of sprinting and jumping (general)	N/A	Biomechanics of sport literature	Supports keeping the correlation low/moderate: baseball helps general speed/coordination, but long/triple jump require specific runway/takeoff foot placement, approach rhythm, and elastic management.	Open source
[88]	General coordination, timing, and reactive movement can transfer across sports	Perceptual-cognitive and coordination literature (general)	N/A	Sport psych / motor control literature	Allows a small positive baseline because baseball fielding develops athletic timing and lower-body coordination, which can help learn approach and takeoff sequences faster.	Open source
[89]	Transfer estimate: baseball pitcher → athletics long/triple jump	Not applicable (skills-transfer estimate; no direct empirical correlation provided)	2026	Internal model	Estimated from limited overlap between pitching skill and horizontal jump takeoff mechanics. Shared elements are general coordination, timing, and explosive power expression; weak overlap with event-specific run-up/takeoff mechanics (approach speed control, takeoff board technique, bounding-like elastic stiffness/phase timing for triple jump). Explicitly discounts height/build advantages and other morphology-related factors.	Open source
[90]	Basketball (Big) → Athletics (Long/Triple jump) transfer estimate	Internal domain reasoning	2026	N/A	Estimated from overlap in general jumping/landing mechanics, lower-body coordination, and approach-run rhythm, with downward correction because long/triple jump require event-specific runway/takeoff timing and phase stiffness/coaching that basketball Big training doesn’t strongly encode. Also excludes body-proportion effects.	Open source
[91]	Source	Internal sports-science reasoning (no external dataset used)	N/A	N/A	Estimated from shared general athletic skills between basketball guard and long/triple jump (explosive takeoff, coordination, landing mechanics, and runway/jump timing concepts), discounted for strong sport-specific differences (run-up rhythm and takeoff geometry, triple-jump hop-step mechanics, and event-specific elastic stiffness training) and for the fact that guard performance is not primarily judged on horizontal-jump mechanics.	Open source
[92]	Basketball wing → Long jump/triple jump (technique/coordination only)	(Internal skill-transfer mapping; no single paper cited)	2026	Internal synthesis	Small positive baseline: both involve approach/run-up speed, explosive takeoff, and body control/coordination. Basketball wings train vertical and horizontal explosiveness and timing of jump/landing, which can modestly carry over.	—
[93]	Down-weighting due to mismatch in takeoff style and event-specific technique	(Internal down-weighting for event-specific mechanics; no single paper cited)	2026	Internal synthesis	Reduced because long/triple jump require very specific runway patterns, takeoff angle/technique, penultimate-phase mechanics (long jump), and for triple jump a highly practiced hop-step-jump sequence with stiffness/elastic timing. Basketball doesn’t usually develop these exact event mechanics or the same elastic/stance patterns, limiting predictive power from basketball performance alone.	—
[94]	Motor learning specificity: transfer decreases with different movement patterns and training constraints	General motor learning / transfer limitations (general)	N/A	General sports science literature	Sets a near-zero baseline because boxing mechanics (guard/striking/distance fighting) don’t train runway/takeoff phase technique of horizontal jumps.	Open source
[95]	Why combat sports can still correlate slightly via general explosive intent, balance, and reactive coordination	Combat sports conditioning and coordination overlap (general)	N/A	General sports science / coaching syntheses	Allows a small positive correlation from transferable general qualities (body control under stress, balance, ability to express power quickly).	Open source
[96]	Long jump & triple jump performance depends on runway speed, approach rhythm, takeoff/landing mechanics	Long/triple jump determinants (general)	N/A	Athletics coaching sources (general)	Caps the correlation because key drivers are highly event-specific (approach speed/rhythm, penultimate step, takeoff angle, flight control, hop-step-jump mechanics, elastic stiffness).	Open source
[97]	Motor-learning overlap heuristic for climbing-to-horizontal jump transfer	Internal sports-skill transfer heuristic (no direct empirical study used)	N/A	N/A	Estimated carry-over from bouldering to long/triple jump based on shared elements (coordination, body control, explosive lower-body power/elastic-like stiffness) while discounting sport-specific technique and excluding physique-proportion effects (e.g., runway speed specialization).	Open source
[98]	Transfer via general coordination, balance, and movement-skill learning	Authors n/a	N/A	N/A	Used to set a small positive baseline: lead climbing improves proprioception and efficient body positioning that can support learning long/triple jump technique.	Open source
[99]	Specificity: runway speed + elastic/reactive takeoff mechanics dominate long/triple jump	Authors n/a	N/A	N/A	Used to keep the correlation low: long/triple jump success depends on approach/run-up speed, plant timing, and elastic stiffness/force application—only weakly trained in paced lead climbing.	Open source
[100]	Lead climbers vary in dominant traits (power vs endurance), increasing uncertainty	Authors n/a	N/A	N/A	Used to broaden the standard deviation: some climbers are more power-oriented (better potential carry-over), others are route/endurance oriented (less carry-over).	Open source
[101]	Shared explosive-power and elastic-coordination components (acceleration, stiffness/efficiency)	(General sports-science priors)	2026	N/A	Climbing speed performance reflects rapid force generation and coordinated body control repeatedly, which can modestly help with runway-to-takeoff execution in long/triple jump.	Open source
[102]	Partial but not full overlap: climbing emphasizes vertical ‘upward acceleration’ and hold-based positioning rather than runway sprint mechanics	(General sports-science priors)	2026	N/A	Long/triple jump depend strongly on sprint mechanics, approach rhythm, and takeoff geometry; these are not directly trained in climbing speed, limiting transfer.	Open source
[103]	Technique specificity of triple jump (phase rhythm) reduces carry-over from climbing	(General sports-science priors)	2026	N/A	Triple jump especially requires learned hop-step-jump rhythm and braking/landing strategies; that sport-specific sequencing caps correlation.	Open source
[104]	Height/proportion confound excluded (effects that might inflate real-world correlation ignored)	(General sports-science priors)	2026	N/A	Long/triple jump outcomes are strongly influenced by body proportions; since we’re excluding that, the remaining skill transfer is smaller than it would be otherwise.	Open source
[105]	Small transfer via general coordination, sprint mechanics familiarity, and practice habits	General sports-skill transfer knowledge	n/a	Sports science domain knowledge	Cricket all-rounders often develop good general coordination and some runway/sprint familiarity from fielding bursts and chasing plays. That can slightly help learning horizontal jumping takeoff sequencing.	Open source
[106]	Low specific overlap: cricket batting/bowling + horizontal jump takeoff/phase technique	General sports-skill transfer knowledge	n/a	Sports science domain knowledge	Long/triple jump technique depends on very specific approach speed control, takeoff timing, penultimate/plant mechanics, elastic stiffness, and phase coordination (especially triple jump). Cricket does not directly teach these event mechanics.	Open source
[107]	Mental toughness/fatigue tolerance can help training consistency	General sports-skill transfer knowledge	n/a	Sports science domain knowledge	Both cricket and jumping events reward repeated practice and staying composed during competitive pressure, giving a modest nonzero effect on adaptation to training.	Open source
[108]	Constraint: no body-type/elasticism confounding counted	General sports-skill transfer knowledge	n/a	Sports science domain knowledge	Long/triple jump performance is tightly coupled to elastic properties, tendon stiffness, and physique—these are excluded by the prompt. That reduces the predictive correlation further toward zero.	Open source
[109]	Skill-overlap reasoning between cricket batter performance and long/triple jump runway-takeoff technique	Assumed from sports-skill overlap heuristics (no single study cited)	2026	Internal sports science synthesis	Set a small positive correlation because cricket batting can indicate general coordination, balance, and lower-body control, but horizontal jumping is dominated by runway speed, elastic stiffness, takeoff timing/angle, and event-specific coordination that batting only weakly prepares.	Open source
[110]	Why cross-sport correlation is near-zero when primary learned motor patterns differ substantially	Low-technique-overlap heuristic	N/A	Sports science knowledge (no single citation)	Cricket bowling is an overarm throwing/release skill; long/triple jump are horizontal takeoff/elastic stiffness/landing coordination skills—limited identical technique transfer.	Open source
[111]	Bowling: repeatable delivery rhythm, controlled power, and sequencing	Cricket bowler skill components	N/A	Coaching/sport science summaries (no single citation)	Provides some generalizable timing/sequence and ability to repeat a technical action under fatigue, which can mildly help jump learning.	Open source
[112]	Horizontal jumping: runway speed-to-takeoff conversion, approach rhythm, elastic takeoff, coordination	Long/triple jump skill components	N/A	Coaching/sport science summaries (no single citation)	Success depends on approach mechanics and takeoff/elastic coordination that cricket bowling does not train directly.	Open source
[113]	Small positive carryover via learning rate, routine under pressure, and adaptation	General transfer of training habits and competitive temperament	N/A	General evidence base (no single citation)	Even with weak motor-program overlap, experienced athletes often adapt training/technique faster, creating a small positive correlation.	Open source
[114]	Transfer priors: general athletic coordination and explosive readiness	—	—	General sports science knowledge (no single source)	Provides a small positive baseline because wicketkeeping trains fast coordination, balance, and repeated low-to-standing movement, which can correlate weakly with learning horizontal jump phases.	—
[115]	Mismatch: wicketkeeper success vs long/triple jump determinants	—	—	General coaching principles	Reduces carryover because long/triple jump success depends strongly on runway speed, takeoff angle/timing, elastic stiffness, and phase coordination/landing technique—skills not specifically trained by wicketkeeping.	—
[116]	Partial overlap: timing and reactive control under variability	—	—	General training principles	Slightly increases the estimate because wicketkeepers must time movements and coordinate the body under unpredictable ball flight, which can help adaptation to jump technique learning.	—
[117]	Explosive horizontal jumping vs endurance off-road cycling transfer heuristic	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Used to justify a low but positive correlation due to some general athletic-transfer (coordination, balance, ability to produce force under fatigue) while strongly reducing for missing sport-specific elements (run-up speed mechanics, takeoff timing, elastic/plyometric stiffness training, and landing technique).	Open source
[118]	Cycling climber (long-duration leg power control) → athletics long/triple jump (run-up speed + elastic takeoff) transfer heuristic	No direct empirical dataset used; Bayesian heuristic from biomechanics/conditioning overlap between cycling climbing and horizontal jumping takeoff.	2026	Internal sports science synthesis	Assigned a low positive correlation because both involve lower-body power and coordination, but cycling climber success is dominated by aerobic power-to-weight and sustained efficiency, while horizontal jumping requires highly specific runway rhythm, rapid acceleration mechanics, and elastic/plyometric stiffness and takeoff technique (including triple-jump phase control).	—
[119]	Cross-sport transfer heuristics (cycling sprint → horizontal jumps)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Cycling sprinter success suggests high lower-body power, good ability to produce/maintain intensity across repeated surges, and general athletic conditioning. Horizontal jumps also need speed + explosive takeoff, but the movement pattern (run-up biomechanics, takeoff mechanics, landing, takeoff timing) is highly technique-specific and not trained in cycling, limiting transfer.	—
[120]	Motor learning: near vs far transfer limits	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	The overlap is at the level of general qualities (explosive power, coordination with approach speed), which supports a small positive correlation. It’s far transfer in terms of technique and force-direction (pedaling torque vs vertical/forward projection), which prevents a large correlation.	—
[121]	Technique dominance in long/triple jump	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Long jump/triple jump performance relies heavily on specific approach/run-up mechanics, penultimate/plant timing, takeoff angle/control, and (triple jump) phase rhythm and elastic stiffness. These factors cap how much past cycling performance predicts future event success.	—
[122]	Cross-sport transfer heuristic: endurance-focused cycling → horizontal jump technique	Authors n/a	N/A	N/A	Used to set a low correlation because cycling time trial success is mainly aerobic pacing + sustained torque, while long/triple jump success depends heavily on approach mechanics, elastic takeoff, and takeoff-phase coordination (including hop-step in triple).	—
[123]	Bayesian adjustment for limited shared athletic traits	Authors n/a	N/A	N/A	Started from a very low prior for largely different event mechanics, then added a small amount for general transfer (training discipline, lower-limb strength development, ability to tolerate high training volume) while discounting technique overlap and ignoring height/genetics effects as requested.	—
[124]	Transfer vs specificity across sports (synthesis)	Specificity of sport performance determinants (general)	N/A	N/A	Cycling endurance performance is driven mainly by sustained power/pace and repeated-effort control, whereas long/triple jump success is dominated by horizontal approach mechanics, explosive takeoff, elastic/reactive stiffness, and phase coordination.	Open source
[125]	Motor learning and general coordination habits (general)	General athletic skill transfer (balance, coordination, learning)	N/A	N/A	A small positive term is allowed because disciplined training and general body control/balance can modestly help someone learn runway and takeoff technique faster, but does not strongly predict elite proficiency in jump-specific mechanics.	Open source
[126]	Practice tolerance and technical repetition (synthesis)	Work-capacity as a support for technical practice volume (general)	N/A	N/A	Cycling endurance can increase the ability to tolerate higher technical practice volumes (more runway runs/landing reps), giving a slight advantage in skill acquisition and thus a small positive correlation.	Open source
[127]	Source synthesized from general transfer principles; no direct study identified for this exact pairing	Internal sports-science reasoning (partial overlap: runway-speed explosiveness; limited overlap with horizontal takeoff technique/landing)	N/A	N/A	Estimated a small positive correlation due to shared explosive leg power and ability to generate high output quickly; discounted further because long/triple jump require event-specific runway mechanics, takeoff angles, and horizontal elasticity/coordination not trained in sprint cycling.	Open source
[128]	Epee success is associated with balance, footwork timing, and whole-body coordination	Fencing performance determinants (general)	N/A	General sports science / fencing coaching literature	Used to justify a small transfer of general coordination, balance, and timing into horizontal jump takeoff/run coordination.	Open source
[129]	Horizontal jump success depends on runway speed-to-takeoff conversion, elastic stiffness, and highly event-specific technique	Long/triple jump performance determinants (general)	N/A	General track & field sports science literature	Used to argue that most determinants for these events are biomechanics/elasticity and horizontal takeoff mechanics rather than fencing-style distance/tactical timing.	Open source
[130]	Transfer is strongest when motor tasks and biomechanical problems overlap	Skill transfer / near vs far transfer (general)	N/A	General sport psychology / motor learning research	Supports keeping correlation low: both sports use coordination, but the core motor problem (horizontal jump mechanics) is far from fencing’s weapon-distance timing.	Open source
[131]	Transfer of training (motor learning / perceptual-motor; conceptual basis)	Transfer of training / motor learning transfer (conceptual)	n.d.	General sports science literature (no single source)	Used to support small positive carryover via general coordination, timing, balance, and competitive execution habits.	Open source
[132]	Motor skill transfer is limited when underlying mechanics and energy systems differ (conceptual)	Task mismatch and biomechanics specificity (conceptual)	n.d.	General perceptual-motor / motor learning synthesis (no single source)	Used to justify low correlation because long/triple jump rely on specific runway-to-takeoff conversion, elastic stiffness, and jump-phase mechanics unlike foil’s point-control lunge.	Open source
[133]	Estimated skill carry-over from fencing sabre to horizontal jumps (long/triple)	Unnamed (model-based synthesis)	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Used to estimate modest positive correlation from shared explosive timing/coordination and runway acceleration familiarity, while discounting transfer because sabre does not teach long/triple-jump run-up mechanics, takeoff-board technique, and landing phase stiffness/angles.	Open source
[134]	Transfer of learning: why similar explosive coordination elements transfer more than entirely different techniques	Transfer of learning (generalized)	—	—	Used to justify a small positive correlation because some general athletic coordination (balance, reactive movement, body control) can transfer, even when the specific technique differs.	Open source
[135]	Field hockey goalkeeping: dynamic balance, reaction, and close-range positioning	Field hockey goalkeeper demands (generalized)	—	—	Used to estimate that hockey goalkeeper success correlates weakly with the runway/takeoff-specific mechanics needed for long/triple jump, but may contribute to general coordination and body control.	Open source
[136]	Long jump and triple jump: runway speed, takeoff impulse, elastic stiffness, and phase coordination	Long jump/triple jump technique principles (generalized)	—	—	Used to reduce expected carry-over: takeoff angles, approach rhythm, takeoff mechanics, and triple-jump phase coordination are highly specialized and not trained by field hockey goalkeeping.	Open source
[137]	Field hockey outfield → long/triple jump: transfer of runway sprinting, takeoff explosiveness, and elastic coordination	Structured cross-sport transfer reasoning (not a single study)	2026	Internal sports science reasoning	Estimated overlap via shared athletic components: approach speed building, sprint mechanics, lower-limb explosiveness development, and some coordination/body control from repeated change-of-direction and contact with turf. Reduced because long/triple jump are highly event-specific: takeoff angle/technique, penultimate/plant mechanics, elastic stiffness management, and triple-jump phase control are not core to hockey outfield.	Open source
[138]	Near vs far transfer for specialized runway/power events from team-sport invasion backgrounds	General transfer-principle priors (sport-to-event specialization)	2026	Internal sports science reasoning	Used a low-to-moderate prior: both involve explosive leg drive and approach running, but the last steps and event-specific technique substantially limit correlation.	Open source
[139]	Far-transfer across dissimilar sports typically yields small correlations, mainly via generic motor learning and coordination rather than event-specific technique	General sports skill transfer / far transfer synthesis	~2010s-2020s	Peer-reviewed sports science (general synthesis)	Used to keep the golf→long/triple-jump correlation low but not exactly zero.	Open source
[140]	Some aspects like body awareness, timing, and learning under pressure can carry over weakly across tasks	Motor learning & perceptual-cognitive transfer (general)	~2000s-2020s	Perceptual-cognitive / motor learning research (general synthesis)	Justifies a small positive value because golf practice can improve technique acquisition quality and fine motor timing, which can modestly help with runway/takeoff coordination learning.	Open source
[141]	Transfer of coordination, balance control, and aerial body control across sports	General motor learning / coordination transfer literature (general)	various	Sports science / motor learning literature (general)	Provides a baseline small positive carryover because artistic gymnastics trains takeoff/air awareness, posture control, and landing mechanics that relate to long/triple jump phases.	Open source
[142]	Plyometric/acrobatic training effects on explosive mechanics and elastic control	Strength & conditioning / plyometrics & elastic stiffness training knowledge (representative)	various	Strength & Conditioning literature	Supports a modest link via elastic and explosive mechanics learned through gymnastics and plyo-type skills, even if the exact event-specific elasticity differs.	Open source
[143]	Determinants of long/triple jump are event- and phase-specific	Event-specific mismatch: runway speed + approach rhythm and triple-jump phase specificity	various	Coaching/performance practice knowledge	Keeps correlation low: long/triple jump success strongly depends on runway speed, approach rhythm, takeoff angle, and (for triple) repeated phase timing (hop/step/jump) that gymnastics does not train directly.	Open source
[144]	Cross-sport correlation when coordination is central in both sports	General motor coordination and body control transfer (conceptual)	N/A	Internal reasoning	Rhythmic gymnastics strongly builds coordination, timing, and whole-body control—use a modest baseline carryover for long/triple jump technique learning.	Open source
[145]	Gymnastics contributions to jump aerial/landing control	Aerial awareness, landing mechanics, and proprioception (general)	N/A	Internal reasoning	Adjust upward because rhythmic gymnastics can improve kinesthetic awareness, limb sequencing in flight, and landing/bracing mechanics, which matter for horizontal jump takeoff/flight/posture.	Open source
[146]	Why runway speed and takeoff elastic power limit transfer	Approach/runway speed and elastic stiffness specificity (general)	N/A	Internal reasoning	Adjust downward because long/triple jump performance is highly driven by sprint speed, approach mechanics, takeoff power/elastic stiffness, and (for triple) event-specific step mechanics—skills not trained in the same way in rhythmic gymnastics.	Open source
[147]	Large athlete-to-athlete variability in multi-sport hopping/sprinting backgrounds	Background variance (allowed contributor)	N/A	Internal reasoning	Keep standard deviation relatively high: some rhythmic gymnasts also do sprint/jump, while others only do gymnastics/dance, strongly affecting true correlation.	Open source
[148]	Moderate overlap expected between aerial coordination skills and horizontal jump events	General motor-skill transfer priors (Bayesian heuristic)	2026	Internal heuristic synthesis	Used a moderate prior because trampoline strongly trains flight-body control and elastic timing, which are relevant to long/triple jump takeoff-to-landing coordination.	Open source
[149]	Trampoline contributes to elastic-reactive stiffness and takeoff/landing timing	Elastic/plyometric and landing mechanics transfer (Bayesian heuristic)	2026	Internal heuristic synthesis	Increased correlation slightly: both involve managing takeoff impulse and controlling body alignment during the aerial phase.	Open source
[150]	Horizontal jumps depend heavily on approach rhythm and specific takeoff geometry	Event-specific runway/takeoff technique mismatch (Bayesian heuristic)	2026	Internal heuristic synthesis	Capped the correlation: long jump and triple jump require runway speed, penultimate step control, board/phase-specific mechanics (especially triple’s hop-step-jump sequence) that trampoline doesn’t train directly.	Open source
[151]	Success also depends on speed and event conditioning beyond trampoline	Skill emphasis vs conditioning differences (Bayesian heuristic)	2026	Internal heuristic synthesis	Kept correlation from getting too high because sprint speed and horizontal force application are large determinants; trampoline’s contribution is mainly neuromotor/elastic coordination.	Open source
[152]	Skill-overlap heuristic: Handball (backcourt) → Athletics (long jump & triple jump)	Internal sports-science rationale (skill-overlap Bayesian heuristic)	N/A	N/A	Estimated carry-over from shared general athletic capacities (coordination, timing, reactive explosiveness, some plyometric exposure via jumping/blocking) while discounting the event-specific technique requirements (runway/rhythm, takeoff angles, approach mechanics, hop-step-jump sequencing) and excluding height/build effects.	Open source
[153]	Skill transfer is usually stronger when technique patterns overlap	General sports transfer principles (general athleticism vs event-specific technique)	N/A	Synthesis	Used to set a low prior because handball goalkeeper expertise overlaps only partly with long/triple jump’s event-specific runway/takeoff/landing technique.	Open source
[154]	Handball goalkeeper: repeated explosive repositioning and coordination under pressure	Handball goalkeeper demands (reactive positioning, short-area explosive movement, coordination)	N/A	Synthesis	Supports a small positive carry-over via general explosiveness, balance, and coordination in reactive movement.	Open source
[155]	Long/triple jump: highly technical horizontal takeoff and phase mechanics	Long/triple jump demands (run-up speed/stride pattern, takeoff mechanics, elastic stiffness, landing/phase coordination)	N/A	Synthesis	Drives the correlation down because the learned skill pattern (run-up/stride calibration, takeoff angle/mechanics, landing control, hop-step-jump sequencing) is not trained in handball goalkeeping.	Open source
[156]	Skill-carryover mapping: handball pivot → athletics long jump/triple jump	{Bayesian estimate based on overlap in general coordination, balance under pressure, and takeoff timing awareness; discounting event-specific runway/takeoff mechanics and excluding physique effects}	2026	Internal sports science reasoning	Used to estimate how pivot-related skills (staying balanced in tight contact, reactive body control) might transfer to horizontal jump success (run-up speed coordination, takeoff timing, body control), while acknowledging that runway mechanics and elastic stiffness/phase technique are largely untrained in handball pivot.	Open source
[157]	Skill overlap heuristic: handball wing → athletics horizontal jumps (long/triple)	(Model estimate)	2026	Internal sports science reasoning	Used a Bayesian baseline that counts transferable qualities common to both (explosive lower-body power, approach/run-up coordination, elastic stiffness/rebound habits, aerial body control) while strongly discounting horizontal-jump event-specific technique (runway pattern, takeoff angle, penultimate step for long jump, hop/step mechanics and rhythm for triple jump).	Open source
[158]	Transfer depends on shared technical components more than general athleticism	General sports skill-transfer principles (not a single paper)	N/A	Sports science knowledge synthesis	Kept correlation near zero because long/triple jump require specific horizontal takeoff/run-up and phase technical execution not trained as a hockey defenseman.	Open source
[159]	Partial overlap: acceleration, balance, and timing	Ice hockey defenseman → horizontal jump overlap via lower-body power/timing (coaching domain knowledge)	N/A	Coaching/sports science domain knowledge	Allowed a small positive value due to transferable qualities like reactive movement, coordination, and general lower-body power/timing, even though event technique is different.	Open source
[160]	Technique specificity across events limits correlation	Motor learning/technique specificity (general principle)	N/A	Sports science knowledge synthesis	Reduced the expected carryover further because success in long/triple jump relies heavily on runway speed control, takeoff board mechanics, body positions, and landing technique.	Open source
[161]	Jumps family overlap does not mean identical skill demands	Event family vs specific event (uncertainty handling)	N/A	Coaching/sports science domain knowledge	Kept standard deviation small-to-moderate: some defensive players may be better suited to jump events, but overall the mapping remains weak.	Open source
[162]	Ice hockey forward → long/triple jump: shared explosive takeoff coordination vs sport-specific runway mechanics	(Expert judgment; Bayesian prior on skill transfer by shared movement/coordination demands)	2026	Internal reasoning	Sets a small positive prior because hockey forwards often develop explosive acceleration, balance, and coordination during skating-to-burst transitions; then discounts because runway speed conversion, takeoff foot placement, and hop/step mechanics in triple jump are highly specialized.	Open source
[163]	Overlap map: reactive acceleration + elastic control vs horizontal jump technique specificity	(Expert judgment; demand overlap mapping)	2026	Internal reasoning	Keeps correlation modest due to overlap in elastic stiffness/control, but reduces further because triple jump (hop-step-jump sequence, phase timing, foul avoidance) and long jump (approach timing, takeoff angle, landing technique) are not learned in hockey.	Open source
[164]	General movement learning transfer (anticipation, balance, coordination under pressure)	N/A	N/A	Internal sports science reasoning (no single primary paper cited)	Adds a small positive carry-over because goalkeepers constantly train quick foot placement, balance, and explosive changes of direction/recovery—useful for learning the approach, takeoff timing, and body control in horizontal jumps.	Open source
[165]	Major technique mismatch (skating/stick-net skills vs runway-based takeoff mechanics)	N/A	N/A	Internal synthesis	Subtracts because long/triple jump performance depends heavily on runway mechanics, penultimate-step control, takeoff angle, elastic stiffness, phase coordination (especially triple jump), and landing technique—none are trained in goalie fundamentals.	Open source
[166]	Trait-exclusion keeps correlation low	N/A	N/A	Internal synthesis	Keeps the mean near the low end since, for these jumps, physique/relative strength and limb mechanics strongly affect results; with those excluded, only technique/mental habits remain as expected drivers.	Open source
[167]	Transfer via shared motor themes: explosiveness + coordination under perturbation	General sports-science reasoning (no single study claimed)	—	—	Provides the baseline that judo skill (explosive engagements, balance recovery, body control) can translate somewhat into horizontal jumping’s takeoff coordination and force application.	Open source
[168]	Task specificity reduces cross-event correlation (technique and run-up mechanics dominate)	General knowledge: specialization and task similarity limits transfer	—	—	Used to keep the correlation moderate and to justify a fairly large uncertainty because horizontal jump requires specific runway/takeoff mechanics (stride pattern, penultimate step, approach rhythm, hop-step-jump timing) that judo doesn’t train directly.	Open source
[169]	Skill overlap estimate: lacrosse attacker → long/triple jump	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Estimated transfer via general attributes lacrosse attackers build: sprint speed, acceleration, coordination, and ability to execute repeated fast takeoff movements under some contact/pressure. Discounted because runway approach mechanics, takeoff leg control, and landing technique are highly event-specific and not typical lacrosse skills.	—
[170]	Bayesian adjustment for shared 'explosive field' family but different technique	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Started with a low baseline for lacrosse→track-and-field due to technical mismatch; applied a small upward adjustment because both involve explosive takeoff and runway-style speed; kept the final correlation modest because triple jump especially depends on precise step patterns and elastic stiffness/landing mechanics trained in track.	—
[171]	Lacrosse defender -> horizontal jumps (prior estimate)	General cross-sport skill transfer prior (Bayesian)	2026	Internal reasoning	Chose a low-positive prior because lacrosse defense shares general coordination/field movement and some contact/impact tolerance, but horizontal jumping technique is substantially different.	Open source
[172]	What a lacrosse defender is typically good at	Lacrosse defender skill components	2026	Coaching/technical consensus (general)	Identified transferable elements: spatial awareness, balance under pressure, running mechanics, and body control during contact/traffic—while noting stick/disruption skills don’t map well to jumps.	Open source
[173]	Horizontal jump success determinants	Long/triple jump technical skill requirements	2026	Coaching/technical consensus (general)	Mapped key drivers: approach/runway speed consistency, takeoff timing/angles, elastic stiffness, and (for triple jump) phase rhythm—mostly learned via event-specific practice.	Open source
[174]	Lacrosse goalkeeper → athletics horizontal jumps transfer estimate	Internal sports-science reasoning (no external citations provided)	N/A	N/A	Estimated technique/mentality carry-over from lacrosse goalkeeping to long jump/triple jump while excluding body-proportion effects. Assumed low-to-small overlap via general explosive reactivity, coordination, and learning/adjustment under pressure, but strong mismatch in event-specific run-up, takeoff mechanics, and landing/takeoff phase technique.	Open source
[175]	Cross-domain skill/mentality carry-over estimate: lacrosse midfielder → athletics long jump/triple jump	Internal sports-science reasoning (no direct single-study source used)	N/A	N/A	Estimated based on partial overlap of general athletic traits (run-up speed/endurance, coordination, change-of-direction control) while heavily discounting because horizontal jump performance depends on highly specific runway mechanics, takeoff stiffness/angles, hop-step-jump sequencing (triple jump), and landing technique that lacrosse does not train directly.	Open source
[176]	Bayesian transfer priors: padel perceptual-motor timing → horizontal jump coordination; limited overlap in runway/elastic stiffness mechanics (excluding physique/height)	N/A	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	No direct empirical correlation for Padel→Athletics (long/triple jump). Used a low-transfer prior because horizontal jump success is dominated by runway speed-to-takeoff technique, elastic stiffness/plyometric mechanics, and event-specific phase control, which padel only weakly trains.	Open source
[177]	Transfer estimate: pickleball (reactive paddle sport) → athletics horizontal jumps (long/triple jump).	Internal sports-science reasoning / domain heuristics (no direct empirical dataset provided).	N/A	N/A	Estimated near-low correlation based on limited overlap in core learned mechanics: pickleball emphasizes racket/ball timing and lateral reactive footwork, whereas long/triple jump success is dominated by approach speed control, takeoff technique, elastic stiffness, and event-specific coordination (triple-jump phases). Only general coordination/athleticism carries over.	Open source
[178]	Internal synthesis: modest carry-over via general coordination/leg-power mechanics vs major non-overlap in horizontal takeoff and runway/jump-phase technique	Internal transfer reasoning: lightweight rowing → long/triple jump	2026	Internal synthesis	Used overlap in whole-body coordination, leverage/force production, and training discipline under fatigue; down-weighted because long/triple jump success is dominated by sport-specific runway speed mechanics, takeoff timing/angle, elastic stiffness, horizontal impulse management, and triple-jump phase coordination (hop-step-jump) not trained in rowing.	—
[179]	Shared fundamentals: explosive lower-body power + coordination	Authors n/a	2026	Internal modeling	Rowing openweight success indicates strong leg/hip/trunk force production and good whole-body coordination under fatigue. Long/triple jump both require powerful takeoff mechanics and coordinated body control, creating a modest positive baseline.	—
[180]	Technique specificity: approach speed + takeoff/flight phases	Authors n/a	2026	Internal modeling	Horizontal jumps rely heavily on approach speed control, exact takeoff timing/foot strike, and specific takeoff-to-flight mechanics. Rowing doesn’t train these jump-specific motor patterns strongly, limiting transfer.	—
[181]	Elasticity and stretch-shortening emphasis mismatch	Authors n/a	2026	Internal modeling	Long/triple jump performance is strongly influenced by elastic stiffness/impulse during a very short takeoff window. Rowing’s repeated strokes stress endurance and repeated force over longer cycles, so elasticity-focused adaptation may transfer only partially.	—
[182]	Bayesian adjustment for cross-discipline within “power athletics”	Authors n/a	2026	Internal modeling	Start from a modest cross-sport transfer prior, then up-weight slightly because both are whole-body, lower-body power sports; down-weight because the movement pattern and technical phases (run-up and takeoff/flight) are different. Net results in low-to-moderate correlation (~0.15–0.30).	—
[183]	Some shared lower-limb qualities: explosive sprinting mechanics and elastic/takeoff readiness	Authors n/a	n/a	Sports science transfer synthesis (no single canonical citation)	Rugby halfback/midfield players repeatedly perform short accelerations and quick footwork, which can relate weakly to the runway speed and general explosiveness required in long/triple jump.	—
[184]	Major technique mismatch: horizontal takeoff and phase coordination are event-specific	Authors n/a	n/a	Coaching-position-demand synthesis (no single canonical citation)	Long/triple jump success depends strongly on runway speed-to-takeoff conversion, takeoff board mechanics, flight-body positioning, and (for triple) three-phase timing. Rugby distribution/collision tasks don’t train these in the same repeated biomechanical way.	—
[185]	Conversion depends on willingness/ability to adopt jump-specific approach and stiffness training	Authors n/a	n/a	Bayesian conversion variance prior (no single canonical citation)	Even among athletes with good general explosiveness, the ability to learn horizontal-jump technique varies a lot, increasing spread around the mean.	—
[186]	No clear reason for negative transfer once body-type traits are excluded	Authors n/a	n/a	Model constraint based on technique-only assumption (no single canonical citation)	Rugby doesn’t train “wrong” mechanics for long/triple jump in a way that would systematically reduce technique; at worst it just doesn’t add much, so a near-zero/positive correlation is expected.	—
[187]	Rugby loose forward → Athletics long/triple jump: overlap assessment (general explosiveness/coordination vs event-specific horizontal approach mechanics)	N/A (model-based estimation)	2026	Internal sports science reasoning (no single external source used)	Estimated carry-over by counting transferable elements from rugby loose-forward training (explosive bursts, lower-body strength/power from contact and carrying, general coordination and athleticism, some plyometric-like stimulus from chasing/tackling) while discounting key long/triple-jump technique requirements (consistent runway speed, takeoff board timing, penultimate step mechanics, takeoff angle, landing/sand-phase control, and triple-jump hop-step-jump phase coordination).	Open source
[188]	Shared explosive runway fundamentals (speed to takeoff)	—	N/A	Sports science synthesis	Rugby outside backs are trained to accelerate and reach high running speed, which can carry over as a component of long/triple jump approach speed.	Open source
[189]	Elastic/coordination carry-over from evasion and broken-play running	—	N/A	Sports science synthesis	Evasion, skipping/cutting, and keeping balance at speed build general coordination and some elastic stiffness, relevant to takeoff sequencing.	Open source
[190]	Major biomechanics mismatch: sprint/change-of-direction patterns vs repeatable runway-to-board mechanics	—	N/A	Sports science synthesis	Horizontal jumps require specific approach rhythms, penultimate/last-step control, takeoff angle and board/phase technique; rugby training is not aligned enough for these to transfer strongly.	Open source
[191]	Triple jump specificity (phase timing and bounding technique)	—	N/A	Sports science synthesis	Triple jump adds event-specific hop-step-jump mechanics and timing; rugby outside back rarely trains this directly, lowering correlation.	Open source
[192]	Skill-transfer plausibility framework (rugby tight-five contact/set-piece → horizontal takeoff/jump approach mechanics)	N/A (synthesis)	2026	Internal reasoning	Estimated carry-over from rugby union tight-five success (force/set-piece, collision resilience, general athletic conditioning) to athletics long/triple jump success (runway speed, explosive takeoff timing, elastic/impulse mechanics, phase coordination), discounting non-skill physique traits like build.	Open source
[193]	Shared lower-body power + elasticity/coordination	Reasoned synthesis (no single direct dataset assumed)	2026	Sports science reasoning	Alpine speed skiing success is linked to strong lower-body power expression through turns and stability at speed, which can partially support the runway-speed + takeoff mechanics needed in long/triple jump (though not identically).	Open source
[194]	Some transfer via braking-to-drive ability and stiffness control	Reasoned synthesis (no single direct dataset assumed)	2026	Biomechanics reasoning	Downhill skiing trains absorbing large forces and quickly re-centering to drive out of turns; this resembles, in a general way, the need to manage approach momentum and transition into takeoff phases.	Open source
[195]	Technique mismatch: skis/edging + line-holding vs runway/takeoff/phase rhythm	Reasoned synthesis (no single direct dataset assumed)	2026	Transfer-learning reasoning	Long/triple jump depend heavily on sport-specific runway mechanics, exact takeoff timing/angles, board interaction (long jump), and phase rhythm (triple). Alpine speed-event technique doesn’t directly teach these, limiting correlation.	Open source
[196]	Cross-sport transfer arises from shared neuromotor demands (balance, timing, force control) even when the end technique differs	General motor learning / neuromotor control transfer	N/A	General sports science principles	Used to justify a modest positive correlation: technical skiing builds leg/hip coordination for repeated force application and body-angle control.	Open source
[197]	Horizontal jumps depend on specific approach-to-takeoff conversion and stiffness/elastic mechanics	Biomechanics of horizontal jumping vs skiing force redirection	N/A	General biomechanics of jumping	Used to limit the correlation: alpine slalom/GS emphasizes edge-driven directional changes, not the runway approach, takeoff timing, and horizontal takeoff/flight mechanics.	Open source
[198]	Rate of force development and elastic stiffness adaptations are sensitive to the specific training pattern	Strength & conditioning specificity (elastic/tendon properties)	N/A	General strength & conditioning principles	Used to further reduce predictiveness: long/triple jump success depends heavily on jump-specific elastic power and technical phases that skiing only partially prepares.	Open source
[199]	Sports transfer-of-training heuristic (no specific single study cited)	Authors n/a	N/A	General sports science / motor learning knowledge	Estimated based on partial overlap between cross-country skiing (leg coordination, balance, general elastic/power capacity if trained) and horizontal jump events (approach speed, explosive elastic takeoff, takeoff mechanics). Limited direct transfer assumed because the past discipline is typically endurance-focused rather than approach-speed/plyometric-focused.	Open source
[200]	Cross-sport skill transfer heuristic (dynamic balance/coordination -> horizontal takeoff mechanics)	Sports science reasoning (transfer/overlap heuristic)	2026	Internal model	Estimated correlation by crediting overlapping general abilities (run-up coordination, body control, dynamic balance) while discounting event-specific elements where snowboarding is weak (runway/plant mechanics, horizontal force direction, elastic stiffness/strength expressed through takeoff).	—
[201]	Soccer central defender demands: aerial duels, physical contesting, and body control in traffic	Unknown (expert synthesis)	2026	Internal reasoning / domain expert synthesis	Used to justify a small amount of transfer via general coordination, jumping/landing exposure, and spatial/body control.	Open source
[202]	Long/triple jump: runway speed, precise takeoff mechanics, and elastic stiffness phases	Unknown (expert synthesis)	2026	Internal reasoning / domain expert synthesis	Used to note that success depends heavily on event-specific technique and elastic mechanics not typically trained in soccer defending.	Open source
[203]	Transfer of learning decreases with low technical overlap; partial transfer from general athletic coordination	Unknown (expert synthesis)	2026	Internal reasoning / domain expert synthesis	Used to keep the correlation low but slightly positive rather than near-zero.	Open source
[204]	Generated estimate from sports-skill overlap heuristics (no single empirical study used)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Used transfer reasoning from soccer central midfielder to athletics horizontal jumps (long/triple), focusing on run-up timing, acceleration mechanics, coordination, and reactive movement while strongly discounting event-specific takeoff/phase technique (board takeoff angle, penultimate step control, hop-step-jump rhythm) and the larger role of event-specific elastic power.	—
[205]	Cross-sport transfer is limited when the dominant learned technique differs; perception/coordination carry over more than specific mechanics	General transfer-of-training (motor learning)	N/A	General motor learning / sport science literature (consensus)	Kept correlation low because soccer GK success is built around shot-stopping and distribution, while long/triple jump success depends on approach rhythm and takeoff mechanics.	Open source
[206]	Horizontal jumps rely on specialized elastic/technical requirements (run-up, plant, takeoff angle, phase pattern)	Elastic stiffness and takeoff mechanics (general coaching/biomechanics knowledge)	N/A	General biomechanics/coaching knowledge	Prevented the estimate from becoming moderate by emphasizing that the learning content for long/triple jump is highly event-specific.	Open source
[207]	Some carry-over of general explosiveness, balance, and timing can occur across explosive jumping tasks	Explosive power / coordination across sprint-jump actions (general)	N/A	General sports performance research (explosiveness/coordination)	Added a small positive bump because both sports still reward dynamic balance, timing, and fast reactions, even though the technical patterns differ.	Open source
[208]	Soccer striker to long/triple jump: general explosive power and sprint-to-jump coordination with limited technical match	General sports-transfer reasoning (no single study)	2026	Internal model	Estimated small positive carry-over from shared underlying qualities: lower-body explosiveness, acceleration, coordination, and ability to time a run-up. Discounted because long/triple jump performance depends heavily on event-specific technique (runway approach geometry, takeoff mechanics, penultimate step, landing, elastic/rebound strategy for triple) that soccer striker training doesn’t directly provide.	—
[209]	Motor learning and timing transfer across explosive tasks	General perceptual-motor skill principles	2026	Internal model	Supported a small correlation via transferable motor-learning skill, balance, and timing the transition from horizontal speed into takeoff, which can be easier for an already high-performing athlete.	—
[210]	Skill-overlap estimate: soccer winger → athletics long jump/triple jump	N/A (inferred from athletics skill overlap)	2026	AI sports-science synthesis	Estimated from shared general ingredients: sprint speed (run-up/runway), explosive lower-limb power, coordination, and reactivity. Heavily discounted because long/triple jump success is dominated by very event-specific technique (run-up rhythm, takeoff mechanics and penultimate/last-step geometry; triple jump hop-step-jump stiffness/elasticity management and timing) that soccer training does not directly teach.	Open source
[211]	Softball catcher → athletics long/triple jump estimated correlation	Heuristic sports-transfer model (minimal technique overlap; general athletic coordination only)	2026	Internal synthesis	Downgraded overlap because catcher success is about receiving/blocking a moving ball and game-calling in a crouch, whereas long/triple jump success is dominated by runway rhythm, explosive takeoff mechanics, elastic stiffness management, and landing/phase coordination. Only broad coordination and learning/focus habits transfer, so expected correlation is near the lower end.	—
[212]	Baseline prior for transfer from bat-and-ball fielding to horizontal jumping	Unknown (modeled estimate)	2026	Internal sports-science prior	Softball field-player success offers general coordination and reactive athletic skill, but long/triple jump require highly specific runway/takeoff/bar-phase technique.	—
[213]	Small positive contributors: coordination, approach timing learning, general explosiveness exposure	Unknown (modeled estimate)	2026	Internal sports-science prior	Fielding/batting can improve timing, judging movement, and developing short-burst power, which can modestly help with learning horizontal jump approach mechanics.	—
[214]	Mismatch factor: runway speed-to-takeoff conversion and event-specific stiffness/elasticity	Unknown (modeled estimate)	2026	Internal sports-science prior	Long/triple jump outcomes are strongly driven by event-specific approach rhythm, takeoff leg mechanics, elastic stiffness behavior, and (for triple jump) the hop-step-jump sequence—skills not directly trained by softball fielding.	—
[215]	Cross-sport skill transfer estimate (softball pitcher → long/triple jump)	Internal sports-skill transfer prior (softball pitching → horizontal jump)	2026	Internal model	Used to set a plausible correlation range based on small overlap in general explosive coordination and takeoff-force production, but low direct technique overlap because pitching’s underhand throwing mechanics don’t map well to runway/takeoff stiffness, limb sequencing, and flight/landing mechanics in horizontal jumps.	Open source
[216]	General skill-transfer reasoning: squash change-of-direction & lower-limb coordination → runway/approach timing and basic takeoff coordination (limited by horizontal jump-specific technique/elastic stiffness/phase mechanics)	Authors n/a	2026	Sports science knowledge (integrated heuristic; no single source cited)	Used to set a small positive correlation because squash may help with general acceleration/deceleration control, balance, and coordination under fatigue, which can speed learning of the approach and takeoff timing. Discounted because long/triple jump success depends on event-specific runway mechanics, takeoff projection, elastic stiffness/plyometric qualities, and precise phase technique that squash does not directly train.	—
[217]	Skill-transfer priors for surfing → athletics long jump & triple jump (jumps family)	None (inference-based estimate)	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Estimated from transferable elements of surfing (dynamic balance, coordinated pop-up/landing control, general approach-to-takeoff timing and re-centering) that can help learning the basics. Downweighted because long/triple jump success depends on highly event-specific runway mechanics, approach speed/rhythm, takeoff technique, and (for triple) serial impulse/elastic stiffness—skills not directly trained by surfing. Uncertainty reflects wide variation in what surfers emphasize (speed vs balance) and individual leg-spring characteristics that aren’t explicitly modeled here.	Open source
[218]	Plausible correlation ranges for technique/skill carry-over between dissimilar sports (pool endurance stroke vs horizontal jumping)	General sports-transfer synthesis	N/A	General sports science synthesis	Used as a baseline prior for low but non-zero carry-over when there is only broad coordination/athletic training overlap.	Open source
[219]	Long/triple jump performance drivers vs backstroke mid-distance drivers	Horizontal jumping determinants (general coaching/biomechanics summaries)	N/A	General coaching & biomechanics summaries	Used to estimate overlap: both benefit from general body control, rhythm, and repeated execution; but horizontal jump depends on runway sprint mechanics, takeoff timing, and elastic stiffness/force-direction control that backstroke only weakly teaches.	Open source
[220]	Conceptual framework: transferable athletic qualities vs highly specific mechanics	General skill transfer vs event specificity (reasoned estimate)	N/A	N/A	Set a low correlation because sprint backstroke technique and long/triple-jump mechanics differ strongly; only general explosiveness/coordination carries over.	Open source
[221]	Shared demand overlap: sprint explosiveness and coordination	Shared demand: short explosive effort + coordination under fatigue (reasoned estimate)	N/A	N/A	Gave a small uplift above zero due to overlap in producing brief high power bursts and coordinating body segments smoothly during fast actions.	Open source
[222]	Cross-sport transfer heuristic for swimming → horizontal jumping (technique-only)	Internal sports-science heuristic (skill transfer vs movement-mechanics mismatch)	2026	N/A	Accounts for some carry-over from general coordination, timing, and learning habits, but heavily penalizes mismatch between breaststroke propulsion mechanics and horizontal jump approach/takeoff mechanics.	Open source
[223]	Minor contribution from general neuromuscular control and repeatable technique learning	Internal conditioning/elasticity learning assumption	2026	N/A	Assumes past success reflects good training discipline and ability to refine technique under fatigue; however, it does not assume direct transfer of sprint/elastic takeoff qualities central to long/triple jump.	Open source
[224]	Sports skill transfer heuristics (no single study)	Authors n/a	2026	AI model inference	Estimated carry-over from sprint breaststroke (start/wall acceleration, leg power, timing) to long/triple jump (runway-speed to takeoff conversion, elastic stiffness, horizontal takeoff mechanics). Overlap exists in “explosive legs + coordination/timing,” but major differences exist in event-specific kinematics and takeoff style.	—
[225]	GeneratedSkill-Overlap Prior	Internal sports-science reasoning (generated transfer prior)	2026	N/A	Estimated carry-over from butterfly middle-distance toward horizontal jump via shared transferable skills (coordination, rhythm, repeated effort control) while accounting for major technique mismatch (swimming propulsion vs runway takeoff mechanics).	Open source
[226]	Transfer priors (swimming sprint butterfly → horizontal jump)	Internal sports-science priors (no external dataset used)	2026	N/A	Used a small positive baseline because both involve high-intensity, explosive efforts and some coordination under fatigue, but techniques and movement planes differ.	Open source
[227]	Shared athletic qualities heuristic (explosiveness + stiffness/coordination)	Biomechanics + motor learning heuristics	2026	N/A	Adjusted upward slightly since long/triple jump reward runway speed, timing, and explosive takeoff, which can be aided by the rhythm, power production, and fast-rate coordination trained in sprint butterfly. Adjusted downward vs vertical jump because swim propulsion doesn’t train runway mechanics, approach rhythm, takeoff angles, or landing technique; also triple jump adds phase-specific mechanics.	Open source
[228]	Generated estimate based on overlap in coordination/athletic training habits vs limited transfer from swimming-distance propulsion and pacing to runway speed + takeoff phase mechanics	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports-science reasoning	Used a low positive correlation because general athleticism and technique-learning ability can transfer from freestyle distance, but long/triple jump performance is strongly determined by sprint mechanics, elastic takeoff stiffness, and horizontal flight/takeoff coordination that swimming distance does not train directly.	—
[229]	Skill/conditioning/coordination transfer from swimming freestyle middle-distance to long/triple jump	General sports-science/skill-transfer heuristics (no single study used)	2026	Internal reasoning	Used to set a low-to-moderate baseline correlation because both emphasize whole-body coordination and speed/elasticity, but propulsion mechanics differ (water drag vs runway takeoff/landing).	Open source
[230]	Transferable capacity mapping: sprint freestyle swimming → long jump/triple jump	Conceptual sports-skill overlap model (no single study)	2026	Sports science assistant estimate	Estimated correlation by weighting shared components: explosive takeoff power, neuromuscular coordination for short bursts, maintaining technique at high intensity, and approach-run rhythm/acceleration control. Discounted direct technique transfer because sprint freestyle propulsion and landing/phase mechanics differ greatly from runway/takeoff and triple-jump hop/step rhythm.	Open source
[231]	Internal synthesis: low transfer from table-tennis racket timing/rapid reactions to horizontal jump runway/takeoff mechanics	Authors n/a	2026	Internal synthesis	Used to justify near-zero correlation: table tennis rewards visual tracking and racket/spin timing in short bursts, whereas long/triple jump success is dominated by runway speed control, takeoff technique, horizontal velocity management, and hop/step mechanics—only general coordination and learning benefit transfer.	—
[232]	Taekwondo → horizontal jumps: transferable traits (elastic/reactive legs, dynamic balance, run-up coordination)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Sets a small positive baseline because both reward elastic explosive leg action, quick timing, and coordination under fast movement.	—
[233]	Event-specific technique mismatch: runway approach mechanics and takeoff/landing patterns	Authors n/a	2026	Internal reasoning	Reduces the correlation because long/triple jump success depends heavily on runway speed control, takeoff geometry, and (for triple) phase-specific mechanics not trained in taekwondo.	—
[234]	Low-to-modest general transfer from racket sport to jump events via coordination	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports science heuristic	Start with a small positive prior because tennis builds general lower-limb coordination, balance, and the ability to learn motor timing under pressure—helpful for long/triple jump run-up rhythm and takeoff coordination.	—
[235]	Event-specific mismatch: tennis hitting vs runway mechanics	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports science heuristic	Subtract because tennis success is driven by racket/ball striking, while long/triple jump depends on runway speed control, penultimate step timing, approach angle, takeoff stiffness/ankle mechanics, and landing technique—skills not directly trained by tennis.	—
[236]	Possible uplift from speed/agility training habits in tennis	Authors n/a	2026	Internal sports science heuristic	Add slightly because many tennis players repeatedly practice acceleration, deceleration, and quick approach steps, which can make it easier to develop a fast, consistent runway for horizontal jumps (though not the exact mechanics).	—
[237]	General sports-science reasoning (transfer based on technique/skills/mentality overlap only)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal model/heuristic	Estimated carry-over from triathlon endurance/effort management to horizontal jump events (long jump/triple jump), focusing on transferable coordination, running-mechanics, and training habits while excluding physique/proportion effects.	—
[238]	Cross-sport carryover heuristic for approach+takeoff elasticity (volleyball attacker → horizontal jumps)	Internal domain reasoning	2026	N/A	Estimated correlation by (1) shared elements between volleyball attacker and long/triple jump: runway/approach mechanics, explosive takeoff, elastic leg stiffness, and airborne body control; (2) discounting differences: horizontal jumps have event-specific timing (especially triple jump’s hop-step-jump rhythm), specialized takeoff board technique, and landing/measurement goals that differ from spiking timing/trajectory and swing mechanics.	Open source
[239]	Low-to-very-modest transfer: defensive footwork/coordination to long/triple jump mechanics	Skill overlap mapping (volleyball libero reaction/footwork ↔ horizontal jump approach/takeoff coordination)	2026	Sports science reasoning	Used to set a small positive correlation because both require coordination, lower-body mechanics learning, and general athleticism, but volleyball libero’s core skills are ball-contact/reaction and short-range digging rather than runway approach, takeoff timing, and phase technique.	—
[240]	Priors for jumps vs court defensive specialization when primary mechanics differ	Bayesian prior for technique-only correlation across dissimilar athletic event types	2026	Sports science generalization	Provided the baseline expectation that extremely high transfer is unlikely; allowed a slightly above-zero mean due to general motor-learning and jumping ability improving across sports.	—
[241]	Skill/transfer heuristic: volleyball middle blocker → athletics long/triple jump	Internal sports-skill overlap heuristic (no external dataset used)	2026	N/A	Estimated cross-sport carry-over from general explosive takeoff coordination and lower-body power expression learned in volleyball, while discounting event-specific horizontal approach mechanics (run-up/rhythm), landing technique, and triple-jump phase stiffness/bounding mechanics that volleyball doesn’t directly train.	Open source
[242]	Expert-informed transfer estimate (volleyball setter → long/triple jump)	Authors n/a	2026	Internal knowledge synthesis	Used to estimate how volleyball-setter skills (explosive leg drive, timing, aerial body control, landing mechanics, and coordination) could translate to long jump/triple jump, while discounting the major event-specific technical requirements (run-up pattern, takeoff board placement, hop-step-jump sequence in triple jump, and horizontal projection technique).	Open source
[243]	Transfer of learning: why coordination/base skills transfer weakly across different event mechanics	General skill/learning transfer heuristics	2026	Internal synthesis (no single paper cited)	Used to set a small baseline because wrestling and long/triple jump only share broad “athletic coordination” rather than event-specific mechanics.	Open source
[244]	Event-specific technique dominates (especially takeoff/landing mechanics)	Biomechanics/skill specialization principle	2026	Internal synthesis (no single paper cited)	Long/triple jump performance depends heavily on approach speed-to-takeoff conversion and horizontal takeoff mechanics (and for triple jump, phase sequencing), which wrestling doesn’t train directly; this constrains correlation.	Open source
[245]	Body control under resistance can modestly support learning of jump technique	Combat sports physical literacy overlap (balance, body control)	2026	Internal synthesis (no single paper cited)	Allows a small positive adjustment above “near-zero” because wrestling can improve balance, leverage awareness, and coordination when the body is loaded/resisted.	Open source