Vertical jump height normative data allows athletes, coaches, and trainers to contextualize jump performance — determining whether a score is below average, average, or elite for a given age group, sex, or sport. This article compiles the most widely cited and methodologically sound normative datasets for countermovement jump (CMJ) and standing vertical jump, organized by age, sex, and sport.
All normative data below reflects countermovement jump with arm swing (the most common test variant) unless otherwise noted. Equipment used in the referenced studies includes force plates, timing mats, and validated IMU sensors. Related: Countermovement Jump Test: Complete Protocol & Norms
General Population Norms
Male Adults (18–35 years)
| Category | Jump Height (cm) | Percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | >65 cm | 90th+ |
| Good | 55–65 cm | 70th–90th |
| Above Average | 45–55 cm | 50th–70th |
| Average | 35–45 cm | 30th–50th |
| Below Average | <35 cm | <30th |
Female Adults (18–35 years)
| Category | Jump Height (cm) | Percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | >50 cm | 90th+ |
| Good | 40–50 cm | 70th–90th |
| Above Average | 32–40 cm | 50th–70th |
| Average | 25–32 cm | 30th–50th |
| Below Average | <25 cm | <30th |
See also: How to Increase Your Jump Height: Science-Based Training Plan
Sport-Specific Normative Data
Basketball
- NBA players: Average CMJ ~72–82 cm (no approach jump)
- NCAA Division I male: 58–72 cm
- NCAA Division I female: 44–56 cm
- Recreational basketball players: 42–58 cm (male), 30–44 cm (female)
Volleyball
- Elite female volleyball players: 48–62 cm
- College female volleyball: 42–55 cm
- Elite male volleyball (professional): 68–82 cm
Soccer
- Male professional: 52–68 cm
- Female professional: 38–52 cm
- Youth soccer (U17 male): 42–56 cm
American Football (NFL Combine)
- All positions average (running jump): 85–102 cm
- Skill positions (WR, CB, S): 90–108 cm
- Linemen: 75–92 cm
Track & Field
- Elite sprinters (100–200m, male): 65–80 cm CMJ
- Elite jumpers (long jump, triple jump): 70–90 cm CMJ
- Middle distance runners: 45–60 cm
Rugby
- Professional male backs: 55–70 cm
- Professional male forwards: 48–62 cm
How to Compare Your Jump to Norms
Ensure Protocol Consistency
Normative data is only valid if measured with the same protocol. The most important factors: (1) CMJ with or without arm swing — most published norms use free arm swing; (2) surface and footwear — springy surfaces inflate scores; (3) measurement device — different devices have different systematic biases. When in doubt, use arm swing and a validated device.
Use the Right Reference Group
Compare yourself to the most specific applicable norm: same sex, same age group, same sport, same competition level. Comparing a 45-year-old recreational athlete to NBA norms is meaningless. Use the general population table as a baseline and sport-specific data when available.
Interpret Trends Over Absolute Values
Your own trend is more informative than any normative comparison. An athlete who has improved from 38 cm to 48 cm in 12 weeks is experiencing excellent development, regardless of where they stand percentile-wise. Use norms for context, not as the primary metric of success.
Limitations of Normative Data
Methodological Heterogeneity
Different studies use different devices (force plates, timing mats, Vertec, IMU sensors), different protocols (arm swing vs. restricted, different warm-up), and different populations (recreational, collegiate, elite, national). This creates real variation in normative values across published sources — a "good" score in one reference may be "average" in another.
Population Drift Over Time
Athletic populations become more explosive over decades as training methods improve and selection for athletic traits intensifies at elite levels. Norms published in the 1990s for elite athletes are significantly lower than current standards in the same sports. Use recent literature (post-2010 preferred) for current elite comparisons.
Position and Role Specificity
Sport-level norms often aggregate across positions. A basketball point guard and a center have very different jump height profiles — the guard may average 72 cm while the center averages 62 cm. Position-specific data is available in the research literature for major sports and provides more meaningful comparisons. 이와 관련하여 점프 성능을 위한 VBT: 메타분석 리뷰도 함께 읽어보시면 더 많은 도움이 됩니다.
Frequently asked questions
01What is the average vertical jump for a male?+
02What is a good vertical jump for high school athletes?+
03Does vertical jump height differ by sport?+
04How does vertical jump change with age?+
05What is the difference between CMJ and standing vertical jump norms?+
Related Articles
Velocity-Based Training for Jump Performance: Meta-Analysis Review
Review of research on velocity-based training (VBT) for improving vertical jump performance. Summary of key findings from meta-analyses and RCTs.
Reactive Strength Index (RSI) Explained: What It Is and Why It Matters
Understand Reactive Strength Index (RSI) — what it measures, how to test it, normative values, and how to improve it for better athletic performance.
Jump Height Measurement Methods: Accuracy Comparison Study
Comparing jump height measurement methods: force plate, flight time, video analysis, and IMU sensors. Accuracy, reliability, and practical recommendations.
Jump Height Measurement Methods: Flight Time vs Force Plate
Research-backed comparison of jump height measurement methods — force plate, IMU sensors, timing mats, and flight time equations.
Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull (IMTP): Testing Protocol, Norms & Applications
Complete guide to the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) test. Covers standardized protocol, force-time variables, normative data, reliability, and...
Power-Time Curve of the Clean: An 800Hz IMU Analysis of First Pull, Transition, and Second Pull
The clean power-time curve places 60-70% of total power in the second pull. Learn how 800Hz IMU PoinT GO decomposes each phase and informs training decisions.
Why Bar Velocity Drops in the Final Rep: A Neuromuscular and Metabolic Analysis
Why bar velocity drops in the final rep, explained through neuromuscular fatigue, metabolic byproducts, and motor unit recruitment changes, with.
Why Cluster Sets Preserve Velocity Better: The Neuromuscular Science of Distributed Rest
Cluster sets preserve barbell velocity 12% better than traditional sets. Neuromuscular science, RCT evidence, and 800Hz VBT monitoring explained.
Measure performance with lab-grade accuracy