The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature that characterised or differentiated between elite able-bodied speed/power-based track and field athletes in sprint and hurdles events of 400 m and less and the high, long and triple jump. To achieve this, biomechanical, physiological and technical parameters associated with podium success at BME such as the World Championships or Olympic Games were considered. Based on the results of this review alone, the evidence is insufficient to definitively differentiate between medallists and non-medallists; however, characteristics have been identified that, with ongoing investigation, may yield differences in elite performers. Caution should be exercised when interpreting competition analysis within this study. Data collection techniques were not identical across competition analyses because of the variations in locations (i.e. Athens Olympics, Berlin World Championships and regional meets in the USA and Europe), technique (i.e. video capture rate) and technology (i.e. development of laser/radar guns and processing capabilities), so care should be taken when comparing the value of the measure analysed. Attention should be directed to characteristics where differences lie and not necessarily the value of these differences. In addition, each event in this review was considered in isolation with an effort to understand similarities and differences between athletes relative to their event grouping. Key findings emerging from the review are discussed according to the event group.

In the 100 m, medallists attained a higher peak velocity and average velocity [29, 31, 32] with male medallists generally achieving peak velocity between 60 and 70 m. For medallists in the women’s event, there was no difference in the section of the race where peak velocity was achieved. Notable differences emerged in 10-m split times towards the latter stages of the race [30,31,32], indicating medallists may accelerate for longer and hold peak velocity for longer, thereby limiting deceleration in the finishing stages of the race. Individual stride parameters were reported for men in one race only [35], so it is difficult to make any inferences based on this; however, grouped results indicate ‘faster’ sprinters may attain a greater stride frequency and length [9]. Additionally, this review found male elite sprinters had greater relative muscle volume, as measured by magnetic resonance imaging, but these results may be confounded by the age of the athlete and so may not be accurate for the profiling of elite sprinters. In addition to papers that allow for an individual analysis at competitions, there are seven papers that focused on one component of the race, or laboratory-based measures, and therefore did not contribute individual athlete data for comparisons between medallists and non-medallists. These papers are useful in augmenting our understanding and profiling the elite athlete, for example, examining the block start set-up of one elite male athlete [29].

Articles that included the 100 m on average were rated as having good methodological quality (69.1 ± 14.0%). It was a strength that the literature to date has examined athletes both within competition- and laboratory-based settings. This allows for a comparison between medal winners and non-medal winners to identify trends relating to potential differences in key areas, and the characterisation of the elite sprinter. Characteristics that may be aligned with BME podium success in the 100 m include peak velocity, the ability to limit deceleration in latter stages of the race and, for men, stride frequency and stride length. Laboratory-based studies often allow for greater control over variables, enabling the isolation and examination of key variables of interest. There is also a greater ability for the standardisation of protocols, which enhances the validity of the research. Additionally, laboratory-based studies eliminate or reduce the impact of environmental factors, contributing to an increase in the reliability of outcomes.

Within the 100-m papers, the strengths of good quality papers generally included clear purpose and relevant background researched. The limitations of these papers often lay in the lack of informed consent and no acknowledgement of limitations; however, given the number of papers that utilised a competition analysis, these limitations are not unexpected.

In the 200 m, medallists in the women’s race accelerated faster than their non-medal winning counterparts in the first 50 m with notable differences in velocity occurring across the first, second and third 50-m sections [31, 32]. This faster pace held across the initial stages may not transfer into the final 50 m, indicating the first 150 m may be more important than the final 50 m in deciding the outcome of a women’s 200-m race. Men do not share this race strategy and exhibited a different race pattern. The greatest differences in 50-m velocities occurred in the second 50-m and final 50-m sections [31, 32]. This indicates that medal winning athletes in the men’s 200 m take longer to accelerate but are better able to maintain velocity in the closing stages. However, this review found there was insufficient evidence to make further inferences about performance differences between medallists and non-medallists at BME, with only three 200-m specific papers meeting the criteria for inclusion in this review. The three articles examining the 200 m, on average, were scored as having good methodological quality (55.6 ± 7.7%). However, of these studies, two were scored as having good methodological quality and one was scored as poor. These articles examined athletes in a competition-based setting, and while a competition-based analysis is beneficial because athletes are performing at maximum capacity, our understanding of 200-m runners may be enhanced with laboratory-based studies to complement findings. Laboratory-based studies limit the confounding variables and enhance the ability to measure key variables of interest. For example, characteristics that may be assessed within a laboratory-based setting include peak velocity or anaerobic speed reserve.

Papers deemed to be good quality provided a clear purpose of the study, description of the sample and methodology. However, common areas that lowered the quality of the papers included limitations not being acknowledged, a limited review of the background literature [31, 32], no justification of sample size [41] and no description of the validity of measures [31, 41].

In the 400 m for men, notable areas where differences occurred included the first 100 m, where non-medallists covered the distance faster than medallists [31, 32]. Given these athletes did not go on to win the race, this may suggest a poor pacing strategy or inability to maintain velocity under fatigue. Medallists were also better able to maintain velocity throughout the race, with a smaller drop off between peak velocity and the final 50 m than the non-medallists, potentially indicating increased efficiency or aerobic capacity or a greater ability for lactate tolerance [66]. For medallists in the women’s event, the greatest differences from their non-medal winning counterparts emerged in the final 200-m sections [31, 32]. As with the men, this may suggest a greater ability for lactate tolerance or increased efficiency or aerobic capacity. There were little to no differences across the first 200 m of the race for women, suggesting the ability to maintain velocity in the closing stages may be a factor separating the medallists from the non-medallists. Further insights into parameters such as stride patterns are necessary to gain more understanding of the differences between podium success at BME.

Given only two papers, with an average quality score of 53.4 ± 9.4%, met the criteria to be included in this review, there is insufficient evidence to make further inferences, particularly given the lack of consistency in quality scores between the two papers (one scored as good, and one scored as poor). While both papers provided a clear purpose and an appropriate design for the research question, the paper scored as good also reported the practical applications and validity of outcomes [32].

Medallists in both the men’s (110-m race distance) [31, 33, 45] and women’s (100-m race distance) [31, 33, 43, 44] event reached the first hurdle (~ 13 m from start line) faster than their non-medal winning counterparts, indicating a greater ability to accelerate. This greater ability to accelerate and reach hurdle one first may also be associated with a better start position and/or better start; however, the literature to date does not provide insight into this. Additionally, medallists in the men’s event achieved a consistently higher hurdle unit velocity while the greatest difference in the women’s event emerged from hurdle six onwards. A further notable difference emerged in the section from hurdle 10 touchdown to the finish line, with medallists for both men and women achieving a greater velocity. This may be reflective of a superior technical ability of medallists, specifically a greater ability to maintain clearance ability and balance under fatigue, thereby minimising a loss in velocity. There did not appear to be any notable differences in hurdle clearance times, suggesting elite-level hurdlers have similar hurdling abilities, with differences to the final race position emerging from the running component of the event.

Additional papers that did not allow for an individual analysis instead focused on profiling the start [50], fourth and fifth hurdle [46, 50], or ninth hurdle [42] for women, or, in the men’s event, the fifth hurdle [47, 48] and first 5 m [49]. Articles that included the 100/110-m hurdles on average were rated as having good methodological quality (65.5 ± 18.6%). It was a strength that articles examining this event group included both competition and training analyses, allowing for both comparisons to identify trends between medallists and non-medallists and the profiling of elite hurdlers. Often studies have profiled one hurdle only and state that the one hurdle selected is reflective of the entire race [47, 48]; however, based on the results of this review, this may not be the case.

Common areas that strengthened the quality of papers included providing a justification for the sample size, appropriate analyses methods and appropriate conclusions given the study methodology. Areas where differences emerged between papers included obtaining informed consent and examining the reliability and validity of outcome measures. Generally, papers in the hurdles event groups did not acknowledge the limitations of the study.

In the 400-m hurdles, from hurdle four onwards for men and hurdle three onwards for women, medallists attained a lower step count between hurdles [33, 51]. This may reflect a greater ability to maintain velocity and stride length under fatigue to cover the distance in fewer steps than their non-medalling counterparts. Additionally, from hurdle six onwards for men and hurdle five onwards for women, medallists achieved a faster hurdle unit time, suggesting medallists may have a better rhythm or be more efficient and have a greater aerobic capacity, which allows them to better maintain velocity under fatigue. The greatest difference in velocity between medallists and non-medallists for both men and women occurred between hurdle 10 touchdown and the finish line, again supporting the notion that medallists are better able to maintain velocity under fatigue. However, this may also be because of non-medallists ‘pulling up’ before the line as a result of knowing they have no chance of medalling. In the 2000 Olympic 400-m men’s hurdle final, athletes positioned from fifth to eighth at hurdle eight remained in the bottom four at the finish [51]. When step frequency and step length were examined in world class 400-m hurdlers (47.71 ± 0.44 s) and national hurdlers (49.28 ± 0.41 s), the greatest difference between groups emerged in step frequency in the first 200 m (world class: 3.75 ± 0.12 Hz, national: 3.6 ± 0.11 Hz) [52]. Articles examining the 400-m hurdles were scored as good methodological quality (64.4 ± 13.9%). Only three papers [33, 51, 52] examining the 400-m hurdles met the inclusion criteria for this review, all three were scored as having good methodological quality. Areas where differences emerged between papers included the level of detail when reviewing the background literature, the description of the methodology and acknowledgement of the limitations of the study. Characteristics that may be aligned with elite BME performance were identified (i.e. velocity maintenance or step count); however, there was insufficient evidence to differentiate characteristics between medal winning and non-medal performance.

In the high jump, there was a notable disparity in reporting between men and women. Most high jump-related literature analysed men (n = 8) compared with women (n = 2). Medallists in both the men’s and women’s events achieved a greater vertical take-off velocity than their non-medal winning counterparts [19, 31, 53,54,55,56]. Medallists in the women’s event also achieved a greater horizontal velocity at touchdown prior to take-off [53]. When examined in relation to the greater vertical velocity at take-off, this suggests a greater ability to transfer horizontal velocity to vertical. However, because of the lack of data on the mean or peak approach velocity, it is difficult to infer more that could lead to a clearer understanding of characteristics that may differentiate between medallists and non-medallists. Medal winning men and non-medal winning women achieved a greater peak arm velocity and arm velocity at take-off than their counterparts [53]. Further work may be required to better understand the impact of this and how this may differ between men and women. Medal winning men achieved a greater vertical velocity at touchdown prior to take-off and at take-off [54, 55]. This indicates men may begin the transfer of horizontal velocity to vertical earlier in preparation for take-off; however, further information on approach velocity is required to confirm this.

While two papers did not contribute to individual competition-based analyses, they potentially allow for the profiling of male athletes [57, 58]. These papers focused on approach velocity in addition to the final contact, specifically the arm action, vertical velocity at take-off, plant angle and knee angle at touchdown.

Overall, articles examining the high jump achieved an average quality score of 62.5 ± 14.7%, indicating good methodological quality. All papers clearly stated the purpose of the study and described the participants in detail. However, areas where differences between poor and excellent quality emerged included the detail in the description of the methodology, the reporting of results in terms of statistical significance and the acknowledgement of limitations. These articles consisted of a competition-based analysis only, thereby identifying multiple characteristics associated with BME performance, such as vertical take-off velocity or horizontal velocity at touchdown before take-off. However, the relationships of these characteristics to medal winning performances at BME are still unclear.

In the long jump event, there were several key areas where differences emerged between medallists and non-medallists. Medallists for both women and men attained a greater mean approach velocity in both the 11–6 m and 6–1 m sections [59]. Medallists in the men’s event achieved a greater velocity in each stride across the last four strides [16, 59]. This suggests a greater ability to accelerate, maximum velocity capacity and a technical ability to control velocity on the runway. More control on the runway enables the athlete to spot the board on the approach and limit adjustments in the final strides that would result in velocity loss. Both men and women medallists achieved a greater horizontal velocity at touchdown prior to take-off [60]. However, this variable was only reported in one paper; therefore, it is difficult to infer more because of the low sample size. At take-off, vertical velocity was greater for medallists in both the men’s and women’s events [16, 31, 59], while horizontal velocity was only greater for men [16, 31]. This may require further investigation, particularly for women, given the goal of the event is to cover the greatest horizontal distance. Two further papers examining approach velocity, take-off velocity, take-off angle, knee angle at take-off touchdown, take-off height and take-off distance [60, 61] may allow for further athlete profiling but did not enable comparisons between medallists and non-medallists.

Articles examining long jump achieved an average quality score of 58.7 ± 8.7%, classed as having good methodological quality. Areas that contributed to papers achieving a good quality score included implementing a research design that was appropriate for the research question and reporting the practical importance of the paper. Inconsistency in the reporting of the reliability and validity of outcome measures and in the justification of sample sizes, in addition to no acknowledgement of limitations across any of the included papers, were factors that impacted the quality score. It was a strength that articles in this event group examined athletes both in and out of competition. This allowed for a comparison between medal winning and non-medal winning athletes to identify trends in characteristics, such as the ability to accelerate or maximise velocity, which are potentially associated with better BME performance. Additionally, the measurement of characteristics not commonly assessed in competition (i.e. take-off angle) allows for further characterising of elite long jumpers that may be key factors in separating medallists from non-medallists.

In the triple jump, a smaller toe-to-board distance was noted with medallists in the men’s event only [31]. This may indicate a greater ability to sight the board and make any necessary stride adjustments during the approach phase. Medallists in the women’s event attained a greater horizontal velocity from two steps prior to take-off through to the jump phase take-off [17, 31, 65], thereby demonstrating a greater ability to maintain velocity across the phases of the triple jump than their non-medal winning counterparts. In the men’s event, medallists recorded a greater horizontal velocity from two steps prior to take-off through to the step phase take-off, with no notable difference observed in horizontal take-off velocity at the jump phase [18, 31, 62]. However, both men and women medallists achieved a greater vertical velocity at take-off for the jump phase than the non-medallists [17, 18, 31, 55, 58]. Finally, it appears as though medallists in both the men’s and women’s events are jump dominant, evident in the greatest relative distance of their overall triple jump distance occurring in the jump phase [11, 12, 24, 62,63,64,65]. In contrast, non-medallists were found to be hop dominant, attaining a greater relative distance in the hop phase. In addition to the competition-based analysis, an elite female triple jumper was profiled across both 25- and 45-cm drop jumps, with parameters such as force, impulse, jump height and contact time reported [22]. While this does not allow for a direct comparison between medallists and non-medallists, it does allow for the profiling of an elite woman in a common jump test.

With an average methodological quality score of 62.5 ± 10.6%, articles examining triple jump were found to be of good methodological quality. Papers that scored as good or excellent quality generally stated a clear purpose, reviewed the relevant background literature and made appropriate conclusions given the methodology. Areas that separated excellent from good included describing the reliability and validity of outcome measures in addition to acknowledging limitations of the study. Therefore, when examining characteristics identified through a competition-based analysis, it is important to acknowledge that while potential areas that differentiate between BME success may emerge, these differences are not definitive at this stage.

Across the speed/power-based sprint and jump disciplines, medal winning athletes consistently demonstrate superior acceleration, greater peak velocities and greater efficiency in maintaining velocity under fatigue. In the sprint events, medal winning athletes optimise step mechanics, and sustain velocity more effectively, particularly in latter race phases, relative to their non-medal winning counterparts. Medal winning long and triple jumpers achieve greater approach velocities while demonstrating technical precision at take-off, balancing velocity with optimal positioning to maximise jump distance. Medal-winning high jumpers consistently demonstrate superior take-off mechanics, achieving a more optimal combination of approach velocity, force application and body positioning at the point of take-off to maximise the centre of mass height above bar and bar clearance. Additionally, the hurdle-based events medal winners were better able to maintain velocity maintenance between hurdles, suggesting technical execution and fatigue resistance are important. While physiological traits such as neuromuscular efficiency, reactive strength and tendon stiffness likely contribute to podium success in speed/power-based track and field athletes, further research is needed to clarify their direct impact. Future training should emphasise individualised approaches to optimising speed, technique and fatigue management, while research should work toward standardised methodologies and a deeper understanding of psychological and social influences on elite performance.

Additionally, while this review includes speculation and caveats, this reflects the reality of the existing literature. The lack of definitive evidence on many of these characteristics is itself a critical finding, highlighting the need for further investigation. Within applied sport and high-performance settings, decisions about athlete development, talent identification and training are often made based on an incomplete and fragmented evidence base. By structuring and synthesising the available research, this review addresses this gap and helps guide more informed decision making. For example, while large datasets, such as those from World Athletics, offer convenience, they do not necessarily clarify which variables truly differentiate performance. Rather than assume commonly reported variables are the most relevant, this review took a step back to assess the strength of the existing evidence. This approach ensures that future research and applied practice are built on a more rigorous foundation.

This systematic review has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. A key challenge in this area is that much of the existing research relies on data collected from co