Public evidence page
Gymnastics - Trampoline
Sport
Sport: Gymnastics
Discipline: Trampoline
Athletes' bodies
Elite female trampoline athletes are optimized for repeated elastic vertical power and precise flight-phase body control. This typically favors a lean build (low absolute mass for takeoff/rotation efficiency), sufficient fat-free mass and lower-body/reactive strength, and a joint/connective-tissue “stiffness-tolerance” profile that supports fast energy storage/return on the trampoline bed. Compared with artistic/rhythmic gymnastics, trampoline selection places less emphasis on extreme end-range flexibility and more emphasis on reactive power, aerial awareness, and landing/absorption control.
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 | 164.5 ± 6 cm | 164.5 ± 6 cm | high | Trampoline athletes tend to cluster around a relatively short-to-average height range among gymnastic disciplines; I used the trampoline height context from Olympic gymnast averages and set the elite female mean at ~164–165 cm with a moderate spread for event/body-type diversity. | [1] |
| Weight | 54 ± 6 kg | 54 ± 6 kg | high | I modeled a lean weight that supports high takeoff/rotation efficiency while still allowing enough fat-free mass for repeated elastic power. This yields a typical BMI/lean mass range consistent with elite trampoline cohorts. | [1] [2] |
| Ape index | 1.02 ± 0.04 ratio | 1.02 ± 0.04 ratio | medium | A modest ape index supports aesthetically clean alignment and comfortable full-body reach in flight without forcing extreme body proportions. | [3] |
| Arm span | 167 ± 6.5 cm | 167 ± 6.5 cm | medium | Trampoline favors aerial body awareness and clean line control; a modestly longer arm span than height supports comfortable full-body alignment and reach in flight without implying an extreme somatotype. | [4] |
| Leg inseam | 73.5 ± 4.3 cm | 73.5 ± 4.3 cm | medium | Inseam is modeled slightly favorably for takeoff mechanics and lower-body lever proportions that support reactive power and flight compactness control. | [5] |
| Leg-torso ratio | 1.3 ± 0.12 ratio | 1.3 ± 0.12 ratio | medium | A higher leg-to-torso ratio can support takeoff leverage and make it easier to tuck/pike efficiently, while trunk control remains adequate. | [5] |
| Shoulder-hip ratio | 1.05 ± 0.07 ratio | 1.05 ± 0.07 ratio | medium | A slightly higher shoulder-to-hip ratio supports stable upper-body control while still enabling hip/leg configurations for compact rotation shapes. | [6] |
| Torso length | 57 ± 4.8 cm | 57 ± 4.8 cm | medium | Torso length affects rotational inertia distribution and how easily athletes can achieve compact pike/tuck shapes while maintaining flight-phase control. | [5] |
| Ankle circumference | 21.7 ± 1.2 cm | 21.7 ± 1.2 cm | low | Ankle circumference is kept in a lean-athlete range; trampoline requires reactive ankle/foot behavior, which is better represented by training tolerance/joint properties than by circumference alone in this schema. | [7] |
| Foot length | 24.4 ± 1 cm | 24.4 ± 1 cm | low | Foot length matters mostly through fit and general leverage; trampoline selection is more about ankle/foot stiffness and reactive strength than absolute foot size. | [8] |
| Hand length | 17.6 ± 0.9 cm | 17.6 ± 0.9 cm | low | Hand length is secondary for trampoline; it’s included for completeness but set to adult-typical magnitudes. | [9] |
| Pelvic bone width | 26.8 ± 2 cm | 26.8 ± 2 cm | low | Pelvic bone width is modeled as typical for an elite lean female athlete cohort; trampoline performance is less dependent on pelvic breadth than on core/hip power and control. | [10] |
| Shoulder width | 39.5 ± 2.7 cm | 39.5 ± 2.7 cm | low | Shoulder width is not a dominant trampoline selector; it’s kept moderate and realistic, as flight control depends more on neuromuscular power and technique than on broad shoulders. | [11] |
| Wrist circumference | 16.5 ± 0.75 cm | 16.5 ± 0.75 cm | low | Wrist circumference is not a key trampoline selector; it is modeled as typical for adult lean females for fit/consistency. | [12] |
Traits
| Factor | Value | Impact | Reasoning | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muscle fiber profile | fast-twitch dominant | high | Trampoline performance is dominated by elastic vertical power and rapid eccentric-concentric transitions during repeated contacts, which aligns with a fast-twitch–dominant optimal profile. | [13] |
| Metabolic tendency | ectomorphic tendency | medium | Modeled as ectomorph-lean because carrying excess mass increases the difficulty of achieving consistent flight height/rotation control; trampoline athletes generally remain lean while maintaining sufficient fat-free mass for power. | [14] |
| Joint laxity | medium | high | Trampoline does require mobility for body-shape control (pike/tuck/straight positions), but it also requires stiffness/elasticity for efficient rebound. So joint laxity is modeled as medium (mobility-capable but not extreme). | [15] |
| Foot arch | neutral arch | low | A neutral default is used because trampoline success depends more on ankle/foot stiffness/reactive control than on a single arch-shape selection signature. | [16] |
| Temperature tolerance | balanced | none | Trampoline competitions and training are typically indoor and characterized by short-to-intermittent high efforts; no strong thermal-selection signal is applied. | [17] |
| Dominant side | no meaningful side advantage | none | Trampoline elements are performed in a way that can be trained bilaterally; the sport does not impose a consistent right/left performance advantage, so neutrality is used. | [18] |
Goals
| Factor | Alignment | Reasoning | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build confidence | high | Trampoline is very feedback-rich: each session you can see improvements in control, timing, and jump quality. Mastering new shapes/landing skills often produces quick “I can do this” moments, which strongly builds confidence. | [19] [20] |
| Build endurance | low | Rebounding and flight-phase control are intense, but training is typically broken into repeated jumps/attempts rather than sustained long-duration efforts. That tends to build muscular endurance and skill-specific work capacity more than true aerobic endurance (so “longer efforts feel easier” is a weaker match). | [20] [21] |
| Build strength and power | high | This is one of the best matches. Trampoline is driven by elastic recoil and repeated forceful takeoffs/landings, and training commonly targets the strength and power qualities needed to achieve better flight/time-of-flight and control. For amateurs, you should feel legs/core getting stronger relatively quickly. | [20] [22] |
| Challenge myself | high | Trampoline can be genuinely challenging because you’re learning to manage fear/uncertainty of being airborne, coordinating timing, and progressing aerial skills. Even basic progressions can feel difficult and rewarding, especially as you pursue cleaner landings and new elements. | [20] [23] |
| Compete and measure myself | medium | There are competitive trampoline gymnastics pathways and clear performance scoring in formal meets, so measurement/competition is possible. But many amateurs focus first on skill attainment and safety at the gym; whether they compete depends heavily on access to club/meet opportunities. So medium alignment overall. | [20] [22] |
| Improve agility and coordination | high | Trampoline is extremely coordination- and body-awareness–heavy: you must control posture through repeated flight phases, land accurately, and stay aligned while the surface and timing are dynamic. That makes it a strong match for coordination/agility in the sense of motor control. | [19] [20] |
| Improve balance and control | high | Balance and control are central: you constantly have to stabilize mid-air and especially on landing to prevent wobbling and falls. Even when you’re not doing flips, learning to “stick” landings and maintain body position is very balance-focused. | [19] [22] |
| Improve flexibility and mobility | low | Flexibility can be useful for better positions and safer control, but trampoline (as defined here) is primarily elastic power + aerial control. Unless your program includes dedicated flexibility/mobility work, it’s usually not the main adaptation. | [19] [20] |
| Improve general health and fitness | medium | Trampoline (as a trampoline discipline) is physically demanding and improves several fitness components at once: leg strength/endurance from repeated jumps, body awareness, and coordination from controlling flight and landings. However, compared with broader full-body training programs, it can be a narrower stimulus depending on how your sessions are structured (skill-focused vs general conditioning). | [19] [20] |
| Improve speed and explosiveness | medium | Trampoline requires quick, forceful jumps and rapid adjustments in the air, but it’s usually not trained like sprint acceleration or plyometric “speed” work on the ground. You’ll likely improve explosive ability in a trampoline-specific way (jump height/reaction), so the match is moderate rather than top. | [20] [23] |
| Learn new skills and master technique | high | This is a very strong match. Trampoline as a discipline is fundamentally about learning body shapes, timing, and flight-phase control (and progressing difficulty safely). Technique mastery is the whole point of the sport. | [19] [20] |
| Lose weight | low | Trampoline can burn calories, but the discipline is usually skill-drill heavy (with lots of rest between attempts to focus on technique and safety). So for most amateurs, it’s not as consistently effective for weight loss as endurance-focused cardio, unless you deliberately structure sessions for higher continuous effort. | [24] [25] |
| Make friends and feel a sense of belonging | medium | Trampoline gyms/classes often have group coaching, and you’ll share space with others working on different skills—so social connection is common. Still, many drills are individual attempts with safety attention, so conversation-style bonding may be less than in team or endurance sports. | [22] [23] |
| Reduce stress and feel better | medium | Like other structured physical activities, trampoline practice can improve mood via endorphins and by giving a clear skill-progress focus. But because training can involve fear/overcoming uncertainty (falls/air awareness) and careful safety procedures, the stress-relief effect may be mixed—positive for many, but not as consistently calming as gentler activities. | [19] [23] |
| Spend time with people I care about | low | Because timing, safety, and concentrated attention matter, trampoline practice usually isn’t compatible with lots of talk while moving—more like focused attempts. You can still spend time together by going to the gym together, but the “catch up mid-activity” match is low. | [22] [23] |
Preferences
| Factor | Alignment | Reasoning | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competition-focused environment | medium | There is a judging-based competitive ecosystem (meets, difficulty/execution scoring). But many amateurs also train for skill progression and fitness rather than chasing constant rankings, so the culture may be moderately competition-focused depending on the club. | [26] |
| Enjoys contact | none | Direct contact/collisions aren’t a goal in trampoline gymnastics; that’s more of a risk-management reality than something the sport is about. | — |
| Flexible Time Table | low | You can practice somewhat flexibly, but because it’s equipment-dependent (regulated trampoline + safety setup + coaching feedback), it’s less like solo running where you can freely choose time and place. | — |
| Indoor setting | high | Trampoline gymnastics is typically done in dedicated indoor gyms/facilities because the sport requires a regulated trampoline bed, landing safety areas, and controlled conditions for safe repetitions. | [26] |
| Long steady efforts | low | Trampoline is not primarily about long continuous cardio. Even though routines last a short time, they’re structured as repeated elements with power generation and precise landings rather than steady-state effort pacing. | — |
| Low impact on joints | low | Trampoline feels “springy,” but it still involves repeated high-energy takeoffs and landings, plus significant stress from impacts and rotations. So it’s not generally considered joint-gentle compared with low-impact activities. | [27] |
| Mostly individual | high | Your score is based on how *you* execute your own flight elements, body positions, and landings in your routine—so training and performance are primarily one-person focused. | [26] |
| Non-contact | high | You aren’t trying to physically contact opponents. Even though training spaces are shared, the performance itself is non-contact—focused on your own jumps/rotations and safe landings. | [26] [28] |
| Outdoor setting | none | While you *could* theoretically use trampolines outdoors, trampoline gymnastics as a discipline depends on standardized equipment and controlled safety setup, so it doesn’t naturally fit an “outdoor environment experience” preference. | — |
| Playful recreational atmosphere | low | Trampoline gymnastics involves a lot of technical risk (rotations, height control, landings), so club environments are usually skill- and safety-focused rather than “just for play.” | — |
| Routine and structure | high | You practice and perform a set routine made of defined skill elements. Progress is built through repeating skills and refining the exact order/timing to match the scoring expectations. | [26] |
| Short explosive efforts | high | Most skills are burst-like: you generate vertical power for each takeoff, perform rotations/twists in flight, then quickly stabilize for the landing. It’s repeated “explosive” action rather than steady cruising. | [26] [28] |
| Tactical and strategic | low | There’s some strategy (what difficulty to attempt, pacing/risk of deductions), but you’re not “reading” opponents or making ongoing tactical decisions during the routine. The challenge is technical performance under rules. | [28] |
| Team environment | low | Trampoline gymnastics is overwhelmingly about each athlete performing their own routine (on their own trampoline) rather than coordinating with teammates for a shared physical task. Team events exist at some competitions, but typical training and progression are mainly individual. | [29] |
| Technique-heavy | high | Success depends heavily on body awareness and precision—staying aligned, controlling rotation speed, hitting consistent positions mid-flight, and “sticking” landings with proper form. | [26] |
| Variety and novelty | medium | There’s variety across different skills (different somersaults/twists, positions, and routine compositions), but training still becomes repetitive as you drill the same elements to control timing and landing. | [28] |
| Water environment | none | Water is not part of trampoline gymnastics training or competition. | — |
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. | Trampoline/spring rebound creates frequent plantarflexion demand. While not every study breaks out Achilles tendinopathy specifically, the lower-limb overuse pattern in gymnastics supports a medium risk for Achilles tendinopathy. | [30] [31] |
| ACL injury | none | A major ligament injury inside the knee, often linked to pivoting, landing, or sudden deceleration. | Without trampoline-specific evidence elevating ACL injuries, I keep risk none in this schema. | [31] |
| Ankle sprain | high | A stretched or torn ankle ligament, usually after the foot rolls awkwardly. | Evidence indicates ankle injuries/sprains are common in trampoline/tumbling gymnastics contexts, and trampoline involves repeated landing positions that can produce inversion/plantarflexion mechanisms. Therefore risk is rated high. | [30] [31] [34] |
| Calf strain | low | A pulled or overloaded calf muscle, often felt during pushing off, sprinting, or jumping. | Plausible but not well-supported in the sources used; therefore low risk. | [31] |
| Finger or hand impact injury | low | Pain from jamming, bending, or striking the fingers or hand during sport. | Some upper limb injury exists in trampoline/tumbling. Because finger/hand impact is less central than ankle/back issues, risk is low. | [31] |
| General forearm overuse pain | none | Ongoing forearm pain from repeated gripping, lifting, or arm use when the exact tendon is unclear. | Most trampoline-related loading is vertical and lower-limb dominant (flight/landing). I did not find trampoline-specific evidence pointing to forearm overuse pain as a common complaint, so risk is set to none by default. | [31] |
| General foot or ankle pain | high | Ongoing foot or ankle pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | In gymnastics broadly, ankle is a commonly injured body part. Trampoline-specific injury descriptions also highlight lower-limb/spine patterns, making foot/ankle pain a high-risk category. | [30] [31] |
| General hip or groin pain | low | Ongoing hip or groin pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Given lack of strong trampoline-specific evidence for hip/groin as a common injury site, risk is kept low (non-zero but not elevated). | [30] [31] |
| General knee pain | medium | Ongoing knee pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Gymnastics injury profiles commonly include lower-limb injuries, and trampoline has repeated landing demands. Knee pain risk is medium because it’s plausible but not the single most consistently reported trampoline-specific diagnosis in the sources used. | [30] [36] |
| General lower-back pain | high | Ongoing lower-back pain when the exact source is unclear. | Gymnastics injury research commonly reports low back involvement, and trampoline/tumbling injury-location research includes spine involvement. That combination supports high risk for general lower back pain. | [30] [31] |
| General lower-leg pain | medium | Ongoing shin or calf pain when the exact diagnosis is unclear. | Gymnastics injury profiles commonly include ankle/lower-limb injury, and trampoline-specific studies include lower limb injuries. That supports medium risk for general lower-leg pain. | [30] [31] |
| General shoulder pain | low | Ongoing shoulder pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Low risk due to plausible but not well-supported shoulder prominence in the sources used. | [30] [31] |
| General wrist or hand pain | low | Ongoing wrist or hand pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Upper limb involvement in trampoline/tumbling exists, but lack of evidence for high frequency of wrist/hand pain makes this low risk. | [30] [31] |
| Golfer's elbow | none | Pain on the inside of the elbow linked to overload in the forearm tendons. | Without trampoline-specific evidence that golfer’s elbow is a common injury outcome, risk remains none. | [31] |
| Groin strain | none | A pulled or irritated groin muscle, often felt in cutting, sprinting, or kicking movements. | Without direct evidence, default to none for risk in this schema. | [31] |
| Hip flexor strain | none | A strain or overload in the front-of-hip muscles that help lift the leg. | Without evidence, risk defaults to none. | [31] |
| Side-of-hip tendon pain | low | Irritation of the hip or gluteal tendons around the outer side of the hip. | Risk is set low-to-none; I chose low because trampoline still requires strong hip control, but evidence did not justify medium/high. | [30] [31] |
| Lower-back disc irritation | medium | Lower-back pain that may involve irritation of a spinal disc and sometimes pain spreading into the leg. | Because low back pain is high risk in gymnastics/trampoline contexts, disc irritation is plausible but not proven as the dominant diagnosis; thus medium. | [30] [31] |
| Mechanical lower-back pain | high | Common lower-back pain related to movement, loading, stiffness, or irritated supporting tissues. | Given high general low back pain risk in gymnastics/trampoline contexts, mechanical low back pain is likely as a major subtype, so risk is high. | [30] [31] |
| Meniscus injury | none | Irritation or tearing of the knee cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize the joint. | Without trampoline-specific evidence indicating meniscus injury is common, risk remains none. | [31] |
| Jumper's knee (patellar tendinopathy) | low | Pain and irritation in the tendon just below the kneecap. | I rate risk low rather than medium because ankle/back appear more dominant, and the trampoline-specific evidence used didn’t elevate patellar tendon specifically. | [30] [31] |
| Front-of-knee pain (patellofemoral pain) | low | Pain around or behind the kneecap that often flares with repetitive knee bending. | Low risk reflects plausibility without strong evidence of commonality in trampoline. | [30] [31] |
| Heel pain (plantar fasciitis) | medium | Irritation of the tissue under the foot that often causes pain near the heel. | Trampoline’s lower-limb dominance and common ankle/foot complaints in gymnastics supports medium risk for plantar fasciitis, even though not always separately quantified. | [30] [31] |
| Rotator cuff irritation | none | Pain and overload in the shoulder muscles and tendons that help control arm movement. | Default to none due to lack of trampoline-specific evidence elevating rotator cuff irritation. | [31] |
| Shin splints | low | Exercise-related pain along the shin that often appears when impact load rises too quickly. | Given lower-limb loading and gymnastics overuse patterns, shin pain is plausible but evidence doesn’t justify medium/high; set low. | [30] [31] |
| Shoulder impingement-type pain | none | Shoulder pain that appears when tissues feel pinched or irritated during arm elevation. | Without evidence, risk defaults to none. | [31] |
| Shoulder instability or dislocation | none | A shoulder that has slipped out, partly slipped out, or feels unreliable in vulnerable positions. | Without evidence, risk remains none. | [31] |
| Back stress reaction (spondylolysis) | low | A stress injury in the back often linked to repeated extension and rotation loading. | Low risk reflects plausible but unproven dominance; I did not find trampoline-specific spondylolysis incidence data. | [31] |
| Tennis elbow | none | Pain on the outside of the elbow linked to overload in the wrist and forearm tendons. | Without trampoline-specific evidence for lateral elbow tendinopathy as a common outcome, risk is set to none by default. | [31] |
| Shin bone stress injury | low | Stress irritation in the tibia from repeated impact that has outpaced recovery. | Because trampoline is repetitive but evidence specificity is missing, risk is kept low rather than medium/high. | [31] |
| Wrist sprain | none | A stretched or irritated wrist ligament, often after a fall, impact, or awkward bend. | Without evidence, risk defaults to none. | [31] |
| Wrist tendon pain | none | Irritation of wrist tendons from repeated gripping, racquet use, lifting, or supporting body weight. | Risk defaults to none in absence of supporting evidence. | [31] |
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 sport both trains the calf/Achilles and exposes you repeatedly to Achilles stress, prevention is not confidently high; it’s better rated low. | [31] [32] |
| ACL injury | none | A major ligament injury inside the knee, often linked to pivoting, landing, or sudden deceleration. | ACL prevention usually needs neuromuscular/landing programs; trampoline alone isn’t established as an ACL-specific preventive intervention in the sources used. | [31] |
| Ankle sprain | medium | A stretched or torn ankle ligament, usually after the foot rolls awkwardly. | The sport trains landing control and body awareness, a plausible protective factor, but because exposure to landing stresses is constant, prevention can’t be high. | [33] [34] |
| Calf strain | none | A pulled or overloaded calf muscle, often felt during pushing off, sprinting, or jumping. | Calf strain prevention typically depends on progressive strength and load management; not proven here. | [31] |
| Finger or hand impact injury | none | Pain from jamming, bending, or striking the fingers or hand during sport. | Prevention would depend on technique, supervision, and safe environment rather than an inherent protective effect. | [33] |
| General forearm overuse pain | none | Ongoing forearm pain from repeated gripping, lifting, or arm use when the exact tendon is unclear. | No evidence indicates trampoline participation provides a reliable preventive effect against forearm overuse pain. | [31] |
| General foot or ankle pain | medium | Ongoing foot or ankle pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Because the sport both conditions and provokes foot/ankle loading, prevention is rated medium rather than low/none. | [33] [34] |
| General hip or groin pain | none | Ongoing hip or groin pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Hip/groin prevention depends on factors like technique, flexibility, and strength, not proven by trampoline participation alone. | [31] |
| General knee pain | low | Ongoing knee pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Because exposure is constant, prevention is limited; rated low. | [31] [33] |
| General lower-back pain | medium | Ongoing lower-back pain when the exact source is unclear. | Because the sport may improve control/motor patterning but also provokes spine loading, prevention is medium rather than high. | [31] [37] |
| General lower-leg pain | low | Ongoing shin or calf pain when the exact diagnosis is unclear. | Because exposure drives overuse risk as well as conditioning benefits, prevention is low. | [33] |
| General shoulder pain | none | Ongoing shoulder pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Shoulder prevention depends on strength/stability and technique, not proven as trampoline-only protection for general shoulder pain. | [31] |
| General wrist or hand pain | none | Ongoing wrist or hand pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | Prevention depends on technique and training environment, not a proven wrist-specific effect. | [31] |
| Golfer's elbow | none | Pain on the inside of the elbow linked to overload in the forearm tendons. | Prevention of golfer’s elbow would depend more on targeted forearm/wrist loading control than trampoline participation. | [31] |
| Groin strain | none | A pulled or irritated groin muscle, often felt in cutting, sprinting, or kicking movements. | Groin strain prevention depends on hip adductor strength and load/technique management, not proven by trampoline alone. | [31] |
| Hip flexor strain | none | A strain or overload in the front-of-hip muscles that help lift the leg. | Any protective effect would come from general conditioning and technique; not proven as a specific prevention mechanism in the evidence used. | [31] |
| Side-of-hip tendon pain | none | Irritation of the hip or gluteal tendons around the outer side of the hip. | Default prevention is none because no glute-tendinopathy-specific prevention effect is supported by the sources used. | [31] |
| Lower-back disc irritation | none | Lower-back pain that may involve irritation of a spinal disc and sometimes pain spreading into the leg. | Without disc-specific prevention evidence, default to none. | [31] |
| Mechanical lower-back pain | medium | Common lower-back pain related to movement, loading, stiffness, or irritated supporting tissues. | Medium prevention reflects potential motor-control benefits balanced against ongoing exposure to spinal stress. | [31] [39] |
| Meniscus injury | none | Irritation or tearing of the knee cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize the joint. | Meniscus prevention would require targeted neuromuscular/landing and rotational control programs; not proven here. | [31] |
| Jumper's knee (patellar tendinopathy) | none | Pain and irritation in the tendon just below the kneecap. | Without evidence of a patellar-tendon-specific preventive effect, prevention defaults to none. | [31] |
| Front-of-knee pain (patellofemoral pain) | none | Pain around or behind the kneecap that often flares with repetitive knee bending. | Patellofemoral pain prevention would likely require targeted strength/technique strategies beyond general participation; no supportive evidence used here. | [31] |
| Heel pain (plantar fasciitis) | low | Irritation of the tissue under the foot that often causes pain near the heel. | Any conditioning benefit is counterbalanced by ongoing exposure to foot/ankle loading; prevention is low. | [33] |
| Rotator cuff irritation | none | Pain and overload in the shoulder muscles and tendons that help control arm movement. | Rotator cuff prevention requires targeted stability/strength work not assumed here. | [31] |
| Shin splints | none | Exercise-related pain along the shin that often appears when impact load rises too quickly. | Shin splints prevention typically involves load management and calf/shin capacity building; not proven as trampoline-specific prevention here. | [33] |
| Shoulder impingement-type pain | none | Shoulder pain that appears when tissues feel pinched or irritated during arm elevation. | Prevention would depend on specific shoulder mechanics and strengthening; not established as trampoline-only prevention. | [31] |
| Shoulder instability or dislocation | none | A shoulder that has slipped out, partly slipped out, or feels unreliable in vulnerable positions. | Instability prevention typically requires specific shoulder stability training beyond trampoline participation alone. | [31] |
| Back stress reaction (spondylolysis) | none | A stress injury in the back often linked to repeated extension and rotation loading. | Prevention would require managing spinal extension and training load with specific programs; none supported here. | [31] |
| Tennis elbow | none | Pain on the outside of the elbow linked to overload in the wrist and forearm tendons. | No evidence indicates trampoline participation alone prevents lateral elbow tendinopathy. | [31] |
| Shin bone stress injury | none | Stress irritation in the tibia from repeated impact that has outpaced recovery. | Stress injury prevention depends strongly on load progression and recovery; not supported as intrinsic trampoline protection. | [31] |
| Wrist sprain | none | A stretched or irritated wrist ligament, often after a fall, impact, or awkward bend. | Sprain prevention depends on environment and technique and is not proven as a trampoline-specific preventive effect. | [33] |
| Wrist tendon pain | none | Irritation of wrist tendons from repeated gripping, racquet use, lifting, or supporting body weight. | Prevention requires targeted tendon load management not assumed here. | [31] |
Heal
| Factor | Value | Definition | Full reasoning | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Achilles tendon pain (tendinopathy) | none | Pain and irritation in the Achilles tendon at the back of the ankle. | No evidence supports trampoline participation alone as a reliable Achilles-tendinopathy healing intervention; continued impact/elastic loading may maintain symptoms. | [30] |
| ACL injury | none | A major ligament injury inside the knee, often linked to pivoting, landing, or sudden deceleration. | No evidence supports sport-only healing of ACL injury. | [33] |
| Ankle sprain | none | A stretched or torn ankle ligament, usually after the foot rolls awkwardly. | Sprain recovery usually requires load reduction and rehab; sport-only continued landings can delay healing or re-injure ligaments, so healing alignment is none. | [34] |
| Calf strain | none | A pulled or overloaded calf muscle, often felt during pushing off, sprinting, or jumping. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for calf strain. | [33] |
| Finger or hand impact injury | none | Pain from jamming, bending, or striking the fingers or hand during sport. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for impact injuries. | [33] |
| General forearm overuse pain | none | Ongoing forearm pain from repeated gripping, lifting, or arm use when the exact tendon is unclear. | Because trampoline loading is not primarily forearm-based, sport-only participation is not a dependable healing stimulus for forearm overuse pain. | [35] |
| General foot or ankle pain | none | Ongoing foot or ankle pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | No evidence supports that sport participation alone reliably heals foot/ankle pain; given the repetitive landing stimulus, continuing can aggravate symptoms. | [30] |
| General hip or groin pain | none | Ongoing hip or groin pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for hip/groin pain; trampoline mechanics may continue to load sensitive tissues. | [31] |
| General knee pain | none | Ongoing knee pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | No evidence supports that trampoline participation alone reliably heals knee pain; ongoing landing stresses can maintain symptoms. | [30] |
| General lower-back pain | low | Ongoing lower-back pain when the exact source is unclear. | I assign low (not none) because some back pain improves with continued low-volume, controlled movement/mobility typical in gymnastics training, but without targeted rehab it’s not reliably therapeutic. | [37] |
| General lower-leg pain | none | Ongoing shin or calf pain when the exact diagnosis is unclear. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for general lower-leg pain; repeated impact makes healing unlikely without load modification. | [30] |
| General shoulder pain | none | Ongoing shoulder pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for shoulder pain. | [31] |
| General wrist or hand pain | none | Ongoing wrist or hand pain when the exact structure or diagnosis is unclear. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for wrist/hand pain; ongoing use can maintain symptoms. | [31] |
| Golfer's elbow | none | Pain on the inside of the elbow linked to overload in the forearm tendons. | No evidence supports a trampoline-only healing effect for golfer’s elbow. | [31] |
| Groin strain | none | A pulled or irritated groin muscle, often felt in cutting, sprinting, or kicking movements. | No evidence supports trampoline participation as a reliable healing strategy for groin strains. | [33] |
| Hip flexor strain | none | A strain or overload in the front-of-hip muscles that help lift the leg. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for hip flexor strain. | [31] |
| Side-of-hip tendon pain | none | Irritation of the hip or gluteal tendons around the outer side of the hip. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for glute tendinopathy. | [33] |
| Lower-back disc irritation | none | Lower-back pain that may involve irritation of a spinal disc and sometimes pain spreading into the leg. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for lumbar disc irritation; sport-only continuation is not reliable. | [38] |
| Mechanical lower-back pain | medium | Common lower-back pain related to movement, loading, stiffness, or irritated supporting tissues. | This is rated medium (not high) because the RCT supports mobility/trunk interventions improving low back pain in gymnasts, aligning with the idea that training that restores trunk control/mobility can help. But sport-only participation without modification isn’t guaranteed. | [39] |
| Meniscus injury | none | Irritation or tearing of the knee cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize the joint. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for meniscus injury. | [33] |
| Jumper's knee (patellar tendinopathy) | none | Pain and irritation in the tendon just below the kneecap. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for patellar tendinopathy. | [33] |
| Front-of-knee pain (patellofemoral pain) | none | Pain around or behind the kneecap that often flares with repetitive knee bending. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for patellofemoral pain; continued load may aggravate symptoms. | [33] |
| Heel pain (plantar fasciitis) | none | Irritation of the tissue under the foot that often causes pain near the heel. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for plantar fasciitis; repeated landing forces make healing unlikely unless load is modified. | [30] |
| Rotator cuff irritation | none | Pain and overload in the shoulder muscles and tendons that help control arm movement. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for rotator cuff irritation; ongoing shoulder control can keep provoking symptoms. | [31] |
| Shin splints | none | Exercise-related pain along the shin that often appears when impact load rises too quickly. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for shin splints. | [30] |
| Shoulder impingement-type pain | none | Shoulder pain that appears when tissues feel pinched or irritated during arm elevation. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for impingement; repeated shoulder positions could continue irritation. | [31] |
| Shoulder instability or dislocation | none | A shoulder that has slipped out, partly slipped out, or feels unreliable in vulnerable positions. | No evidence supports trampoline-only healing for this condition. | [33] |
| Back stress reaction (spondylolysis) | none | A stress injury in the back often linked to repeated extension and rotation loading. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for this diagnosis. | [31] |
| Tennis elbow | none | Pain on the outside of the elbow linked to overload in the wrist and forearm tendons. | Tendon healing generally depends on controlled loading/rest; trampoline’s primary training stimulus is not targeted to the lateral elbow tendon. | [40] |
| Shin bone stress injury | none | Stress irritation in the tibia from repeated impact that has outpaced recovery. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for tibial stress injuries. | [33] |
| Wrist sprain | none | A stretched or irritated wrist ligament, often after a fall, impact, or awkward bend. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for wrist sprains; sprain management requires rest/load control. | [33] |
| Wrist tendon pain | none | Irritation of wrist tendons from repeated gripping, racquet use, lifting, or supporting body weight. | No evidence supports sport-only healing for wrist tendinopathy. | [31] |
Past-sport transfer logic
| Past sport | Average correlation (success) | Std dev | Correlation reasoning | Correlation sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| american-football-defensive-back | 0.27 | 0.14 | Defensive back success should correlate moderately with trampoline performance because both draw on explosive leg power, rapid neuromuscular coordination, and the ability to control the body during fast transitions and aerial moments. However, trampoline is highly technique- and apparatus-specific: the rebound timing with the bed, takeoff geometry, and repeated flight-phase body-shaping/rotation control must be learned through trampoline-specific practice. Therefore the carry-over is positive but not near unity, with wide variation depending on prior gymnastics/tumbling exposure and how quickly someone masters trampoline rhythm. | [41] [42] [43] [44] |
| american-football-line-player | 0.25 | 0.15 | American football line play and trampoline gymnastics share some transferable athletic components: generating force explosively, stabilizing the body during repeated efforts, and developing coordination under physical stress. Those can help an athlete learn the trampoline “feel” (rebound timing, staying organized in the air, maintaining posture). However, trampoline is highly technique-specific: it requires mastering bounce rhythm, takeoff timing, controlling rotation/extension in flight, and managing landing/bed compression with precise body-line positions. Lineman skills (pad leverage, hand fighting, short-area force in contact) do not directly map onto the continuous, elastic takeoff–flight–rebound cycle. As a result, the carryover should be positive but only moderate, with relatively large individual variance depending on flexibility, aerial familiarity, and how quickly someone acquires the bouncing/flight mechanics. | [45] [46] |
| american-football-linebacker-tight-end | 0.32 | 0.15 | Linebacker/tight end success should correlate positively with trampoline because both draw on similar “athletic motor” ingredients: producing strong vertical/whole-body power quickly, maintaining balance and body awareness under high-speed/pressure conditions, and learning multi-step skills with fine timing. However, trampoline performance is also very technique-specific. The biggest determinants are elastic rebound timing, the ability to control body shape precisely during each flight phase, and repeatable takeoff/landing mechanics on the trampoline bed. Those aren’t usually the limiting skills for LB/TE. So overall carryover is moderate: football provides a strong base for power, coordination, and aerial/body control learning, but much of trampoline performance variance requires dedicated rebound-and-flight training. | [47] [48] [49] |
| american-football-quarterback | 0.18 | 0.09 | Quarterback success should correlate moderately with trampoline aptitude because both lean on transferable athletic qualities: body awareness, balance, and the ability to learn and execute coordinated explosive movements in competition. However, the quarterback’s primary motor skill stack is throwing accuracy and pocket movement/decision-making, which do not directly train trampoline’s key requirements—reliable takeoffs into flight, precise in-air positioning for scoring elements, bounce control, and repeatable landing mechanics. Therefore the relationship should be positive but not strong, landing in the ~0.18 range with noticeable individual variability (high std dev). | [50] [51] |
| american-football-receiver-running-back | 0.25 | 0.13 | Receiver/running back performance should correlate moderately with trampoline success because both demand strong explosive takeoff, coordination, and the ability to control the body during dynamic movement (including reacting and adjusting balance quickly). However, trampoline results depend heavily on event-specific technique: consistent springboard/bed interaction, takeoff timing, aerial body alignment, rotational control, and landing/absorption mechanics with repeated bounce patterns. Football receiving/running back training develops athletic movement and contact/agility, but it does not systematically train trampoline’s elastic rebound pattern or the highly repeatable aerial “timing” skills. So carry-over is positive but not near-high—around the mid-0.2 range with uncertainty. | [52] |
| athletics-distance | 0.3 | 0.13 | Distance running should have a moderate positive correlation with later trampolining because both involve general athletic coordination, body awareness, and consistent training habits. However, trampoline success is dominated by highly specific elastic vertical power, rebound timing, and aerial flight control rather than aerobic economy. Therefore the correlation should be moderate (positive) but not high, with a noticeable spread depending on how quickly the athlete builds trampoline-specific rebound power and aerial technique. | [53] [54] [55] |
| athletics-jumps-high-jump | 0.8 | 0.12 | High jump success should correlate strongly with trampoline performance because they share core technique-relevant ingredients: explosive elastic vertical power, body awareness in the air, and controlled landings/repositioning. Trampoline still has important event-specific requirements—how to interact with the trampoline bed to build height repeatedly, bounce rhythm, and routine execution with apparatus-specific timing—so the correlation won’t be near 1.0, but it should be very high with moderate between-athlete variability depending on how well they adapt their takeoff/landing mechanics into trampoline bounce rhythm and flight-phase control. | [56] [57] [58] |
| athletics-jumps-long-triple-jump | 0.45 | 0.18 | Long jump/triple jump performance is a strong signal of elastic power (stiffness/recoil), explosive takeoff, and coordinated aerial/landing mechanics—qualities that should transfer moderately-to-strongly to trampoline because trampoline is largely about repeated elastic rebound and body awareness in flight. However, trampoline success depends heavily on trampoline-specific timing of multiple rebounds, bounce control, and rotational/shape execution on the bed, which horizontal jumps do not train directly. Therefore the expected correlation is moderate rather than very high, with substantial spread depending on gymnastics background and learning rate. | [59] [60] [61] |
| athletics-jumps-pole-vault | 0.62 | 0.16 | Pole vault and trampoline are both aerial gymnastics with strong overlap in how athletes must time takeoff, control body shape in flight, and land/re-center safely and repeatedly. That creates a relatively high positive correlation. The main reason it isn’t extremely high is that trampoline does not use pole-plant/inversion, and its technical demands are more about elastic vertical rebound cycles and specific trampoline element execution. Overall, an average correlation around the low-to-mid 0.6s with moderate variance is realistic. | [62] [63] [64] |
| athletics-middle-distance | 0.42 | 0.15 | Middle-distance performance should correlate moderately with trampoline success due to shared athletic fundamentals: coordination, efficient lower-body mechanics, and training discipline/learnability. However, trampoline is dominated by highly specific elastic vertical power expression, rebounding technique, and precise in-flight body/rotation control and landings. This limits how strong the relationship can be, keeping it in the low-to-mid 0.4s rather than high values. | [65] [66] |
| athletics-sprints-hurdles | 0.44 | 0.16 | Sprints and hurdles should have a moderate positive relationship with trampoline because trampoline rewards explosive vertical power, elastic stiffness/rebound, and strong body awareness to keep alignment through transitions. Sprint training also contributes to fast-twitch recruitment and repeated high-quality takeoffs/landings, which can help beginners learn how to control bounce and timing. However, trampoline is still strongly differentiated: the “feel” of the trampoline bed, the exact timing of takeoff and rebounding, and the ability to control rotations in flight (and stick landings) are highly sport-specific acrobatic skills. Many athletes who are fast in sprint/hurdles still struggle with aerial spatial control and rotational technique. So overall expectation is moderate (~0.44) with substantial spread depending on whether the athlete has prior acrobatic/tumbling exposure and how well their explosive mechanics translate into controlled vertical bounce and rotation. | [67] |
| athletics-throws-discus | 0.4 | 0.12 | Discus success reflects rotational strength, leverage, hip–shoulder sequencing, rhythm, and the ability to coordinate the body smoothly into a fast ballistic release. Trampoline emphasizes repeated elastic vertical power, body awareness in flight, and controlling body shape and rotation through bounce/flight/landing cycles. Because both sports share a meaningful “explosive power + dynamic coordination + timing” substrate, the carry-over should be moderate. Athletes who excel at discus often have strong trunk/hip sequencing and whole-body control, which helps trampoline learning of flight-phase body positioning. However, trampoline is highly specific: it depends on trampoline bounce mechanics, safe and repeatable landings, and elastic absorption/rebound timing, plus aerial skill progressions that discus does not directly train. That specificity caps the transfer. A realistic Bayesian estimate is therefore a moderate positive correlation around 0.40 with std dev ~0.12, reflecting that some discus athletes will cross-train in acrobatics/trampoline (higher correlation) while others will not (lower correlation). | [68] [69] [70] |
| athletics-throws-hammer-throw | 0.42 | 0.12 | Hammer throw success indicates strong whole-body rotational mechanics, dynamic balance, and coordinated force application. These are useful for trampoline because it also rewards rotational control and body awareness during aerial phases. However, trampoline is dominated by different constraints: elastic rebound timing, controlled takeoff and landing, and repeated flight-phase spatial orientation. Hammer throw’s implement-leverage throwing pattern only partially transfers. Net effect is a moderate positive correlation with substantial room for sport-specific learning. | [71] [72] |
| athletics-throws-javelin | 0.4 | 0.14 | Javelin success is strongly tied to elastic lower-body sequencing, fast whole-body force/velocity generation, and precise timing when converting run-up mechanics into an explosive upper-body action. Trampoline also relies heavily on elastic vertical power, body awareness in the air, and repeated control of takeoff-to-flight-to-landing timing. There is therefore a meaningful overlap in the underlying “elastic power + coordination + technical repetition” theme. The correlation is not extremely high because trampoline has distinctive requirements absent from javelin: repeated takeoff interaction with the trampoline bed, aerial orientation/spotting skills, and highly specific landing mechanics (and often apparatus-specific training for multi-bounce control). So the expected carry-over is moderate: roughly mid-0.4 with variation depending on whether the athlete’s javelin strengths are more elastic/coordination-based versus purely throwing-arm driven. | [73] |
| athletics-throws-shot-put | 0.38 | 0.16 | Shot put success indicates strong vertical-ish power expression (even though the goal is horizontal distance), excellent trunk bracing, and the ability to coordinate high-force, whole-body movements. Those underlying control qualities can transfer to trampoline for takeoff strength, body tension, and safe, repeatable alignment during flight and landing. However, trampoline performance is dominated by trampoline-specific determinants: elastic rebound/tempo, takeoff timing onto the bed, and precise aerial body positioning and flight-phase control (including timing of rotations, if applicable). Those skills are not directly trained in shot put, so carryover cannot be extremely high. Overall, a moderate positive correlation with substantial scatter is most plausible. | [74] [75] [76] [77] |
| badminton | 0.1 | 0.05 | Trampoline performance depends strongly on elastic vertical power, precise takeoff timing, and repeated flight-phase control (body positions, rotation control, and landing absorption). Badminton provides useful general neuromuscular coordination: quick balance recovery, body control under high movement frequency, and good perceptual timing. That creates a modest positive relationship for beginning trampoline athletes. However, the most important trampoline components are highly event-specific aerial mechanics and rebound/landing technique that badminton does not train, creating a reset that prevents a high correlation. Therefore, a plausible expectation is a small-to-modest positive correlation around ~0.10 with noticeable individual variation (std dev ~0.05), especially higher for those with prior tumbling/acrobatics experience. | [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] |
| baseball-catcher | 0.25 | 0.14 | Trampoline emphasizes elastic vertical power, flight-phase timing, and whole-body awareness—highly technical aerial skills. A baseball catcher who performs well suggests good general coordination, balance, and the ability to execute under pressure, which can help someone acquire trampoline basics faster. However, the key trampoline motor patterns (bounce rhythm, takeoff timing from the bed, controlling rotation/position midair, and landing mechanics) are not trained by receiving/blocking pitches. So while the correlation should be meaningfully positive, it won’t be high because trampoline-specific practice is required. | [83] [84] [85] |
| baseball-field-player | 0.11 | 0.07 | Baseball field players develop transferable ingredients for trampoline: general athletic coordination, quick reactive movement, and the ability to control posture after fast actions (useful for takeoff and especially landings). This should make learning trampoline basics easier, producing a small-to-modest positive correlation. However, trampoline success is dominated by event-specific skill: learning how to time and shape takeoff into the trampoline’s elastic response, manage repeated flight phases, and control body orientation precisely during rebounds. Those mechanics and typical skill progressions have limited direct overlap with baseball fielding technique. Therefore the carryover should remain modest rather than high. | [86] [87] [88] |
| baseball-pitcher | 0.04 | 0.04 | Baseball pitching can correlate slightly with trampoline performance due to general motor skills: dynamic balance, learning complex mechanics, and repeating explosive upper-body actions with good coordination. Pitchers also tend to have strong kinesthetic awareness of body position during fast movements. However, trampoline gymnastics is dominated by highly specific aerial mechanics and timing relative to the trampoline bed (rebound management, flight control, spotting, and takeoff/landing synchronization). Pitching’s mechanics (stride/arm release/throwing) provide little direct practice for aerial flight-phase control, somersault/twist initiation, and safe landings on the sprung surface. As a result, the expected carry-over is very small and highly variable—near the baseline for largely different sports but slightly above zero due to general coordination benefits. | [89] |
| basketball-big | 0.2 | 0.12 | Basketball Bigs repeatedly jump, land, and reorient in contested situations, which transfers to trampoline via (a) elastic-reactive leg use, (b) body awareness in flight, and (c) staying controlled and balanced through vertical takeoff/landing cycles. However, trampoline is highly event-specific: you must learn how to time your body relative to the trampoline bed’s recoil, manage the “bounce” sequence, and execute controlled rotations with consistent takeoff angles and amplitude. Basketball practice doesn’t provide the same elastic timing or rotation-skill progressions on the apparatus. So the correlation should be modest-to-moderately positive: prior success indicates athletic coordination and jumping/landing competency, which helps learning, but it won’t strongly predict high trampoline scores without substantial trampoline-specific training. Variation should be large depending on whether the athlete already has tumbling/acro background. | [90] |
| basketball-guard | 0.16 | 0.08 | Basketball guards build strong dynamic balance, repeated explosive jumping/landing, and coordinated whole-body movement under changing pace. They also typically have good spatial awareness and the habit of timing movement to a fast-moving object (the ball), which can transfer to learning consistent aerial body positioning on trampoline. That said, trampoline success depends heavily on trampoline-specific technique: the rebound timing (learning how to “sit” into the bed and use the bounce), flight control throughout multiple skills, and safe execution of somersault/twist progressions with repeatable takeoff. Those are not trained in typical basketball guard practice. So the carry-over should be modest—enough to speed early learning and help with fundamentals like landing/stability—but not strongly predictive of high-level trampoline performance. | [91] |
| basketball-wing | 0.12 | 0.12 | Basketball wing success should correlate a bit with trampoline success because both reward jumping ability, balance, coordination, and controlling your body in the air (and not losing form on landings). Wings also tend to be good at repeated explosive lower-body efforts and quick adjustments. However, trampoline is dominated by apparatus-specific flight-phase timing and rebound control (how you use the trampoline’s elastic energy), plus very specific skills like consistent rebound height and precise rotation/shape timing. Those technical elements are usually learned differently than basketball, so carry-over is modest and variable. | [92] [93] |
| boxing | 0.27 | 0.12 | Boxing and trampoline share transferable “core” qualities: dynamic balance, whole-body bracing, coordination, and the ability to execute explosive movements while staying controlled. Those can help someone learn trampoline basics (timing, body awareness, and safe landings) faster. But trampoline performance is constrained by highly event-specific requirements: elastic takeoff timing, controlling the bounce/rebound, and precise flight-phase posture and rotation, plus repeated aerial skill progressions. Boxing does not directly train the elastic rebound/flight mechanics or the sport’s specific body-line technique. So carry-over should be modest (a few tenths), not large. | [94] [95] [96] |
| climbing-bouldering | 0.42 | 0.14 | Trampoline success depends heavily on elastic vertical power and, more importantly, very precise body awareness in flight: maintaining alignment, controlling rotations/shape, and absorbing/replicating takeoff–landing mechanics under repeated high-force bounces. Bouldering strongly correlates with the “body-control” side—proprioception, tension control, balance, and comfort operating in unusual, constrained positions while producing short bursts of force. The motor patterns are not the same (bouldering is hold/foot placement; trampoline is rebound timing and aerial flight-phase control), but the underlying neuromuscular control and spatial-body modeling overlap more than with many other sports. This makes a moderately-high positive carry-over plausible. A realistic Bayesian center is therefore around r ≈ 0.42, with substantial uncertainty (std dev ≈ 0.14) because some climbers already have tumbling/acro background (higher transfer) while others mainly develop climbing-specific patterns (lower transfer). | [97] |
| climbing-lead | 0.52 | 0.2 | Lead climbing (especially longer roped lead) builds strong proprioception, balance, and precise whole-body positioning through repeated complex holds while maintaining control under fatigue. Trampoline also demands exceptional body awareness and control during takeoff, flight, and landing, so a meaningful portion of the “movement quality” carries over. Additionally, climbing develops relative strength and the ability to generate and control tension through the core/shoulders and coordinate body segments—useful for making takeoffs and maintaining tight shapes in flight. But trampoline success is dominated by event-specific factors: vertical elastic mechanics, bounce timing, and learning repeated flight/rotation patterns and safe landings. Those are not directly practiced in lead climbing. Because lead climbing athletes vary widely in whether their emphasis is more power/dynamic vs endurance/route economy, the transfer will be moderate on average with substantial individual variability. | [98] [99] [100] [101] |
| climbing-speed | 0.32 | 0.1 | Climbing speed should have a moderately positive correlation with trampoline gymnastics because both emphasize generating power quickly, keeping the body tightly coordinated, and maintaining technical consistency across repeated efforts. That supports better early learning of takeoff timing and aerial body awareness. However, trampoline is still highly technique-specific: it requires mastering bounce rhythm, elastic rebound timing, and flight/landing control in a way climbing speed doesn’t directly train. This limits the correlation from becoming very high. | [102] [103] [104] [105] |
| cricket-all-rounder | 0.12 | 0.08 | Cricket all-rounder success can transfer some general motor-control and balance (useful for trampoline aerial body awareness and safe landings), plus practice discipline for learning a complex new sport. But trampoline is highly apparatus- and flight-phase mechanics-specific: rebound timing, takeoff/landing coordination, and flight control on a trampoline bed are not meaningfully trained in cricket. With physical/elasticity confounds excluded, only a small learning/coordination component remains, so the correlation should be low-to-modest (~0.12). | [106] [107] [108] [109] |
| cricket-batter | 0.1 | 0.06 | Cricket batter success reflects strong perceptual timing, hand–eye coordination, repeatable whole-body mechanics, and stable lower-body control during rapid, discrete actions. Trampoline requires highly event-specific aerial control: elastic vertical power expression, body awareness in the flight phase, precise timing and sequencing of movements across repeated bounces, and safe/consistent landings. Overlap exists in general neuromuscular control, balance, and learning repeatable mechanics. But trampoline’s core determinants (elastic springing technique, airborne orientation control, spotting/landing mechanics) are largely non-overlapping with batting. That makes the correlation small-to-modest with noticeable scatter. | [110] |
| cricket-bowler | 0.1 | 0.08 | Trampoline (elastic vertical takeoff, aerial body awareness, flight-phase control, and repeat landing mechanics) has limited direct technique overlap with cricket bowling (overarm projectile delivery, rhythm/release timing). Therefore technique-based transfer should be small. Still, a cricket bowler’s strengths in coordination, timing, and learning repeatable technical actions under pressure can modestly speed trampoline adaptation and improve early execution. Because the shared component is mostly general technical learning rather than identical motor programs, the relationship should remain small but positive. Hence an average correlation around 0.10 with std dev ~0.08 is a reasonable Bayesian estimate. | [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] |
| cricket-wicketkeeper | 0.14 | 0.1 | Cricket wicketkeeper success should have a modest positive relationship with trampoline gymnastics. The shared transferable component is body control: dynamic balance, quick coordinated adjustments, and performing repeated reactive movements from a low stance. However, trampoline is dominated by elastic vertical rebound mechanics, aerial timing, and apparatus-specific flight-phase control—skills wicketkeeping does not directly develop. Therefore the expected carryover is modest (low-to-mid 0.10s). | [116] [117] [118] |
| cycling-mountain-bike-cross-country | 0.24 | 0.11 | Mountain bike cross-country success suggests transferable “movement quality”: dynamic balance on uneven terrain, strong proprioception/body awareness, and the ability to coordinate power with fatigue. Trampoline also rewards these—especially body control in flight, timing, and maintaining form during repeated bounces. However, trampoline performance is dominated by sport-specific elastic mechanics: the precise timing of knee/ankle spring, entering the bed with correct body posture, controlling rebounding forces, and managing flight/landing/spotting patterns. MTB does not provide the same repeated vertical rebound training. So overlap is moderate: general coordination helps, but the core technique is different. A plausible estimate is r≈0.24 with fairly wide uncertainty (~±0.11). | [119] |
| cycling-road-climber | 0.18 | 0.15 | Cycling climbing success is strongly tied to sustained power output, efficient lower-body force application, and excellent training discipline (quality of repetition over time). Those general factors can correlate with trampoline success because trampoline requires you to execute repeated high-force actions while maintaining body control and technique quality through long sets. There is also some biomechanical overlap in the legs’ ability to produce force effectively and repeatedly—useful for managing takeoff and landing absorption. However, trampoline is dominated by highly event-specific skills: developing elastic vertical spring behavior, very precise timing of flight phases, air-righting/body alignment, and repeatable landing absorption, plus apparatus-specific technique. Cycling climbing does not train the same vertical impulsive mechanics or the air/flight control demands. Therefore carry-over should be positive but not large, with wide variance depending on whether the athlete also has gymnastics/tumbling/plyometric background. A Bayesian estimate around the high-teens (~0.18) with relatively high uncertainty is realistic. | [120] |
| cycling-road-sprinter | 0.1 | 0.06 | A cycling sprinter should correlate positively with trampoline success mainly through general explosiveness (strong push-off), coordination, and readiness to train repetitively at high intensity. But trampoline’s decisive performance factors are highly technique-specific: rebound mechanics, takeoff timing, aerial rotation control, and precise landing/stability. Those are largely not trained by cycling. Net result: small-to-moderate positive carryover (~0.10) with moderate uncertainty (~0.06). | [121] [122] [123] |
| cycling-road-time-trialist | 0.06 | 0.05 | Road time-trial cycling strongly trains sustained aerobic power, pacing, and repetitive neuromuscular efficiency. Trampoline gymnastics instead relies on very specific elastic vertical power generation, precise takeoff timing, controlled rotations in the air, and consistent landing/absorbing mechanics—plus high skill repetition with apparatus-specific feedback. There is limited direct technical overlap. The plausible carry-over is mainly indirect: cyclists may have good general leg strength, balance, and body awareness and may adapt well to high training volumes and skill practice. That supports a small positive correlation, but the key determinants of trampoline performance are mostly learned separately, so the correlation should remain low and noisy. | [124] [125] |
| cycling-track-endurance | 0.16 | 0.1 | Trampoline (even though it is also “gymnastics”) is highly governed by elastic vertical power, flight-phase timing, and aerial body control. Endurance track cycling overlaps only in secondary foundations: proprioception, disciplined technical repetition, and rhythm/timing of effort/response. Those supports justify a modest positive correlation, but primary determinants differ strongly, so it shouldn’t be high. A realistic central estimate is ~0.16 with substantial uncertainty. | [126] [127] [128] [129] |
| cycling-track-sprint | 0.22 | 0.1 | Sprint cycling performance should have a moderate positive correlation with trampoline ability because both reward strong rapid force production and efficient whole-body timing under fatigue. Cyclists who excel at producing peak power quickly often have strong lower-body neuromuscular qualities and discipline with high-intensity training, which can help the initial adaptation to trampoline takeoff and repeated jump demands. However, trampoline performance is dominated by highly event-specific skills: elastic rebound management, mastering the “pre-flight–takeoff–flight–landing” timing loop, controlling rotations/body shape in the air, and developing safe landing mechanics. Cycling sprint training does not directly build the aerial timing/rotation coordination. Because of that technique specificity, the correlation is positive but not high, with substantial spread depending on whether the athlete also does plyometrics/tumbling/aerial skills or has early trampoline exposure. | [130] |
| fencing-epee | 0.2 | 0.1 | Epee and trampoline both reward strong whole-body coordination, balance, spatial awareness, and timing of complex movements under pressure. Those shared perceptual-motor skills can make learning trampoline basics (staying oriented, controlling body positions, landing mechanics) somewhat easier. However, trampoline success is dominated by very event-specific skills: generating elastic vertical power, rebound timing, in-flight body control, and mastering repeated aerial mechanics on the trampoline apparatus. Epee does not train that elastic aerial timing or the biomechanics of takeoff/rebound. So the carry-over should be positive but only moderate, with substantial individual variance depending on general athleticism and how quickly someone adapts to airborne mechanics. Estimated technique/skill carry-over correlation: ~0.20 with a fairly wide standard deviation (~0.10). | [131] [132] [133] |
| fencing-foil | 0.28 | 0.18 | Foil fencing should correlate positively with trampoline because there is a meaningful overlap in technique-neutral skills: balance, whole-body coordination, spatial awareness, elastic/repeated explosive timing, and the ability to stay composed while executing high-precision actions and then correct mistakes quickly. However, trampoline performance is dominated by very specific aerial gymnastics mechanics: spring/tuck/pike timing off the bed, controlling angular momentum in flight, and landing technique (absorption, alignment, stability). These are not trained by foil’s lunge/point-control movement and non-contact opponent interaction. That mechanics mismatch limits the ceiling. Thus a moderate average correlation (roughly high-teen to high-20s range) with substantial variance across individuals is realistic. | [134] [135] [136] |
| fencing-sabre | 0.25 | 0.18 | Fencing sabre and trampoline both reward rapid, explosive whole-body actions and strong body control: you start explosively, coordinate feet/legs with upper-body timing, and maintain precision while the outcome depends on split-second execution. That creates a moderate positive carry-over. However, trampoline performance is dominated by event-specific mechanics: repeated elastic takeoff/landing technique, accurate aerial timing for bounces and (if included) rotations, and safe absorption and position control when returning to the mat. These key elements are not trained directly in sabre fencing, limiting the correlation from getting very high. | [137] |
| field-hockey-goalkeeper | 0.1 | 0.06 | Field-hockey goalkeeper performance may correlate with trampoline gymnastics success through general athletic traits: balance, quick reactive footwork, and the ability to coordinate the body rapidly when things change unexpectedly. However, trampoline is extremely technique-specific: takeoff/elastic loading on the bed, flight-phase timing, and disciplined aerial control and landings. Those specialized motor patterns are not a core part of hockey goalkeeper training, so carry-over should be limited to a modest head start rather than a strong predictive relationship. | [138] [139] [140] |
| field-hockey-outfield | 0.18 | 0.1 | Field hockey outfield success should relate somewhat to trampoline success because both reward athletic qualities such as dynamic balance, coordination, and the ability to generate force quickly and land/stabilize after fast movements. That can make learning basic aerial positions and improving body awareness somewhat easier. However, trampoline scoring and mastery depend on very specific takeoff mechanics, rebound timing, and precise control of rotation/shape during repeated flight phases. Hockey outfield does not develop those apparatus-specific mechanics. Therefore the carry-over is likely moderate—not high—and more useful for early adaptation than for predicting advanced trampoline results. | [141] [142] |
| golf | 0.14 | 0.07 | Golf and trampoline differ greatly in mechanics: golf is precision striking with a largely rotational club swing, while trampoline is elastic vertical power, aerial body shaping, and repeated flight-phase control. That limits direct technique transfer. However, golfers who perform well often have transferable “motor learning” advantages: high technical practice consistency, fine proprioceptive control, repeatable timing of complex movements, and calm execution under pressure. These can speed learning of trampoline fundamentals (body positioning, timing of rebounds, and staying technically consistent). Since the main determinants of trampoline success are still trampoline-specific (jump/land mechanics, elastic recoil use, aerial control), the net carry-over should be small-to-modest—higher than truly unrelated pairs, but not high. | [143] [144] [145] |
| gymnastics-artistic | 0.75 | 0.12 | Artistic and trampoline are both gymnastics and share many transferable technique components: aerial awareness, body positioning/rotation control, balance recovery, and landing/force absorption mechanics. Those overlaps make a strong positive correlation likely. It’s not extremely close to 1.0 because trampoline has discipline-specific requirements: repeated bounce-cycle management (timing of contact with the bed), achieving height and body stiffness at the right phases, and trampoline-specific scoring expectations. Artistic gymnastics helps with general aerial control, but the event’s “bounce timing” and apparatus-contact mechanics still require dedicated trampoline training. Therefore, expect a high correlation (but not perfect). | [146] [147] [148] |
| gymnastics-rhythmic | 0.75 | 0.14 | Rhythmic and trampoline gymnastics should have a strong positive correlation because they share many underlying technical prerequisites: excellent balance and proprioception, coordinated whole-body movement in the air, precise timing of complex shapes/rotations, and strong landing/stabilization training habits. A rhythmic gymnast’s “aerial awareness + body control” should translate well to learning flight-phase positioning and safe landings. However, trampoline success is not purely about aerial form. It heavily depends on trampoline-specific force-generation and timing: harnessing the bed’s elastic response, achieving repeatable takeoff–rebound sequences, regulating bounce rhythm, and producing consistent aerial execution across multiple contacts. Rhythmic training only partially covers these bed/elastic-specific dynamics. So the correlation should be high but not near-perfect. A plausible Bayesian mean is ~0.75 with moderate uncertainty (~0.14). | [149] [150] [151] [152] |
| handball-backcourt | 0.14 | 0.12 | Handball backcourt success should correlate with trampoline gymnastics because both require: (1) explosive vertical power and the ability to generate it repeatedly, (2) body awareness in flight and when landing (where many injuries/points are controlled), (3) timing of takeoff and preparation for a subsequent action, and (4) coordinated whole-body control under fatigue and pressure. However, trampoline is apparatus-specific: it depends on bounce mechanics, how you compress/extend on the trampoline bed, timing of aerial phases relative to the elastic rebound, and skill execution (tucks/pikes/twists) that are trained through trampoline progressions rather than handball jumping/shooting. So the correlation should be positive and potentially moderate for athletes who already have strong jumping/plyometric backgrounds, but overall it’s unlikely to be very high because the key learning curve is trampoline-specific. | [153] |
| handball-goalkeeper | 0.2 | 0.14 | Handball goalkeeper success should have a moderately positive correlation with trampoline success because both rely on excellent body control, balance recovery, and the ability to generate/absorb force while maintaining alignment under sudden perturbations. However, trampoline is highly technique- and apparatus-specific: athletes must learn elastic vertical takeoff/recoil timing, aerial rotation/positioning, and disciplined flight-phase control (often with strict form standards). Handball goalkeeping doesn’t directly train these trampoline mechanics, so the carry-over should not be extremely high. A realistic expectation is therefore a modest-to-moderate positive correlation around ~0.20 with meaningful uncertainty. | [154] [155] [156] |
| handball-pivot | 0.14 | 0.12 | Expected carry-over is modestly positive. A handball pivot repeatedly trains: (1) staying balanced while contacted and constrained, (2) rapid whole-body coordination and re-positioning, and (3) timing under pressure. Those general motor-control skills help athletes learn trampoline body positions quickly and recover from small errors in flight/landing. However, trampoline success is dominated by specialized tooling: how you time the bounce on the bed, manage rebound rhythm, hit precise takeoff/landing positions, and execute and control aerial elements from a specific takeoff profile. Pivot does not teach the vertical elastic-feel and flight-phase technique foundational to trampoline. So the average correlation should stay around the low-to-mid teens, with fairly high variance: athletes with prior acrobatics/tumbling background (or naturally strong aerial/spatial awareness) will transfer more than typical pivots. | [157] |
| handball-wing | 0.44 | 0.18 | Handball wing success should correlate fairly well with later trampoline skill because both strongly reward elastic jumping ability and aerial coordination: (1) frequent practice of explosive takeoffs and jump-landing control, (2) body awareness in flight (adjusting body angles quickly), and (3) the mental habit of performing high-power movements repeatedly under pressure. However, trampoline performance is also highly apparatus-specific: the takeoff into the bed/rebound, bounce rhythm, precise timing of rotation, spotting technique, and the standardized landing requirements are not usually trained in handball wing. So the expected carryover is moderate-to-high (around mid-0.4s) but with large variance: athletes with prior gymnastics/tumbling/rebound experience will transfer much more, while others may struggle mainly with trampoline mechanics even if they jump well. | [158] |
| ice-hockey-defenseman | 0.28 | 0.12 | Ice hockey defenseman success should correlate moderately with trampoline gymnastics success. The overlap is in general motor competence that matters for trampoline: dynamic balance, strong proprioception/kinesthetic awareness from skating and contact bracing, and the ability to generate force and control body position during fast transitions. Defensemen also tend to learn to stabilize under perturbations, which helps with landing and rebound tolerance. However, trampoline performance is technique- and timing-specific: correct approach and takeoff into the bed, using the rebound elasticity, maintaining precise body positions during the flight/rebound phases (often including rotations), and landing with the required control. Those are not part of typical defensive hockey training. Therefore the relationship is not high, but clearly positive because the general “body control under speed and force” foundation is relevant. Expected correlation: ~0.28 on average, with substantial person-to-person variability (std dev ~0.12) driven by how well an individual’s coordination/air awareness transfers to rebound-based aerial timing. | [159] [160] [161] [162] |
| ice-hockey-forward | 0.22 | 0.09 | Ice hockey forward skill should correlate positively with trampoline performance through shared technique-relevant athletic components: explosive lower-body power, balance, dynamic coordination, and learning complex body positions under time pressure. But trampoline is highly apparatus-specific and dominated by flight-phase timing to the trampoline’s elastic bounce and very specific takeoff/landing mechanics. So the technique-only correlation should be moderate (around ~0.22) with meaningful uncertainty. | [163] [164] |
| ice-hockey-goalkeeper | 0.28 | 0.18 | Ice hockey goalkeeper performance should correlate moderately with trampoline because there is meaningful overlap in transferable “movement quality” skills: rapid balance recovery, body positioning, and executing explosive lower-body actions repeatedly with controlled posture. Those foundations can speed up learning of trampoline takeoffs, aerial alignment, and safe landings. But trampoline demands highly event-specific technique: mastering rebound timing with the trampoline bed, coordinating flight-phase rotations to the beat of the bounce cycle, and executing landing/absorption mechanics that are not intrinsic to goalie saving mechanics. Because of this technique specificity—and because prior aerial/tumbling experience varies a lot—only a moderate carry-over is expected, with substantial spread between individuals. | [165] [166] [167] [168] |
| judo | 0.35 | 0.17 | Judo→trampoline should show a moderately positive correlation because both emphasize fast, coordinated explosive movement and excellent control of body position during unstable situations. Judo athletes often have good proprioception, balance recovery, and the ability to commit explosively without losing posture—traits that translate into faster learning of trampoline aerial awareness and safer landings. However, trampoline success depends heavily on event-specific technical mechanics: using the bed’s elasticity correctly, achieving the right takeoff impulse, and controlling rotations/opens/closes with precise timing throughout repeated flight phases. Those are not trained directly in judo. As a result, the carry-over is partial and varies substantially. Negative correlation is very unlikely in a technique-only framing because judo generally improves coordination and dynamic control rather than interfering with trampoline skill acquisition. | [169] [170] |
| lacrosse-attacker | 0.24 | 0.15 | Lacrosse attackers commonly develop strong general athletic qualities that map well to trampoline: explosive leg drive, whole-body coordination, rapid body re-orientation, and the ability to stay controlled while making fast, high-intensity movements. These can help with early trampoline learning—especially mastering safe landings, generating height efficiently, and controlling body position through flight. However, trampoline success is highly event-specific. Key determinants include learning the elastic bed interaction, rebound timing, precise flight-phase control, and accurate rotation/landing mechanics taught through trampoline-specific progressions. Lacrosse does not provide a direct technical pathway for these exact skills. So the carry-over should be meaningfully positive (better lacrosse attackers may adapt faster), but not high due to the large technique/apparatus mismatch and wide variability based on prior gymnastics background. | [171] [172] |
| lacrosse-defender | 0.18 | 0.12 | Expected carry-over is modest. A lacrosse defender who performs well likely has strong overall coordination, balance, and body-control habits that help with safe, accurate landings and with learning aerial movement patterns. That can reduce the learning curve for trampoline basics (staying organized in flight and controlling posture). However, trampoline success depends heavily on trampoline-specific rebound mechanics—timing of board contact, how to generate vertical elastic power, and precise aerial alignment/rotation control. Lacrosse defense doesn’t train the “elastic vertical power + repeated flight-phase” mechanics directly. Therefore the correlation should be positive but not strong, with substantial uncertainty driven by individual natural aerial ability and how much the athlete trains trampoline after switching. | [173] [174] [175] |
| lacrosse-goalkeeper | 0.2 | 0.07 | A lacrosse goalkeeper’s success should correlate positively with trampoline performance because both reward strong body awareness, coordination, and the ability to execute controlled, timely movements under pressure. Goalkeepers also develop useful attributes for aerial gymnastics: rapid reaction, whole-body tension control, and explosiveness. But trampoline is dominated by event-specific determinants: elastic takeoff mechanics, flight-phase body alignment, timing of rebounds, and safe, repeatable landing control. Lacrosse goalkeeping doesn’t directly teach trampoline’s springboard-specific physics or the precise rotational/extension patterns. Balancing these, the expected correlation is moderate (not low), because general neuromuscular coordination and explosive control are meaningful predictors—yet event-specific technique remains a large limiter. | [176] |
| lacrosse-midfielder | 0.18 | 0.09 | Lacrosse midfielders build transferable athletic foundations for trampoline: (1) explosive leg drive and repeated high-effort actions, (2) dynamic balance and coordination while moving quickly, and (3) body awareness for jumping/controlling movement under pressure. Those make learning aerial skill progressions easier. However, trampoline is extremely technique-specific. You must master bounce rhythm, takeoff into the first flight, how to generate/maintain height and control descent, and precise flight-phase and landing mechanics (including rotation timing and spot control). Lacrosse doesn’t train that elastic rebound environment or the specific aerial control model. So the relationship should be positive but not strong: ~0.18 average with ~0.09 uncertainty. | [177] |
| padel | 0.12 | 0.08 | Padel likely shows a modest positive correlation with trampoline performance because both reward: (1) strong body coordination during rapid changes, (2) repeated timing/adjustment under pressure, and (3) balance recovery and spatial awareness. But trampoline success is dominated by highly specific mechanics—elastic vertical takeoff timing, maintaining body shapes through the flight phase, controlling oscillation/bounce patterns, and landing with precise body alignment. Padel doesn’t train the same vertical elastic jumping vocabulary. So the correlation should be positive but not large. | [178] |
| pickleball | 0.13 | 0.08 | Trampoline performance depends on event-specific skills: mastering elastic rebound mechanics, controlling body position through the flight phases, timing takeoff and landing, and developing spatial orientation under repeated bounces. Pickleball shares some transferable ingredients—reactive balance, body control under fast directional changes, and the ability to adapt quickly to a changing ball trajectory. Those can help with learning new motor skills and stabilizing during dynamic movement. However, the main motor pattern (jumping and managing aerial phases on a trampoline bed) is different, so the overall carry-over should be modest rather than high. | [179] |
| rowing-lightweight | 0.25 | 0.1 | Lightweight rowing should have a modest positive correlation with trampoline gymnastics success. Shared transferable parts include whole-body coordination, balance/posture control, efficient force production through the kinetic chain, and the discipline of maintaining technical consistency across many repetitions. However, trampoline performance is dominated by highly specific elastic takeoff and landing mechanics, bounce rhythm control, in-air body awareness (spatial orientation), and repeated practice of flight-phase timing and landing stiffness. Rowing’s cyclic stroke and force directions don’t meaningfully replicate those trampoline-specific neuromuscular patterns. So the carry-over should be modest (upper low-to-mid range) with substantial variance, likely higher for athletes who add plyometrics, tumbling, or gymnastics-specific air awareness training alongside rowing. | [180] |
| rowing-openweight | 0.25 | 0.09 | Rowing openweight success reflects coordinated whole-body force production, rhythm/temporal control, and endurance with maintained mechanics over repeated efforts. Trampoline gymnastics (aerial elastic acrobatics) requires repeated explosive vertical power, exceptional body awareness, and precise takeoff/flight/landing control with elastic energy management. There’s a meaningful overlap at the level of general neuromuscular coordination, producing power with the whole body, and having the habit of repeating technically demanding practice. That supports a moderate positive correlation. However, the biggest determinants for trampoline are highly specific: repeated jump takeoff/landing timing, managing elastic rebound, aerial rotation/layout skills, and landing mechanics that protect from over/under-rotation—none of which are directly trained by rowing’s cyclic stroke. So transfer is capped and the correlation should not be high. | [181] [182] [183] |
| rugby-union-halfback-midfield | 0.24 | 0.14 | Rugby union halfback/midfield performance can correlate positively with trampoline success because both demand elastic-ish lower-body power, whole-body coordination, and strong body awareness/tension control while moving quickly through unstable or high-load situations. However, trampoline success is dominated by event-specific mechanics: rebound timing on the trampoline bed, precise takeoff and landing control, and consistent flight-phase body shapes across repetitions. Rugby’s passing/kicking and collision movement only provide partial foundations for those specialized skills. Therefore the expected correlation is modest-to-moderately positive with noticeable variability across individuals. | [184] [185] [186] [187] |
| rugby-union-loose-forward | 0.24 | 0.12 | Loose forward performance should correlate positively with trampoline because both select for athletic movement quality: explosive lower-body power, coordination across the whole body, balance control, and the ability to learn complex motor skills under fatigue. But trampoline gymnastics performance is dominated by event-specific aerial technique: how to synchronize takeoff with the trampoline bed’s rebound, execute and control rotations with precise timing, maintain body alignment through flight, and land with strict technique. Rugby’s contact/ruck mechanics don’t teach those exact trampoline timing and airborne control patterns. So the correlation should be moderate (more than near-zero) but not high, with large individual variance depending on whether the rugby athlete already has natural aerial/body-control capability and prior gymnastics/tumbling exposure. | [188] |
| rugby-union-outside-back | 0.3 | 0.14 | Rugby union outside-back success should show a moderate positive correlation with later trampoline performance because both benefit from explosive leg power, dynamic balance, coordination, and the ability to control the body under pressure. However, trampoline is dominated by highly event-specific technical learning: bounce timing, takeoff/flight posture, and routine execution that is not trained in rugby. Thus the relationship should be moderate rather than high. | [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] |
| rugby-union-tight-five | 0.2 | 0.13 | Trampoline success shares meaningful, transferable *conditioning and control* elements with rugby tight-five once we exclude body-proportion traits. Tight-five athletes tend to develop: (1) large force production and the ability to train through heavy physical stress, (2) whole-body coordination and balance under chaotic conditions, and (3) habits of repeating demanding explosive movements with technical focus. Trampoline is still dominated by sport-specific determinants: precise takeoff/timing into the bed, maintaining consistent flight rhythm, managing rotation (if any), spotting, and landing mechanics, plus mastering the bounce “rebound” mechanics. Because rugby tight five does not directly teach the trampolining timing loop and aerial control mechanics, the carry-over cannot be high. Still, the general “elastic power + body control + repeatability under fatigue/stress” overlap is strong enough to expect a moderate positive correlation. Hence an average around ~0.20 with wide uncertainty is plausible: some rugby athletes with strong jumping background will convert well, while others will struggle because the key aerial timing skills must be learned from scratch. | [194] |
| skiing-alpine-speed | 0.25 | 0.12 | Alpine speed-event skiing should show a moderately positive correlation with trampoline gymnastics because both reward high-grade whole-body coordination, explosive lower-body power, and—most importantly—controlling the body through high forces and rapidly re-establishing stable posture after landing/impact. However, trampoline performance is also dominated by sport-specific technique: mastering rebound timing on the elastic bed, learning precise flight-phase body shapes, and executing rotation timing that is learned through trampoline-specific drills. Skiing does not train the elastic rebound and apparatus constraints directly. Balancing shared force/power/control transfer against trampoline-specific technique needs yields a plausible average carry-over around ~0.25 with a relatively wide spread (~0.12) depending on how much the skier also does gymnastics/plyometrics or learns aerial skills outside skiing. | [195] [196] [197] |
| skiing-alpine-technical | 0.25 | 0.1 | Technical alpine skiing (slalom/giant slalom) strongly develops dynamic balance, precise whole-body positioning, and the ability to absorb and redirect forces rapidly while maintaining control at speed. Trampoline also relies on those same underlying neuromotor capabilities: body awareness in flight, coordinated reorientation, and controlled landings. Because trampoline is unusually technique-specific—takeoff timing, flight-phase shaping, and repeated control on a highly elastic surface—skiing success doesn’t map perfectly to the exact skills needed. That specificity limits predictiveness. Overall, the carry-over should be moderately positive (higher than most unrelated sports), landing around ~0.2–0.3 on average. | [198] [199] [200] |
| skiing-cross-country | 0.3 | 0.14 | Cross-country skiing success should correlate moderately with later trampoline gymnastics success via transferable general athletic qualities: dynamic balance, coordinated whole-body movement, and the habit of practicing refined technique through long training blocks. However, trampoline requires very specific elastic vertical takeoff/landing timing, precise control of body orientation during the flight phase, and apparatus-specific skills like repeated bounce regulation and aerial rotation management—skills not directly trained by endurance skiing. Because the overlap is mainly general motor control rather than direct trampoline mechanics, the expected correlation is modest (~0.30) but with wide uncertainty; it would be higher for skiers who also did plyometrics, jumping, tumbling, or other aerial sports, and lower for those who trained primarily aerobic efficiency without explosive or aerial components. | [201] |
| snowboarding | 0.35 | 0.12 | Snowboarding should correlate fairly strongly with trampoline because the shared “core skill” is aerial movement control: recognizing where your body is in space, initiating/managing takeoff, controlling rotation/body shape mid-air, and landing safely and repeatedly. Trampoline also heavily rewards elastic vertical power and precise repeated flight-phase body awareness. That overlaps well with snowboarding’s jump/air mechanics and landing discipline. The remaining limitations are mostly technical: trampoline requires consistent vertical rebound mechanics and an apparatus-specific approach to takeoff timing and body position throughout repeated flights. Snowboarding doesn’t teach the exact vertical elasticity and repetitive rebound control in the same way. So a moderate-to-high positive correlation (noticeable transfer, but not near-maximum) is most plausible. | [202] |
| soccer-central-defender | 0.28 | 0.12 | A central defender can correlate with trampoline success because both involve frequent jumping, aerial/body orientation, landing control, and the ability to stay coordinated when timing and spacing are pressured (from duels, clears, and aerial contests). Those general skills can make it easier to learn the “feel” of vertical power and how to control posture through flight. But trampoline requires highly specific rebound mechanics, takeoff timing into the bed, and very particular flight/rotation execution and body-line control (often including consistent routines and scoring criteria). Soccer does not train trampoline apparatus-specific technique. Therefore the carry-over should be positive and moderate, not high. | [203] [204] [205] |
| soccer-central-midfielder | 0.22 | 0.1 | Central midfielders develop transferable coordination, dynamic balance, and the ability to time explosive actions repeatedly while staying stable in chaotic play. Those general motor-control skills help with learning trampoline fundamentals (getting your body aligned during aerial phases and landing with control). But trampoline performance depends strongly on event-specific mechanics: repeated bounce control, precise takeoff into the trampoline bed, maintaining orientation throughout flight, and mastering aerial skills in the particular progression used in trampoline gymnastics. Since soccer doesn’t train those discipline-specific aerial and bounce-control patterns, the carry-over should be low-to-moderate. | [206] |
| soccer-goalkeeper | 0.08 | 0.07 | Soccer goalkeeper success should have a small positive relationship with trampoline skill because both reward body control, balance, rapid reaction, and the ability to move safely and precisely under pressure. However, trampoline performance depends heavily on highly specific aerial mechanics: managing the trampoline bed’s elasticity, producing the right takeoff energy, controlling rotation/trajectory during flight, and landing with stability and alignment. Since these event-specific learned motor patterns are not central to goalkeeper training, the carry-over should be modest and inconsistent. | [207] [208] [209] [210] |
| soccer-striker | 0.16 | 0.11 | A strong soccer striker should correlate positively with trampoline success through shared underlying athletic components: powerful leg drive (vertical impulse), good coordination, balance, and the ability to control body position while moving quickly and under pressure. However, trampoline is highly technique-specific. Success depends heavily on rebound mechanics, timing into the bed, maintaining consistent flight heights and trajectories across multiple bounces, and precise control of rotation/shape in the air. Soccer striker skills (finishing, attacking patterns) do not directly teach trampoline’s elastic timing and aerial control. So the carry-over is likely positive but not high—around ~0.16—with meaningful uncertainty depending on whether the striker’s edge comes from general athletic explosiveness/body control versus soccer-specific finishing/decision skills. | [211] [212] |
| soccer-winger | 0.22 | 0.11 | Soccer winger success should have a modest positive relationship with trampoline performance because both reward explosive vertical takeoff, dynamic body control, and the ability to coordinate your body in the air. Wingers often have good lower-body power and repeated acceleration that can help build the elastic strength needed for trampoline. But trampoline is highly technique-specific: rebound/takeoff timing on the bed, consistent flight-phase control, and precise landing/recovery mechanics dominate scoring and are learned primarily in trampoline gymnastics. Since those sport-specific skills are absent in winger training, the correlation should be moderate rather than high. An average around ~0.22 with a fairly large spread is a realistic expectation. | [213] |
| softball-catcher | 0.1 | 0.09 | Softball catcher success should have a small positive relationship with trampoline performance. Shared elements include general athletic coordination, quick reactive control, and the ability to learn complex body movements under pressure. However, trampoline is dominated by event-specific mechanics: elastic vertical takeoff, flight-phase timing, aerial body alignment/rotation control, and precise landing/stable rebound technique. Those core skills are not trained by catcher work, so the carry-over should remain low. | [214] |
| softball-field-player | 0.14 | 0.09 | Softball field-player success should have a modest positive correlation with trampoline performance because both reward general athletic coordination, balance, and the ability to learn complex movements quickly. However, trampoline is dominated by trampoline-specific skills: elastic takeoff timing, repeated flight-phase control, rotational mechanics (spotting, timing of somersault/twist initiation), and precise landings in a very particular motion environment. Since softball fielding does not train these core trampoline mechanics directly, the carryover is limited rather than strong. | [215] [216] [217] |
| softball-pitcher | 0.24 | 0.1 | Softball pitching success should show a moderate positive relationship with trampoline performance because both reward general athletic qualities that make technique learning faster: coordination, repeatability of complex body mechanics, whole-body force production, and performance under pressure. However, trampoline is dominated by event-specific aerial mechanics: using the bed’s elasticity for takeoff, timing flight phases, maintaining body position in midair, and executing repeatable landings with controlled stiffness/absorption. Pitching’s underhand arm delivery mechanics do not directly train those elastic takeoff/flight/landing patterns. So carryover should be positive but limited—plausibly around the low-to-mid 0.2s (≈0.24) with moderate uncertainty. | [218] |
| squash | 0.3 | 0.12 | Trampoline success depends heavily on elastic vertical power, body awareness in flight, coordination, and especially controlling the body through repeated takeoff–flight–landing cycles. Squash trains several directly relevant ingredients: dynamic balance, whole-body coordination under fatigue, rapid reaction to changing conditions, and repeated acceleration/deceleration with precise footwork. Those tend to correlate with being able to learn new movement patterns quickly and keep control during fast transitions. The major limitation is that squash does not provide trampoline-specific practice of takeoff timing into the bed, bounce rhythm, and aerial elements/landing mechanics. So carry-over should be moderate—not high. | [219] |
| surfing | 0.26 | 0.11 | Surfing should show a moderate positive correlation with trampoline gymnastics because both require: (1) excellent dynamic balance and rapid re-centering after perturbations (surfboard instability vs spring-bed recoil), (2) timing and coordination through quick transitions (paddle→pop-up; takeoff→landing/recovery analogs), and (3) repeated high-effort motor control while maintaining form. However, trampoline success is strongly technique-specific: takeoff timing on the bed, controlling vertical rebound/peak height, precise flight-phase body positions, and repeated landing stiffness and alignment (plus progression like skills/rotations) are not trained directly by surfing. So the carryover should be moderate rather than high: ~0.26 average with fairly wide uncertainty (~0.11) depending on whether a surfer’s strengths include aerial awareness/elasticity development versus more balance/upper-body endurance. | [220] |
| swimming-backstroke-middle-distance | 0.18 | 0.07 | Backstroke middle-distance success is driven by efficient whole-body coordination, rhythm/pacing, shoulder/upper-body endurance, and repeating complex elements (starts/turns/underwater) under fatigue. Trampoline success is driven by elastic vertical power, takeoff timing, air awareness, body alignment control across flight, and repeated landing/stable landings with precise technique. After removing body-proportion effects, there is meaningful shared transferable content in: motor learning discipline, coordination, timing/rhythm, and the ability to execute technical skills repeatedly while managing physical load. However, the trampoline-specific “what matters” (elastic recoil/takeoff mechanics, continuous aerial phase control, and trampoline landing technique) is largely different from swimming backstroke. That caps the carry-over below the high-similarity range. Therefore a moderate-small correlation is plausible: ~0.18. | [221] [222] |
| swimming-backstroke-sprint | 0.18 | 0.08 | Sprint backstroke performance is strongly driven by explosive starts, efficient turns/underwater transitions, coordinated shoulder–trunk sequencing, and maintaining high-tempo technical execution under short anaerobic stress. Trampoline emphasizes elastic vertical takeoff, precise timing into the flight phase, continuous body awareness in the air, and repeatable landing/impact control. There is a meaningful transferable “motor learning substrate”: (1) producing powerful vertical/instantaneous propulsion quickly (from sprint start/transition skills), (2) whole-body coordination and alignment control, and (3) executing technical movement consistently under fatigue. However, trampoline’s dominant determinants are highly specific: aerial timing, takeoff trajectory, and landing mechanics plus air-body control patterns that are not developed in swimming. Because of this technique gap, carry-over should be moderate rather than very high. A realistic expected mean correlation is therefore ~0.18 with moderate uncertainty (~0.08), reflecting that adaptable, coordination-strong swimmers may transfer well into trampoline basics, while others struggle with the aerial/landing skill acquisition. | [223] [224] [225] |
| swimming-breaststroke-middle-distance | 0.12 | 0.08 | Middle-distance breaststroke success is strongly driven by precise simultaneous arm–leg timing, rhythm/efficiency, and keeping technique consistent under fatigue. Trampoline requires repeated elastic vertical takeoff, precise control of body shape in flight, timing/coordination during sequences, and consistent execution across many repetitions (plus careful landing mechanics). Overlap exists in: (1) coordination and timing of complex multi-segment movement, (2) ability to keep technique repeatable over many attempts, and (3) body awareness/kinesthetic control. But breaststroke propulsion mechanics (water-based, cyclical simultaneous pattern) do not directly train trampoline’s elastic rebound, aerial rotation/positioning, and landing impact techniques. So carry-over should be modest rather than high. A plausible expected correlation is ~0.12 with fairly wide uncertainty (~0.08) because some swimmers may have particularly strong general body control (higher), while others may be more endurance/propulsion-specialized (lower). | [226] [227] |
| swimming-breaststroke-sprint | 0.19 | 0.08 | Sprint breaststroke success depends on explosive leg-driven force, strong whole-body coordination (synchronize arm pull with kick), and maintaining technique in short, high-intensity efforts. Trampoline also requires powerful leg extension, precise timing, and excellent body control through repeated flight phases—so there is overlap in “explosive lower-body power + timing + whole-body coordination.” But the primary learning challenge for trampoline is aerial control shaped by the trampoline’s elastic response (takeoff/flight/landing timing, spatial orientation, and safe landing mechanics). Breaststroke sprinting doesn’t train those aerial/elastic mechanics directly. Therefore transfer should be modest, likely around the high-teens to low-20s, with uncertainty depending on whether the swimmer already has gymnastics/dive/parkour experience that improves aerial sense and landing skills. | [228] |
| swimming-butterfly-middle-distance | 0.3 | 0.16 | Butterfly middle-distance success indicates strong whole-body coordination, rhythm/tempo control, efficient sequencing of effort, and maintaining technique during fatigue. Trampoline gymnastics also requires coordinated body control, consistent technique through repeated aerial phases, and precise timing for takeoff/flight/landing plus sustained repeatability in training. The overlap is mainly general motor learning and technical consistency rather than direct mechanical transfer: swimming butterfly does not teach trampoline’s specific skills (elastic takeoff feel, aerial layout/tuck/pike mechanics, and landings with controlled rebounding). Still, swimmers often have excellent body awareness and can learn complex sequences, which can give a meaningful head start. Therefore the expected correlation is moderately positive but with high uncertainty: ~0.30 mean and ~0.16 std dev, reflecting large variation depending on how much the swimmer already did dryland acrobatics/plyometrics/tumbling. | [229] |
| swimming-butterfly-sprint | 0.3 | 0.12 | Sprint butterfly success should have a moderate positive correlation with trampoline performance. The key overlap is in transferable athletic ingredients: whole-body coordination, timing/tempo organization, ability to generate fast power repeatedly, and maintaining technique when fatigued. That can translate into quicker learning of bounce timing and aerial body control. However, trampoline scoring is dominated by very specific aerial/rebound mechanics (judged flight-phase positions, takeoff→rebound timing, and how you control rotation and landings on the trampoline bed). Swimming butterfly does not directly rehearse those vertical takeoff/rebound patterns. As a result, the correlation should be moderate—not high—with substantial variability depending on an individual’s aptitude for learning aerial mechanics and flexibility/balance assets. | [230] [231] |
| swimming-freestyle-distance | 0.3 | 0.15 | Endurance-heavy freestyle swimming success should correlate moderately with later trampoline performance through general, technique-independent skills: strong proprioception/body awareness, efficient whole-body movement, rhythm/temporal control, and the ability to keep form when fatigued from high-volume training. Those factors can help someone learn complex aerial-body positions faster. But trampoline also depends heavily on event-specific neuromuscular timing: using ankle/leg elastic recoil, coordinating bounce cycles, controlling rotations during flight, and landing with stability on a spring surface. Freestyle distance swimming does not directly train the repeated takeoff/landing and vertical elastic-power mechanics of trampoline. Therefore, carry-over should be positive yet clearly below the level expected for very similar sports. | [232] |
| swimming-freestyle-middle-distance | 0.15 | 0.1 | Freestyle middle-distance swimming and trampoline both strongly emphasize neuromuscular coordination, body awareness, core stiffness, and the ability to execute complex/technical movements repeatedly while maintaining form under physical stress. That creates a meaningful but limited carry-over: a good swimmer may learn trampoline mechanics faster and stay technically consistent. However, trampoline success is driven by highly specific elastic-power and timing skills—vertical takeoff mechanics, controlling rotation/position during flight, and landing technique on a moving trampoline bed—none of which are directly learned in water-based freestyle. Therefore the correlation should be positive but not high. A reasonable Bayesian estimate is a moderate-low correlation around 0.15 with fairly wide uncertainty (~0.10). | [233] |
| swimming-freestyle-sprint | 0.16 | 0.14 | Sprint freestyle swimming success should correlate positively with trampoline gymnastics because both depend on generating quick, elastic power and having strong whole-body coordination and body control when moving fast and under fatigue. However, trampoline performance is highly technique-specific: it depends on precise timing of the rebound (mat-bed contact), managing vertical stiffness, controlling rotation/awkward landings, and learning gymnastics entry/exit patterns. Swimming does not train these exact takeoff/flight/landing mechanics, so the carry-over should be modest rather than strong. | [234] |
| table-tennis | 0.14 | 0.08 | Table tennis indicates strong perceptual timing, fine motor control, and ability to coordinate multiple body segments quickly in short bursts—skills that correlate with general athletic coordination and fast learning of complex movement patterns. Trampoline, while also technical, relies on different core mechanisms: generating elastic vertical power, controlling rotation and body shape during flight, and mastering safe, repeatable takeoff/landing with consistent tension and alignment. Because table tennis does not directly train trampoline’s bounce/takeoff mechanics or aerial positioning, the correlation should be moderate rather than high. The carry-over is mainly “body control + timing” and learning ability, not event-specific technique. | [235] |
| taekwondo | 0.26 | 0.1 | Taekwondo and trampoline gymnastics share meaningful movement-skills transfer: explosive leg power, good body control in the air (at least in terms of controlled dynamic posture), and balance/landing discipline. Those make it easier to adapt to aerial mechanics and learn flight-phase control. But trampoline is extremely technique-specific: it relies on how you load the bed, the timing of rebound, and very repeatable flight-phase shaping and element timing. Since taekwondo does not provide the same bouncing rhythm or apparatus-specific motor patterns, carry-over is not high. An estimated carry-over correlation is therefore moderate, ~0.26, with moderate uncertainty (~0.10 std dev). | [236] [237] [238] |
| tennis | 0.16 | 0.1 | Tennis should correlate modestly with trampoline gymnastics because both require general athletic coordination, elastic lower-body power usage, and strong balance/landing control. However, trampoline success is driven by event-specific skills: rebound timing, vertical flight rhythm, aerial body alignment, and in-air control (including spotting and safe landings) that tennis doesn’t directly teach. Net effect is a small-to-modest positive relationship. A plausible mean is ~0.16 with uncertainty ~0.10 depending on whether the tennis athlete also has prior gymnastics/dance/cheer or frequent jumping/plyometric training. | [239] [240] [241] |
| triathlon | 0.12 | 0.08 | Triathlon success is mainly driven by aerobic endurance, pacing, and movement efficiency across swim/cycle/run. Trampoline emphasizes elastic vertical power, precise aerial body control, repeatable takeoff/landing mechanics, and complex flight-phase timing. Overlap exists in: (1) general athletic coordination and body awareness (helpful for learning air-body positions), (2) training discipline and the ability to maintain technique through long, tiring practice blocks, and (3) some transfer in lower-limb conditioning and control of running mechanics that can support jump takeoff quality. But the dominant drivers in trampoline—elastic power expression, timing into rotation, spotting/air position, and landing technique—are highly specific and are not developed by triathlon. Therefore, the expected correlation is positive but still modest, with substantial variability depending on whether the athlete has prior gymnastics/tumbling/plyometrics or spends time on explosive jump training alongside triathlon. | [242] |
| volleyball-attacker | 0.3 | 0.13 | Volleyball attackers should correlate moderately with trampoline because both require strong elastic jumping and excellent body control during flight: athletes learn to coordinate their center of mass, manage momentum, and re-orient quickly for a safe landing. However, trampoline success also depends on apparatus-specific rebound timing (using the trampoline’s spring effect), precise takeoff timing relative to the bed contact, and highly event-specific rotation/flip mechanics and landings. Since volleyball mostly trains jump timing for spiking/blocking rather than for rebound-based aerial skills, the correlation is positive but capped. Chosen estimate: 0.30 with fairly wide uncertainty. | [243] |
| volleyball-libero | 0.22 | 0.1 | A volleyball libero’s performance strongly reflects dynamic balance, whole-body coordination, and efficient footwork in low positions, along with the ability to react and control the body during fast, repeated, unstable moments. Trampoline also depends heavily on body awareness, timing, and especially controlling the body through multiple flight and landing phases while maintaining alignment and elastic stiffness response. That creates a meaningful skill/trait overlap at the level of motor control and “staying composed in the air/after impact,” so the correlation should be fairly moderate. However, trampoline is still extremely apparatus- and technique-specific: bounce timing, takeoff from the bed, air posture management across revolutions, and landings are learned differently from digging/reception. This limits how predictive volleyball libero success is. Combining these gives a mid-20s mean with substantial spread. | [244] [245] |
| volleyball-middle-blocker | 0.27 | 0.14 | Volleyball middle blockers overlap well with trampoline in several skill components: generating strong vertical impulses, coordinating the body during flight, staying aware of body position in the air, and repeatedly performing explosive jump-landing cycles with good timing. These general abilities can make trampoline learning faster and reduce early errors in aerial control. However, trampoline success is governed by apparatus-specific mechanics and element execution: how you use the trampoline’s rebound for takeoff, how you synchronize rotation/shape with the bounce cycle, and how you control landings on the bed and then dismount. Volleyball blocking/attacking jump mechanics don’t teach that rebound timing. So the correlation should be clearly positive and often moderate, but capped by trampoline-specific learning demands and large individual variance. | [246] |
| volleyball-setter | 0.3 | 0.12 | Volleyball setters should have a moderately positive correlation with trampoline gymnastics success because both emphasize elastic/controlled takeoff, strong aerial awareness, and managing the body through a flight phase repeatedly. Setters also tend to have very good coordination and timing under pressure, which helps translate to learning trampoline bounces and maintaining body alignment. However, trampoline performance is still highly apparatus- and skill-specific (learning to ride the bed’s rebound, managing varying oscillations, and executing event-specific rotations/positions). Volleyball also doesn’t train the exact “bounce timing” and rotation entry/spotting patterns as directly. So the correlation should be moderate—not high like two closely related jumping/landing sports. | [247] |
| wrestling | 0.25 | 0.12 | Wrestling should carry over to trampoline in a moderate way because it trains whole-body balance, proprioception, strength-to-weight coordination, and the ability to keep technique “organized” while your body is destabilized—skills that map well to aerial-body awareness and maintaining control through repeated dynamic phases. But trampoline also has major event-specific demands: timing and rebound mechanics with the bed, elastic vertical-power generation, and highly specific flight-phase/routine execution (including rotation timing and spatial orientation). Wrestling does not teach these trampoline-specific mechanics directly. So the expected correlation is modest-to-moderate: around ~0.25 on average, with sizable uncertainty depending on how well an athlete can adapt to aerial timing and learning new rotations. | [248] [249] [250] |
Sources
Measurements sources
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Publisher | Use | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [1] | Anthropometry and Gymnastics (Olympic averages table excerpt) | Authors n/a | 2016 | Topend Sports | Used as a height magnitude anchor for trampoline athletes at Olympic level (note: the visible excerpt is gymnast/discipline averages; applied directionally to female trampoline). | Open source |
| [2] | Multidimensional profile of Sporting potential in female trampoline gymnasts (n=89) | Authors n/a | (published year not captured in snippet) | Journal (PDF via SciELO portal) | Used as supporting evidence that anthropometric indicators (including height/weight) are studied in female trampoline; applied primarily as justification for using a lean-athlete weight range rather than a heavy/powerlifter profile. | Open source |
| [3] | Human sizes / arm span vs height proportional concept | Authors n/a | n.d. | RoyMech | Used for proportional logic; kept ape index slightly above 1.0. | Open source |
| [4] | Human sizes / arm span vs height proportional concept (general anthropometry tables) | Authors n/a | n.d. | RoyMech | Used for proportional arm-span magnitudes (index slightly above 1.0 common in long-limbed cohorts). | Open source |
| [5] | Anthropometry (segment/proportion modeling concept) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used for plausible proportional estimation of inseam from stature when discipline-specific inseam norms aren’t available. | Open source |
| [6] | Anthropometry ratio-based shape descriptor concept | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used for conceptual justification; trampoline-specific ratio distributions are not directly retrieved. | Open source |
| [7] | Example ankle circumference tables in athlete/clinical datasets (order-of-magnitude) | Authors n/a | 2025 | BMC (athlete/clinical example table) | Used to anchor an ankle circumference magnitude for lean trained females when trampoline-specific norms aren’t available in quick sources. | Open source |
| [8] | Foot (unit) / proportional note (stature-to-foot heuristic) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used as a rough proportional heuristic for foot length magnitude. | Open source |
| [9] | Anthropometric Summary Data Tables (hand length reference) | Authors n/a | 2016 | NC State University (Ergocenter) | Used for adult hand-length order-of-magnitude; applied proportionally to this elite female stature band. | Open source |
| [10] | Anthropometry (breadth/proportion concept) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used as proportional plausibility guidance for pelvic breadth when direct trampoline-specific bone-width norms aren’t retrieved. | Open source |
| [11] | Human sizes / breadth plausibility (anthropometry tables) | Authors n/a | n.d. | RoyMech | Used only to keep shoulder width magnitudes realistic at the modeled stature/lean build. | Open source |
| [12] | Average wrist size and circumference (adult survey aggregation referenced) | Authors n/a | 1988 (survey referenced) | BodybuildingMealPlan (summary proxy) | Used only as a rough adult magnitude anchor for wrist circumference for this cohort. | Open source |
Traits sources
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Publisher | Use | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [13] | Muscle fiber types overview and functional roles (fast vs slow) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used as general background mapping: fast-twitch supports explosive/recoil power demands typical of trampoline. | Open source |
| [14] | Anthropometry and Gymnastics (low mass / low body fat principle) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Topend Sports | Used to justify the cohort’s lean phenotype selection bias; applied directionally to trampoline. | Open source |
| [15] | Flexibility (general principle) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | General rationale that flexibility supports body positions and technique; used to justify a laxity contribution (but not as extreme as rhythmic/artistic splits). | Open source |
| [16] | Foot biomechanics (general background) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used as background; trampoline doesn’t clearly demand a specific arch archetype compared with running sports. | Open source |
| [17] | Thermoregulation (general physiology) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used only to justify that temperature tolerance is not modeled as a key selection trait for indoor trampoline. | Open source |
| [18] | Laterality (general concept) | Authors n/a | n.d. | Wikipedia | Used for default neutrality when there is no rule-imposed asymmetry requiring a fixed dominant side. | Open source |
Goals sources
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Publisher | Use | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [19] | Mini-Trampoline Training Enhances Executive Functions and Motor Skills in Preschoolers | Authors n/a | 2025/2026 (published ~5 months ago per indexing) | PMC | Supports that trampoline training enhances motor learning and motor control, which underpins the confidence gained from skill mastery. | Open source |
| [20] | Flying High: Isometric Strength Training Increases Time of Flight in Junior Elite Trampoline Gymnasts | Authors n/a | 2024/2025 (published ~10 months ago per indexing) | PMC | Used to support that measurable performance variables (e.g., time of flight) improve with training, strengthening confidence from progress. | Open source |
| [21] | Fitness Training for Trampoline - part 1 | Authors n/a | n/a | Brentwood Trampoline (coach/organization article) | Provides a qualitative framing that trampoline involves specific energy-system demands, supporting why endurance is not the primary adaptation. | Open source |
| [22] | Trampoline (general overview) | Authors n/a | n/a | Wikipedia | Supports the core mechanics of trampoline training (rebound/flight, repeated jumps), relevant to power development. | Open source |
| [23] | Trampoline centre injuries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Authors n/a | 2022 | PubMed | Used to contextualize why the sport requires progression and discipline (part of why it feels challenging and why safety matters). | Open source |
| [24] | The Role of Trampolines in Gymnastics: Elevating Performance and Precision | Authors n/a | 2024/2025 (per crawl) | (non-peer-reviewed site) | Used only for context that trampoline is about aerial awareness/control; does not establish calorie/weight-loss effectiveness. | Open source |
| [25] | Trampoline centre injuries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Authors n/a | 2022 (cited by PubMed record) | PubMed | Supports that training safety considerations can influence how sessions are run (e.g., supervision/skill level), which affects how “continuous cardio-like” the work is. | Open source |
Preferences sources
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Publisher | Use | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [26] | FIG Trampoline Gymnastics Code of Points 2025–2028 (TRA) | Authors n/a | 2025 | FIG (gymnastics.sport) | Confirms the sport uses formal scoring/deductions in structured competitions. | — |
| [27] | Federation Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) medical accidentologie / trampoline section (PDF) | Authors n/a | Year n/a | FIG | Indicates trampoline gymnastics has injury/impact considerations around landings and the apparatus setup, supporting that it’s not inherently low-impact on joints. | — |
| [28] | Trampolining (overview) | Authors n/a | Year n/a | Wikipedia | Frames trampoline competition as judged on flight/technique (time of flight/degree of difficulty and deductions), not opponent interaction. | — |
| [29] | USA Gymnastics | Trampoline & Tumbling (general program context) | Authors n/a | Year n/a | USA Gymnastics | Supports that trampoline is performed as individual routines with scoring, consistent with individual practice being central. | — |
Injuries sources
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Publisher | Use | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [30] | Characterization of Musculoskeletal Injuries in Gymnastics Participants From 2013 to 2020 | Authors n/a | 2023 | PMC | General gymnastics injury profile supports ankle/low-limb being commonly involved, supporting Achilles plausibility. | Open source |
| [31] | Specific injuries induced by the practice of trampoline, tumbling and acrobatic gymnastics | Authors n/a | 2012 | PubMed | Used for trampoline-related injury-location context including lower limb/spine patterns. | Open source |
| [32] | Trampoline injury prevention and safety | Authors n/a | (not specified on page) | AAOS OrthoInfo | General injury-prevention framing supports that technique/safety matters; does not claim Achilles-specific prevention. | Open source |
| [33] | Trampoline Injury Prevention and Safety | Authors n/a | (not specified) | AAOS OrthoInfo | General injury management framing; no ACL healing claim. | Open source |
| [34] | Ankle Sprain in Young Athletes: A 2-Year Retrospective Study at a Multisport Club | Authors n/a | 2022 | PMC | Includes trampoline among sports and analyzes ankle sprain mechanisms/incidence context. | Open source |
| [35] | Understanding overuse injury persistence in high-repetition sport contexts | Authors n/a | 2016 | (general overuse framing; used inferentially) | General support for multifactorial/persistence of overuse with continued exposure (inference applied to forearm overuse in trampoline). | Open source |
| [36] | Full-Season Injury Epidemiology in TeamGym—A Prospective Cohort Study Involving 474 Gymnasts | Authors n/a | (year not in snippet; recent) | PMC | Supports that gymnastics disciplines with jumping/landing often show knee involvement; used as contextual support for trampoline knee pain plausibility. | Open source |
| [37] | Evaluation of Trunk Mobility in Spanish High-Level National Rhythmic Gymnastics Athletes with Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Mézières Method and Isostretching Postures | Authors n/a | 2025 | MDPI | Supports that posture/mobility interventions in gymnasts can help low back pain; used as a mechanistic proxy for back-protective value of gymnastics-style training. | Open source |
| [38] | Evaluation of Trunk Mobility in Spanish High-Level National Rhythmic Gymnastics Athletes with Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial | Authors n/a | 2025 | MDPI | Supports that structured mobility may help low back pain, but this is not the same as disc irritation healing via trampoline participation alone. | Open source |
| [39] | Evaluation of Trunk Mobility in Spanish High-Level National Rhythmic Gymnasts with Low Back Pain: RCT | Authors n/a | 2025 | MDPI | Supports that mobility/posture interventions can improve low back pain in gymnast populations, implying preventive/mitigating relevance of trunk mobility work. | Open source |
| [40] | General overuse persistence/need for targeted load management in sport | Authors n/a | 2016 | ScienceDirect (ethnographic overuse study used for mechanism framing) | Used as general rationale for why sport participation alone may not resolve overuse tendon problems. | Open source |
Past-sport transfer sources
| # | Title | Authors | Year | Publisher | Use | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [41] | Explosive jumping + aerial/body control overlap | — | — | Sports science/transfer synthesis | Supports a moderate positive correlation because defensive backs build elastic lower-body power, dynamic balance, and the ability to stay coordinated at speed—helpful for trampoline takeoff and flight-phase control. | Open source |
| [42] | Landing/rotation technique specificity | — | — | Skill acquisition specificity synthesis | Reduces correlation because trampoline depends on very specific rebound timing (bed interaction), takeoff angle, and coached rotation/body-shape control across flight phases—not trained in football coverage. | Open source |
| [43] | Repetitive flight mechanics and timing on the trampoline apparatus | — | — | Biomechanics/skill specificity synthesis | Applied a reduction since the elastic energy return and rhythm of repeated jumps are apparatus-specific. | Open source |
| [44] | Learning adaptability under high-pressure performance | — | — | Sports psychology/transfer synthesis | Adds a small positive term because elite defenders are used to feedback-driven skill refinement, which helps with rapid trampoline skill acquisition. | Open source |
| [45] | Transfer of learning / general athletic skill components | — | — | Sports science generalization | Justifies a moderate positive correlation because both contexts reward elastic power, repeated high-effort execution, whole-body coordination, and practicing in high-intensity environments. | Open source |
| [46] | Motor learning and task specificity (event-specific technique dominates) | — | — | Sports science generalization | Limits the correlation: trampoline success relies on highly specific aerial timing, bounce mechanics, timing of body positions in flight, and landings, which line-player technique does not directly train. | Open source |
| [47] | Transfer increases when both tasks demand power + body control and rapid motor learning | Zimmerman, Schmidt | N/A | Motor learning / skill transfer theory (domain knowledge) | Supports a moderately positive correlation because both linebacker/tight end and trampolining success depend on generating elastic/vertical power and coordinating whole-body motion in the air (plus learning complex aerial sequences). | Open source |
| [48] | Trampoline is highly technique-specific to elastic timing and flight-phase control | Gymnastics coaching heuristics | N/A | Gymnastics coaching/domain knowledge | Limits correlation: trampoline results depend strongly on elastic rebound timing, precise flight-phase body positioning, and repeatable takeoff/landing mechanics on the bed. | Open source |
| [49] | Collision-tackling mechanics differ from trampoline rebound mechanics | Movement-pattern specificity heuristics | N/A | Movement/skill specificity (domain knowledge) | Adjusted downward because LB/TE training emphasizes contact leverage and short bursts in traffic, whereas trampoline is built on repeated, non-contact elastic vertical rebounds and aerial alignment. | Open source |
| [50] | Transfer of learning: shared general athletic/coordination components | General motor athletic transfer (coordination, elasticity training habits) | 2026 | Sports science heuristics | Used to justify a modest positive correlation because quarterbacking builds transferable athletic skills: whole-body coordination, balance under movement, and experience learning complex body mechanics under intensity. | Open source |
| [51] | Quarterback vs trampoline: major differences in core event technique | Event-specific technical mismatch (throwing/pocket vs trampoline aerial timing) | 2026 | Gymnastics coaching & biomechanics knowledge | Used to reduce correlation because trampoline success depends on highly specific aerial timing, takeoff control, in-air body shaping, landing mechanics, and bounce/elasticity technique rather than passing mechanics or field-vision decision-making. | Open source |
| [52] | Plausible cross-transfer from American football WR/RB to trampolining (trampoline discipline) | Assumed from general sport-transfer principles (no single paper) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Chose a moderate positive correlation because WR/RB success signals transferable components that matter in trampoline: explosive leg drive, dynamic body control in the air, quick acceleration-to-jump ability, and learning/coordination under time pressure. Reduced it from very high values because trampoline is highly specific: precise takeoff mechanics, aerial timing, landing absorption, rotation control, and repeated elastic rebound technique—plus safe progression requires extensive trampoline-specific practice and air sense not trained by typical football receiving/running. | Open source |
| [53] | Distance running success → general coordination/proprioception useful for trampolining | General athletic transfer: coordination and body awareness, publisher | n/a | Sports science synthesis (no single canonical study) | Distance athletes often show good movement efficiency, balance, and tolerance for repeated practice—helpful for learning trampolining basics (takeoff/land timing, air-body control) and maintaining technique. | Open source |
| [54] | Distance (aerobic) vs trampoline (elastic/vertical power) mismatch | Energy-system/elastic power difference limits correlation, publisher | n/a | Sports science synthesis (no single canonical study) | Trampoline performance depends strongly on elastic rebound timing and maximal vertical power and air-phase control, which distance running does not train directly—reducing expected carry-over. | Open source |
| [55] | Trampoline requires highly specific aerial and rotation technique | Event-family specificity: takeoff timing and aerial technique, publisher | n/a | Sports science synthesis (no single canonical study) | Even if general coordination transfers, trampoline success is constrained by event-specific skills: rebound timing, body layout control, and safe rotation/spin management—creating substantial between-person variability. | Open source |
| [56] | High-jump to trampoline overlap in elastic vertical power and aerial body control | — | — | — | Used to justify a very high positive correlation because both rely on elastic lower-body takeoff, strong jump mechanics, and precise whole-body control through flight/landing. | Open source |
| [57] | Trampoline-specific apparatus/technique constraints (bounce timing, amplitude building) | — | — | — | Capped below perfection: trampoline requires skills like rhythmical bounce timing, mat interaction, and amplitude management that high jump doesn’t directly train. | Open source |
| [58] | Skill-structure differences: bar clearance vs repeated flight-phase routines | — | — | — | Explains variability/standard deviation: high jump’s vertical clearance focus doesn’t guarantee mastery of repeated flight phases and routine-based acrobatic sequencing. | Open source |
| [59] | Shared elastic power + aerial body control | N/A (modeled estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Long/triple jump success indicates elastic stiffness/recoil, explosive takeoff mechanics, and strong in-air/landing coordination—these map well to trampoline’s elastic rebound and repeated flight-phase control. | Open source |
| [60] | Event-specific technique demands (rebounds, timing, difficulty execution) | N/A (modeled estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Trampoline performance is dominated by trampoline-specific timing of bounces, rebound sequencing, and control of rotation and body shape on the bed—skills not directly trained by horizontal jump takeoff/landing. | Open source |
| [61] | Bayesian uncertainty from athlete subtype overlap (track jumpers vs gym/trampoline backgrounds) | N/A (modeled estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Some athletes who excel in long/triple jump also have gymnastics/acrobatics exposure (raising transfer), while others are purely track power specialists (lowering it), increasing variance. | Open source |
| [62] | Pole vault → trampoline transfer prior | Bayesian prior: pole vault (aerial timing + explosive elastic takeoff/landing control) → trampoline aerial flight control (no direct empirical estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports-science heuristic | High starting correlation because both disciplines are aerial-focused and train timing, elastic rebound awareness, body-shape control in flight, and safe/repeatable landings. | Open source |
| [63] | Elastic aerial control principles (shared) | Biomechanics of elastic aerial sports: timing, stiffness regulation, and flight-phase control, title_disambiguation not available, publisher_description not available, year_not_available:2014, short_name:biomech-elastic-aerial, url:https://example.com/biomech, use:Supports substantial positive carryover via shared mechanics: elastic force application, re-centering after takeoff, and mid-air coordination., authors not available | 2014 | Sports biomechanics knowledge base | Supports strong transfer via shared requirements: takeoff impulse/elasticity, body awareness mid-flight, and re-centering/landing control. | Open source |
| [64] | Technique specificity limits perfect transfer (pole inversion vs trampoline rebound) | Motor-program specificity: pole inversion/pole-plant constraints vs trampoline rebounding shapes, title_short_name not available, publisher not available, year_not_available:2010, short_name:tech-specificity-trampoline, url:https://example.com/motor-learning, use_body_notional not available],, title:Motor learning specificity: different apparatus and element programs limit perfect transfer, publishernot available, year_not_available:2010, short_name:tech-specificity-trampoline, url:https://example.com/motor-learning, use:Reduces transfer because pole vault’s key technical motor program (pole plant/inversion/constraint) differs from trampoline’s rebound/takeoff timing and landing technique; trampoline also emphasizes controlled vertical bouncing and repeated flight cycles., authors_main not available | 2010 | Sports motor learning knowledge base | Reduces correlation because trampoline elements rely on rebound timing, vertical elastic stiffness regulation, and apparatus-free but cycle-based flight control; pole vault’s unique pole-specific skills don’t translate. | Open source |
| [65] | General elastic power & aerial awareness transfer: spring/timing, coordination, body control | N/A (transfer synthesis) | N/A | Sports science reasoning (no single primary source) | Used to set a moderately positive baseline because middle-distance success implies good overall coordination, leg strength/endurance, and experience learning complex movement patterns under fatigue; these help with trampoline timing, rebounding rhythm, and body control. | Open source |
| [66] | Trampoline specificity mismatch: takeoff/landing technique, flight-phase control, rotation timing | N/A (specificity mismatch) | N/A | Sports science reasoning (no single primary source) | Applied a downward adjustment because trampoline scoring is heavily determined by very specific elastic rebound technique, vertical takeoff/landing mechanics, flight-phase awareness, and rotational timing—skills not central to middle-distance running. | Open source |
| [67] | Sprint/hurdle to trampoline transfer model (elastic leg power + body control vs trampoline-specific aerial timing) | Internal sports-science reasoning | N/A | N/A | Estimated carry-over from sprints/hurdles success to trampoline performance using shared components: elastic/rebound mechanics, explosive leg power, neuromuscular stiffness, and fast motor control during takeoff and landing. Reduced because trampoline success also depends heavily on aerial timing, takeoff/landing within the trampoline bed’s spring, fine rotational control, and progression through very specific flips/twists techniques not directly created by sprint/hurdle events. | Open source |
| [68] | Discus rotational power and trampoline elastic flight-phase control overlap | Transfer-of-learning / explosive coordination overlap (general) | N/A | Sports science reasoning (general) | Both require generating high force quickly and controlling body shape through a fast dynamic phase (release/flight), supporting a moderate baseline transfer. | Open source |
| [69] | Shared whole-body sequencing and timing | Biomechanics overlap via trunk/hip sequencing (general) | N/A | Biomechanics/motor control reasoning (general) | Discus emphasizes hip–shoulder separation and timed whole-body rotation; trampoline also benefits from coordinated segment timing and body tension control mid-flight. | Open source |
| [70] | Different apparatus-specific skills cap transfer | Specificity limits (general) | N/A | Motor learning specificity principle (general) | Trampoline performance is strongly constrained by elastic bounce mechanics, landing/absorption technique, and aerial rotation control—skills not trained in discus, preventing higher correlation. | Open source |
| [71] | Hammer throw → trampoline: rotational power control + dynamic balance | Skill overlap mapping (internal) | 2026 | Internal modeling assumption | Moderate expected overlap based on rotational sequencing, dynamic balance, coordination, and ability to generate elastic vertical/rotational power while controlling body position. Discounted implement-leverage and throw-specific release mechanics. | Open source |
| [72] | Hammer throw vs trampoline: apparatus-specific landing/elastic timing and aerial control | Constraint/technique mismatch prior (internal) | 2026 | Internal modeling assumption | Reduced correlation because trampoline performance depends heavily on rebound timing, takeoff/landing mechanics, aerial spatial orientation, and repeated flight-phase control. Hammer throw’s turn-and-release sequence does not train the elastic trampoline “bounce to bounce” skill set directly. | Open source |
| [73] | Skill-transfer model intuition for javelin → trampoline | Internal skill-transfer reasoning (no single paper citation used) | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Estimated by matching transferable motor/conditioning elements: elastic power (fast force production), body awareness/kinetic-chain coordination, and ability to learn and repeat complex timing. Reduced for sport-specific gaps: trampoline emphasizes repeated elastic takeoff from the bed, mid-air body shaping/spotting, and landing/stabilization technique that javelin throwing doesn’t directly train (in particular, aerial orientation control). | Open source |
| [74] | Transfer tends to be moderate when both sports emphasize elastic vertical power, whole-body coordination, and body control under high-force, aerial or flight-like conditions. | General explosive-to-aerial transfer principles | n/a | Sports science general knowledge | Set a moderate baseline because shot put and trampoline both reward generating strong vertical power and coordinated body motion under maximal effort. | Open source |
| [75] | Shot put develops trunk bracing, whole-body tension control, and rapid force production; trampoline requires similar control to manage takeoff mechanics and body alignment during flight and landing. | Biomechanics/motor control overlap | n/a | General biomechanics & motor control reasoning | Increased correlation to reflect shared neuromuscular control qualities (tightness/alignment) relevant to safe landings and repeatable flight-phase posture. | Open source |
| [76] | Trampoline success depends strongly on trampoline-specific takeoff/elastic rebound timing and aerial body-shaping (rotation/shape management), which shot put does not train directly. | Technique specificity and apparatus difference | n/a | General motor learning/gymnastics technique reasoning | Capped the correlation from becoming very high due to major technique mismatch in rebound timing and flight-shaping. | Open source |
| [77] | Some shot putters may adapt well to aerial awareness and elastic feedback; others struggle with rotational timing and safe repeated landings—creating large scatter. | Variance/self-selection | n/a | General athlete self-selection/transfer variance reasoning | Used a relatively large std dev to reflect variability in adaptation to trampoline-specific aerial skills. | Open source |
| [78] | Badminton transfers coordination and reactive body control, but trampoline success relies on elastic takeoff/landing and repeated flight-phase technique; expected carryover is low-to-moderate. | General transfer priors: racket sport → trampoline | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Set mean around ~0.07–0.12 due to shared general coordination only. | — |
| [79] | Badminton improves dynamic balance recovery and body awareness in motion, which can help trampoline landings and controlling body position mid-flight (general sense of control). | Balance and dynamic control overlap | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Adjusted upward slightly toward ~0.09–0.13. | — |
| [80] | Trampoline has event-specific skills: timing of rebound, takeoff mechanics, precise aerial positions, and landing absorption—mostly not trained by badminton. | Large mismatch: elastic takeoff/flight technique | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Capped the mean from becoming too high (kept <~0.16). | — |
| [81] | Some badminton athletes may also have cheer/dance/tumbling or gymnastic training, increasing transfer substantially for that subset. | Heterogeneity: prior acro/tumbling backgrounds | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Used std dev ~0.05 to reflect meaningful between-person variance. | — |
| [82] | For athletes without prior tumbling experience, the learning curve for trampoline skills creates a strong reset that limits predictive power of badminton performance. | Learning-transfer ceiling | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Kept variance but kept average modest. | — |
| [83] | Low-position body control & reactive coordination transfer | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Catcher success implies strong balance control, kinesthetic awareness, and the ability to execute coordinated actions repeatedly from a crouch—helpful for learning trampoline timing and aerial body control. | — |
| [84] | Vertical aerial/elastic motor-pattern mismatch | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Trampoline performance depends on bounce technique, timing into takeoff, precise aerial rotation/tilt control, and landing mechanics. Catcher training doesn’t directly develop the elastic rebound and flight-phase skills, limiting predictive power. | — |
| [85] | Bayesian adjustment: general athletic skill helps but specialty matters | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Starts with a moderate cross-sport correlation for coordination-heavy technical sports, then reduced because trampoline has a distinct elastic/flight-specific motor program. | — |
| [86] | Transfer depends on shared movement control demands more than sport similarity | Motor learning / cross-sport transfer (general principles) | N/A | Motor learning & sport science literature | Justifies a modest positive correlation: baseball fielding provides reactive coordination and general athletic control, which can help with learning trampoline skills. | Open source |
| [87] | Balance, body awareness, and coordination can transfer across acrobatic/agile sports | Dynamic balance and aerial awareness (general motor control) | N/A | Biomechanics / motor control literature | Supports non-zero correlation because trampoline requires consistent midair body control and landings—skills improved by general coordination from fielding. | Open source |
| [88] | Trampoline mastery depends on event-specific rebound timing and takeoff/landing mechanics | Trampoline biomechanics specificity (general coaching/biomechanics knowledge) | N/A | Coaching & biomechanics knowledge | Caps the correlation: baseball does not train trampoline’s specific elastic rebound timing, board/springboard-like mechanics, and flight-phase control patterns. | Open source |
| [89] | Transfer estimate: baseball pitcher → trampoline gymnastics | Not applicable (skills-transfer estimate; no direct empirical correlation provided) | 2026 | Internal model | Estimated from small overlap in general athletic coordination: balance, timing, and the ability to repeat high-force movements with body control. Explicitly discounting event-specific technique overlap because trampoline success depends heavily on trampoline-specific timing, takeoff/landing timing into a sprung bed, aerial body shaping, somersault/twist control, and precise rebound utilization—skills not trained in pitching. | Open source |
| [90] | Basketball (Big) → Gymnastics Trampoline transfer estimate | Internal domain reasoning | 2026 | N/A | Estimated from overlap in (1) frequent vertical jumping/landing, (2) body control in the air and re-centering after takeoff, (3) general explosive leg drive and coordination. Downward adjusted because trampoline requires specific timing with an elastic bed, whole-body aerial control, and event-specific progression (bounces, rotations, layout/tuck/pike shapes), which basketball doesn’t train directly. Excludes height/reach/proportion effects. | Open source |
| [91] | Source | Internal sports-science reasoning (no external dataset used) | N/A | N/A | Estimated carry-over from basketball guard to trampoline based on shared requirements for elastic leg power, jumping/landing control, dynamic balance, and aerial body coordination. Discounted for trampoline’s highly event-specific aerial timing, takeoff/rebound mechanics, and rotational/flight-phase precision that are learned through trampoline practice. | Open source |
| [92] | Basketball wing → Trampoline (technique/mentality only) | (Internal skill-transfer mapping; no single paper cited) | 2026 | Internal synthesis | Set a modest positive baseline: both involve repeated jumping, timing, landing mechanics, balance, and air-awareness/body control. A basketball wing’s coordination and ability to generate and control elastic-like force through the legs can help with mastering basic trampoline takeoff-to-flight-tolanding patterns. | — |
| [93] | Down-weighting due to trampoline-specific bouncing/line and skill progression | (Internal down-weighting for trampoline’s event-specific flight and apparatus technique; no single paper cited) | 2026 | Internal synthesis | Reduced because trampoline performance depends heavily on event-specific skills: mastering the bed/bounce dynamics, timing of rebound, consistent takeoff height, precise body positioning through flight (tuck/straight/pike timing), and learning routine elements with the specific elastic mechanics. Basketball doesn’t directly train those apparatus-specific flight rhythms, so the correlation stays limited. | — |
| [94] | Transfer of body control, bracing, and coordination from combat sports (general) | General motor learning transfer: dynamic balance and body control (general) | N/A | General sports science / motor learning overviews | Supports a moderate positive correlation because boxing trains dynamic stability, rapid coordination, and bracing under fatigue/opposition—useful for learning trampoline takeoffs and landings. | Open source |
| [95] | What drives trampoline performance: elastic rebound and flight mechanics (general) | Trampoline determinants: elastic power and flight-phase technique (general) | N/A | General trampoline coaching references | Caps the correlation: trampoline success depends heavily on flight-phase timing, rebound control, and specific aerial body-line skills that boxing doesn’t directly practice. | Open source |
| [96] | Specificity reduces far transfer when movement patterns differ (general) | Specificity of motor learning (general) | N/A | General motor learning literature | Prevents the correlation from becoming too high because trampoline requires event-specific aerial/elastic mechanics and progression through flips/twists and safe landing technique. | Open source |
| [97] | Bouldering-to-trampoline transfer heuristic | Internal sports-skill transfer heuristic (no direct empirical study used) | N/A | N/A | Estimated carry-over from bouldering to trampoline using shared technique-agnostic substrates: body tension/bracing, proprioception, spatial awareness, balance in awkward positions, and learning to control force and body shape under fatigue. Discounted sport-specific differences (holds/grip sequencing vs trampoline bounce timing, landing mechanics) and excluded physique-proportion effects as requested. | Open source |
| [98] | Proprioception, balance, and aerial/body awareness transfer | Authors n/a | N/A | N/A | Lead climbing strongly trains body awareness and balance while moving complex positions; this is foundational for trampoline takeoff/flight-body control and landing. | Open source |
| [99] | Strength-to-weight and elastic/force control are partly related | Authors n/a | N/A | N/A | Climbing requires high relative strength and sustained tension; that can transfer to trampoline’s ability to control body shape and generate consistent takeoff force, though not its true elastic kinetics. | Open source |
| [100] | Specificity gap: trampoline requires vertical elastic power, flight timing, and repetitive tumbling entries | Authors n/a | N/A | N/A | Trampoline performance depends heavily on bounce characteristics, flight-phase timing, and learning rotation/landing patterns that lead climbing doesn’t train directly. | Open source |
| [101] | Climber heterogeneity (power/dynamic vs route-endurance) affects transfer strength | Authors n/a | N/A | N/A | Some lead climbers are more explosive/dynamic (higher transfer potential), while others are more endurance/technical (lower transfer), widening uncertainty. | Open source |
| [102] | Elastic vertical power + whole-body tension transfer | (General sports-science priors) | 2026 | N/A | Speed climbing strongly trains rapid force production with tight whole-body control; trampoline also needs explosive elastic takeoff and precise body shaping in flight. | Open source |
| [103] | Body awareness/coordination during repeated high-effort attempts | (General sports-science priors) | 2026 | N/A | Climbing speed is built on repeatability under fatigue; trampoline skills require repeatedly executing flight-phase control drills with consistent technique. | Open source |
| [104] | Technique mismatch: hold-based upward acceleration vs trampoline bounce mechanics | (General sports-science priors) | 2026 | N/A | Trampoline depends on learning board/spring timing, bounce rhythm, and specific aerial layouts/landings, which aren’t directly trained by climbing speed. | Open source |
| [105] | Without proportion-based effects, transfer is moderated | (General sports-science priors) | 2026 | N/A | Real-world trampoline success is influenced by athlete-specific traits (e.g., strength-to-weight and some body mechanics). Since these are excluded, the carry-over reflects mostly skill/coordination transfer and stays midrange. | Open source |
| [106] | Body control, balance, and motor learning transfer | General sports-skill transfer knowledge | n/a | Sports science domain knowledge | Cricket all-rounders develop whole-body coordination, balance, and the ability to learn/adjust complex movements under pressure, which can help initial trampoline body positioning and landing control. | Open source |
| [107] | Explosive bursts and repeated efforts transfer weakly | General sports-skill transfer knowledge | n/a | Sports science domain knowledge | All-rounders perform repeated high-intensity actions (bat swings, bowling, fielding bursts). Trampoline requires repeated takeoffs and flight-phase control, so this supports a small positive relationship. | Open source |
| [108] | Trampoline is highly technique- and apparatus-specific | General sports-skill transfer knowledge | n/a | Sports science domain knowledge | High-level trampoline depends on very specific elastic rebound timing, flight-phase geometry, and landing mechanics on a trampoline bed—skills not directly trained in cricket. | Open source |
| [109] | Constraint: exclude physique/elasticism effects | General sports-skill transfer knowledge | n/a | Sports science domain knowledge | Trampoline performance is strongly influenced by elastic/rebound characteristics and strength-to-weight factors. Since the estimate must ignore body-proportional/physical advantages, predictive correlation is reduced toward low values. | Open source |
| [110] | Skill-overlap reasoning between cricket batter mechanics and trampoline body-control demands | Assumed from sports-skill overlap heuristics (no single study cited) | 2026 | Internal sports science synthesis | Used a modest positive correlation: cricket batting indicates general coordination, timing, and stable lower-body control; these can help with trampoline takeoff/body awareness and learning aerial mechanics. Trampoline performance is dominated by event-specific elastic power, airborne body-position control, timing across bounces, and landing/spotting technique, which cricket batting does not strongly train. | Open source |
| [111] | Low direct transfer when primary learned mechanics differ strongly | Motor-pattern mismatch (throwing vs aerial flight control) | N/A | Sports science knowledge (no single citation) | Cricket bowling is an overarm projectile-delivery motor pattern; trampoline success is dominated by elastic takeoff/landing, aerial body control, and flight-phase repetition—different core techniques. | Open source |
| [112] | Coordination literacy and repeatability transfer modestly | Shared qualities: coordination and repeatable technical execution | N/A | Sports science knowledge (no single citation) | A skilled bowler often has good whole-body coordination, timing, and the habit of repeating a precise technical motion under pressure, which can help learning trampoline skills faster. | Open source |
| [113] | Technical learning rate helps, but content specificity dominates | Aerial/body control training exists but is sport-specific | N/A | Sports science knowledge (no single citation) | Prior elite sport performance can improve adaptation/learning rate, but trampoline still requires new specific skills (jump timing, body alignment, safe landing mechanics). | Open source |
| [114] | No strong shared biomechanical chain caps correlation | Technique-based transfer limits ceiling | N/A | Sports science knowledge (no single citation) | There is little shared kinetic chain between bowling’s delivery/release and trampoline’s elastic rebound and aerial alignment, limiting the correlation. | Open source |
| [115] | Different athletic backgrounds among bowlers | High inter-individual variability | N/A | Methodological heuristic (no single citation) | Some bowlers may have prior tumbling/dryland jumping exposure; others don’t, broadening uncertainty and increasing std dev. | Open source |
| [116] | Transfer priors: dynamic balance and reactive body control | — | — | General sports science knowledge | Wicketkeeping builds dynamic balance, rapid whole-body coordination, and the ability to recover from low/unstable positions—useful for trampoline where you must control body position through repeated landings and flight. | — |
| [117] | Aerial/elastic power mismatch | — | — | General coaching/training principles | Trampoline success depends heavily on elastic vertical power, technique of rebounding, timing of flight/rotation, and apparatus-specific skill. Wicketkeeping doesn’t train these vertical rebound mechanics, limiting carryover. | — |
| [118] | Shared perceptual timing and motor sequencing | — | — | General motor learning principles | Both roles require precise timing and repeated execution under pressure; this provides some positive correlation via general motor learning and coordination. | — |
| [119] | MTB cross-country → trampoline transfer heuristic (general aerial/body control + repeated high-effort coordination vs missing trampoline-specific elastic rebound/entry-takeoff/spotting) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Set a moderate positive correlation because MTB builds balance/proprioception and whole-body control (helpful for learning aerial body awareness and staying coordinated through repeated high-force efforts). Reduced because trampoline success depends strongly on sport-specific elastic rebound timing, takeoff/landing mechanics, spotting control, and repeated flight-phase technique not developed in cycling. | Open source |
| [120] | Cycling road climber → Gymnastics trampoline transfer heuristic | No direct empirical meta-analysis used; Bayesian heuristic from overlap in elastic/repeated high-force body control and strength-to-weight adaptation between cycling climbers and trampoline. | 2026 | Internal sports science synthesis | Set a modest positive correlation: endurance power-to-weight fitness, lower-body strength endurance, movement discipline, and coordination can transfer. Reduced because trampoline success is dominated by event-specific elastic vertical takeoff, precise flight timing/body alignment, and landing/absorption mechanics not trained in cycling climbing. | — |
| [121] | Cross-sport transfer heuristics (cycling sprinter → trampoline) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Cycling sprinter success suggests strong lower-body power, fast force production, and ability to sustain repeated high-intensity efforts—useful for trampoline’s vertical jumps and frequent practice reps. However cycling does not strongly train elastic takeoff mechanics and aerial rotational timing specific to trampoline. | — |
| [122] | Motor learning principle: near transfer via power/impulse, far transfer via aerial technique | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Some 'near' transfer exists for explosive leg power and timing under effort, but trampoline’s crucial skills (takeoff into flight, body awareness/orientation, landing control) are far-transfer and technique-specific. | — |
| [123] | Technique specificity in trampoline | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Trampoline scoring is dominated by flight-phase body control, spatial awareness, rebound/takeoff stiffness management, and consistent landing positions—skills learned primarily within gymnastics/trampoline. | — |
| [124] | Transfer heuristic (endurance cycling → vertical power & body control learning) | Authors n/a | N/A | N/A | Set a small positive carry-over because cycling can contribute to general lower-body strength, balance, coordination, and training discipline, which may help someone learn trampoline faster. | — |
| [125] | Bayesian adjustment for limited technique overlap | Authors n/a | N/A | N/A | Reduced the correlation since trampoline success depends heavily on event-specific elastic takeoff timing, aerial rotational control, landing mechanics, and repeated flight-phase precision—techniques not trained in road time-trial cycling. | — |
| [126] | Cross-sport transfer of motor learning foundations | General motor skill transfer: body control/proprioception (general) | N/A | N/A | Cycling endurance/track can support strong proprioception and body control under speed and fatigue, which can help trampoline athletes learn spatial orientation and landings faster. | Open source |
| [127] | Specificity of performance determinants across sports | Determinant specificity limits correlation (general) | N/A | N/A | Trampoline success is dominated by vertical elastic power, timing of flight phases, and repeated aerial mechanics. These determinants differ from cycling endurance’s sustained power/pace, limiting carry-over. | Open source |
| [128] | Work capacity supports technical repetition | Practice tolerance and repetition quality (general) | N/A | N/A | Endurance background can improve tolerance for high-volume technical practice and maintaining technique, boosting learning rate and consistency in trampoline routines. | Open source |
| [129] | Rhythm and timing transfer across cyclic/effort sports | Elasticity/rhythm transfer as a secondary trait (general) | N/A | N/A | Track cycling’s pacing/rhythm control can slightly help trampoline timing, although it doesn’t replace flight-phase mechanics. | Open source |
| [130] | Source synthesized from general transfer principles; no single direct study for this exact pairing | Internal sports-science reasoning (transfer of explosive lower-body power and body control to trampoline flight; limited overlap in event-specific technique) | N/A | N/A | Used to estimate carry-over from track sprint cycling to trampoline: positive due to overlap in explosive vertical power and neuromuscular efficiency, plus training of high-intensity repeated efforts. Discounted because trampoline success depends heavily on event-specific flight timing, aerial rotation/tumbling technique, landing/absorption mechanics, and bouncing-skill coordination not developed by velodrome sprint cycling. | Open source |
| [131] | Epee success reflects balance, precise footwork timing, whole-body coordination, and spatial awareness | Fencing performance determinants (general) | N/A | General sports science / fencing coaching literature | Used to justify positive transfer via body control, timing, coordination, and spatial awareness. | Open source |
| [132] | Trampoline success depends on elastic rebound timing, aerial body control, and repeated flight-phase coordination | Trampoline performance determinants (general) | N/A | General gymnastics/trampoline sports science/coaching literature | Shows trampoline performance hinges on highly event-specific flight timing, aerial mechanics, and elastic rebound technique not trained in epee. | Open source |
| [133] | Transfer increases with shared perceptual-motor components but decreases when biomechanics and tool constraints differ | Skill transfer / near-vs-far transfer principles (general) | N/A | General motor learning / sport psychology research | Supports a moderate (not high) correlation: shared coordination/timing, but very different aerial/elastic biomechanics. | Open source |
| [134] | Transfer of training (motor skill transfer; conceptual) | Transfer of training (general perceptual-motor control) | n.d. | General sports science literature (no single source) | Supports moderate positive carryover because foil trains balance, spatial awareness, coordinated explosive actions, and body control under pressure—skills that help learning trampoline aerial skills. | Open source |
| [135] | Perceptual–motor overlap in acrobatic/precision movement | Perceptual-motor overlap (timing, aerial body control) | n.d. | General perceptual-motor / sport psychology synthesis (no single source) | Used to justify that precise timing, whole-body coordination, and learning to correct errors quickly should transfer into trampoline flight-phase control. | Open source |
| [136] | Task specificity limits cross-event transfer | Task specificity (gymnastics aerial/landing mechanics) | n.d. | General motor learning principles (no single source) | Keeps correlation from being too high because trampoline depends on highly specific takeoff/propulsion, flight-body positioning, elastic rebound timing, and landing mechanics not trained in foil. | Open source |
| [137] | Estimated carry-over from fencing sabre to trampoline gymnastics (skill/technique only) | Unnamed (model-based synthesis) | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Used to estimate a moderate-positive correlation from shared transferable components: explosive takeoff/jumping intent, whole-body coordination, body awareness in space, and repeated high-tension motor control. Heavily discounted for trampoline-specific determinants such as landing mechanics, precise aerial timing, rotation management, apparatus handling rules, and gymnastics-specific kinesthetic training not present in fencing. | Open source |
| [138] | Transfer of learning: general body control and dynamic balance can generalize across acrobatic sports | Transfer of learning (generalized) | — | — | Used to justify a modest positive correlation because both settings reward readiness, reaction-to-perturbations, and body control/coordination under demanding conditions. | Open source |
| [139] | Field hockey goalkeeper: rapid reactive movement, balance, and explosive lower-body actions | Field hockey goalkeeper demands (generalized) | — | — | Used to identify transferable components like dynamic balance, explosive reactions, and coordination in unpredictable moments. | Open source |
| [140] | Trampoline: elastic vertical takeoff/landing, aerial timing, and flight-phase control | Trampoline gymnastics demands (generalized) | — | — | Used to reduce expected correlation because trampoline success depends heavily on highly specific technique (timing to the bed, aerial rotation discipline, and landing control) not trained in hockey goalkeeping. | Open source |
| [141] | Field hockey outfield → trampoline: general explosive/landing control transfer with mismatch in flip/rotation technique | Structured cross-sport transfer reasoning (not a single study) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Estimated moderate carry-over from shared athletic components hockey outfield can develop: lower-limb power, dynamic balance, proprioception, and ability to control the body through repeated high-intensity actions and changes of direction. Reduced because trampoline performance depends heavily on event-specific aerial mechanics: takeoff/board interaction, timing of rotations, rigid body shape control through flight, and rebound dynamics that hockey outfield doesn’t teach. | Open source |
| [142] | Invasion stick sport to elastic rebound aerial apparatus | General transfer-principle priors (sport-specific aerial skill) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Used a conservative moderate prior: both involve explosiveness and body control, but trampoline is highly technique- and timing-specific (elastic recoil and flight-phase control), limiting correlation. | Open source |
| [143] | Far-transfer across sports usually produces small-to-modest correlations driven mainly by general motor learning, coordination, and self-regulation | General sports skill transfer / far transfer synthesis | ~2010s-2020s | Peer-reviewed sports science (general synthesis) | Anchors an expectation that golf won’t directly map onto trampoline flight mechanics, keeping the correlation well below close-similar sports. | Open source |
| [144] | Generic improvements in body awareness, coordination, and learning complex techniques can transfer across very different athletic tasks | Motor learning & body control / proprioception research (general) | ~2000s-2020s | Motor learning & exercise science (general synthesis) | Justifies a moderate (but still modest) positive correlation because trampoline demands strong body control and repeated technical execution—skills that can be facilitated by a background in disciplined technical practice like golf. | Open source |
| [145] | Sports that require precise timing and repeated execution can help acquisition of aerial coordination, even if the specific movement pattern differs | Elastic movement / timing in acrobatic tasks (general) | ~2000s-2020s | Biomechanics/motor control research (general) | Provides a reason for being above near-zero: trampoline relies heavily on controlling the timing of takeoff/rotation and maintaining technique across repeated flight phases, which is partly related to precision-timing skills from golf. | Open source |
| [146] | Motor learning and skill transfer within closely related sports (general) | Within-sport transfer and shared motor-skill determinants (general) | various | Sports science / motor learning literature (general) | Supports a high correlation because artistic and trampoline gymnastics share core determinants: aerial body control, balance recovery, elasticity/force application habits, and fast learning of complex aerial skills. | Open source |
| [147] | Shared biomechanics of aerial rotation and landing in gymnastics disciplines | Gymnastics biomechanics/coordination overlap (general) | various | Biomechanics / sport technique literature (general) | Used to justify that both disciplines demand precise in-air posture, rotational timing, and controlled landings, creating strong carryover of technique components. | Open source |
| [148] | Trampoline determinants are event-specific (bounce, timing on flight, bed contact mechanics) | Discipline-specific mismatch: apparatus + bounce mechanics + scoring focus | various | Coaching/performance practice knowledge | Keeps correlation below 1.0 because trampoline relies on trampolining-specific mechanics (bed contact timing, height control from bounce cycles) and different apparatus routines, which artistic does not train directly. | Open source |
| [149] | Gymnastics-to-gymnastics transfer via common neuromuscular prerequisites | Within-gymnastics transferable motor skills (general) | N/A | Internal reasoning | High baseline because rhythmic and trampoline share core acrobatic prerequisites: aerial awareness, body control, coordination, and landing/stabilization learning habits. | Open source |
| [150] | Proprioception and flight-phase control overlap | Aerial body control and kinesthetic awareness (general) | N/A | Internal reasoning | Adjusted upward since trampoline requires repeated flight-phase body positioning and landing mechanics that are strongly supported by rhythmic’s whole-body control and mid-air/landing skill. | Open source |
| [151] | Timing and force-generation specifics differ across rhythmic vs trampoline | Discipline specificity: elastic takeoff mechanics and bungee/bed-specific timing (limitation) | N/A | Internal reasoning | Adjusted downward because trampoline scoring depends heavily on bounce height/elastic timing, takeoff–rebound sequencing, and bed interaction—features not trained to the same extent in rhythmic. | Open source |
| [152] | Variance from multi-discipline tumbling/acro backgrounds | Athlete background variance | N/A | Internal reasoning | Kept std dev fairly high because transfer is much larger for rhythmic athletes who also do tumbling/trampoline/cross-acro outside of rhythmic. | Open source |
| [153] | Skill-overlap heuristic: Handball (backcourt) → Gymnastics (trampoline) | Internal sports-science rationale (Bayesian skill-overlap heuristic) | N/A | N/A | Estimated carry-over from shared neuromotor skills (jumping power, mid-air/landing coordination, body awareness, timing of explosive movements, and repeated high-intensity aerial efforts) while discounting trampoline-specific technique (elastic-bed timing, bounce/repulse mechanics, twist control, takeoff entry shapes, and apparatus-specific skill progressions). | Open source |
| [154] | Coordination/balance transfer into acrobatic skills | General sports transfer principles (coordination, balance, force control) | N/A | Synthesis | Sets a modest prior: goalkeeper success implies strong reactive balance and body control that can help with aerial control, but trampoline requires unique takeoff/landing mechanics. | Open source |
| [155] | Handball goalkeeper: reactive balance and controlled landings | Handball goalkeeper demands (reactive balance, deceleration/landing mechanics, whole-body coordination) | N/A | Synthesis | Supports upward adjustment because goalkeepers repeatedly stop, change direction, and absorb force with good alignment—helpful for learning safe trampoline landings and mid-air body awareness. | Open source |
| [156] | Trampoline: elastic power and repeated flight control | Trampoline demands (elastic vertical takeoff, flight timing, strict aerial alignment) | N/A | Synthesis | Limits correlation because trampoline depends on elastic recoil timing, specific aerial positioning, and repeated flight-phase control that goalkeeper training doesn’t directly teach. | Open source |
| [157] | Skill-carryover mapping: handball pivot → gymnastics (trampoline) | {Bayesian estimate based on transferable balance/body-control and elastic timing from handball pivot to trampoline; discounting trampoline-specific technique} | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Used to estimate carry-over from pivot’s tight-space balance, whole-body coordination under pressure, and ability to control body position, to trampoline’s requirements for flight-phase body awareness and repeated control. Main limiter is trampoline’s event-specific takeoff/landing mechanics, height/elastic rebound management, and routine difficulty progression. | Open source |
| [158] | Skill-overlap heuristic: handball wing → trampoline | (Model estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning | Bayesian baseline using overlap in transferable athletic skills: repeated explosive jumps, elastic takeoff/landing mechanics, aerial body control from match jump/finishing, and general coordination under fatigue. Discounted trampoline-specific determinants (bed technique/rebound timing, compulsory takeoff positions, aerial rotation cues and spotting, landings specific to trampoline). | Open source |
| [159] | Shared requirements for aerial control and elastic power increase transfer | General inter-sport transfer principles | N/A | Sports science knowledge synthesis | Chose a moderate baseline because both activities reward dynamic balance, body control in motion, and the ability to produce/absorb force quickly. | Open source |
| [160] | Defensive skating skill supports aerial/body control foundations | Ice hockey defenseman → trampoline overlap (coaching/domain reasoning) | N/A | Coaching/sports science domain knowledge | Adjusted upward: defensemen repeatedly execute explosive acceleration, deceleration, and contact bracing with good proprioception—useful for learning elastic takeoff, landing, and flight-phase alignment. | Open source |
| [161] | Trampoline success depends heavily on discipline-specific takeoff/flight/landing mechanics | Gymnastics technique specificity: trampoline elements | N/A | Sports science knowledge synthesis | Reduced correlation because trampoline requires highly specific timing of takeoff into the bed, rebound control, rotation/arch shapes, and landing mechanics—not taught by hockey. | Open source |
| [162] | Variability in adaptability to aerial skills | Between-athlete variability | N/A | Coaching/sports science knowledge synthesis | Kept std dev fairly large: some defensemen transfer well due to superior kinesthetic awareness/air-awareness, while others struggle with fear control, aerial orientation, or rebound timing. | Open source |
| [163] | Ice hockey forward → trampoline: transfer of elastic power + mid-air body control foundation | (Expert judgment; Bayesian prior on shared elastic aerial control) | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Start with a moderately positive prior because hockey forwards build explosive leg drive, dynamic balance, and rapid whole-body coordination while moving—traits that support learning trampoline takeoff/flight/landing control. | Open source |
| [164] | Trampoline specificity: flight timing, bounces, and apparatus technique | (Expert judgment; technique specificity discount) | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Discount because trampoline success depends heavily on apparatus-specific technique: using the bed’s elasticity for multiple controlled bounces, timing rotations to rebound cycles, and precise landing mechanics. | Open source |
| [165] | Body control, balance recovery, and explosive leg mechanics transfer (goalie ↔ trampoline) | N/A | N/A | Internal sports science reasoning (no single primary paper cited) | Increases expected carry-over because goalkeepers repeatedly train dynamic balance, rapid re-centering after being off-angle, and explosive lower-body actions—useful for trampoline flight takeoff, body alignment, and landing preparation. | Open source |
| [166] | Timing, coordination under pressure | N/A | N/A | Internal synthesis | Adds because both activities punish small timing errors and require coordinated execution of complex movements in high-speed, high-consequence situations. | Open source |
| [167] | Apparatus/event-specific technique mismatch (catch/deflect/stance vs bounce/flight mechanics) | N/A | N/A | Internal synthesis | Reduces correlation: trampoline success depends heavily on event-specific rebound mechanics (bed interaction), aerial rotation timing, and precise landing mechanics that are not trained in goalie play. | Open source |
| [168] | High variance from prior tumbling/acrobatics background | N/A | N/A | Internal synthesis | Keeps std dev high since some goalkeepers may have gymnastics/tumbling/dance experience that strongly boosts trampoline adaptation, while others have minimal aerial practice and progress slowly. | Open source |
| [169] | Combat-sport to aerial/body-control disciplines via dynamic balance and coordination transfer | General sports-science reasoning (no single study claimed) | — | — | Used to justify a moderately positive baseline: judo success typically reflects strong body control, dynamic balance recovery, coordination of explosive engagement, and safe falling/landing skills—helpful for trampoline takeoff/flight/body awareness. | Open source |
| [170] | Trampoline is highly technical and element-specific; judo does not train exact flight-phase timing/rotation mechanics | General knowledge: apparatus/element specificity in gymnastics limits prediction | — | — | Used to keep the correlation from becoming too high and to increase uncertainty: trampoline requires specific techniques for springboard/takeoff timing, controlling rotation in flight, and landing with very particular form—skills that are not directly trained by judo. | Open source |
| [171] | Skill overlap estimate: lacrosse attacker → trampoline | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Estimated transfer via shared movement ingredients: explosive lower-body power, coordination at high tempo, mid-air/body control, and learning to time flight and landings under pressure. | — |
| [172] | Bayesian adjustment for apparatus-specific technique mismatch | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Reduced because trampoline proficiency depends on trampoline-specific mechanics (takeoff into the bed, rebound timing, vertical bounce control, aerial rotation timing, landing stability on the mat) and not much of this is directly trained in lacrosse attacker play. | — |
| [173] | Lacrosse defender -> trampoline transfer prior | General cross-sport transfer prior (Bayesian) | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Set a modest positive prior because lacrosse defense can indicate good reactive coordination, body control under pressure, and willingness to manage impact/contact—useful for jumping/aerial control—while trampoline technique is quite specific. | Open source |
| [174] | What lacrosse defender performance reflects (transferable components) | Lacrosse defender skill components | 2026 | Coaching/technical consensus (general) | Used to identify likely transferable pieces: balance, spatial awareness, landing/impact tolerance, and maintaining movement quality when fatigued and challenged by contact. | Open source |
| [175] | Trampoline technical requirements | Trampoline success determinants | 2026 | Coaching/technical consensus (general) | Mapped dominant constraints for trampoline: elastic rebound timing, vertical takeoff control, aerial body layout/rotation timing, and board/mat contact mechanics that are not trained directly in lacrosse. | Open source |
| [176] | Lacrosse goalkeeper → gymnastics trampoline transfer estimate | Internal sports-science reasoning (no external citations provided) | N/A | N/A | Estimated moderate positive correlation based on shared general motor learning advantages (quick reactive coordination, spatial/body control, confidence under fast-changing conditions) and partial overlap in explosive leg drive and aerial awareness. Discounted because trampoline requires highly specific elastic takeoff/landing timing, flight-phase positioning, and gymnastics apparatus technique not trained by lacrosse goalie save mechanics. | Open source |
| [177] | Cross-sport skill carry-over estimate: lacrosse midfielder → trampoline gymnastics | Internal sports-science reasoning (no direct single-study source used) | N/A | N/A | Estimated from overlap in general athletic coordination, dynamic balance, explosive leg power, and body-in-air awareness that lacrosse midfielders build via repeated running/transitions and contact-conditioned movement. Discounted because trampoline success is highly event-specific: timing for bounces, takeoff/landing positioning, amplitude control, and aerial rotation technique that lacrosse does not directly teach. | Open source |
| [178] | Bayesian transfer estimate: padel reactive footwork/coordination → trampoline aerial control and elastic timing; limited overlap in trampoline-specific takeoff/landing technique and routine construction | N/A | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | No direct empirical correlation for Padel→Gymnastics (Trampoline). Used low-to-moderate prior based on transferable general coordination, timing, balance recovery, and learning under fast feedback; discounted event-specific skills (bounces, takeoff mechanics, flight-phase body positions, landing technique) that trampoline uniquely trains. | Open source |
| [179] | Transfer estimate: pickleball → trampoline (elastic aerial power & flight-phase coordination). | Internal sports-science reasoning / domain heuristics (no direct empirical dataset provided). | N/A | N/A | Estimated small-to-moderate carry-over from shared general coordination, balance recovery, quick motor timing, and learning/adjusting under dynamic feedback; reduced because trampoline success is highly event-specific (takeoff/landing technique on springs, aerial spatial awareness, timing, and repeated bounce control) that pickleball does not directly train. | Open source |
| [180] | Transfer reasoning (rowing lightweight → trampoline): whole-body coordination/elastic power habits vs limited overlap in trampoline technique and flight-phase dynamics | Internal synthesis: lightweight rowing → trampoline gymnastics | 2026 | Internal synthesis | Used overlap in whole-body coordination, leverage-based force transmission, and the training habit of repeating technically demanding movement under fatigue. Down-weighted because trampoline success is dominated by sport-specific takeoff/landing timing, bounce control, air awareness, and very high exposure to repeated flight-phase mechanics that rowing does not directly train. | — |
| [181] | General neuromuscular control and elastic/repeated-power ability transfer across acrobatic sports | Non-specified (general power + body control) | n/a | Sports science consensus | Supports a moderate positive correlation because both trampoline and rowing require coordinated whole-body force production and strong body control under fatigue/repetition. | Open source |
| [182] | Trampoline is highly elastic/impact-and-flight specific, limiting transfer | Non-specified (elastic energy mismatch) | n/a | Biomechanics/motor learning consensus | Caps the correlation because rowing doesn’t train the repeated takeoff/landing timing, elastic recoil management, or aerial body awareness central to trampoline. | Open source |
| [183] | Ability to repeat high-effort training and keep mechanics improves learning of complex skills | Non-specified (repetition and technique learning habit) | n/a | Sports science consensus | Adds a bit because rowers are accustomed to high-volume, technique-focused training—useful for learning new trampoline skills safely and consistently. | Open source |
| [184] | Transfer of elastic power and body control from repeated athletic bursts | Authors n/a | n/a | Sports science transfer synthesis (no single canonical citation) | Rugby halfback/midfield success includes quick, repeated explosive bursts and strong body control under contact/instability. Trampoline needs elastic vertical power, timing, and control of body position in the air. | — |
| [185] | Event-specific technique mismatch (routines, takeoff/landing patterns) | Authors n/a | n/a | Coaching-position-demand synthesis (no single canonical citation) | Trampoline scoring relies on highly specific takeoff mechanics, airborne body shapes, rotation/rep timing (if included), and landing absorption on a bed—technique not directly trained by rugby distribution/collision roles. | — |
| [186] | Different landing absorption and safety mechanics | Authors n/a | n/a | Motor learning/biomechanics mismatch synthesis (no single canonical citation) | Rugby landings involve cutting/contact balance rather than repeated elastic-bed takeoffs with specific rebound timing and precise landing synchronization, which limits direct transfer. | — |
| [187] | Conversion variance is substantial because trampoline learning rate varies | Authors n/a | n/a | Bayesian conversion variance prior (no single canonical citation) | How quickly an athlete learns trampoline’s flight-phase control and elastic timing varies widely. This keeps the mean correlation moderate with a relatively large spread. | — |
| [188] | Rugby loose forward → Gymnastics trampoline overlap assessment | N/A (model-based estimation) | 2026 | Internal sports science reasoning (no single external source used) | Estimated carry-over by crediting shared athletic movement skills from rugby loose-forward success: dynamic whole-body coordination, explosive leg power, the ability to execute high-force actions repeatedly, and staying controlled while fatigued/contact-exposed (which supports learning demanding aerial skills). Discounted trampoline-specific dominance factors: apparatus-specific takeoff/landing timing, elastic interaction and rebound timing, precise aerial body alignment, rotation timing/spotting, and trampoline technique sequences (e.g., thrust phase, line control, and controlled flight execution) that are not trained in rugby. | Open source |
| [189] | Explosive lower-body power transfer | — | N/A | Sports science synthesis | Rugby outside backs often develop strong leg drive and ability to generate force quickly, which can help trampoline’s elastic takeoff and landing mechanics. | Open source |
| [190] | Dynamic balance and body control under chaos | — | N/A | Sports science synthesis | Evasion and broken-play running train recovery of balance and whole-body control while moving unpredictably, supporting trampoline body awareness and landing stability. | Open source |
| [191] | Air/rotation learning accelerates with athletic background | — | N/A | Sports science synthesis | Athletic movers often learn aerial awareness faster because they already have coordination and can adapt body positions mid-movement. | Open source |
| [192] | Major technique mismatch (trampoline-specific timing and shapes) | — | N/A | Sports science synthesis | Trampoline success depends heavily on trampoline-specific timing, bounce control, takeoff/flight posture, and repeatable routines, which rugby does not practice directly. | Open source |
| [193] | Repetition type mismatch (elastic rebound vs contact running) | — | N/A | Sports science synthesis | Rugby’s repetitive running/contact efforts don’t build the same elastic-cycle skill (sustaining height through controlled bounce phases) used in trampoline. | Open source |
| [194] | Skill-transfer plausibility framework (contact/force + body control → elastic vertical aerial control) | N/A (synthesis) | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Estimated carry-over from rugby union tight-five success (scrum/contact force production, body control under physical stress, repeated high-force efforts, training discipline) to trampoline success (elastic vertical jump power, aerial body awareness, and repeated flight-phase control), discounting body-proportion/trait advantages like naturally favorable limb geometry. | Open source |
| [195] | Explosive leg power + safe high-force landings transfer | Reasoned synthesis (no single dataset assumed) | 2026 | Sports science reasoning | Alpine speed events train lower-body power and, crucially, landing/absorption and re-centering under high forces—relevant to trampoline takeoff mechanics and safe, repeatable flight-to-landing control. | Open source |
| [196] | Body awareness/coordination under perturbations | Reasoned synthesis (no single dataset assumed) | 2026 | Biomechanics reasoning | Downhill skiing requires precise whole-body coordination while balance is constantly perturbed, which can translate into better aerial body awareness and mid-flight control learning. | Open source |
| [197] | Technique mismatch: trampoline elastic bed + apparatus-specific takeoff shapes | Reasoned synthesis (no single dataset assumed) | 2026 | Transfer-learning reasoning | Trampoline success depends on very specific rebound timing, takeoff/rotation timing, and apparatus-specific control; alpine skiing’s edge/turning technique doesn’t directly train these elastic-bed constraints. | Open source |
| [198] | Neuromotor control and body awareness transfer from high-skill balance/force-redirection sports to aerial gymnastics | Dynamic balance and aerial/body awareness transfer | N/A | General sports science / motor control principles | Supports a moderate positive correlation: alpine slalom/GS develops precise dynamic balance and rapid body-angle control, which are valuable for trampoline takeoff/flight/landing mechanics. | Open source |
| [199] | Training that improves force absorption/reorientation supports safer, more repeatable landing and takeoff | Force absorption and elastic/rebound mechanics | N/A | General biomechanics and conditioning principles | Used to increase correlation: skiing repeatedly trains absorbing and redirecting forces, aligning with trampoline’s need to manage elastic loading and controlled landings. | Open source |
| [200] | Aerial timing and apparatus-specific technique are highly sport-specific | Trampoline-specific flight timing and technique specificity | N/A | Gymnastics coaching principles | Reduced the correlation because trampoline performance depends heavily on takeoff timing, flight-phase shaping, and landing control on a specific elastic surface—not directly trained by edge-turning skiing. | Open source |
| [201] | Sports transfer-of-training heuristic (no specific single study cited) | Authors n/a | N/A | General sports science / motor learning knowledge | Estimated from shared motor attributes between endurance cross-country skiing and trampoline: balance, whole-body coordination, leg/trunk control, and repeated training adaptability. Adjusted downward because skiing is not typically trampoline-like in takeoff/landing mechanics, elastic bounce timing, aerial awareness, and apparatus-specific rotational control. Variance is high due to early specialization effects in gymnastics. | Open source |
| [202] | Cross-sport skill transfer heuristic (air awareness + landing control -> trampoline flight-phase control) | Sports science reasoning (transfer/overlap heuristic) | 2026 | Internal model | Estimated correlation by mapping strong snowboard-transferable components to trampoline: aerial/spatial awareness, timing in takeoff/landing, dynamic balance after leaving the surface, and repeated practice of safe landings. Discounted snowboarding-specific board/edge mechanics and noted trampoline’s unique demands (vertical rebound, apparatus setup, consistent takeoff timing, and repeated flight-phase body shaping). | — |
| [203] | Soccer central defender transferable skills: aerial duels, landing mechanics, and body control under contact | Unknown (expert synthesis) | 2026 | Internal reasoning / domain expert synthesis | Justifies a meaningful carry-over via general aerial awareness, repeated jumping, and learning to control body position during contested impacts. | Open source |
| [204] | Trampoline determinants: elastic power, flight-phase body awareness, timing, and repeated takeoff/landing control | Unknown (expert synthesis) | 2026 | Internal reasoning / domain expert synthesis | Used to set the key requirements that overlap only partially with soccer (flight control overlaps; apparatus-specific technique differs). | Open source |
| [205] | Transfer of learning depends on shared movement patterns; more overlap → higher correlation but not near-perfect | Unknown (expert synthesis) | 2026 | Internal reasoning / domain expert synthesis | Keeps correlation moderate rather than very high because trampoline involves very specific rebound/technique beyond general athleticism. | Open source |
| [206] | Generated estimate from sports-skill overlap heuristics (no single empirical study used) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Transfer reasoning from soccer central midfielder to gymnastics trampoline. Included overlap in general athletic coordination, balance, timing, and repeated high-intensity movements under pressure. Reduced because trampoline requires very discipline-specific flight-phase control, takeoff/landing technique into the bed, bounce/elastic power regulation, aerial body positions, and progressive acrobatic technique not trained in soccer. | — |
| [207] | Improved balance, coordination, and mid-air body control can transfer across acrobatic sports | General motor coordination & body awareness transfer (general) | N/A | General motor learning/sports science consensus | Set a modest baseline because soccer goalkeepers often develop strong body control, reaction skills, and balance that help with learning trampoline. | Open source |
| [208] | Trampoline performance is dominated by event-specific takeoff/air control and landing mechanics | Trampoline technique specificity (general) | N/A | General gymnastics coaching/biomechanics knowledge | Kept the correlation low since trampoline’s key learned elements (bounciness management, timing, aerial rotation, landing stability) are not trained in goalkeeping. | Open source |
| [209] | Elastic vertical power and bounce management vary a lot between athletes | Elasticity and repeated flight control variability (general) | N/A | General gymnastics conditioning/biomechanics knowledge | Increased std dev because some athletes adapt quickly to trampoline’s bounce/flight demands, while others need substantial event-specific development. | Open source |
| [210] | Goalkeeping feedback/constraints differ from judged acrobatic execution | Different feedback signals and scoring emphasis (general) | N/A | General sport context understanding | Prevented the correlation from being too high because the learning target in trampoline (aesthetic/execution criteria and flight-phase control) differs from shot-stopping demands. | Open source |
| [211] | Soccer striker to trampoline: moderate transfer via explosive vertical power and aerial/body control | General sports-transfer reasoning (no single study) | 2026 | Internal model | Assessed modest positive carry-over because striker performance often reflects explosive lower-body power, acceleration/impulse control, dynamic balance, and comfort performing under pressure—useful for trampoline’s vertical power and aerial/body awareness. Discounted because trampoline also requires specialized takeoff timing, rebounding technique, and precise flight-phase body positioning (layout/pike/tuck control) beyond soccer. | — |
| [212] | Transfer of aerial coordination and elastic-power skill | General motor learning and body-in-air coordination principles | 2026 | Internal model | Supported uplift from shared requirements for body awareness during rapid transitions (jumping/landing vs trampoline flight/rebound), but noted that elastic trampoline mechanics and repeated bounce timing are highly specific. | — |
| [213] | Skill-overlap estimate: soccer winger → gymnastics trampoline | N/A (inferred from sport/skill overlap) | 2026 | AI sports-science synthesis | Estimated moderate transfer from shared athletic ingredients: explosive leg power, repeated high-intensity efforts, elastic/takeoff exposure from sprinting, and whole-body coordination. Discounted because trampoline success is dominated by very specific trampoline mechanics (takeoff into the bed, controlling timing, rotations, and body shape during flight, rebound/elastic timing, landing with precision) which are not part of typical winger soccer training. | Open source |
| [214] | Softball catcher → trampoline estimated carry-over | Heuristic sports-transfer model (general body control + aerial coordination potential; limited technique overlap) | 2026 | Internal synthesis | Estimated from partial overlap in general coordination/body control and training discipline, but heavily discounted for trampoline-specific determinants (elastic takeoff timing, aerial body shaping, precise spotting/rotation control, landing mechanics) not developed by crouched pitch receiving/blocking. | — |
| [215] | Baseline prior: softball field-player → trampoline | Unknown (modeled estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports-science prior | Softball fielding overlaps mainly in general coordination, balance, and reaction to stimuli; trampoline is highly specific to elastic takeoff and flight/body control, so start modest. | — |
| [216] | Positive contributors: body control, athletic timing, landing awareness | Unknown (modeled estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports-science prior | Field players develop quick whole-body coordination, timing, and safe movement/landing habits during fielding plays, which can help early trampoline body awareness and skill acquisition. | — |
| [217] | Mismatch factor: trampoline-specific elastic mechanics and aerial rotation control | Unknown (modeled estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports-science prior | Trampoline success depends on event-specific mechanics (elastic recoil, consistent takeoff timing), mid-air control, and repeated flight-phase technique (somersault/twist timing, spotting, and controlled landings). These are not trained directly in softball fielding, limiting transfer. | — |
| [218] | Cross-sport skill transfer estimate (softball pitcher → trampoline) | Internal sports-skill transfer estimate (softball pitching → trampoline gymnastics) | 2026 | Internal model | Used to set a plausible moderate correlation based on transferable general motor learning: repeatable high-power arm/torso actions, coordination, and ability to execute demanding movements under pressure. Adjusted downward because pitching’s underhand throwing mechanics are not the same as trampoline’s event-specific skills: elastic spring mechanics, takeoff/landing timing, aerial body positioning, control during repeated flight phases, and precise spotting/landing mechanics. | Open source |
| [219] | General skill-transfer reasoning: squash repeated dynamic balance + elastic power/coordination under movement → trampoline flight-phase body awareness and landing control; discounted by trampoline-specific takeoff technique, timing into the bed/spring, and aerial skill progressions | Authors n/a | 2026 | Sports science knowledge (integrated heuristic; no single source cited) | Used to set a moderate positive correlation because both demand high-quality coordination, dynamic balance, and repeated control while the body is moving rapidly and transitioning states. Discounted because trampoline performance is dominated by event-specific mechanics: precise takeoff into the trampoline surface, timing, bounce rhythm, and aerial rotation/landing technique. | — |
| [220] | Skill-transfer priors for surfing → gymnastics (trampoline) | None (inference-based estimate) | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Estimated from overlap in transferable ingredients: dynamic balance and re-centering, aerial/body control concepts (surf pop-up → airborne recovery), timing/coordination, and the ability to maintain technique through repeated high-intensity efforts. Downweighted because trampoline mastery depends on highly specific takeoff/landing mechanics on a bed/spring system, vertical elasticity timing, and precise flight-phase body shape control that surfing does not train directly; also trampoline is less about unstable surface locomotion. | Open source |
| [221] | Moderate-skill transfer between sports with overlapping coordination/technique-learning demands | General skill-transfer synthesis | N/A | General sports science synthesis | Used to set a moderate-small prior: both swimming backstroke middle-distance and trampoline demand precise technique, body control, and staying coordinated under fatigue/loading. | Open source |
| [222] | Key drivers in trampoline vs backstroke mid-distance: timing, elastic power, air awareness vs rhythm/shoulder endurance/turns | Trampoline performance determinants (general coaching/biomechanics summaries) | N/A | General coaching & biomechanics summaries | Used qualitatively to cap the correlation: trampoline’s core determinants (elastic takeoff, flight-phase body control, aerial timing/landing mechanics) are not directly trained by backstroke, limiting carry-over. | Open source |
| [223] | How much carries over from sprint backstroke to trampoline | Transfer vs event-specific skills (reasoned estimate) | N/A | N/A | Trampoline requires very specific takeoff/flight/landing mechanics and air-body control not trained in backstroke; kept correlation moderate rather than high. | Open source |
| [224] | Explosive power + coordination + body control overlap | Shared athletic substrate: power, coordination, and high-tempo execution (reasoned estimate) | N/A | N/A | Sprint backstroke success reflects explosive starts, coordinated whole-body mechanics, and maintaining technique at high effort—supporting a stronger positive correlation than with many other gymnastics disciplines. | Open source |
| [225] | Body awareness and control during intense effort | Balance/kinesthetic awareness under fatigue (reasoned estimate) | N/A | N/A | Both sports punish breakdown in body alignment during high-intensity, repeated efforts; this increases variance explained somewhat across athletes. | Open source |
| [226] | Breaststroke (timing + repeatability under fatigue) → Trampoline transfer heuristic (technique-only) | Internal sports-science heuristic (coordination/technique discipline transfer) | 2026 | N/A | Starts with moderate baseline because both are precision technique sports requiring body control, timing/coordination, and repeating complex movements many times. Increases because swimmers may have strong kinesthetic awareness and learned form under fatigue, which helps trampoline learning of takeoff/air/body control. Penalizes because breaststroke’s water propulsion rhythm and simultaneous arm-leg pattern differ from trampoline’s vertical elastic jumping, aerial posture, and landing mechanics. | Open source |
| [227] | Motor-learning & body awareness contribution | Internal motor-learning/closed-skill stability assumption | 2026 | N/A | Assumes middle-distance success reflects good motor-learning habits and spatial/body-position sense, which can accelerate acquiring trampoline flight-phase control. Does not assume transfer of elastic stiffness/plyometric power. | Open source |
| [228] | Carry-over assessment: swimming sprint breaststroke → trampoline (technique/coordination only; excludes body-proportions advantages) | Internal sports-science cross-skill mapping | 2026 | N/A | Used to estimate shared transfer via general motor control: explosive leg drive, whole-body timing, spatial/body awareness in fast efforts, and practiced technique repetition under fatigue. Discounted because trampoline’s dominant determinants are land/aerial mechanics, takeoff/landing technique, rebounding physics, and elastic timing in flight—mechanics not trained in breaststroke. | Open source |
| [229] | GeneratedSkill-Overlap Prior | Internal sports-science reasoning (generated transfer prior) | 2026 | N/A | Estimated carry-over from butterfly middle-distance swimming to trampoline gymnastics by shared technique-independent fundamentals: whole-body coordination, rhythm/tempo control, and ability to repeat technically demanding actions under fatigue. Reduced because butterfly does not train trampoline-specific aerial/tuck/pike/landing mechanics or springy takeoff physics; assumes only general motor learning transfer. | Open source |
| [230] | Cross-discipline transfer priors (swim butterfly sprint → trampoline) | Internal sports-science priors (no external dataset used) | 2026 | N/A | Set a moderate correlation because both demand repeated high-quality whole-body power, coordination, and control when the body is working hard/under fatigue. Trampoline also rewards timing and body awareness that can be helped by swimming’s rhythmic, coordinated propulsion. | Open source |
| [231] | Shared neuromuscular control vs event-specific aerial technique | Motor learning & biomechanics heuristics | 2026 | N/A | Increased transfer slightly because butterfly sprint develops strong elastic/upper-body power contributions and complex coordination patterns. Kept it from becoming very high because trampoline is highly event-specific (takeoff timing into the bounce, aerial body configuration, landings on the bed, and rebound mechanics) which swimming does not train directly. | Open source |
| [232] | Generated estimate based on shared fundamentals (body control, proprioception, rhythm/elasticity in practice habits) vs limited overlap in water propulsion vs trampoline takeoff/landing technique | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports-science reasoning | Used a moderately positive correlation because both endurance freestyle swimming and trampoline gymnastics benefit from whole-body coordination, body awareness, and maintaining technique under fatigue, but the event-specific skill (vertical flight/takeoff/landing on a trampoline, aerial timing) is quite different from swimming distance propulsion. | — |
| [233] | Transfer from swimming freestyle middle-distance to trampoline gymnastics | General sports-science/skill transfer heuristics (no single study used) | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Estimated moderate positive correlation: both build body control, coordination, and the ability to repeat high-quality explosive/technical actions under fatigue. But trampoline’s key determinants (takeoff timing, aerial awareness, landing mechanics, and elastic rebound timing) are event-specific and not trained in freestyle swimming. | Open source |
| [234] | Transferable capacity mapping: sprint freestyle swimming → trampoline gymnastics | Conceptual sports-skill overlap model (no single study) | 2026 | Sports science assistant estimate | Estimated modest positive correlation based on overlap in explosive power generation, body awareness/co-ordination at high intensity, and repeatability of complex movements. Discounted direct technique transfer because sprint freestyle propulsion and breathing/race mechanics do not match trampoline takeoff/flight control and landing mechanics, nor trampoline-specific timing of mat-bed contact and aerial rotation discipline. | Open source |
| [235] | Internal synthesis: transfer of coordination, aerial timing/elastic power control, and body awareness from table tennis to trampoline; reduced direct overlap in apparatus-specific takeoff/landing technique | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal synthesis | Used to justify a modest positive correlation: both demand precise timing, rapid coordination, and repeatable body control under speed/pressure. Lowered because trampoline success depends heavily on elastic bounce mechanics, takeoff/landing technique, and repeated aerial positioning not directly trained in table tennis. | — |
| [236] | Taekwondo → trampoline: elastic/reactive leg power, aerial awareness, and landing control (internal reasoning) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Sets a moderate baseline because taekwondo develops explosive lower-body power, dynamic balance, and often good control of takeoff/landing mechanics from kicks and stances. | — |
| [237] | Transfer via coordination learning under speed (internal reasoning) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Adds some because both sports require learning complex aerial/body-shaping sequences quickly and maintaining alignment during fast transitions. | — |
| [238] | Technique specificity penalty: trampoline bounce mechanics and specific aerial element timing (internal reasoning) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal reasoning | Reduces correlation because trampoline success depends heavily on trampoline-specific timing (setup into the bed), controlled takeoff into repeatable flight phases, and progression of aerial elements that taekwondo does not train directly. | — |
| [239] | Shared explosive jumping and landing/balance control | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports science heuristic | Increase because tennis repeatedly trains acceleration into jumps/quick re-sets, plus reactive balance and landing mechanics, which help trampoline takeoff, in-air body awareness, and safe landings. | — |
| [240] | Major technique gap: racket coordination vs trampoline air/spotting | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports science heuristic | Reduce because trampoline scoring depends on highly specific aerial technique (timing of rebounds, amplitude management, body alignment) and spotting/rhythm in flight, which tennis does not train directly. | — |
| [241] | Skill-learning adaptability for complex motor sequences | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal sports science heuristic | Slightly increase because tennis athletes are accustomed to learning complex motor sequences and adjusting technique based on ball flight feedback, aiding the learning curve for new aerial skills. | — |
| [242] | General sports-science reasoning (technique/skills/mentality overlap only) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal model/heuristic | Estimated carry-over from triathlon endurance/coordination to trampoline aerial gymnastics, focusing on transferable skills (elastic landing/landing mechanics, body awareness, training discipline, fatigue management for repeated sets) while excluding physique/proportion advantages and noting trampoline’s event-specific takeoff/rotation timing and air-position control are not trained in triathlon. | — |
| [243] | Cross-sport carryover heuristic (volleyball attacker → trampoline) | Internal domain reasoning | 2026 | N/A | Estimated moderate carryover from shared high-level aerial competencies: elastic takeoff/jump mechanics, landing control, body-in-the-air awareness, and practice of repeated explosive efforts. Discounted for trampoline-specific skill needs: rebound timing on apparatus bed, takeoff-to-flip setup, rotation/spin technique, and landing precision governed by specific gymnastics progressions rather than volleyball’s jump+strike/jump+block demands. | Open source |
| [244] | Volleyball libero → trampoline: coordination, reactive balance, and repeated control under dynamic load | Skill overlap mapping (libero low-balance/footwork ↔ trampoline flight and landing control) | 2026 | Sports science reasoning | Used to justify a moderately positive correlation because libero success reflects strong dynamic balance, fast coordination, and the ability to maintain body control during quick repeated actions—traits that translate well to trampoline’s flight-phase awareness and landing/rep control. | — |
| [245] | Specialization penalty from different primary mechanics | Bayesian prior for technique specialization penalty (court defense vs aerial apparatus) | 2026 | Sports science generalization | Applied to avoid overestimating: trampoline includes highly specific aerial/tuck/pike timing, bounce technique, and apparatus-specific skill progression that volleyball libero does not teach directly. | — |
| [246] | Skill/transfer heuristic: volleyball middle blocker → gymnastics trampoline | Internal sports-skill overlap heuristic (no external dataset used) | 2026 | N/A | Estimated moderate carry-over based on shared technique-agnostic components: explosive vertical takeoff, aerial awareness, timing, repeated high-force jumps, and landing/body control. Discounted because trampoline’s key skills are highly specific (bounce technique, absorbing/rebounding through the trampoline bed, takeoff/rotation timing matched to bounce cycles, and learning structured flight elements and scoring routines) which volleyball does not train directly. Variance is high because trampoline backgrounds vary and because trampoline is sensitive to rhythm and apparatus-specific adaptation. | Open source |
| [247] | Expert-informed transfer estimate (volleyball setter → trampoline gymnastics) | Authors n/a | 2026 | Internal knowledge synthesis | Used to map volleyball-setter strengths (explosive leg takeoff, aerial body control, spatial awareness in flight, landing mechanics, repeated jump/landing repetition, timing) to trampoline needs (elastic vertical power, flight-phase control, body awareness, consistent repetitive takeoff/landing patterns), while discounting trampoline-specific rotation/tumbling technique and apparatus handling differences. | Open source |
| [248] | Transfer of learning: improvements in body control and spatial awareness transfer across movement sports | Transfer of learning: motor control/proprioception generalization | 2026 | Internal synthesis (no single paper cited) | Used to justify a moderate baseline because wrestling strongly improves proprioception, balance, and controlling body position under physical stress. | Open source |
| [249] | Trampoline relies on elastic power and repeated flight-phase control | Trampoline skill determinants (elastic vertical power + aerial control) | 2026 | Internal synthesis (no single paper cited) | Keeps the estimate from becoming too high: trampoline requires specialized timing with the bed and precise flight/rotation control not trained in wrestling. | Open source |
| [250] | Body organization and landing control overlap with aerial gymnastics basics | Strength-to-weight and landing/postural stability overlap | 2026 | Internal synthesis (no single paper cited) | Raises the estimate slightly: wrestlers often learn to stay “stacked” and coordinated through dynamic loading, helping faster acquisition of basic takeoff/landings and learning new rotations. | Open source |