Thanks for providing a paper. I read the full text, and I think what it comes down to is this quote: “it appears that jumping performance can be improved through resistance exercise. This may provide some efficacy to resistance exercise for sports performance, as the ability to jump is important across a wide variety of sports and sporting events. However, it is still unclear if a laboratory measure of jumping performance will actually translate to jumping performance in the sports setting.” The authors don’t claim that strength training doesn’t result in an improved vertical. They don’t even claim that it doesn’t result in increased jumping ability during the actual sport. They just argue that we don’t really know. I don’t find that position compelling. For one, it is illogical that there will be no transfer from a standing or running vertical to jumping on the court. And, for another, it goes against extensive field experience: for instance, a basketball player who shows an increase in his measured standing vertical will typically also show a fairly obvious increase in their on-court jump (he will be ascending higher compared to the rim during a dunk). If you do find it convincing, then that’s up to you. On a similar note, the article also refers to the claim that muscle hypertrophy doesn’t contribute to muscle strength. Sure, the relationship between the two is not linear and we don’t fully comprehend it, but to argue the two are unrelated is what I call “intellectual masturbation”. It is simply too contrary to our understanding of the underlying basic science and to extensive field experience. Btw, that was basically an opinion piece, published in a journal whose reason for being is to publish unconventional ideas without much scrutiny, just to put them out there for consideration (for instance, the same journal has published aids denyalism papers).