I'm quite honestly perplexed by this response.
That's probably because I actually know Olympic coaches personally and you don't. Meaning: I know the theory, I know the theories you subscribe to, but I also know the practice in sport. Which in many cases differs a lot from the studies and theories.
Yes Plyos are used in athletes if suitable, even those over 200lbs. T&F? Basketball? Vollyball? Javelin? Sprinting?
That's what the inventors of Plyometrics said, refero relata.
Btw, sprinters are seldom over 200, or even 200 lbs. Usain Bolt is one example, but I'd be hard pressed to remember another one. Sprinters, as a rule, aren't that big. Same thing for many Track and Field events, excluding, obviously, the heavy throwers. Basketballers are a different animal and mostly do not do plyometrics, in fact, they almost don't do any conditioning except abs training and some stuff for the cameras.
So on. Plyos also doesn't have to be jumping either, it's anything that involves targeting the SSC response and can be done with upper body work too.
But again, I am only referring to what the actual coaches say - plyometrics for people over 200 lbs are not to be used. I know some heavy guys use weights to do it (and pay the price very quickly). But then again, most shot putters also bench over ~1.6xBW which is pretty useless in the sport.
I don't know what your point is. Yes you can train an exercise at 80% with the idea of it to carry over to punching power. Obviously that is not velocity training. 20% for power on jumps, like say 20% of your 1RM squat jump with good form, is quite commonly used. Same with sled drags for acceleration phase of the sprint.
My point is unloaded and loaded movements are differently trained, which is also the reason shot putters train differently from javelin throwers and discus throwers. And I disagree on the 80% RM for punching power, that will not work, it will probably be detrimental in fact.
Americans? The authors are French dude. Did you even look at the abstract? They also don't glorify max strength at all, they incorperate SUPRAMAXIMAL velocity work if that's what the athlete needs, which is to say that it's even faster than what you could do completely unloaded. It couldn't be further away from max strength, it's at the complete opposite end of the FV spectrum.
Okay, first, it doesn't matter what nationality they are, since exercise ideas don't respect borders. I'll still call the Soviet sports science "Soviet" even if it was done in the GDR or Antarctica - because that's where the base comes from. Consequently, the worship of max strength as a panacea is typically American.
Now, no, I didn't read the abstract, since you said it's only "if I'm interested", which I'm not. I was under the incorrect assumption you'd post a study that supports your points. Which the study apparently doesn't. It supports mine. In fact, it completely contradicts you, if I don't completely misread it: Higher load trains for power under a high loaded, but for pure speed, you need low resistance, which can also help. As in: Training for jumping and sprinting out of blocks and similar things. None of the studies is about punching and kicking.
Since I never denied you need a sizeable strength level for moving fast under load, I'm getting a bit confused now. I guess that was the point.
Show me the studies you are talking about and explain to me why they are wrong. What's your background btw?
You can look up many via google, those should suffice for the sake of argument. Those studies about a punching force increase via heavy weight training are never reproduced, always differ in methology and contradict basically every other sport training methology.
And my background is of course, none of your business. Suffice to say I know some Olympic coaches personally and have been very interested in the science and practice of sports for quite some time. If that's not enough for you, I guess you can stay in your little echo chambers.