Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Importance of speed in the long jump

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kurt Francis
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Novianv2
    Remember when it was "the thing" to do the step-out in order to drop the hips? I wonder how that worked out for Carl? I guess we would need to look at some old video.
    Yeah, I never really got that. It was even being touted in a coaching clinic I attended and I asked that guy was it really necessary to step off in the wrong direction and his only explanation was, "Carl did it."
    Whenever at a clinic where the speaker says to do something because "so-and-so did it" and doesn't or can't communicate the physics behind such a decision, RUN from that clinician!

    Leave a comment:


  • steve
    replied
    Originally posted by Novianv2
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It's all about the penultimate step and how much you're willing to drop your hips. Jesse Owens and Carl hardly dropped theirs at all compared to Beamon and Powell. The hip-dropping sacrifices some speed for some increased take-off angle. There's more than one way to skin the LJ cat, and the truly great figure out what their chief asset is and go with it.
    Remember when it was "the thing" to do the step-out in order to drop the hips? I wonder how that worked out for Carl? I guess we would need to look at some old video.

    Originally posted by malmo
    If you go to the analysis of Beamons jump with both Carl Lewis's and Mike Powell's jumps you'll find that Powell's jump was produced with a 25 degree angle of trajectory, and a slower speed than Lewis'. King Carl's best jump had a 21 degree angle of trajectory, but faster HV (no kidding?). Reports that I've heard, was that in Beamon's jump he had an angle of trajectory of 35 DEGREES!
    Crazy if true! Beamon really did get up in the rarefied air on that one. He looked like he didn't know what to do he had so much height. Again, the short/long penultimate must have acted like a high jump take-off but the trailing wind and lack of air-resistance kept his speed high.

    I wish there was some data on Pedroso's 9m foul. There is definitely something there to be learned!
    Robert Emmiyan always appeared to have a very steep trajectory. May have been an optical illusion due to his hang style.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by Novianv2
    Remember when it was "the thing" to do the step-out in order to drop the hips? I wonder how that worked out for Carl? I guess we would need to look at some old video.
    Yeah, I never really got that. It was even being touted in a coaching clinic I attended and I asked that guy was it really necessary to step off in the wrong direction and his only explanation was, "Carl did it."

    Leave a comment:


  • Novianv2
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It's all about the penultimate step and how much you're willing to drop your hips. Jesse Owens and Carl hardly dropped theirs at all compared to Beamon and Powell. The hip-dropping sacrifices some speed for some increased take-off angle. There's more than one way to skin the LJ cat, and the truly great figure out what their chief asset is and go with it.
    Remember when it was "the thing" to do the step-out in order to drop the hips? I wonder how that worked out for Carl? I guess we would need to look at some old video.

    Originally posted by malmo
    If you go to the analysis of Beamons jump with both Carl Lewis's and Mike Powell's jumps you'll find that Powell's jump was produced with a 25 degree angle of trajectory, and a slower speed than Lewis'. King Carl's best jump had a 21 degree angle of trajectory, but faster HV (no kidding?). Reports that I've heard, was that in Beamon's jump he had an angle of trajectory of 35 DEGREES!
    Crazy if true! Beamon really did get up in the rarefied air on that one. He looked like he didn't know what to do he had so much height. Again, the short/long penultimate must have acted like a high jump take-off but the trailing wind and lack of air-resistance kept his speed high.

    I wish there was some data on Pedroso's 9m foul. There is definitely something there to be learned!

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    It's all about the penultimate step and how much you're willing to drop your hips. Jesse Owens and Carl hardly dropped theirs at all compared to Beamon and Powell. The hip-dropping sacrifices some speed for some increased take-off angle. There's more than one way to skin the LJ cat, and the truly great figure out what their chief asset is and go with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • malmo
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    you're 100% right about increased speed & maintaining angle - almost impossible to do

    unfortunately all the stats i had have been scrubbed apart from another the other page about powell & King in tokyo

    speeds range from ~ 9.5 - 10m/s at take-off & angle from 18 - 22

    the slow guys with 9.5m/s just have big angles of 21 - 22 degrees
    If you go to the analysis of Beamons jump with both Carl Lewis's and Mike Powell's jumps you'll find that Powell's jump was produced with a 25 degree angle of trajectory, and a slower speed than Lewis'. King Carl's best jump had a 21 degree angle of trajectory, but faster HV (no kidding?). Reports that I've heard, was that in Beamon's jump he had an angle of trajectory of 35 DEGREES!

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    well, 1 day you might get a 8.50++ with that, but he'll get a lotta fouls in between

    Leave a comment:


  • fez
    replied
    I hope Chris Tomlinson is reading this thread. He runs way too fast to be able to control his take-off and really pop. He even stated in a recent interview that he tries to run as fast as he can down the runway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Novianv2
    replied
    Thanks, Eldrick. Really cool stats.

    Despite the long jump being considered a "simple" event, there's so much to learn. Carl, Myricks, Powell and Pedroso aside, we (the collective we) don't really understand how to produce jumpers who jump consistently far. Going back to the speed point, clearly speed is what helped Carl remain so consistent over the years. The thing is most people don't have world class speed in their arsenal. Maybe young jumpers who don't possess the gift of wc speed could focus on other areas to provide consistency. Some of the work coming out of the Saladino camp seems interesting e.g. overspeed training for take-off via a suspension system.

    Kevin: I've only ever read about Randy Williams. Quite the phenom. Do you know if there is any video of him out there? What were his stats e.g. height, weight, 100m time, etc.

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    yes, i interpret "effective distance" as toe-sand

    8.67 / 8.84 / 9.9 / 3.2 / 17.7
    that one was a 30" jump with "perfect" technique

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Richardson
    replied
    Pure top end speed is relative in that it indicates the ability of the jumper to run more relaxed and controlled down the runway. The technique that has not yet been mentioned here is that involved with the landing. Looking back at the form Randy Williams had in his day, his landing seemed to extract every fraction of an inch available. A bad landing is far more devestating than missing the board by a few inches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Novianv2
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    unfortunately, beamon's data has gone ( was on iaaf forum ) - i think though it was about 21 - 22

    here's data i got from pj

    "For Long Jump i give you figures at take-off for Carl LEWIS from IAF Scientific Reports, for attempts #1, 2, 3, 4, 6.

    Official Dist. / Effective Dist. / Vertical V / Horiz. V / Angle of Projection

    Roma'87
    8.67 / 8.84 / 9.9 / 3.2 / 17.7
    8.65 / 8.68 / 9.2 / 3.4 / 20.2
    8.67 / 8.67 / 8.9 / 3.5 / 21.5
    8.43 / 8.64 / 8.8 / 3.5 / 21.6
    8.60 / 8.76 / 9.2 / 3.3 / 19.8

    Seoul'88
    8.72 / 8.90 / 9.3 / 3.5 / 20.8

    Tokyo'91
    8.91 / 8.91 / 9.72 / 3.22 / 18.3"

    use the below link to analyse the data (convert the horizontal/vertical velocities into a combined one with simple pythagoras & use a "height" (centre of mass) between 1.25m - 1.30m)

    http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/projectile.htm

    (obviously air-resistance & wind-speed aren't included)
    A couple of questions:

    1) "Effective distance"? Meaning from where he took off?

    2) Maybe I'm confused (wouldn't be the first time): Are the horizontal and vertical velocities flipped? If so, the Seoul and Tokyo results are really interesting. Carl essentially jumped the same distance and yet he was substantially slower on the runway in Seoul. He did however "pop" off the board really well (18.3 vs. 20.8). I wonder if every athlete has a sweet spot i.e. optimum speed vs optimum pop?

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    unfortunately, beamon's data has gone ( was on iaaf forum ) - i think though it was about 21 - 22

    here's data i got from pj

    "For Long Jump i give you figures at take-off for Carl LEWIS from IAF Scientific Reports, for attempts #1, 2, 3, 4, 6.

    Official Dist. / Effective Dist. / Vertical V / Horiz. V / Angle of Projection

    Roma'87
    8.67 / 8.84 / 9.9 / 3.2 / 17.7
    8.65 / 8.68 / 9.2 / 3.4 / 20.2
    8.67 / 8.67 / 8.9 / 3.5 / 21.5
    8.43 / 8.64 / 8.8 / 3.5 / 21.6
    8.60 / 8.76 / 9.2 / 3.3 / 19.8

    Seoul'88
    8.72 / 8.90 / 9.3 / 3.5 / 20.8

    Tokyo'91
    8.91 / 8.91 / 9.72 / 3.22 / 18.3"

    use the below link to analyse the data (convert the horizontal/vertical velocities into a combined one with simple pythagoras & use a "height" (centre of mass) between 1.25m - 1.30m)

    http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/projectile.htm

    (obviously air-resistance & wind-speed aren't included)

    Leave a comment:


  • Novianv2
    replied
    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Originally posted by Novianv2
    Nice link, Eldrick.

    The only thing I would add is that an increase of speed makes it more challenging to maintain that angle of take-off. The athlete needs to be quicker in how he/she applies the force at the board in order to get the necessary vertical lift. Not easy to do as King Carl can attest.

    I've often wondered how Beamon, Emmiyan and Walder jumped 8.75+ without the requisite speed. It would appear that Beamon blocked at the board on his 8.90m jump in order to get his height (i.e. he went short/long on his penultimate step). Emmiyan and Walder were hang jumpers who were both known to really pop off the board (large angles of take-off). In each case, each jump happened at altitude and with winds approaching the legal limit. Clearly, altitude and wind-speed made up for each jumper's natural lack of speed. I suppose this is why none of these jumpers approached these distances again.

    Again, I wonder how "quickness" at take-off relates to distance. Lamela was quick. So was Erick Metcalfe. Saladino sure seemed quick on his 8.73m.



    Beamon only jumped >8.4 once, and that was in Mexico City with a strong wind at his back (>2mps), so that is too much of a one-off/aided jump to categorize him with the others. Emmiyan's big one was also at altitude, and I am not sure of the wind (and not certain of the validity, but cannot remember on this score). Part of the explanation is the 'hops' side of the equation, I am guessing.
    Yeah, that's why I mentioned Beamon's take-off. I was always taught "long/short" when learning the penultimate step. Beamon did the opposite on his 8.90m. I'm wondering if this is what helped him get that ridiculous height off the board?

    Eldrick: Did Powel have a larger angle of take-off than Beamon?

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Note: Beamon turns 63 on friday.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X