Different type warming impact on players' power indicators

Basketball is a multi-faceted and complex team game where players must quickly react and adapt to rapidly changing game situations. This sport requires different skills in volatile conditions and the intensity of strain is constantly changing during the match (Conte et al., 2015). Basketball can be called a power sport, given the huge power and quickness – strength and pace elements: jumps, sprints, directional changes and so on (Alemdaroğlu, 2012; Conte et al., 2015; McCormick et al., 2016). Thus, it raises a question: what is the best basketball warm-up, in order to improve players’ power performance? Hypothesis: 1. Alactic anaerobic type of workout will improve basketball power indicators in 20 meters’ race. 2. Alactic anaerobic type of workout will improve the power characteristics of vertical jump for a basketball player. Research objective: To find out impact of different type warm–up on basketball player power indicators. Task of the research: 1. Determine the impact of aerobic type of warm – up for basketball players’ power levels. 2. Determine the impact of anaerobic alactic type of warm – up for basketball players’ power levels. 3. Compare impact of aerobic and anaerobic alactic type of warm – up to basketball players’ power level. Research methods: 1. Analysis of the published literature. 2. Testing (20 – meter run from the start and a vertical jump with a hand gesture). 3. Mathematical Statistics. Research results: After analysing the results of a 20-meter run with the vertical jump and a hand swing, we notice that both: warm-up control group (CG) and the experimental group (EG), had a positive impact on the power indicators (both groups were set up on same persons). Percentage change of a vertical jump with a hand swing after control group (CG) warm-up was 6.0 ± 3.7, and 8.8 ± 3.0 for the experimental group (EG). The difference of 2,8 ±0,7. Percentage change of a 20-meter run in the control group after the warm-up is 2.09 ± 2.54, and 3.41 ± 2.56 for experimental group. The difference of 1.32 ± 0.02 (p