Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, ISSN 1318-2269  33 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
POVZETEK
Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti razlike v prostoru 
izbranih značilnosti poletov na smučeh med boljšimi 
in slabšimi smučarji skakalci na svetovnem prvenstvu v 
Planici 2010. Proučevane so bile spremenljivke Dolžina 
poleta, Čas poleta, Zaletna hitrost, Hitrost na odrivni 
mizi, Višina leta v točki 17 m, Višina leta v točki 110 
m, Aerodinamični indeks v točki 17 m, Aerodinamični 
indeks v točki 110 m, Hitrost vetra v točki 20 m, Hitrost 
vetra v točki 70 m, Hitrost vetra v točki 110 m in Hitrost 
vetra v točki 160 m. Glede na rezultate na svetovnem 
prvenstvu oziroma dolžine poletov v vseh štirih 
serijah sta bili oblikovani dve kakovostni statistično 
pomembno različni skupini skakalcev (Sig t = 0,01). 
Hitrost gibanja smučarjev skakalcev je v fazi leta stalno 
naraščala. Povprečna hitrost v spodnjem prehodnem 
loku letalnice je bila 6 – 10 % višja kot zaletna hitrost. 
Razlike med povprečnimi vrednostmi zaletne hitrosti 
so bile statistično značilne v drugi, tretji in četrti seriji. 
Slabša skupina je imela v povprečju večjo zaletno hitrost. 
Podobno se je zgodilo tudi s spremenljivko Hitrost na 
odskočni mizi. Pri spremenljivkah Hitrost v spodnjem 
prehodnem loku so bile ugotovljene statistično značilne 
razlike v prvi in v zadnji, četrti seriji. Slabša skupina 
skakalcev je imela večjo povprečno hitrost omenjene 
spremenljivke. Boljša skupina skakalcev je imela višjo 
krivuljo leta v točki 75 m in še prav posebej v točki 110 m 
za robom odskočne mize. Statistično pomembne razlike 
v višini leta so bile v točki 17 m ugotovljene v prvi in v 
zadnji četrti seriji in v točki 110 m v prvi seriji. Boljša 
skupina skakalcev je imela bolj ugoden aerodinamični 
indeks letenja v točki 17 m in še posebej v srednjem delu 
poleta v točki 110 m. Statistično značilne razlike so bile 
v točki 17 m ugotovljene v drugi, tretji in četrti seriji in 
v točki 110 m v vseh štirih serijah. Razlike v vetrovnih 
ABSTR ACT
The objective of the study was to establish the differences 
between the best and worst ski jumpers in terms of 
selected ski flying characteristics at the Ski Flying 
World Championships 2010 in Planica. The variables 
Length of flying, Time of flying, In run velocity, Outrun 
velocity, Take off velocity, Height of flying at 17 m, 
Height of flying at 110 m, Aerodynamic index at 17 m, 
Aerodynamic index at 120 m, as well as Speed of the 
wind at 20 m, 70 m, 110 m and 160 m were analysed. 
The ski jumpers were divided into two statistically 
significant different quality groups according to their 
jump length in all four rounds (Sig t = 0.01). The 
velocity of movement during the flight phase increased 
constantly. The average out-run velocity was about 
6-10% higher than the in-run velocity. The difference 
between the average values of in-run velocities were 
statistically significant in three rounds (second, third 
and fourth). The worse group had a greater average 
in-run velocity. The same happened with the variables 
of take-off velocity. Only a few statistically significant 
differences were found in the first and in the last, fourth 
rounds in terms of variables of out-run velocity. The 
worse group of ski jumpers had higher average values 
of out-run velocities. At the point of 17 m and especially 
110 m after the edge of the take-off platform, the better 
group of ski jumpers had a bigger flying height. Those 
differences were not statistically significant in all 
rounds. The biggest differences were in the first and 
the last competitive round. The better group of ski 
jumpers showed a better aerodynamic flight position 
at the beginning of flying and especially in the middle 
of flying. Statistically significant differences were 
found in the second, third and last, fourth rounds. The 
differences in wind condition between defined groups 
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BETTER AND WORSE 
SKI JUMPERS REGARDING SELECTED SKI FLYING 
CHARACTERISTICS AT THE SKI FLYING WORLD 
CHAMPIONSHIPS 2010 IN PLANICA
RAZLIKE MED NAJBOLŠIMI IN SLABŠIMI 
SKAKALCI V IZBRANIH ZNAČILNOSTI LETENJA 
NA SVETOVNEM PRVENSTVU V SMUČARSKIH 
POLETIH V PLANICI 2010
Bojan Jošt

34 Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, ISSN 1318-2269  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
pogojih med definiranimi skupinami na splošno niso 
bile statistično značilne. V prvem delu leta, v točki 20 m, 
je bila samo v prvi seriji ugotovljena statistično značilna 
razlika. V osrednjem delu leta, v točki 110 m, so bile 
vetrovne razmere statistično značilno različne v drugi 
in četrti seriji poletov.
Ključne besede: smučarski skoki, biomehanika, značil-
nosti leta, Svetovno prvenstvo 2010
were not statistically significant in general terms. In the 
first part of flying, only in the first round were there 
significant differences at the measuring point of 20 m 
after the take-off bridge. In the middle of flying at 110m 
the wind conditions were importantly different in the 
second and fourth jumps.
Keywords: sk i ju mpi ng , biome c ha n ic s , f ly i ng c ha r ac ter-
istics, World Championships 2010
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Slovenia
Corresponding author:
Bojan Jošt
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport,
Gortanova 22, 
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Tel.: + 38631364203
E-mail: bojan.jost@fsp.uni-lj.si
INTRODUCTION
The Ski Flying World Championships 2010 were selected to investigate chosen characteristics 
of the technique used by ski jumpers on the biggest jumping hill in the world. For experts and 
researchers in ski jumping a performance analysis of the ski jumping technique is most frequently 
undertaken. They wish to find the optimal technique that allows ski jumpers to reach the best 
competitive performance. In ski flying there is great variability in the ski jumping technique 
and this has been the subject of many studies during its history. Some studies have focused 
more on the push-off and early flying (Arndt, Brügemann, Virmavirta, & Komi, 1995; Janura, 
Vaverka, & Elfmark, 1995; Jošt, Čoh, Pustovrh, & Ulaga, 1999; Komi & Virmavirta, 1997; Müller 
& Schwameder, 2003; Virmavirta & Komi, 1993a; Virmavirta & Komi, 1993b; Virmavirta & 
Komi, 1994; Virmavirta, Kiveskas, & Komi, 2001), while others have concentrated more on the 
study of the central flying technique (Hiroshi, Shunsuke, Tadaharu, Hirotoshi, & Kazutoshi, 
1995; Jin, Shmizu, Watanuki, Kubota, & Kobayashi, 1995; Mahnke & Hochmuth, 1990; Tavernir 
& Cosserat, 1993). The flying phase is, as a matter of common sense, a consequence of the 
previous in-run and take-off phase. The performance of the in-run phase first depends on the 
in-run velocity (Vaverka, 1987; Ettema, Braten, & Bobbert, 2005). The in-run velocity before 
the take-off table has a direct influence on the horizontal velocity in the take-off phase and the 
first part of flying. Early flight is considered a crucial phase in the length of a jump (Schmölzer 
& Müller, 2005; Virmavirta, Isolehto, Komi, Brüggemann, Müller, & Schwameder, 2005). The 
ski jumper’s transition from the approach position into the optimal flight position is a complex 
and difficult motor task which, using the terminology of psychomotor behavior, requires a high 
level of strength, co-ordination, accuracy, balance, orientation in space, visualisation, boldness, 
courage etc. Thus, in the first part of the flying phase differences between the best and worse 
ski jumpers are consequences of the quality of the take-off phase (Jošt, Kugovnik, Strojnik, & 
Colja, 1997; Mahnke & Hochmuth, 1990; Tavernier & Cosserat, 1993; Watanabe K., & Watanabe 
I., 1993; Hiroshi, Shunsuke, Tadaharu, Hirotoshi, & Kazutoshi, 1995; Virmavirta, Kiveskas, & 

Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  35 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
Komi, 2001). The performance of ski jumpers in terms of the aerodynamic factor first depends 
on optimisation of the push-off factors in the support phase of the take-off (Virmavirta & Komi, 
1989; Komi & Virmavirta, 1997; Kaps, Schwameder, & Engstler, 1997; Sasaki, Tsunnoda, Uchida, 
Hoshino, & Ono, 1997). The factors vertical push-off acceleration, rotation, accuracy of the 
push-off and the activity of the arms are causal factors for a good technique in the take-off phase. 
These factors influence the aerodynamic efficiency in the first part of flying (Vaverka, Janura, 
Elfmark, & Salinger, 1997). The take-off phase on the biggest jumping hill in Planica finishes 
after approximately 0.7 second of the flying phase, which means about 17 m after the take-off 
bridge. Ski jumpers must optimally achieve two relatively independent movement actions at that 
point. The first one is to reach the optimal aerodynamic position of flying and the second one 
is the minimisation of the vertical velocity of flying. From this point of view, it can be expected 
that the better group of ski jumpers has a smaller angle of flying after the take-off bridge than 
the worse group and a better aerodynamic position. The central part of the flying phase is a 
constituent part of a ski jump which in an absolute physical sense significantly determines the 
successfulness of ski jumpers. 
Experts have conducted many studies of the ski jumping flying technique (Watanabe & Watan-
abe, 1993; Müller, Platzer, & Schmolzer, 1996; Sasaki, Tsunoda, & Hoshino, 2000; Schmölzer, & 
Müller, 2002; Joo, Young, & Young, 2004; Seo, Watanabe, & Murakami, 2004; Seo, Murakami, & 
Yoshida, 2004; Schmölzer & Müller, 2005; Denoth & Gerber, 2008). Thus, a hypothesis could be 
formulated that the technique activity of a ski jumper in the flight phase is extremely important. 
Jumpers must achieve optimisation of the technique movement. This optimisation involves two 
different factors. The first factor is the angle of the flying curve. The worse group of ski jumpers 
has a bigger angle of the flying curve than better one (Jošt, 1994; Virmavirta et al., 2005). The 
second factor is an optimal aerodynamic position in the flying phase. The best ski jumpers have 
a better aerodynamic position than the worst ski jumpers (Jošt, Kugovnik, Strojnik, & Colja, 
1997; Jošt, Vaverka, Kugovnik, & Čoh, 1998). In that research, a specific aerodynamic index was 
investigated. This index is based on the distance determined by two extreme points on the system 
body and skis of the ski jumper in a horizontal direction. It can be expected that the better group 
of ski jumpers has a statistically significant better aerodynamics index than the worse group in 
the two mentioned reference points on the jumping hill (17 m and 110 m). One goal of this study 
was to find out the difference between two groups of ski jumpers in the average values of their 
out-run velocity, measured at a distance from 245 m to 255 m. It can be expected that the worse 
group of ski jumpers had a bigger out-run velocity than the better group. This information about 
the out-run velocity is important for the development of flying hills in the future. Some experts 
wish to know this velocity when contemplating the construction of a bigger jumping hill that 
would allow flights of over 300 m. Wind conditions on jumping hills are not only a matter of 
fairness but, even more importantly, a matter of safety. Since 2001 the tangential wind speed 
has been measured, which is the influence of the wind on the flight trajectory and the length 
of the jump. Tangential wind speed is a three-dimensional measurement of the velocity of the 
wind reduced to the flight trajectory level. Based on experience gathered from tangential wind 
measuring, a so-called wind corridor has been defined to provide some more fairness to the 
athletes. As a result, “wind” must also be added to the calculation of the success of ski jumpers. 
The last goal of this study was to test the differences between two extremely different quality 
subgroups of ski jumpers as regards average values of wind speed variables. 

36 Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010) 
METHOD
The research analysed the jumps of ski jumpers participating on two competitive days of the 
Ski Flying World Championships 2010 in Planica (HS215m). On the first day, Friday 19 March, 
40 jumpers jumped in the first competitive round and the best 31 then jumped in the second 
round. On the second final competitive day, Saturday 20 March, 30 jumpers competed in the 
third and fourth, final round. The ski jumpers were divided into two extremely different quality 
groups according to their final competition success. In the first group, the best four jumpers were 
included. Jumpers lower than 12
th 
place were included in the second (worse) group. The data for 
the variables Length of jump (m), Time of flying (s), In-run velocity (km/h), Take-off velocity 
(km/h), and Out-run velocity (km/h) were taken from the official results of the competition 
office. The kinematic variables of ski jumping technique movement, Aerodynamic index of 
flying (m) and Height of the flying curve (m) were measured by means of a 2-D video analysis. 
The recording was carried out with video cameras with a frequency of 50 frames per second. 
The first camera recorded the flying between 10 m and 25 m, the second camera recorded the 
flying between 100 m and 120 m (see Picture 1). Digitalisation of the frames was carried out 
manually. 
 
Legend: AIx – Aerodynamic index of flying (m); Δy – vertical height of flying (m)
Picture 1: Measurement procedure for taking data for the variables Height of flying and 
Aerodynamic index (left - position at 110 m, right - position at 17 m)
The wind conditions were measured at five different areas along the landing area of the jumping 
hill. Measuring instruments were positioned at 20 m, 70 m, 110 m, 160 m and 195 m. Data from 
each of the wind measuring points were registered four times per second for the whole flight 
phase of the jump and all measurement data from this period were then calculated together to 
produce a “Tangential Wind Speed” value for a specific point of flying. To establish the statisti-
cal significance of the differences between the groups, an independent t-test was used which 
determines whether two sample means differ reliably from each other. The criterion of statistical 
significance was accepted with a 5% two-sided alpha error (Sig t < 0.05).

Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  37 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
R ESULTS
The morphological variables Body height, Body weight and the variable Length of Ski did not 
statistically significant differentiate the better and worse groups of ski jumpers (see Table 1).
Table 1: Results of t test, morphological variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Body height (cm) 17 7. 4 4.6 165.0 186.0
B 4 174.2 5.3 .20
W 25 17 7. 5 4.5 .31
Body weight (kg) 61.0 3.7 52.0 68.0
B 4 59.2 3.7 .42
W 25 60.8 3.7 .46
Length of Ski (cm) 255.1 7. 6 235.0 271.0
B 4 252.0 7. 8 .54
W 25 254.4 7. 2 .59
Legend: n – number of jumpers in the selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation 
within the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between 
the quality of the groups ( p<0.05)
The jumping distances were on average much greater in the Saturday competition than on 
the Friday when the jumpers completed the first and second competitive afternoon rounds in 
relatively bad wind conditions (see Table 2). The jumpers needed some practice to reach the 
optimal flying technique which then bolstered their competitive performances in terms of bigger 
distances. The differences between the defined quality groups of ski jumpers in the variables 
Length of jump and Time of flying were statistically significant (sig t <= 0.05). The maximal 
difference in the average length of the jumps between the two groups was 34.1 m during the first 
competition round on Friday. 
Table 2: Results of t test, Length of jump variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Length of jump 1 (m) 190.7 19.3 160.0 223.5
B 4 214.8 3.6 .00
W 26 180.7 15.0 .00
Length of jump 2 (m) 200.3 10.7 178.5 223.0
B 4 2 0 7.7 10.2 .01
W 18 194.8 8.9 .07
Length of jump 3 (m) 205.7 14.2 170.0 2 27. 0
B 4 222.7 8.4 .00
W 17 19 7.7 11.5 .00
Length of jump 4 (m) 2 0 7.1 15.0 178.5 236.5
B 4 226.5 10.6 .00
W 17 199.0 10.3 .00
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)
Similar results as for the Length of jump variables were found for the Time of flying variables 
(see Table 3).

38 Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010) 
Table 3: Results of t test, Time of flying variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Time of flying 1 (sec.) 6.15 0.51 5.24 7. 0 9
B 4 6.8 .14 .00
W 26 5.8 .40 .00
Time of flying 2 (sec.) 6.38 0.35 5.76 7. 29
B 4 6.7 .20 .00
W 18 6.2 .25 .00
Time of flying 3 (sec.) 6.72 0.47 5.76 7.71
B 4 7. 3 .33 .00
W 17 6.4 .32 .00
Time of flying 4 (sec.) 6.83 0.52 5.90 7.91
B 4 7. 5 .41 .00
W 15 6.5 ,33 .01
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)
The in-run velocity was on average a little less than the velocity on the take-off table. The differ-
ences between the groups were statistically significant in three rounds as regards both velocities 
(see Table 4). 
Table 4: Results of t test, In-run and Take-off velocity variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
In-run velocity 1 (km/h) 105.5 0.86 104.1 106.6
B 4 105.3 .19 .82
W 26 105.4 .72 .62
In-run velocity 2 (km/h) 106.1 0.49 105.3 10 7.1
B 4 105.5 .13 .00
W 18 106.2 .39 .00
In-run velocity 3 (km/h) 104.0 0.78 102.4 105.3
B 4 103.0 .28 .00
W 17 104.4 .46 .00
In-run velocity 4 (km/h) 104.1 1.01 102.6 105.6
B 4 102.7 .09 .00
W 17 104.8 .38 .00
Take-off velocity 1 (km/h) 105.7 0.80 104.1 10 7. 0
B 4 105.2 .15 .45
W 26 105.5 .83 .08
Take-off velocity 2 (km/h) 106.2 0.55 104.6 10 7. 2
B 4 105.5 .61 .00
W 18 106.3 .47 .06
Take-off velocity 3 (km/h) 104.0 0.91 102.2 105.6
B 4 103.0 .21 .00
W 17 104.6 .69 .00
Take-off velocity 4 (km/h) 104.0 1.21 101.9 105.7
B 4 102.5 .21 .00
W 17 104.9 .65 .00
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)
The outrun velocity was approximately 6 to 10% greater than the in-run velocity mentioned 
before (see Table 5). In the Friday competition the out-run velocity was much higher than in the 

Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  39 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
Sunday competition. On Friday afternoon the wind conditions were not as good as during the 
Sunday competition in the morning. 
Table 5: Results of t test, Out-run velocity variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Out-run velocity 1 (km/h) 119.6 2.95 114.0 126.0
B 4 117. 2 1.79 .07
W 26 119.9 2.74 .04
Out-run velocity 2 (km/h) 119.5 3.05 113.9 126.2
B 4 119.1 2.21 .65
W 18 119.9 3.17 .58
Out-run velocity 3 (km/h) 109.8 2.08 101.0 119.1
B 4 110.3 3.59 ,86
W 17 107,9 2,76 .73
Out-run velocity 4 (km/h) 112.9 3.84 102.7 120.0
B 4 110.5 4.13 .02
W 17 114.7 2.80 .12
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)
The variable which indicates the flying height attained was generally the minimal value at the 17 
m point after the take-off bridge for all groups of ski jumpers (see Table 3). The better group of 
ski jumpers had on average the highest values in all rounds. The differences between the better 
group and the worse group were statistically significant in the first and fourth rounds. One 
surprise was the flying height at 110 m after the take-off bridge. Only in the first round was there 
a statistically significant difference between the better and worse groups (sig t = 0.05). 
Table 6: Results of t test, Height of flying at 17 m variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Height of flying at 17m 1 (m) 4.30 0.22 3.90 4.70
B 4 4.60 .13 .00
W 9 4.30 .14 .01
Height of flying at 17m 2 (m) 4.00 0.19 3.60 4.60
B 3 4.06 .14 .49
W 18 3.99 .14 .53
Height of flying at 17m 3 (m) 4.10 0.18 3.90 4.50
B 1 4.27 . .90
W 9 4.24 .18 .
Height of flying at 17m 4 (m) 4.00 0.24 3.50 4.60
B 4 4.24 .07 .03
W 7 4.00 .17 .01
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)
The successfulness of ski jumpers depended especially on the Aerodynamic flight position of 
the system body and ski. Bigger differences were expected in the variable Aerodynamic index of 
flying. After the take-off at the 17 m point there were significant differences between the groups 
in the second, third and fourth rounds (see Table 7). Statistically significant differences between 
the groups existed in all rounds in the middle of the flying at the 110 m the point (sig t = 0.01).

40 Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010) 
Table 7: Results of t test, Height of flying at 110 m variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Height of flying at 110 m 1(m) 5.20 1.41 2.70 7.9 0
B 4 6.78 .65 .00
W 24 4.67 1.19 .00
Height of flying at 110m 2 (m) 6.30 1.20 3.90 9.00
B 4 6.75 .65 .37
W 17 6.14 1.17 .22
Height of flying at 110m 3 (m) 5.00
1.22
2.3 7. 0 0
B 3 5.62 1.33 .34
W 16 5.00 .96 .50
Height of flying at 110m 4 (m) 5.20 1.35 2.40 7.9 0
B 4 5.87 1.38 .24
W 14 5.06 1.14 .33
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. - Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)
During large sections of the competition, the wind speed did not statistically significant dif-
ferentiate the better and worse groups. An important difference was detected in the first and 
second rounds at the 20 m point (sig t = 0.00). In the first round, the better group had worse 
wind conditions, while in the second round the worse group had better wind conditions (see 
Table 8). 
Table 8: Results of t test, Aerodynamics index at 17 m and Aerodynamics index at 110 m vari-
ables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Aerodynamics index at 17 m 1 (m) 1.77 0.16 1.43 2.07
B 4 1.65 .14 .33
W 9 1.75 .18 .29
Aerodynamics index at 17 m 2 (m) 1.77 0.18 1.41 2.00
B 3 1.46 .04 .00
W 18 1.79 .17 .00
Aerodynamics index at 17 m 3 (m) 1.72 0.16 1.46 2.08
B 1 1.46
W 10 1.76 .16 .05
Aerodynamics index at 17 m 4 (m) 1.57 0.26 0.94 1.92
B 4 1.37 .28 .04
W 6 1.67 .09 .13
Aerodynamics index at 110 m 1 (m) 0.70 0.09 0.52 0.90
B 4 .59 .04 .00
W 25 .73 .08 .00
Aerodynamics index at 110 m 2 (m) 0.70 0.09 0.52 0.92
B 4 .62 .09 .01
W 17 .73 .07 .08
Aerodynamics index at 110 m 3 (m) 0.67 0.08 0.49 0.83
B 4 .55 .05 .00
W 16 .72 .06 .00
Aerodynamics index at 110 m 4 (m) 0.65 0.07 0.52 0.81
B 4 .57 .05 .00
W 14 .69 .06 .01
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)

Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  41 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
The wind conditions did not dramatically affect the performance of ski jumpers in the middle of 
flying (see Table 9). There were significant differences between both groups at the 110 m point in 
the second round (the better group had worse wind conditions) and the fourth round (the better 
group had better wind conditions).
Table 9: Results of t-test, Wind velocity at 20 m, Wind velocity at 70 m, Wind velocity at 110 m, 
Wind velocity at 160 m variables
M SD MIN MAX GROUP n M SD Sig t
Wind velocity at 20 m 1 (m/s) - 0.02 0.78 - 1.30 1.77
B 4 -1.02 .03 .00
W 21 .24 .78 .00
Wind velocity at 20 m 2 (m/s) - 0.19 0.57 - 1.38 0.80
B 4 -.02 .12 .10
W 18 -.47 .51 .00
Wind velocity at 20 m 3 (m/s) 0.74 0.55 - 0.17 2.02
B 4 .57 .27 .35
W 17 .88 .63 .15
Wind velocity at 20 m 4 (m/s) 1.09 0.63 - 0.02 2.45
B 4 1.00 .30 .46
W 17 .84 .40 .40
Wind velocity at 70 m 1 (m/s) - 0.38 0.67 - 1.75 0.94
B 4 -.54 .30 .56
W 21 -.34 .65 .36
Wind velocity at 70 m 2 (m/s) - 0.54 0.43 - 1.26 0.65
B 4 -.54 .83 .71
W 18 -.64 .35 .83
Wind velocity at 70 m 3 (m/s) 0.95 0.60 - 0.31 2.06
B 4 .48 .37 .13
W 17 1.02 .67 .06
Wind velocity at 70 m 4 (m/s) 0.85 0.81 - 0.78 3.05
B 4 .96 .61 .21
W 17 .50 .65 .24
Wind velocity at 110 m 1 (m/s) - 0.75 0.80 - 2.87 0.76
B 4 -.61 .26 .50
W 21 -.92 .89 .20
Wind velocity at 110 m 2 (m/s) - 0.61 0.38 - 1.31 0.53
B 4 -1.11 .16 .00
W 18 -.48 .36 .00
Wind velocity at 110 m 3 (m/s) 1.05 0.42 0.05 1.79
B 4 1.31 .26 .20
W 17 .98 .48 .09
Wind velocity at 110 m 4 (m/s) 1,44 0.82 - 0.68 3.37
B 4 1.74 .15 .13
W 17 1.09 .80 .01
Wind velocity at 160 m 1 (m/s) - 0.20 0.69 - 1.70 0.83
B 4 -.42 .31 .32
W 21 -.06 .69 .13
Wind velocity at 160 m 2 (m/s) - 0.51 0.53 - 1.94 0.45
B 4 -.71 .19 .87
W 18 -.66 .52 .78
Wind velocity at 160 m 3 (m/s) 0.83 0.57 - 0.49 1.72
B 4 1.05 .53 .36
W 17 .76 .57 .37
Wind velocity at 160 m 4 (m/s) 0.75 0.75 - 0.97 2.81
B 4 .51 .44 .72
W 17 .67 .86 .60
Legend: n – number of jumpers in a selected group, M – arithmetic mean of the group; SD – standard deviation within 
the group; Sig t. – Significance of the t test, where bold text denotes statistically significant differences between the qual-
ity of groups ( p<0.05)

42 Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010) 
DISCUSSION
The research results revealed some statistically significant differences in some variables which are 
crucial factors of a ski jumping performance. The worse group of ski jumpers had in all rounds a 
bigger in-run and take-off speed than the better group. This is incomparable with the results of 
previous research. Many research results in the past found a positive correlation between in-run 
speed and performance in ski jumping. But this study was produced in the different conditions 
of a ski jumping competition. The better group of ski jumpers had a smaller in-run track in the 
competition. Based on previous kinematic studies, the magnitude of the approach and release 
velocities observed during competition for reaching greater jump distances are of subordinate 
importance (Müller & Schwameder, 2003). For investigating performances the take-off and flight 
quality are more important than the in-run and take-off release velocity. The average height of 
flying at the 17 m point was different between the two groups of ski jumpers. In the first and the 
last rounds statistically significant differences were found. A jumper must, during the contact 
take-off phase, develop an adequate level of force impulse which will enable him to develop a suit-
able (optimal) vertical velocity of movement after the take-off bridge (Jošt, Kugovnik, Strojnik, 
& Colja, 1997). In the first part of flying the best ski jumpers were more successful in achieving 
the optimal flying height and reaching the optimal aerodynamic position. A combination of 
both factors is important for determining performances in ski jumping (Arndt, Brügemann, 
Virmavirta, & Komi, 1995; Jošt, Vaverka, Kugovnik, & Čoh, 1998; Jošt, Čoh, Pustovrh, & Ulaga, 
1999). It is evident that the best ski jumpers during the contact take-off phase produced an 
optimal level of energy to reach the optimal vertical take-off release velocity and to reach the 
optimal aerodynamic flight position (Virmavirta & Komi, 1993a; Virmavirta & Komi, 1993b; 
Virmavirta & Komi, 1994). Jumpers need part of this energy to achieve the optimal aerodynamic 
position in the first part of the flying phase and another part to ensure a higher flying curve. 
In central part of the flying phase the extent of flying differences between the average values of 
the better group and the worse group were not statistically significant at the 110 m point. The 
best ski jumpers with a smaller angle of flying had in all rounds a bigger flying curve height. The 
height amplitude of flying is a consequence of many different kinematic factors. In accordance 
with the theory of the technique of a ski jumper’s movement in the flight phase, the jumper must, 
at each point in the flight, assume such a position that maximises their horizontal velocity along 
with as simultaneous minimisation of the vertical velocity of the movement of the common 
centre of gravity (Jošt, Vaverka, Kugovnik, & Čoh, 1998; Schmölzer & Müller, 2005; Virmavirta 
et al., 2005; Vaverka, 1987). The aerodynamic index in the central part of flying at 110 m was a 
statistically significant factor of differentiation between the ski jumper groups (sig t = 0.01). The 
better group of ski jumpers had a better aerodynamic position at the beginning and especially 
in the middle of the flying phase. 
The differences in wind conditions were not statistically significant between the defined groups 
in general terms. In the first part of flying there were significant differences at the measuring 
point of 20 m after the take-off bridge, but only in the first (the better group had worse wind) 
and the second round (the better group had better wind). In the middle of flying at 110 m, the 
wind conditions were significantly different in the second (the better group had worst wind) and 
fourth rounds (the better group had better wind). 
On the basis of the results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The variability of the defined quality groups of ski jumpers in terms of jump length and time •	
of flying was large and statistically significant (sig t = 0.00).

Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  43 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
The velocity of flying during the flight increased constantly. The average out-run velocity •	
was about 6-10% bigger than the in-run velocity.
The differences between the average values of in-run velocities were statistically significant •	
in three rounds (second, third and fourth). The worse group had a bigger average in-run 
velocity. The same happened with the variables of take-off velocity. 
In the variables of out-run velocity only a few statistically differences were found in the first •	
and the last, fourth rounds. The worse group of ski jumpers had bigger average values of 
their out-run velocities. 
At the 17 m and especially 110 m points after the edge of the take-off platform, the better •	
group of ski jumpers had a bigger flying height, which means a smaller average angle of 
flying. But these differences were not statistically significant in all rounds. The biggest dif-
ferences emerged in the first and the last competitive rounds.
The better group of ski jumpers showed tendencies towards the best aerodynamic flight •	
position at the beginning of flying and especially in the middle of flying. Statistically signifi-
cant differences were found in the second, third and fourth rounds.
The differences in wind conditions were not statistically significant between the defined •	
groups in general terms. In the first part of flying, only in the first round was a significant 
difference in the measuring point of 20 m after the take-off bridge found. In the middle of 
flying at 110 m the wind conditions were an important difference in the second and fourth 
jumps.
The differences in wind conditions were not statistically significant between the two groups •	
in general terms. In the first part of flying, only in the first round was a significant difference 
in the measuring point of 20 m after the take-off bridge found. In the middle of flying at 110 
m the wind conditions were an important difference in the second and fourth jumps.
REFERENCES
Arndt, A., Brügemann, G.P., Virmavirta, M., & Komi P. (1995). Techniques used by Olympic ski jumpers 
in the transition from take-off to early flight. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 224-237.
Denoth, J., & Gerber, H. (2008). Auswertung der Videoaufnahmen vom Weltcupspringen in Engelberg. 
Honggerberg: Institut fur Biomechanik. (http://www.fis-ski.com/)
Ettema, J.C., Braten, S., & Bobbert, F.M. (2005). Dynamics of the in-run in ski jumping: a simulation study. 
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 21, 247-259.
Hiroshi, J., Shunsuke, S., Tadaharu, W., Hirotoshi, K., & Kazutoshi, K. (1995). Desirable gliding styles and 
techniques in ski jumping. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 460-474.
Janura, M., Vaverka, F., & Elfmark, M. (1995). A comparison between the kinematic characteristics of the 
transition phase of ski jumping on jumping hills with different critical points. In: Proceedings of the 13th 
International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 219-222). Thunder Bay: Lake head University.
Jin, H., Shmizu, S., Watanuki, T., Kubota, H., & Kobayashi, K. (1995). Desirable gliding styles and tech-
niques in ski jumping. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 460–474.
Joo - Ho S., Young-Jin, M. & Young - Hoo, K. (2004). A comparative study of the take off and early flight 
phases in ski jumping. International Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 16(2), 60–71.
Jošt, B. (1994). Differences in some kinematic flight parameters between the classical and the new so called 
“V” technique in ski jumping. Kinesiology, 26(1-2), 18-21.

44 Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010) 
Jošt, B., Vaverka, F., Kugovnik, O., & Čoh, M. (1998). Differences in selected kinematics flight parameters 
of the most and the least successful ski jumpers of the 1996 World cup competition in Innsbruck. Biology 
of Sport, 15(4), 245-251.
Jošt, B., Kugovnik, O., Strojnik, V., & Colja, I. (1997). Analysis of kinematic variables and their relation to 
the performance of ski jumpers at the World championship in ski flight at Planica in 1994. Kinesiology, 
29(1), 35-44.
Jošt, B., Čoh, M., Pustovrh, J., & Ulaga, M. (1999). Analysis of the selected kinematic variables of the take-
off in ski jumps in the finals of the World cup at Planica in 1999. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 5(1-2), 17-25.
Kaps, P., Schwameder, H., & Engstler, C. (1997). Inverse Dynamic Analysis of Take-Off in Ski-Jumping. 
In: Muller, E., Schwameder, H., Kornaxl, E., Raschner, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Con-
gress on Skiing and Science, St. Christoph a. Arlberg, Austria. January 7-13, 1996. (pp. 72-87). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
Komi, P.V., & Virmavirta, M. (1997). Ski-jumping take off performance: Determining factors and meth-
odological advances. In: Müller, E., Schwameder, H., Kornexl, E., & Raschner, C. (eds.), Science and Skiing 
(Proceedings of the First International Congress on Skiing and Science, St. Christoph a. Arlberg, Austria, 
January 7-13, 1996). (pp. 3-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahnke, R., & Hochmuth, G. (1990). Recent findings concerning aerodynamic effects in ski jumping. In: 
Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium of the Society of Biomechanics in Sport (pp. 99-105). Prague: 
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport.
Müller, E., & Schwameder, H. (2003). Biomechanical aspects of new techniques in alpine skiing and ski-
jumping. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 679 – 692.
Müller, W., Platzer, D., & Schmölzer, B. (1996). Dynamics of human flight on skis: improvements in safety 
and fairness in ski jumping. Journal of Biomechanics, 28(8), 1061 – 1068.
Sasaki, T., Tsunoda, K., Uchida, E., Hoshino, H., & Ono, M. (1997). Joint Power Production in Take-Off 
Action during Ski-Jumping. In: Muller, E., Schwameder, H., Kornaxl, E., Raschner, C., (eds.). Proceedings 
of the First International Congress on Skiing and Science, St. Christoph a. Arlberg, Austria. January 7-13, 
1996 (pp. 49-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sasaki, T., Tsunoda, K., & Hoshino, H. (2000). Analysis of aerodynamic force on ski jumpers during the 
initial flight phase using mathematical model. In: Science and Skiing II. Muller, E., et al. (eds.). Proceedings 
of the First International Congress on Skiing and Science, St. Christoph a. Arlberg, Austria. January 9-15, 
2000. (pp. 115-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmölzer, B., & Müller, W. (2002). The importance of being light: aerodynamic forces and weight in ski 
jumping. Journal of Biomechanics 35, 1059–1069.
Schmölzer, B., & Müller, W. (2005). Individual flight styles in ski jumping: results obtained during Olympic 
Games competitions. Journal of Biomechanics, 38, 1055–1065.
Seo, K., Murakami, M., & Yoshida, K. (2004). Optimal flight technique for V-style ski jumping. Sports 
Engineering, 7, 97–104.
Seo, K., Watanabe, I., & Murakami, M. (2004). Aerodynamic force data for a V-style ski jumping flight. 
Sports Engineering, 7, 31-39.
Tavernier, M., & Cosserat, P. (1993). Flight simulation in ski-jumping – Comparison of two styles of 
flight. In: Proceedings of the 14
th
 Congress of International Society of Biomechanics (pp. 1328-1329). Paris: 
International Society of Biomechanics.
Vaverka, F. (1987). Biomechanics in Ski-jumping. AP Olomouc.
Vaverka, F., Janura, M., Elfmark, M., & Salinger, J. (1997). Inter-and intra-individual variability of the Ski 
jumpers take-off. In: Müller, E., Schwameder, H., Kornexl, E., & Raschner, C. (eds.), Science and Skiing 

Kinematics analysis of Ski flying characteristics  45 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 16, 3, 33–45 (2010)
(Proceedings of the First International Congress on Skiing and Science, St. Christoph a. Arlberg, Austria, 
January 7-13, 1996). (pp. 61-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Virmavirta, M., & Komi, P. V. (1989). The takeoff forces in ski jumping. International Journal of Sport 
Biomechanics, 5, 248-257.
Virmavirta, M., & Komi, P. V. (1993a). Measurement of take-off forces in ski jumping – part II. Scandina-
vian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 3, 237-243.
Virmavirta, M., & Komi, P. V. (1993b). Measurement of take-off forces in ski jumping – part I. Scandinavian 
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 3, 229-236.
Virmavirta, M., & Komi, P. V. (1994). Take-off analysis of a champion ski jumper. Coaching and Sport 
Science Journal, 1, 23-27.
Virmavirta, M., Kiveskas, J., & Komi, P.V. (2001). Take-off aerodynamics in ski jumping. Journal of Bio-
mechanics, 34(4), 465–470.
Virmavirta, M., Isolehto, J., Komi, P.V., Bruggemann, G.P., Muller, E., & Schwameder, H. (2005). Char-
acteristics of the early flight phase in the Olympic ski jumping competition. Journal of Biomechanics, 38, 
2157–2163.
Watanabe, K., & Watanabe, I. (1993). Aerodynamics of ski jumping – Effect of “V-style” to distance. In: 
Proceedings of the International Society of Biomechanics XIVth Congress (pp. 1452-1453). Paris: Interna-
tional Society of Biomechanics.