Long Jump GOAT [split]

[gh]

The 28-10 is so anomalous, therefore, that one can posit that he must have hit a trampoline spot, no?

[tafnut]

Have you ever jumped off an elevated board surface of '80s vintage?

70's yes; 80's no; 90's yes. Never came close to my outdoor marks of the same year, with identical preparation. Look at the marks that surround CL back then. Nothing like it.

Jan 27, 1984 Millrose Games, New York
1. Lewis 28-10.25
2. Myricks 27'6 (a major stud then with a 28-2.5 outdoors that year)
3. Bradley 25-4 (26-8 the year before)
4. Spry 24-8 (26-10 the year before)

Feb 24, 1984 TAC, New YOrk (Presumably the same runway)
1. Lewis 27-10
2. Myricks 27-8
3. Conley 25-6 (27-2 the year before)

I just don't see the BIG help. The 28-10 surpassed Beamon's accomplishment and every one since then, with the possible exception of Lewis's 30-foot 'Monster Foul'.

[gh]

Have you ever jumped off an elevated board surface of '80s vintage?

[tafnut]

Maybe not. Anybody remember/know what the MSG setup was like in those days? Could well have been one of those trampolinie runways. I'm sure it was elevated and not laid flat on the floor.

It was an elevated runway. It has to be, otherwise there's no depth to the sand in the pit!

I considered that, but it was NOT 'sprung' like they do in gymnastics, so it's a total crap shoot to hit a solid take-off point. Dwight made a big explanation once on how he scouted out indoor aprons to see where the live and dead spots were. Unless CL hit a tight joint, he could have LOST distance. It was definitely not as generous a surface as Tokyo 91 or Indy or any other 'hard' mondo track. AND in most indoor venues, jumpers have to shorten their approach (don't know if he did, but he did have a hellacious long approach outdoors). There's no 'given' advantage to elevated runways.

[dj]

Maybe not. Anybody remember/know what the MSG setup was like in those days? Could well have been one of those trampolinie runways. I'm sure it was elevated and not laid flat on the floor.

It was an elevated runway. It has to be, otherwise there's no depth to the sand in the pit!

[gh]

Maybe not. Anybody remember/know what the MSG setup was like in those days? Could well have been one of those trampolinie runways. I'm sure it was elevated and not laid flat on the floor.

[tafnut]

His indoor WR remains the best LJ ever, considering all factors, IMO.

[jeremyp]

My vote is clearly with Carl. The WR was put out of reach for so long by the altitude jump, and he would have had the WR numerous times if Beamon's 8.90 was brought down to it's sea level equiv. of no more than 8.60. 4 Golds and 2 WC's is awesome. Even more awesome: 64 wins stretched out over ten seasons!!! He is nonpareil.

[eldrick]

he does need the WR to be the GOAT, even if he wins 6 or 7 globals

even the King with 4 succesive golds coudn't be LJ GOAT because he never had the WR in his career

It just occurred to me that ...

on a few occasions, he had the take-off speed & angle to bury the wr, but didn't capitalise on those :

http://www.iaaf.org/community/forums/Li ... icID=15781

unfortunately, for him, you can't take those numbers to the bank, so we have to go with 8.87/8.79 pre-tokyo

[bad hammy]

Both have clearly superior careers to Don Larsen and Johnny Vander Meer. (Vander Meer's second no-hitter can be thought of as a wind-aided mark: it came in 1938 in the first night game ever played at Ebbets Field, before the lighting was particularly good.)

I never knew that about Vander Meer's second no hitter. After 40 years of reading about it, it takes dj to show the 'light'.

Interesting Vander Meer parallel with Beamon. Just as Beamon was a four-time world ranker, Vander Meer was a four-time All-Star. (And a bit unusual - he was a switch-hitting pitcher.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Vander_Meer

[Conor Dary]

'Both have clearly superior careers to Don Larsen and Johnny Vander Meer. (Vander Meer's second no-hitter can be thought of as a wind-aided mark: it came in 1938 in the first night game ever played at Ebbets Field, before the lighting was particularly good.)'

I never knew that about Vander Meer's second no hitter. After 40 years of reading about it, it takes dj to show the 'light'.

[bad hammy]

he does need the WR to be the GOAT, even if he wins 6 or 7 globals

even the King with 4 succesive golds coudn't be LJ GOAT because he never had the WR in his career

It just occurred to me that it is very ironic that eldrick, of all people, would make this comment. After all, isn't he the one who constantly asserts that things are not what they are--that is, that marks in the sprints and horizontal jumps are insignificant unless they are reduced to "basic" or some other measure of equivalency that takes things like wind and altitude into consideration?

QFE!! :P :P :P :!:

[tandfman]

he does need the WR to be the GOAT, even if he wins 6 or 7 globals

even the King with 4 succesive golds coudn't be LJ GOAT because he never had the WR in his career

It just occurred to me that it is very ironic that eldrick, of all people, would make this comment. After all, isn't he the one who constantly asserts that things are not what they are--that is, that marks in the sprints and horizontal jumps are insignificant unless they are reduced to "basic" or some other measure of equivalency that takes things like wind and altitude into consideration?

I am sure that if we had all been around and on this message board in 1968, eldrick would have been the first to tell us what Beamon's jump (at 2200m+ of altitude with a +2.0 wind) was really worth, and it wouldn't have been 8.90m.

I don't think it's quite right for him now to be telling us that Carl Lewis was not the GOAT because he never beat Beamon's record. If you apply all the formulas that eldrick always insists on applying to make real marks theoretically more meaningful, you'd probably have concluded that Lewis did beat Beamon's record more than once.

[bad hammy]

The Mexico City jump was as fraudulent as the new HR record (although with no complicity on Beamon's part, obviously.) I never understood the deification of this jump.

And just to expound on this line of thought, none of the record sprint/jump marks from the altitude-aided ’68 OG should have been IAAF-ratified, along with any other altitude-aided marks before or since. Like the folks running baseball allowing PEDs from the 1980s onward, the IAAF has condoned aided marks for basically forever. They put a cap on wind aid, they should have a cap on altitude aid. Of course, this is the same group that put the seal of approval on 10.49 too, so I guess I’m expecting a bit too much.

[dj]

Varioius rambling thoughts:

Knock out the altitude-assisted marks and Lewis has three outdoor WRs. The only other multiple low-alt record setters of the IAAF era are Ralph Boston and . . . no one.

Yes, it's true that Lewis had the Beamon mark as his rabbit, but to Lewis's great credit, he refused the various opportunities to go to altitude to try to get the record.

Lewis is certainly helped by the professional era. But longevity in the long jump was not unheard of among Americans. Several jumpers in the pre-pro period had careers lasting at least 7 years in which they would have ranked among the top 10 in the world: DeHart Hubbard (7 years), Ed Gordon (12), Eulace Peacock (11), Boston (10), Arnie Robinson (8).

Boston, Ter-Ovanesyan and Greg Bell are helped (compared to their predecessors) by being in the first wave of jumpers to jump off solid-surface runways on a regular basis.

I see Beamon and Roger Maris as being somewhat comparable. In addition to the earmark moment, they each had a great season. In fact, Maris's back-up season ('60, disputed AL MVP) was stronger than any of Beamon's back-up seasons.

Both have clearly superior careers to Don Larsen and Johnny Vander Meer. (Vander Meer's second no-hitter can be thought of as a wind-aided mark: it came in 1938 in the first night game ever played at Ebbets Field, before the lighting was particularly good.)