Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barshim/Stones/ and Digital High Jump Measurement

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    This would akin to measuring long jump from take off point instead of foul line..technically possible at some venues but not at all...
    Some speculate that if jumpers were able to concentrate on the jump without having worry about fouling there would be an improvement in jump distances..
    I believe there would be an increase in jump averages but there have been phenominal jumps when the jumper hit the board just right and I question if there would be immediate new WR. Just my opinion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Flawed, but interesting.
      But - if it's an absolute clearance, how do you take into account the feet tucking under the "bar". That would then be like hand drag in a long jump.
      Speaking of interesting, some dude measured a 45 inch vertical in the NFL combine, not sure what the record is for that, but - it makes me think he probably could've done well in the high jump (understatement)

      Comment


      • #18
        I just saw a commercial that advertised the tablet's ability to quantify a distance between two points from an image. So let's just save money and get a tablet that can do this for us. Unless the lasers will be mounted on top of a shark's head.

        The data that would tell us potential height achieved would be interesting, but should not be based on any other notion than potential. If you don't clear something, then you didn't clear anything. The bar don't lie, so to speak.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by repmujhgih View Post
          The bar don't lie, so to speak.
          The bar lies frequently. I've seen Pole Vaults that smacked the crap out of the bar (i.e., it was NOT cleared), but the bar flew up in the air and came right down on the pegs again and stayed up. This typically happens when the vaulter has insufficient penetration and comes down on the bar (had it been a beam of light, it would NOT have indicated a 'make').

          Comment


          • #20
            I figured this would come up when I wrote that, and I could argue that is part of what makes the event fun to watch. Without a bar, you don't have the drama of it bouncing...will it fall...will it stay up. But at the end of the jump, if the bar is up, you know it was a good jump, or at least good enough. So therefore, I stand by what I said...the bar don't lie.

            Comment


            • #21
              [QUOTE=jc203;2503051]Barshim's huge, clean, lots-of-daylight clearance at 2.41 last weekend may have been one of the greatest jumps of all time: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXVIe0qWb5Y)


              Greater than the world record that was 2 centimeters higher? I think not! It actually looked to me (though the camera angles are poor) the he brushed the crossbar ever so slightly. It looks to be vibrating slightly on the view of the side shot.

              A fabulous jump nonetheless.

              BTW Stones idea is stupid.

              Comment


              • #22
                Also, the beam would have to be 'thick', essentially the same geometry as the bar because you can knock the bar off even from below with the legs as you kick the up, for instance.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Greater than the world record that was 2 centimeters higher? I think not! It actually looked to me (though the camera angles are poor) the he brushed the crossbar ever so slightly.
                  Saith Odell

                  I dunno about the bar touch... I don't see any contact from the video but in my view a touch at 2.41 does not automatically equate to a miss at 2.44. Too many variables of direction and force to make that assumption. It's entirely possible that the same jump at 2.44 results in a clearance with the same touch (if he did touch).

                  I agree with 26mi that the geometry of the bar vis-a-vis laser measurement is an issue. But bar geometry and characteristics have occurred historically without debate or even much acknowledgement.

                  Over years I have jumped over square, wooden HJ bars requiring horizontal clearance across the entire width of the crossbar... those were very fussy and unpredictable. I've seen them bounce entirely off the standards, rotate in the air and land again atop the standard on a different surface, or fall at the the slightest suggestion of contact, and also snap in half.

                  Then there was the era of aluminum triangular crossbars which required horizontal passage over only the highest edge of the triangle shape. They bent easily and bending them back into an approximation of straightness was an art form. Any and all marks using those bars are suspect since the height might vary by an inch or more plus/minus at any given point between the standards.

                  Now we usually employ cylindrical fiberglass bars that stay straighter, don't often break but are pretty forgiving of contact due to their flexibility and curved surface.

                  Vertical jumps evolved slightly with each equipment change but no one paid much attention. The only time I encountered a major controversy over a crossbar was almost 50 years ago when my teammate, Ed Caruthers, broke the national JC record (then held by Joe Faust) but the record was never ratified. I was 10 feet away and saw that it was a legit clearance measured both before and after the jump at several places but as it turned out the crossbar was too long, and the standards too far apart.
                  Last edited by jc203; 02-24-2015, 04:20 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by odelltrclan View Post


                    Greater than the world record that was 2 centimeters higher? I think not! It actually looked to me (though the camera angles are poor) the he brushed the crossbar ever so slightly. It looks to be vibrating slightly on the view of the side shot.

                    A fabulous jump nonetheless.

                    BTW Stones idea is stupid.
                    Yes, the camera angles are poor. Just one side-view. I can't see the bar vibrate but he gets close with his heels during his un-arching. I don't know that he would have cleared 2.44 with that jump. A great jump but better than the 2.43 in Brussels?

                    Stones? First he said he was smart to save himself for higher heights and letting the other guys go for huge heights at lower bars, tiring themselves out and now he wants it like that? When the bar goes to 2.40, none of the top jumpers will worry about beams, the focus is just to clear the bar. The fact that they might press more on WR heights is just part of the game. It is a difficult but extremely exciting event the way it is.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'll have to break with some of the other posters with 40+ years of high jump fandom behind them, and say that I think it's an intriguing and compelling idea. Unfortunately, there are too many practical problems to consider actually implementing it. The current rules only exist because of historical equipment limitations. If laser bars had been available since the mid-1800s, we would not be having this conversation. Instead, we'd be saying how ridiculous it would be if a jumper could clear 2.46 but only be credited with 2.41 because the bar happened to be set at that level at the time. The arguments about bar geometry above are equally irrelevant. There is really no need for any bar cross section. The event would be more pure, with none of the serendipitous factors introduced by bobbles. If you trigger the laser, you missed. A totally level playing field.

                      I understand that today's rules make for an interesting game that includes factors other than jumping high, but we are only attached to them for historical reasons. Of course the record book would have to be reset, but javelin throwers did that in 1985, and life went on. Sprinting introduced electronic false start detection, and in spite of a few tantrums, it's generally agreed that the game is now fairer. The main argument against laser crossbars is that the equipment would not generally be available at non-elite levels for some time - but I think it would quickly become more affordable, just as electronic timing has made its way to lower levels of the sport.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The issue, for me at least, is that I am not interested in watching high jumpers jumping "over" something that I can't see. While the javelin was changed it was still a javelin that I could watch and see where it landed. With the long jump and triple jump I can see how far they went because i can see the indentation in the sand.

                        Spectators want to see the winning target. In running their is a defined finish line First there wins. In the throws and horizontal jumps we can see the landing of the athlete or the implement. The one who goes the furthest away from the start point wins.

                        The visualization for the 2 horizontal jumps is the bar. The athlete who jumps over the highest bar wins. Using a laser to measure means there is no visualization of the what was being jumped or what was jumped. We have to "believe" the laser. This concept doesn't do it for me.

                        It would be a bit like having the reaction times of athlete A and B are 0.12 and 0.19 respectively. Their finish times are 9.80 and 9.81 for A and B respectively. However, B gets the win because even though he got to the finish" line .01 slower, B was actually faster because his reaction time was 0.07 slower.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          re the above posting by Tuariki, thank you ! The most intelligent post on this whole ridiculous thread.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
                            ....
                            The visualization for the 2 horizontal jumps is the bar. The athlete who jumps over the highest bar wins. Using a laser to measure means there is no visualization of the what was being jumped or what was jumped. We have to "believe" the laser. This concept doesn't do it for me..
                            It is even deeper than that... lets face it, there is a mental component to getting over a bar. The risks are great, it is all or nothing. You get no credit for a perfect jump against a bar set too high or too low.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              User 4 is so right.
                              I remember that when I was 12 years old when I first cleared 4' 11" - cleared relatively easily and did it several times before I cleared 5' 0". However, every time the bar was put up to 5' 0" it appeared to me that the bar had been put up a whole bloody foot and not just 1 inch.

                              We have seen that Barshim clears 2:41 - 2.42 - 2.43 by miles. But when the bar goes up to the WR height, in terms of what one is thinking, it has not gone up 2, 3 or 4 cms. It has gone to a height that no person in the history of mankind has ever achieved. It is the unattainable. 2.43 and 2.46 look the same height from the point of starting one's run-up. So why can't he get the same height on the WR that he did on the previous clearance - all mental, because he knows the previous jump wasn't the WR. Perhaps the officials could lie to Barshim. When he asks for 2.43 they could be sneaky and instead surreptitiously raise it to 2.46 without telling him.

                              I think the vertical jumps are, mentally, a lot harder than breaking other WRs because in the HJ / PV these are the only 2 events where you know beforehand that if you achieve what you are trying to do you are guaranteed a world record. You can't say that in the throws, horizontal jumps or running events.

                              By the way, I believe you could get a similar visual effect as the high jump in the horizontal jumps, by moving the take-off board back so that the beginning of the pit is the jump distance you are looking to clear. You could then give each horizontal jumper 3 jumps to get into the pit. A successful clearance then move the board back to the new distance. Ultimately, set the board back at the WR distance. Land in the pit we all immediately know a WR has been set. Of course, in reality, you would only get 1 attempt as you would break your legs if you didn't reach the pit.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Personally, I'm all in with Tuariki and User4. Jumping with no bar seems like an empty exercise. I have profound doubts that it would result in good marks and it would be astonishingly boring to watch for spectators.

                                And while laser measured altitudes might be interesting they should not be used to determine results or even as tie-breaks. Just as reaction times in sprints should not play in results. I know it's not a popular stance but I'd also turn that idea around to say that reaction time should not be used to DQ sprinters, either.

                                I think Per is correct to say that Stones wants it both ways by suggesting that big clearances are a waste of energy but also saying they should be utilized for placement in the competition.

                                I'd never claim to know more about HJ than Dwight, but as a jumper and later a coach I respectfully disagree with his philosophy that jumpers ought to barely clear each height. That attitude may have been within his skill set as a world class performer. But for mere mortals I always emphasized making each jump as similar as possible.

                                Aiming for minimal clearance of each advancing height involves re-calibrating force on take off or run up speed and step measurement, or trajectory at take-off or all of the above.
                                That's a pretty complex set of variables for all but the most elite of elite athletes.

                                Also, in my own experience, competitive jumps with lots of clearance did not require an awful lot of energy.
                                Lots of factors can sap a jumper's energy levels (the sheer length of competition, the total number of jumps if you had a lot of misses, cold weather, hot weather, and any distraction that caused adrenaline levels or mental focus to wane) but big, clean clearances tended to juice me up rather than wear me down. Then again, Dwight was jumping at heights I (and probably anyone else here) never approached so we can't speak to his viewpoint.
                                Last edited by jc203; 02-25-2015, 03:40 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X