No announcement yet.

Computer Estimated Marks


Unconfigured Ad Widget

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Computer Estimated Marks

    I once read that computer analysis of one of Sergey Bubka's vaults had him clearing 20'6 I believe. I also read that computer analysis of Carl Lewis's 1992 winning long jump in Barcelona indicated that he leaped slightly over 30'1. Has anyone else out there read anything like this??

  • #2
    Re: Computer Estimated Marks

    Unfortunately, 'computer analyses' are no better than human wishful thinking. Many vaulters have probably cleared 20', even 20'6, at their zenith. The trick is to clear that pesky bar thing. There have been monstrous LJ and TJ fouls. Speculation is great (we do it here a lot), but 'computer analyses' are just that too. Shoulda, coulda, woulda - didn't.


    • #3
      Re: Computer Estimated Marks

      >I once read that computer analysis of one of Sergey Bubka's vaults had him
      >clearing 20'6 I believe. I also read that computer analysis of Carl Lewis's
      >1992 winning long jump in Barcelona indicated that he leaped slightly over
      >30'1. Has anyone else out there read anything like this??

      I have read in an edition of 'Athletics Weekly' that the lowest part of Bubka's body when he cleared 5.95m (his winning height)within the 1991 Tokyo World Championships Men's Pole Vault final was 6.31m (20'7 I think). And this mark was recorded by computer analysis.
      I'm just going to dig-out that issue...


      • #4
        Re: Computer Estimated Marks

        Sergey Bubka's interview with Doug Gillon was included in Athletics Weekly magazine dated February 21st 2001.

        Sergey Bubka was interviewed by Doug Gillon.
        Two interesting paragraphs of the interview read;
        'The inevitable question remains:how high might Bubka have gone in one stratospheric catapult attempt, unfettered by the commercial constraint or raising the record by one lucrative centimetre at a time? His coach, Evgenyi Volobujev, ventured that he might of cleard 6.40m had he gone for the big one, bypassing all the cheques.
        Bubka confirmed what many have suspected: ''That's pretty close. Japanese scientists did analysis of some of my contest. When I cleared 5.95m to win the world title in Tokyo in 1991, they said the lowest part of my body above the bar was 6.37m. One year later when I set a new world record, they did the same special tests again. The lowest point was 6.34m. But it is easier to analyse than to vault. It's difficult, pshychologically, to raise the bar from 6.15m to 6.30m or even 6.35m-because I am human some days, and great other days.''

        So we see that the lowest part of Buka's body over the bar in 1991 in Tokyo was 6.37m and not 6.31m as I suggested in my previous post.

        But as tafnut said, these are just woulda,shoulda,coulda-didn't.
        But the subject is still interesting to debate and speculate.


        • #5
          Re: Computer Estimated Marks

          I dug threw my old T&F News's and found this:

          12/92 T&F News

          A Lewis 30-Footer?
          If long jumps were indeed measured ftom point of takeoff, would Carl Lewis have made history in Rucelona? Reader Stephen W. Jones of Hutchinwn, Kansas, thinks he might have.

          Jones's analysis:

          "I was surprised at the lack of attention paid to Carl Lewis' first (and winning) jump in the Olympic final. My study of the videotape of the jump shows that it clearly covered more than 30-feet from point of take- off. My best estimate is that the jump was in the 30-3 to 30-4 range. I am not aware of any previous jump which can be shown by direct evidence to have spanned more 30 feet as this one can.

          'NBC's first slow-motion replay of the jump provides an excellent side view. It also provides an exact frame of reference from which a determination of the takeoff point can be made. Ti-ds frame of reference is, of course, the board, which is exactly 8 inches wide.
          Me toe of Lewis' takeoff foot is obscured by an official in the foreground, but most of the foot is visible, allowing a close estimation of the takeoff point.

          'I came to several conclusions, using a ruler and a caliper:

          • The heel of Lewis's plant foot is 31-3 to 31-4 from point of landing. A later closeup of his foot on the board during a foul indicates that his shoe is very close to 12 inches long (perhaps a fraction longer). This indicates a jump of 30-3 to 30-4.

          •After determining a line 30 feet from the landing point, it is apparent that Lewis is several inches behind this line. Since the jump was measured at 28-5 ½ from the front of the board, the back of the board is therefore known to be 29-1 ½. My measurement shows that Lewis's entire foot leaves the ground 13-14 inches farther back, thus indicating a length of 30-3 to 30-4.

          •When the tape is moved one frame past the toe-off point it is obvious that Lewis's entire foot is still well beyond the 30 foot point. The nmway in Barcelona has parallel lines on either side which allow for accurate measurements from the tape.
          'I'm sure that use of more sophistiacated equipment than I have available would determine a very accurate measurement for this jump. While this can never be an official mark, I would be interested to hear the results of any such investigation.


          • #6
            Re: Computer Estimated Marks

            I am sorry to spoil a good story, but the alleged Lewis 30-3 or 30-4 jump was debunked already in the next (Jan 93) TFN issue as an optical illusion in the TV picture.
            Due to a strange co-incidence it did indeed appear - at a casual look - as there were TWO take-off boards.
            But to any experienced observer it was also immediately obvious which one that was the "true" board.
            And on that board Carl Lewis had his foot planted with the toe approximately in the middle.
            So rather than giving away the alleged 21-22 inches Carl only lost some 4 inches.
            But I guess the 30-3/30-4 story will reemerge like an urban legend over and over again in the future when someone new stumbles across the original story in the Dec 92 TFN and misses the correction in the next issue.


            • #7
              Re: Computer Estimated Marks

              >Japanese scientists did analysis of some of my contest. When I cleared 5.95m to
              >win the world title in Tokyo in 1991, they said the lowest part of my body
              >above the bar was 6.37m.
              Just because someone is called a "scientist" doesn't mean that reported claims are to be taken as nothing but the truth!
              Especially not if the claims are as astounding as this, i.e. that Bubka in non-perfect conditions in a crucial championship attempt (if he had missed he wouldn't even have got a medal!) would have cleared the bar if it had been set 42 cm (16½ inches!) higher. I.e. at a height 22 cm above his best ever true performance (incidently the WIR) from an international career spanning over a decade.
              After digging out the Tokyo video from my files I found that it didn't take a Japanese scientist to immediately establish that Bubka was nowhere near 42 cm clear of the bar.
              He did manage to get his hips very high up - so his belly might have been 25-30 cm above the bar - but that is far from the whole story when it comes to clearing the bar!
              First: It was clear that Bubka's lead leg when passing horizontally over the bar would have hit and knocked down the bar if it had been set approximately 10 cm higher.
              Second: His "peak" on this jump was very narrow indeed and on his way down Bubka's chest was just a couple of cm away from the bar. Also here a reasonable estimate is that a bar set some 10 cm higher would almost certainly have been hit.
              So in the real world (as opposed to the world of "scientists") Bubka might have cleared 6.05 or thereabouts with this jump. Another 32 cm - more than a foot! - is pure nonsense.
              Sorry to spoil this nice story also ...


              • #8
                Re: Computer Estimated Marks

                Re Carl Lewis, If you look at the video of the jump, the appearance of a white line infront of his take off foot are a set of hurdles stacked on the side of the track with the white tops looking as if they are sitting on the runway. When the watching the footage live they are blurred giving the appearance of a take off board 80cm in front of where lewis takes off, if you look at the front view it clearly shows Lewis taking off the board. You can view this footage on his website, the links to his jumps are in another thread here under footage.